



Produced by Kurt A. T. Bodling, Concordia Seminary, St.
Louis, Class of 1980






Historical Introductions
to the
Symbolical Books
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
by 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 _corpus
doctrinae, i.e._, of the symbols recognized and published under that
name by the Lutheran Church. The word symbol, _sumbolon,_ is derived
from the verb _sumballein,_ to compare two things for the purpose of
perceiving their relation and association. _Sumbolon_ thus developed the
meaning of _tessara,_ or sign, token, badge, banner, watchword, parole,
countersign, confession, creed. A Christian symbol, therefore, is a mark
by which Christians are known. And since Christianity is essentially the
belief in the truths of the Gospel, its symbol is of necessity a
confession of Christian doctrine. The Church, accordingly, has from the
beginning defined and regarded its symbols as a rule of faith or a rule
of truth. Says Augustine: "Symbolum est regula fidei brevis et grandis:
brevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententiarum. A symbol is a rule
of 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 baptismal
confession, because, he said, it distinguished the Christians from
non-Christians. Already at the beginning of the fourth century the
Apostles' Creed was universally called symbol, and in the Middle Ages
this name was applied also to the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. In
the Introduction to the Book of Concord the Lutheran confessors
designate the Augsburg Confession as the "symbol of our faith," and in
the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, as "our symbol of this time."

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

Not being formally and explicitly adopted by all Christians, the
specifically Lutheran confessions also are generally regarded as
particular symbols. Inasmuch, however, as they are in complete agreement
with Holy Scripture, and in this respect differ from all other
particular symbols, the Lutheran confessions are truly ecumenical and
catholic in character. They contain the truths believed universally by
true 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 is
found in the Lutheran confessions.

2. The German Book of Concord.

The printing of the official German edition of the Book of Concord was
begun in 1578 under the editorship of Jacob Andreae. The 25th of June,
1580, however, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the
Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V, was chosen as the date for its
official publication at Dresden and its promulgation to the general
public. Following are the contents of one of the five Dresden folio
copies which we have compared: 1. The title-page, concluding with the
words, "Mit Churf. G. zu Sachsen Befreiung. Dresden MDLXXX." 2. The
preface, as adopted and signed by the estates at Jueterbock in 1579,
which supplanted the explanation, originally planned, of the theologians
against the various attacks made upon the Formula of Concord. 3. The
three Ecumenical Symbols. 4. The Augsburg Confession of 1530. 5. The
Apology of 1530. 6. The Smalcald Articles of 1537, with the appendix,
"Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope." 7. Luther's Small
Catechism, omitting the "Booklets of Marriage and Baptism," found in
some 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., amounting
to 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 Matthes
Stoeckel and Gimel Bergen the sole right of publication, a document not
found in the other copies we compared. The Formula of Concord is
followed by a twelve-page index of the doctrines treated in the Book of
Concord, and the list of signatures, by a page containing the trade-mark
of 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, du
Allerhoechster. I thank the Lord with all my heart and proclaim all Thy
wonders. I am glad and rejoice in Thee, and praise Thy name, Thou Most
High." Under the cut are the words: "Gedruckt zu Dresden durch Matthes
Stoeckel. Anno 1580. Printed by Matthes Stoeckel, Dresden, 1580."

In a letter dated November 7, 1580, Martin Chemnitz speaks of two
Dresden folio editions of the German Book of Concord, while Feuerlinus,
in 1752, counts seven Dresden editions. As a matter of fact, the Dresden
folio copies differ from one another, both as to typography and
contents. Following are the chief differences of the latter kind: 1.
Only some copies have the liturgical Forms of Baptism and of Marriage
appended to the Small Catechism. 2. The Catalogus is not entitled
"Appendix" in all copies, because it was not regarded as a part of the
confession proper. 3. In some copies the passage from the Augsburg
Confession, quoted in Art. 2, 29 of the Solida Declaratio, is taken, not
from the Mainz Manuscript, but from the quarto edition of 1531, which
already contained some alterations. 4. Some copies are dated 1580, while
others bear the date 1579 or 1581. Dr. Kolde gives it as his opinion
that in spite of all these and other (chiefly typographical) differences
they are nevertheless all copies of one and the same edition, with
changes only in individual sheets. (_Historische Einleitung in die
Symbolischen Buecher der ev.-luth. Kirche,_ p. 70.) Dr. Tschackert
inclines to the same view, saying: "Such copies of this edition as have
been 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 was
rushed through the press and sent in separate sheets to the interested
estates, and that, while the forms were in press, changes were made on
the basis of the criticisms sent in from time to time, yet not equally,
so that some copies differ in certain sheets and insertions." (_Die
Entstehung der luth. und der ref. Kirchenlehre,_ 1910, p. 621.)

However, while this hypothesis explains a number of the variations in
the Dresden folio copies, it does not account for all of them especially
not for those of a typographical nature. In one of the five copies which
we compared, the title-page, radically differing from the others, reads
as follows: "Formula Concordiae. Das ist: Christliche, Heilsame Reine
Vergleichunge, in welcher die Goettliche Leer von den vornembsten
Artikeln vnserer wahrhafftigen Religion, aus heiliger Schrift in kurtze
bekanntnues oder Symbola vnd Leerhafte Schrifften,: welche allbereit vor
dieser zeit von den Kirchen Gottes Augspurgischer Confession, angenommen
vnd approbiert:, verfasset. Sampt bestendiger, in Gottes wort
wolgegruendeter, richtiger, endlicher widerholung, erklerung und
entscheidung deren Streit, welche vnter etlichen Theologen, so sich zu
ermelter Confession bekant, fuergefallen. Alles nach inhalt der heiligen
Schrifft, als der einigen Richtschnur der Goettlichen wahrheit, vnd nach
anleitung obgemeldter in der Kirchen Gottes, approbierten Schrifften.
Auff gnedigsten, gnedigen, auch guetigsten beuehl, verordnung und
einwilligung nach beschriebener Christlichen Churfuersten, Fuersten vnd
Stende des heiligen Roemischen Reichs Deutscher Nation, Augspurgischer
Confession, derselben Landen, Kirchen, Schulen vnd Nachkommen zum trost
vnd besten in Druck vorfertiget. M. D. LXXIX." ("Formula of Concord,
that is, Christian, wholesome, pure agreement, in which the divine
doctrine of the chief articles of our true religion have been drawn up
from the Holy Scripture in short confessions or symbols and doctrinal
writings, which have already before this time been accepted and approved
by the Churches of God of the Augsburg Confession, together with a firm,
Scripturally well-founded, correct, final repetition, explanation and
decision of those controversies which have arisen among some theologians
who have subscribed to said Confession, all of which has been drawn up
according to the contents of Holy Scripture, the sole norm of divine
Truth, and according to the analogy of the above-named writings which
have the approval of the Churches of God. Published by the most
gracious, kind, and benevolent command, order, and assent of the
subscribed Christian Electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Roman
Empire, of the German nation, of the Augsburg Confession, for the
comfort and benefit of said lands churches, schools, and posterity.
1579.")

Apart from the above title this copy differs from the others we examined
in various ways Everywhere (at four different places) it bears the date
1579, which, on the chief title-page, however, seems to have been
entered in ink at a later date. Also the place of publication, evidently
Dresden, is not indicated. Two variations are found in the Preface to
the Book of Concord, one an omission, the other an addition. The
signatures of the princes and estates to the Preface are omitted.
Material and formal differences are found also on the pages containing
the subscriptions of the theologians to the Formula of Concord; and the
Catalogus is lacking entirely. The typography everywhere, especially in
the portions printed in Roman type, exhibits many variations and
divergences from our other four copies, which, in turn, are also
characterized by numerous typographical and other variations. The copy
of which, above, we have given the contents is dated throughout 1580.
Our third copy bears the same date 1580, excepting on the title-page of
the Solida Declaratio, which has 1579. In both of these copies the
typography of the signatures to the Book of Concord is practically
alike. In our fourth copy the date 1580 is found on the title-page of
the Concordia, the Catalogus, and the appended Saxon Church Order, which
covers 433 pages, while the title-pages of the Epitome and the
Declaratio and the page carrying the printer's imprint are all dated
1579. In this copy the typography of the signatures closely resembles
that 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 dated
1579. This is also the only copy in which the Catalogus is printed under
the special heading "Appendix."

In view of these facts, especially the variation of the Roman type in
all copies, Kolde's hypothesis will hardly be regarded as firmly
established. Even if we eliminate the copy which is everywhere dated
1579, the variations in our four remaining Dresden folio copies cannot
be explained satisfactorily without assuming either several editions or
at least several different compositions for the same edition, or perhaps
for the two editions mentioned by Chemnitz. Feuerlinus distinguishes
seven Dresden editions of the Book of Concord--one, printed for the
greater part in 1578, the second, third, and fourth in 1580, the fifth
in 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 one
referred to above, which is everywhere dated 1579, does not seem to have
come to the notice of Feuerlinus.

In the copy of the Tuebingen folio edition which is before us, the Index
follows the Preface. The appendices of the Small Catechism are omitted,
likewise the superscription Appendix of the Catalogus. Our copy of the
Heidelberg folio edition of 1582 omits the Catalogus and adds the
Apology of the Book of Concord of 1583, as also the Refutation of the
Bremen Pastors of the same year. A copy of the Magdeburg quarto edition
lying before us has the year 1580 on the title-pages of the Book of
Concord, the Epitome, the Declaratio, and the Catalogus. The Preface is
followed by three pages, on which Joachim Frederick guarantees to
"Thomas Frantzen Buchvorlegern" (Thomas Frantzen, publishers) the sole
right of publication for a period of five years, and prohibits the
introduction of other copies, excepting only those of the Dresden folio
edition of 1580. Luther's Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism are
appended to the Small Catechism, and to the Large Catechism is added
"Eine kurze Vermahnung zu der Beicht, A Brief Exhortation to
Confession." (None of the Dresden folio copies we compared contain these
appendices, nor are they found in the Latin editions of 1580 and 1584.)
The index is followed by a page of corrected misprints. The last page
has the following imprint: "Gedruckt zu Magdeburg durch Johann Meiszner
und Joachim Walden Erben, Anno 1580, Printed at Magdeburg by John
Meissner's and Joachim Walden's heirs. In the year 1580."

3. The Latin Concordia.

Even before the close of 1580, Selneccer published a Latin Concordia
containing a translation of the Formula of Concord begun by Lucas
Osiander in 1578 and completed by Jacob Heerbrand. It was a private
undertaking 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 highest
and final judgment to the church," was rendered as follows: "Et Christus
summum et ultimum ferculum apponit ecclesiae." (p. 317.) Besides,
Selneccer had embodied in his Concordia the objectionable text of the
Augsburg Confession found in the octavo edition of 1531, which
Melanchthon had altered extensively.

The necessary revision of the Latin text was made at the convention in
Quedlinburg during December, 1582, and January, 1583, Chemnitz giving
material assistance. The revised edition, which constitutes the Latin
_textus receptus_ of the Formula of Concord, was published at Leipzig in
1584. Aside from many corrections, this edition contains the translation
of the Formula of Concord as already corrected by Selneccer in 1582 for
his special Latin-German edition, and afterwards thoroughly revised by
Chemnitz. The texts of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology follow
the _editio princeps_ of 1531. The 8,000 signatures, embodied also in
the Latin edition of 1580, were omitted, lest any one might complain
that his name was appended to a book which he had neither seen nor
approved. In keeping herewith, the words in the title of the Book of
Concord: "_et nomina sua huic libro subscripserunt_--and have subscribed
their names to this book," which Mueller retained in his edition, were
eliminated. The title-page concludes as in the edition of 1580, the word
"denuo" only being added and the date correspondingly changed. On the
last two pages of this edition of 1584 Selneccer refers to the edition
of 1580 as follows: "Antea publicatus est liber Christianae Concordiae,
Latine, sed privato et festinato instituto, Before this the Book of
Concord has been published in Latin, but as a private and hasty
undertaking." In the edition of 1584, the text of the Small Catechism is
adorned with 23 Biblical illustrations.

Among the later noteworthy editions of the Book of Concord are the
following: 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, Part
II, 1827; F.A. Koethe, 1830; J.A. Detzer, 1830; F.W. Bodemann, 1843. In
America 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 years
1602, 1606, 1612, 1618, 1626, 1654, 1669, 1677. Adam Rechenberg's
edition "with an appendix in three parts and new indices" (_cum
appendice 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; Karl
Hase, in his editions of 1827, 1837, and 1845, was the first to number
the paragraphs. Reineccius prepared a German-Latin edition in 1708. This
was followed in 1750 by the German-Latin edition of Johann Georg Walch.
Mueller's well-known German-Latin Concordia saw eleven editions between
1847 and 1912. Since 1907 it appears with historical introductions by
Th. Kolde.

4. English Translations.

All of the Lutheran symbols have been translated into the English
language repeatedly. In 1536 Richard Tavener prepared the first
translation of the Augsburg Confession. Cranmer published, in 1548, "A
Short Instruction into the Christian Religion," essentially a
translation of the Ansbach-Nuernberg Sermons on the Catechism. In 1834 a
translation of the German text of the Augsburg Confession with
"Preliminary Observations" was published at Newmarket, Va., by Charles
Henkel, Prof. Schmidt of the Seminary at Columbus O., assisting in this
work. The Introduction to the Newmarket Book of Concord assigns Henkel's
translation of the Augsburg Confession to the year 1831. Our copy,
however, which does not claim to be a second edition, is dated 1834. In
his _Popular Theology_ of 1834, S.S. Schmucker offered a translation of
the Latin text, mutilated in the interest of his _American Lutheranism._
Hazelius followed him with a translation in 1841. In 1848, Ludwig, of
New York, issued a translation of the German text of the Unaltered
Augsburg 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 of
Concord was published in 1851 by the publishing house of Solomon D.
Henkel & Bros., at Newmarket, Va. In this translation, however, greater
stress was laid on literary style than upon an exact reproduction of the
original. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel prepared the translation of the
Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Appendix,
and the Articles of Visitation. The Small Catechism was offered in the
translation prepared by David Henkel in 1827. The Large Catechism was
translated by J. Stirewalt; the Epitome, by H. Wetzel; the Declaratio,
by J.R. Moser. The second, improved edition of 1854 contained a
translation of the Augsburg Confession by C. Philip Krauth, the Apology
was translated by W.F. Lehmann, the Smalcald Articles by W.M. Reynolds,
the two Catechisms by J.G. Morris, and the Formula of Concord together
with the Catalogus by C.F. Schaeffer. In both editions the historical
introductions 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 in
two volumes, edited by Dr. H.E. Jacobs. The first volume of this edition
embraces the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church. It contains
C.P. Krauth's translation of the Augsburg Confession as revised for
Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom._ Jacobs translated the Apology (from
the Latin, with insertions, in brackets, of translations from the German
text), the Smalcald Articles (from the German), the Tractatus (from the
Latin), and the Formula of Concord. The translation of the Small
Catechism was prepared by a committee of the Ministerium of
Pennsylvania. The Large Catechism was done into English by A. Martin. A
reprint of this edition appeared in 1911, entitled "People's Edition,"
in which the Augsburg Confession is presented in a translation prepared
by a committee of the General Council, the General Synod, the United
Synod in the South, and the Ohio Synod. The second volume of Jacobs's
edition of the Book of Concord embodies historical introductions to the
Lutheran symbols, translations of the Marburg Articles, the Schwabach
Articles, the Torgau Articles, the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540
and 1542, Zwingli's Ratio Fidei, the Tetrapolitana, the Romish
Confutatio, Melanchthon's Opinion of 1530, Luther's Sermon on the
Descent into Hell of 1533, the Wittenberg Concordia, the Leipzig Interim
the Catalogus Testimoniorum, the Articles of Visitation, and the
Decretum Upsaliense of 1593. The Principles of Faith and Church Polity
of the General Council and an index complete this volume. A Norwegian
and a Swedish translation of the Book of Concord have also been
published in America.

5. Corpora Doctrinae Supplanted by Book of Concord.

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

Among the _corpora doctrinae_ which were gradually superseded by the
Book of Concord are the following: 1. Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum, or
Misnicum, or Wittenbergense of 1560, containing besides the Three
Ecumenical Symbols, the following works of Melanchthon: Variata,
Apologia, Repetitio Augustanae Confessionis, Loci, Examen Ordinandorum
of 1552, Responsio ad Articulos Bavaricae Inquisitionis, Refutatio
Serveti. Melanchthon, shortly before his death, wrote the preface for
the Latin as well as the German edition of this Corpus. 2. Corpus
Doctrinae Pomeranicum of 1564 which adds Luther's Catechisms, the
Smalcald Articles, and three other works of Luther to the Corpus
Doctrinae Philippicum, which had been adopted 1561. 3. Corpus Doctrinae
Prutenicum, or Borussicum, of Prussia, 1567, containing the Augsburg
Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Repetition of the
Sum and Content of the True, Universal Christian Doctrine of the Church,
written by Moerlin and Chemnitz. 4. Corpus Doctrinae Thuringicum in
Ducal Saxony, of 1570, containing the Three Ecumenical Symbols, Luther's
Catechisms, the Smalcald Articles, the Confession of the Landed Estates
in Thuringia (drawn up by Justus Menius in 1549), and the Prince of
Saxony's Book of Confutation (_Konfutationsbuch_) of 1558. 5. Corpus
Doctrinae Brandenburgicum of 1572, containing the Augsburg Confession
according to the Mainz Manuscript, Luther's Small Catechism, Explanation
of the Augsburg Confession drawn from the postils and doctrinal writings
"of the faithful man of God Dr. Luther" by Andreas Musculus, and a
Church Agenda. 6. Corpus Doctrinae Wilhelminum of Lueneburg, 1576,
containing the Three Ecumenical Symbols, the Augsburg Confession, the
Apology, the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms, Formulae Caute
Loquendi (Forms of Speaking Cautiously) by Dr. Urbanus Regius, and
Formulae Recte Sentiendi de Praecipuis Horum Temporum Controversiis
(Forms of Thinking Correctly concerning the Chief Controversies of These
Times) by Martin Chemnitz. 7. Corpus Doctrinae Iulium of Duke Julius of
Braunschweig-Wolfenbuettel, 1576, containing the documents of the
Wilhelminum, with the sole addition of the Short Report of Some
Prominent Articles of Doctrine, from the Church Order of Duke Julius, of
1569. 8. The Hamburg Book of Confession of 1560, which was also adopted
by Luebeck and Lueneburg, and contained a confession against the Interim
drawn up by Aepinus in 1548, and also four declarations concerning
Adiaphorism, Osiandrism, Majorism, and the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, drawn up since 1549. 9. The Confessional Book of Braunschweig,
adopted in 1563 and reaffirmed in 1570, containing, The Braunschweig
Church Order of 1528, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology
thereof, the Smalcald Articles, Explanation, etc., drawn up at Lueneburg
in 1561 against the Crypto-Calvinists. 10. The Church Order of the city
of Goettingen 1568, containing the Church Order of Goettingen of 1531,
Luther's Small Catechism, the Smalcald Articles, the Augsburg
Confession, 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 clearly
defined by the Book of Concord itself. According to it Holy Scripture
alone is to be regarded as the sole rule and norm by which absolutely
all doctrines and teachers are to be judged. The object of the
Augustana, as stated in its Preface, was to show "what manner of
doctrine has been set forth, in our lands and churches from the Holy
Scripture and the pure Word of God." And in its Conclusion the Lutheran
confessors declare: "Nothing has been received on our part against
Scripture or the Church Catholic," and "we are ready, God willing, to
present ampler information according to the Scriptures." "Iuxta
Scripturam"--such are the closing words of the Augsburg Confession. The
Lutheran Church knows of no other principle.

In the Formula of Concord we read: "Other writings, however, of ancient
or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as
equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to
them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses,
[which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and
at what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles was
preserved." (777, 2.) In the Conclusion of the Catalog of Testimonies we
read: "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 in
the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles, as unquestionable
witnesses of divine truth." (1149.)

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

The manner also in which Lutherans pledge themselves confessionally
appears from these symbols. The Augsburg Confession was endorsed by the
princes and estates as follows: "The above articles we desire to present
in accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to
exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our
teachers." (95, 6.) In the preamble to the signatures of 1537 the
Lutheran preachers unanimously confess: "We have reread the articles of
the Confession presented to the Emperor in the Assembly at Augsburg, and
by the favor of God all the preachers who have been present in this
Assembly at Smalcald harmoniously declare that they believe and teach in
their 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 with
Holy Scripture, and with the belief of the true and genuine catholic
Church (_haec omnia convenire cum Sacra Scriptura et cum sententia verae
kai gnesies catholicae ecclesiae_)." (529.) Another subscription--to the
Smalcald Articles--reads: "I, Conrad Figenbotz, for the glory of God
subscribe that I have thus believed and am still preaching and firmly
believing as above." (503, 13.) Brixius writes in a similar vein: "I ...
subscribe to the Articles of the reverend Father Martin Luther, and
confess that hitherto I have thus believed and taught, and by the Spirit
of Christ I shall continue thus to believe and teach." (503, 27.)

In the Preface to the Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord the
Lutheran confessors declare: "To this Christian Augsburg Confession, so
thoroughly grounded in God's Word, we herewith pledge ourselves again
from our inmost hearts. We abide by its simple, clear, and unadulterated
meaning as the words convey it, and regard the said Confession as a pure
Christian symbol, with which at the present time true Christians ought
to be found next to God's Word.... We intend also, by the grace of the
Almighty, faithfully to abide until our end by this Christian
Confession, mentioned several times, as it was delivered in the year
1530 to the Emperor Charles V; and it is our purpose, neither in this
nor in any other writing, to recede in the least from that oft-cited
Confession, nor to propose another or new confession." (847, 4. 5.)
Again: "We confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our
symbol 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 and
well therein), precisely in the form in which it was committed to
writing in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at
Augsburg." (851, 5.)

In like manner the remaining Lutheran symbols were adopted. (852. 777.)
Other books, the Formula of Concord declares, are accounted useful, "as
far as (_wofern, quatenus_) they are consistent with" the Scriptures and
the symbols. (855, 10.) The symbols, however, are accepted "that we may
have a unanimously received, definite, common form of doctrine, which
all our Evangelical churches together and in common confess, from and
according to which, because (_cum, weil_) it has been derived from God's
Word, 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, the
Formula of Concord, and with it the entire Book of Concord, was, as
stated, solemnly subscribed by about 8,000 theologians, pastors, and
teachers, the pledge reading as follows: "Since now, in the sight of God
and of all Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those
who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented
concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained,
and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession in which we are
also willing, by God's grace to appear with intrepid hearts before the
judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we
will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to
it, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore,
after mature deliberation, we have, in God's fear and with the
invocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands."
(1103, 40.)

Furthermore, in the Preface to the Book of Concord the princes and
estates declare that many churches and schools had received the Augsburg
Confession "as a symbol of the present time in regard to the chief
articles of faith, especially those involved in controversy with the
Romanists and various corruptions of the heavenly doctrine." (7.) They
solemnly protest that it never entered their minds "either to introduce,
furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least
even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at
Augsburg." (15.) They declare: "This Confession also, by the help of
God, we will retain to our last breath when we shall go forth from this
life to the heavenly fatherland, to appear with joyful and undaunted
mind and with a pure conscience before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus
Christ." (15.) "Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a
finger's breadth either from the subjects themselves or from the phrases
which are found in them (_vel a rebus ipsis vel a phrasibus, quae in
illa habentur, discedere_), but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to
persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly
agreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this
true 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 such
their evaluation of pure doctrine, it was self-evident that the public
teachers of their churches should be pledged to the confessions. In
December 1529, H. Winckel, of Goettingen, drew up a form in which the
candidate for ordination declares: "I believe and hold also of the most
sacred Sacrament ... as one ought to believe concerning it according to
the contents of the Bible, and as Doctor Martin Luther writes and
confesses concerning it especially in his Confession" (of the Lord's
Supper, 1528). The Goettingen Church Order of 1530, however, did not as
yet embody a vow of ordination. The first pledges to the symbols were
demanded by the University of Wittenberg in 1533 from candidates for the
degree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1535 this pledge was required also of
the candidates for ordination. The oath provided that the candidate must
faithfully teach the Gospel without corruption, steadfastly defend the
Ecumenical Symbols, remain in agreement with the Augsburg Confession,
and before deciding difficult controversies consult older teachers of
the Church of the Augsburg Confession. Even before 1549 the candidates
for philosophical degrees were also pledged by oath to the Augsburg
Confession.

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

In 1550 and 1552, Andrew Osiander attacked the oath of confession which
was in vogue at Wittenberg, claiming it to be "an entanglement in
oath-bound duties after the manner of the <DW7>s." "What else," said
he, "does this oath accomplish than to sever those who swear it from the
Holy Scriptures and bind them to Philip's doctrine? Parents may
therefore well consider what they do by sending their sons to Wittenberg
to become Masters and Doctors. Money is there taken from them, and they
are made Masters and Doctors. But while the parents think that their son
is an excellent man, well versed in the Scriptures and able to silence
enthusiasts and heretics, he is, in reality, a poor captive, entangled
and embarrassed by oath-bound duties. For he has abjured the Word of God
and has taken an oath on Philip's doctrine." Replying to this fanatical
charge in 1553, Melanchthon emphasized the fact that the doctrinal
pledges demanded at Wittenberg had been introduced chiefly by Luther,
for the purpose of "maintaining the true doctrine." "For," said
Melanchthon, "many enthusiasts were roaming about at that time, each, in
turn, spreading new silly nonsense, _e.g._, the Anabaptists, Servetus,
Campanus, Schwenckfeld, and others. And such tormenting spirits are not
lacking at any time (_Et non desunt tales furiae ullo tempore_)." A
doctrinal pledge, Melanchthon furthermore explained, was necessary "in
order correctly to acknowledge God and call upon Him to preserve harmony
in the Church, and to bridle the audacity of such as invent new
doctrines." (_C.R._ 12, 5.)


II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols.

8. Ecumenical Symbols.

The Ecumenical (general, universal) Symbols were embodied in the Book of
Concord primarily for apologetic reasons. Carpzov writes: "The sole
reason why our Church appealed to these symbols was to declare her
agreement with the ancient Church in so far as the faith of the latter
was laid down in these symbols, to refute also the calumniations and the
accusations of the opponents, and to evince the fact that she preaches
no new doctrine and in no wise deviates from the Church Catholic."
(_Isagoge,_ 37.) For like reasons Article I of the Augsburg Confession
declares its adherence to the Nicene Creed, and the first part of the
Smalcald Articles, to the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds. The oath
introduced by Luther in 1535, and required of the candidates for the
degree of Doctor of Divinity, also contained a pledge on the Ecumenical
Symbols. In 1538 Luther published a tract entitled, "The Three Symbols
or Confessions of the Faith of Christ Unanimously Used in the Church,"
containing the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Te Deum of
Ambrose and Augustine. To these was appended the Nicene Creed.

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

9. The Apostles' Creed.

The foundation of the Apostles' Creed was, in a way, laid by Christ
Himself when He commissioned His disciples, saying, Matt. 28, 19. 20:
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The formula of Baptism here
prescribed, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost," briefly indicates what Christ wants Christians to be taught, to
believe, and to confess. And the Apostles' Creed, both as to its form
and contents, is evidently but an amplification of the trinitarian
formula of Baptism. Theo. Zahn remarks: "It has been said, and not
without a good basis either, that Christ Himself has ordained the
baptismal confession. For the profession of the Triune God made by the
candidates for Baptism is indeed the echo of His missionary and
baptismal command reechoing through all lands and times in many thousand
voices." (_Skizzen aus dem Leben der Kirche,_ 252.)

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

Nathanael confessed: "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King
of Israel," John 1, 49, the apostles confessed: "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God," Matt. 16, 16; Peter confessed: "We believe
and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," John
6, 69; Thomas confessed: "My Lord and my God," John 20, 28. These and
similar confessions of the truth concerning Himself were not merely
approved of, but solicited and demanded by, Christ. For He declares most
solemnly: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I
confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall
deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in
heaven," Matt. 10, 32. 33. The same duty of confessing their faith,
_i.e._, the truths concerning Christ, is enjoined upon all Christians by
the Apostle Paul when he writes: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved," Rom. 10, 9.

In the light of these and similar passages, the trinitarian baptismal
formula prescribed by Christ evidently required from the candidate for
Baptism a definite statement of what he believed concerning the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost, especially concerning Jesus Christ the Savior. And
that such a confession of faith was in vogue even in the days of the
apostles appears from the Bible itself. Of Timothy it is said that he
had "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: "Let
us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering." Jude urges
the Christians that they "should earnestly contend for the faith which
was 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, furnish
ample proof for the following facts: that from the very beginning of the
Christian Church the candidates for Baptism everywhere were required to
make a confession of their faith; that from the beginning there was
existing in all the Christian congregations a formulated confession
which they called the rule of faith, the rule of truth, etc.; that this
rule was identical with the confession required of the candidates for
Baptism; that it was declared to be of apostolic origin; that the
summaries and explanations of this rule of truth, given by these
writers, tally with the contents and in part, also with the phraseology
of the Apostles' Creed; that the scattered Christian congregations, then
still autonomous, regarded the adoption of this rule, of faith as the
only necessary condition of Christian unity and fellowship.

The manner in which Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, and
other early Christian writers present the Christian truth frequently
reminds us of the Apostles' Creed and suggests its existence. Thus
Justin Martyr, who died 165, says in his first Apology, which was
written about 140: "Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who
also was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
procurator of Judea, that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that
He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second
place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third." "Eternal praise to the
Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Similar strains, sounding like echoes of the Second Article, may be
found in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Christians at Smyrna
written by Ignatius, the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch, who died
107.

Irenaeus, who died 189, remarks: Every Christian "who retains immovable
in himself the rule of the truth which he received through Baptism (_ho
ton kanona tes altheias akline en eauto katechon, hon dia tou
baptismatos eilephe_)" is able to see through the deceit of all
heresies. Irenaeus here identifies the baptismal confession with what he
calls the "rule of truth, _kanon tes eiltheias_" _i.e._, the truth which
is the rule for everything claiming to be Christian. Apparently, this
"rule of truth" was the sum of doctrines which every Christian received
and confessed at his baptism. The very phrase "rule of truth" implies
that it was a concise and definite formulation of the chief Christian
truths. For "canon, rule," was the term employed by the ancient Church
to designate such brief sentences as were adopted by synods for the
practise of the Church. And this "rule of truth" is declared by Irenaeus
to be "the old tradition," "the old tradition of the apostles": he te
apo ton apostolon en te ekklesia paradosis. (Zahn, _l.c._, 379f.)
Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp the Martyr; and what he had learned
from him, Polycarp had received from the Apostle John. Polycarp, says
Irenaeus, "taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and
which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." According
to Irenaeus, then, the "rule of truth" received and confessed by every
Christian at his baptism was transmitted by the apostles. The contents
of this rule of truth received from the apostles are repeatedly set
forth by Irenaeus. In his _Contra Haereses_ (I, 10, 1) one of these
summaries reads as follows: "The Church dispersed through the whole
world, to the ends of the earth has received from the apostles and their
disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who has made heaven
and earth and the sea and all things that are in them, and in one Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit, who has proclaimed through the prophets the
dispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the
passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption
into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His manifestation
from heaven in the glory of the Father." It thus appears that the "rule
of truth" as Irenaeus knew it, the formulated sum of doctrines mediated
by Baptism, which he, in accordance with the testimony of his teacher
Polycarp, believed to have been received from the apostles, at least
approaches 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 faith
according to the words of its law," _i.e._, according to the law of
faith or the rule of faith. Tertullian, therefore, identifies the
confession to which the candidates for Baptism were pledged with the
brief formulation of the chief Christian doctrines which he variously
designates as "the law of faith," "the rule of faith," frequently also
as _tessara,_ watchword and _sacramentum,_ a term then signifying the
military oath of allegiance. This Law or Rule of Faith was, according to
Tertullian, the confession adopted by Christians everywhere, which
distinguished them from unbelievers and heretics. The unity of the
congregations, the granting of the greeting of peace, of the name
brother, and of mutual hospitality,--these and similar Christian rights
and privileges, says Tertullian, "depend on no other condition than the
similar tradition of the same oath of allegiance," _i.e._, the adoption
of the same baptismal rule of faith. (Zahn, 250.)

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

12. Variations of the Apostles' Creed.

While there can be no reasonable doubt either that the Christian
churches from the very beginning were in possession of a definite and
formulated symbol, or that this symbol was an amplification of the
trinitarian formula of Baptism, yet we are unable to ascertain with any
degree of certainty what its exact original wording was. There has not
been found in the early Christian writers a single passage recording the
precise form of the baptismal confession or the rule of truth and faith
as used in the earliest churches. This lack of contemporal written
records is accounted for by the fact that the early Christians and
Christian churches refused on principle to impart and transmit their
confession in any other manner than by word of mouth. Such was their
attitude, not because they believed in keeping their creed secret, but
because they viewed the exclusively oral method of impartation as the
most appropriate in a matter which they regarded as an affair of deepest
concern of their hearts.

It is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostles
were instrumental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that the
wording of it was not absolutely identical in all Christian
congregations, and that in the course of time various changes and
additions were made. "Tradition," says Tertullian with respect to the
baptismal 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 that
the rule of faith received from the apostles is "altogether one,
immovable, and irreformable," they do not at all mean to say that the
phraseology of this symbol was alike everywhere, and that in this
respect no changes whatever had been made, nor that any clauses had been
added. Such variations, additions, and alterations, however, involved a
doctrinal change of the confession no more than the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession implies a doctrinal departure from this symbol. It
remained the same Apostolic Creed, the changes and additions merely
bringing out more fully and clearly its true, original meaning. And this
is the sense in which Tertullian and others emphasize that the rule of
faith 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 at
Rome claimed, was brought thither by Peter himself, was for the first
time quoted as a whole by Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra in a letter to
Bishop Julius of Rome, for the purpose of vindicating his orthodoxy.
During the long period intervening, some changes, however, may have
been, and probably were, made also in this Old Roman Symbol, which reads
as follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora; kai eis Christon Iesoun [ton]
huion autou ton monogene, ton kupion hemon, ton gennethenta ek
pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou
staurothenta kai taphenta, te trite hemera anastanta ek [ton] nekron,
anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen
erchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous; kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian
ekklesian 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 the
various preexisting forms of this symbol, may be traced to the end of
the fifth century and is first found in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles
in France, about 500.--In his translation, Luther substituted
"Christian" for "catholic" in the Third Article. He regarded the two
expressions as equivalent in substance, as appears from the Smalcald
Articles, where he identifies these terms, saying: "Sic enim orant
pueri: Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam sive Christianam." (472, 5;
498, 3.) The form, "I believe a holy Christian Church," however, is met
with even before Luther's time. (Carpzov, _Isagoge,_ 46.)--In the Greek
version the received form of the Apostles' Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges. Kai
eis Iesoun Christon, huion autou ton monogene, ton kurion hemon, ton
sullephthenta 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 en
dexia theou patros pantodunamou, ekeithen erchomenon krinai zontas kai
nekrous. Pisteuo eis to pneuma to hagion, hagian ekklesian, hagion
koinonian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, zoen aionion, Amen._

As to its contents, the Apostles' Creed is a positive statement of the
essential facts of Christianity. The Second Article, says Zahn, is "a
compend of the Evangelical history, including even external details."
(264.) Yet some of the clauses of this Creed were probably inserted in
opposition to prevailing, notably Gnostic, heresies of the first
centuries. It was the first Christian symbol and, as Tertullian and
others declare, the bond of unity and fellowship of the early Christian
congregations 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 Holy
Scriptures, the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule and
norm of all doctrines, teachers, and symbols. In accordance herewith the
Lutheran Church receives the Apostles' Creed, as also the two other
ecumenical confessions, not as _per se_ divine and authoritative, but
because its doctrine is taken from, and well grounded in, the prophetic
and 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 First
Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, in Bithynia, for the purpose of settling
the controversy precipitated by the teaching of Arius, who denied the
true divinity of Christ. The council was attended by 318 bishops and
their assistants, among whom the young deacon Athanasius of Alexandria
gained special prominence as a theologian of great eloquence, acumen,
and learning. "The most valiant champion against the Arians," as he was
called, Athanasius turned the tide of victory in favor of the
Homoousians, who believed that the essence of the Father and of the Son
is identical. The discussions were based upon the symbol of Eusebius of
Caesarea, which by changes and the insertion of Homoousian phrases (such
as _ek tes ousias tou patrous; gennetheis, ou poietheis; homoousios to
patri_) was amended into an unequivocal clean-cut, anti-Arian
confession. Two Egyptian bishops who refused to sign the symbol were
banished, together with Arius, to Illyria. The text of the original
Nicene Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon, patera pantokratora, panton oraton te kai
aoraton poieten. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou
theou, gennethenta ek tou patros monogene, toutestin ek tes ousias tou
patros, theon ek theou, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou
alethinou, gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta
panta egeneto, ta te en to ourano kaita epi tes ges; ton di' hemas tous
anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta kai sarkothenta
kai enanthropesanta, pathonta, kai anastanta te trite hemera, kai
anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai erchomenon palin krinai zontas kai
nekrous. Kai eis to pneuma to hagion. Tous de legontas, hoti pote hote
ouk en, kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto, en ex heteras hupostaseos e
ousias phaskontas einai, e ktiston, e alloioton, e trepton ton huion
tou 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 at
Constantinople. The bishops here assembled, 150 in number, resolved that
the faith of the Nicene Fathers must ever remain firm and unchanged, and
that its opponents, the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians, Eudoxians,
Semi-Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians,
must be rejected. At this council also Macedonius was condemned, who
taught 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 concerning
the Holy Spirit) this council gave to the Nicene Creed its present form.
Hence it is also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Third
Ecumenical Council, which assembled at Toledo, Spain, in 589, inserted
the word "Filioque," an addition which the Greek Church has never
sanctioned, and which later contributed towards bringing about the great
Eastern Schism. A. Harnack considers the Constantinopolitanum (CPanum),
the creed adopted at Constantinople, to be the baptismal confession of
the Church of Jerusalem, which, he says, was revised between 362 and 373
and amplified by the Nicene formulas and a rule of faith concerning the
Holy Ghost. (Herzog, _R. E._, 11, 19f.) Following is the text of the
CPanum according to Mansi:

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges,
oratwn te pantwn kai aoratwn. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon ton
huion tou theou ton monogene, ton ek tou patros gennethenta pro panton
ton aionon, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou alethinou,
gennethevta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta panta
egeneto, ton di' hemas tous anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian
katelthovnta ek tov ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai
Marias tes parthenou, kai enanthropesanta, staurothenta te huper hemon
epi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta, kai taphenta, kai anastanta te trite
hemera kata tas gpaphas, kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai
kathezomenon ek dexion tou patros, kai palin erchomenon meta doxes
krinai zontas kai nekrous; ou tes basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eis
pneuma to hagion, to kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou patros
ekporeuomenon, to sun patri kai huio sumproskunoumenon kai
sundoxazovmenon, to lalesan dia ton propheton, eis mian hagian
katholiken kai apostoliken ekklesian. Homologoumen hen baptisma eis
aphesin hamartion; prosdokomen anastasin nekron, kai zwen tou mellontos
aionos. 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 this
confession before Pope Julius when the latter summoned him "to submit
himself to him [the Pope], as to the ecumenical bishop and Supreme
arbiter of matters ecclesiastical (_ut ei, seu episcopo oecumica et
supremo rerum ecclesiasticarum arbitro, sese submitteret_)." However,
Athanasius is not even the author of this confession, as appears from
the following facts: 1. The Creed was originally written in Latin. 2.
It is mentioned neither by Athanasius himself nor by his Greek
eulogists. 3. It was unknown to the Greek Church till about 1200, and
has never been accorded official recognition by this Church nor its
"orthodox" sister churches. 4. It presupposes the post-Athanasian
Trinitarian and Christological controversies.--Up to the present day it
has been impossible to reach a final verdict concerning the author of
the Quicunque and the time and place of its origin. Koellner's
_Symbolik_ allocates it to Gaul. Loofs inclines to the same opinion and
ventures the conjecture that the source of this symbol must be sought in
Southern Gaul between 450 and 600. (Herzog, _R. E._, 2, 177.) Gieseler
and others look to Spain for its origin.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 40 of the Athanasian Creed have given offense not
only to theologians who advocate an undogmatic Christianity, but to many
thoughtless Christians as well. Loofs declares: The Quicunque is
unevangelical and cannot be received because its very first sentence
confounds _fides_ with _expositio fidei._ (H., _R. E._, 2, 194.)
However, the charge is gratuitous, since the Athanasian Creed deals with
the most fundamental Christian truths: concerning the Trinity, the
divinity of Christ, and His work of redemption, without the knowledge of
which saving faith is impossible. The paragraphs in question merely
express the clear doctrine of such passages of the Scriptures as Acts 4,
12: "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other
name 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 man
cometh unto the Father but by Me." In complete agreement with the
impugned statements of the Athanasian Creed, the Apology of the Augsburg
Confession closes its article "Of God" as follows: "Therefore we do
freely conclude that they are all idolatrous, blasphemers, and outside
of the Church of Christ who hold or teach otherwise." (103)

In the early part of the Middle Ages the Quicunque had already received
a place in the order of public worship. The Council of Vavre resolved,
1368: "Proinde Symbolum Apostolorum silenter et secrete dicitur quotidie
in Completorio et in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo nondum erat
fides catholica propalata. Alia autem duo publice in diebus Dominicis et
festivis, quando maior ad ecclesiam congregatur populus, decantantur,
quia fuere edita tempore fidei propalatae. Symbolum quidem Nicaenum post
evangelium cantatur in Missa quasi evangelicae fidei expositio. Symbolum
Athanasii de mane solum cantatur in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore quo
maxime fuerunt depulsa et detecta nox atra et tenebrae haeresium et
errorum." (Mansi, 26, 487.) Luther says: "The first symbol, that of the
apostles, is indeed the best of all, because it contains a concise,
correct and splendid presentation of the articles of faith and is easily
learned by children and the common people. The second, the Athanasian
Creed, is longer ... and practically amounts to an apology of the first
symbol." "I do not know of any more important document of the New
Testament Church since the days of the apostles" [than the Athanasian
Creed]. (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 and
work, the paramount importance of which Luther extols as follows in his
tract of 1538: "In all the histories of the entire Christendom I have
found and experienced that all who had and held the chief article
concerning Jesus Christ correctly remained safe and sound in the true
Christian 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 the
Godhead bodily, or personally, so that he who does not find or receive
God in Christ shall never have nor find Him anywhere outside of Christ,
even though he ascend above heaven, descend below hell, or go beyond the
world." "On the other hand, I have also observed that all errors,
heresies, idolatries, offenses, abuses, and ungodliness within the
Church originally resulted from the fact that this article of faith
concerning Jesus Christ was despised or lost. And viewed clearly and
rightly, all heresies militate against the precious article of Jesus
Christ, as Simeon says concerning Him, Luke 2, 34, that He is set for
the falling and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign which is
spoken against; and long before this, Isaiah, chapter 8, 14, spoke of
Him as 'a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.'" "And we in the
Papacy, the last and greatest of saints, what have we done? We have
confessed 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 with
might and main" (those who taught this). "And even now those who claim
to be the best Christians and boast that they are the Holy Church, who
burn the others and wade in innocent blood, regard as the best doctrine
[that which teaches] that we obtain grace and salvation through our own
works. Christ is to be accorded no other honor with regard to our
salvation than that He made the beginning, while we are the heroes who
complete it with our merit."

Luther continues: "This is the way the devil goes to work. He attacks
Christ with three storm-columns. One will not suffer Him to be God; the
other will not suffer Him to be man, the third denies that He has
merited 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 also
believe that He is man? For then you have not the entire and the true
Christ, but a phantom of the devil. What does it avail you to confess
that He is true man if you do not also believe that He is true God? What
does it avail you to confess that He is God and man if you do not also
believe 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 the
first symbol says: conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered, was crucified, died, and rose again, etc. If one small part is
lacking, then all parts are lacking. For faith shall and must be
complete in every particular. While it may indeed be weak and subject to
afflictions, 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, the
chief topic of the Ecumenical Creeds, Luther remarks in the same tract:
"Now, to be sure, we Christians are not so utterly devoid of all reason
and sense as the Jews consider us, who take us to be nothing but crazy
geese and ducks, unable to perceive or notice what folly it is to
believe that God is man, and that in one Godhead there are three
distinct persons. No, praise God, we perceive indeed that this doctrine
cannot and will not be received by reason. Nor are we in need of any
sublime Jewish reasoning to demonstrate this to us. We believe it
knowingly and willingly. We confess and also experience that, where the
Holy Spirit does not, surpassing reason, shine into the heart, it is
impossible to grasp, or to believe, and abide by, such article;
moreover, there must remain in it [the heart] a Jewish, proud, and
supercilious reason deriding and ridiculing such article, and thus
setting up itself as judge and master of the Divine Being whom it has
never seen nor is able to see and hence does not know what it is passing
judgment on, nor whereof it thinks or speaks. For God dwells in a 'light
which no man can approach unto,' 1 Tim. 6, 16. He must come to us, yet
hidden in the lantern, and as it is written, John 1, 18: 'No man hath
seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the 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 at
Augsburg 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 action
to be taken with reference to this great peril, continues as follows:
"The diet is to consider furthermore what might and ought to be done and
resolved upon regarding the division and separation in the holy faith
and the Christian religion; and that this may proceed the better and
more salubriously, [the Emperor urged] to allay divisions, to cease
hostility, to surrender past errors to our Savior, and to display
diligence in hearing, understanding, and considering with love and
kindness the opinions and views of everybody, in order to reduce them to
one single Christian truth and agreement, to put aside whatever has not
been properly explained or done by either party, so that we all may
adopt and hold one single and true religion; and may all live in one
communion, church, and unity, even as we all live and do battle under
one Christ."

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

March 11 the proclamation reached Elector John at Torgau. On the 14th
Chancellor Brueck advised the Elector to have "the opinion on which our
party has hitherto stood and to which they have adhered," in the
controverted points, "properly drawn up in writing, with a thorough
confirmation thereof from the divine Scriptures." On the same day the
Elector commissioned Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon to
prepare a document treating especially of "those articles on account of
which said division, both in faith and in other outward church customs
and ceremonies, continues." (43.) At Wittenberg the theologians at once
set to work, and the result was presented at Torgau March 27 by
Melanchthon. On April 4 the Elector and his theologians set out from
Torgau, arriving at Coburg on the 15th, where they rested for eight
days. 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, remained
at the fortress Ebernburg. Nevertheless he continued in close touch with
the confessors, as appears from his numerous letters written to
Augsburg, seventy all told about twenty of which were addressed to
Melanchthon.

19. Apology Original Plan of Lutherans.

The documents which the Wittenberg theologians delivered at Torgau
treated the following subjects: Human Doctrines and Ordinances, Marriage
of Priests, Both Kinds, Mass, Confession, Power of Bishops, Ordination,
Monastic Vows, Invocation of the Saints, German Singing, Faith and
Works, Office of the Keys (Papacy), Ban, Marriage, and Private Mass.
Accordingly, the original intention of the Lutherans was not to enter
upon, and present for discussion at Augsburg, such doctrines as were not
in controversy (Of God, etc.), but merely to treat of the abuses and
immediately related doctrines, especially of Faith and Good Works. (66
ff.) They evidently regarded it as their chief object and duty to
justify before the Emperor and the estates both Luther and his
protectors, the electors of Saxony. This is borne out also by the
original Introduction to the contemplated Apology, concerning which we
read in the prefatory remarks to the so-called Torgau Articles mentioned
above: "To this end [of justifying the Elector's peaceable frame of
mind] it will be advantageous to begin [the projected Apology] with a
lengthy rhetorical introduction." (68; _C. R._, 26, 171.) This
introduction, later on replaced by another, was composed by Melanchthon
at Coburg and polished by him during the first days at Augsburg. May 4
he remarks in a letter to Luther: "I have shaped the Exordium of our
Apology somewhat more rhetorical (_hretorikoteron_) than I had written
it at Coburg." (_C. R._, 2, 40; Luther, St. L. 16, 652.) In this
introduction Melanchthon explains: Next to God the Elector builds his
hope on the Emperor, who had always striven for peace, and was even now
prepared to adjust the religious controversy in mildness. As to the
Elector and his brother Frederick, they had ever been attached to the
Christian religion, had proved faithful to the Emperor, and had
constantly cultivated peace. Their present position was due to the fact
that commandments of men had been preached instead of faith in Christ.
Not Luther, but Luther's opponents, had begun the strife. It was for
conscience' sake that the Elector had not proceeded against Luther.
Besides, such action would only have made matters worse, since Luther
had resisted the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists. Equally unfounded
were also the accusations that the Evangelicals had abolished all order
as well as all ceremonies, and had undermined the authority of the
bishops. If only the bishops would tolerate the Gospel and do away with
the gross abuses, they would suffer no loss of power, honor, and
prestige. In concluding Melanchthon emphatically protests: "Never has a
reformation been undertaken so utterly without any violence as this [in
Saxony]; for it is a public fact that our men have prevailed with such
as were already in arms to make peace." (Kolde, _l.c._, 13.) The
document, accordingly, as originally planned for presentation at
Augsburg, was to be a defense of Luther and his Elector. In keeping
herewith 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 reaching
Augsburg, heard of and read the 404 Propositions published by Dr. John
Eck, in which Luther was classified with Zwingli, Oecolampadius,
Carlstadt, Pirkheimer, Hubmaier, and Denk, and was charged with every
conceivable heresy. In a letter of March 14, accompanying the copy of
his Propositions which Eck sent to the Emperor, he refers to Luther as
the domestic enemy of the Church (_hostis ecclesiae domesticus_), who
has fallen into every Scylla and Charybdis of iniquity; who speaks of
the Pope as the Antichrist and of the Church as the harlot; who has
praise for none but heretics and schismatics; whom the Church has to
thank 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 years
ago, etc. (Plitt, _Einleitung in die Augustana,_ 1, 527 ff.) Such and
similar slanders had been disseminated by the <DW7>s before this, and
they continued to do so even after the Lutherans, at Augsburg, had made
a public confession of their faith and had most emphatically disavowed
all ancient and modern heresies. Thus Cochlaeus asserted in his attack
on the Apology, published 1534, that Lutheranism was a concoction of all
the old condemned heresies, that Luther taught fifteen errors against
the article of God, and Melanchthon nine against the Nicene Creed, etc.
Luther, he declared, had attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in a
coarser fashion than Arius. (Salig, _Historie d. Augsb. Konf.,_ 1, 377.)

These calumniations caused the Lutherans to remodel and expand the
defense originally planned into a document which should not merely
justify the changes made by them with regard to customs and ceremonies,
but also present as fully as possible the doctrinal articles which they
held over against ancient and modern heresies, falsely imputed to them.
Thus to some extent it is due to the scurrility of Eck that the
contemplated Apology was transformed into an all-embracing Confession, a
term employed by Melanchthon himself. In a letter to Luther, dated May
11, 1530, he wrote: "Our Apology is being sent to you--though it is
rather a Confession. _Mittitur tibi apologia nostra, quamquam verius
confessio est._ I included [in the Confession] almost all articles of
faith, because Eck published most diabolical lies against us, _quia
Eckius edidit diabolikontatas diabolas contra nos._ Against these it was
my 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 of
September 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 the
Anabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to His
Imperial Majesty, and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decided
to include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, that
every one might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in the
lying papal writings. ... Finally, this Confession was, as God directed
and guided, drawn up by me in the manner indicated, and the venerable
Doctor Martin Luther was pleased with it." (_C. R._ 9, 929.)

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

21. Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles.

The material from which Melanchthon constructed the Augsburg Confession
is, in the last analysis, none other than the Reformation truths which
Luther had proclaimed since 1517 with ever-increasing clarity and force.
In particular, he was guided by, and based his labor on, the Marburg
Articles, the Schwabach Articles, and the so-called Torgau Articles. The
Marburg Articles, fifteen in number, had been drawn up by Luther, in
1529, at the Colloquy of Marburg, whence he departed October 6, about
six 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 Smalcald
about the middle of October, 1529. According to recent researches the
Schwabach Articles antedated the Marburg Articles and formed the basis
for them. (Luther, Weimar Ed., 30, 3, 97, 107.) In 1530 Luther published
these Articles, remarking: "It is true that I helped to draw up such
articles; for they were not composed by me alone." This public statement
discredits the opinion of v. Schubert published in 1908 according to
which Melanchthon is the sole author of the Schwabach Articles, Luther's
contribution and participation being negligible. The Schwabach Articles
constitute the seventeen basic articles of the first part of the
Augsburg 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 Articles
because the order for drafting them came from Torgau (March 14), and
because they were presented to the Elector at Torgau. (Foerstemann, 1,
66; _C. R._ 26, 171; St. L. 16, 638.) With reference to these articles
Luther wrote (March 14) to Jonas, who was then still conducting the
visitation: "The Prince has written to us, that is, to you, Pomeranus,
Philip, and myself, in a letter addressed to us in common, that we
should come together set aside all other business, and finish before
next Sunday whatever is necessary for the next diet on April 8. For
Emperor Charles himself will be present at Augsburg to settle all things
in a friendly way, as he writes in his bull. Therefore, although you are
absent, we three shall do what we can today and tomorrow; still, in
order to comply with the will of the Prince, it will be incumbent upon
you to turn your work over to your companions and be present with us
here on the morrow. For things are in a hurry. _Festinata enim sunt
omnia._" (St. L. 16, 638.)

Melanchthon also wrote to Jonas on the 15th of March: "Luther is
summoning you by order of the Prince; you will therefore come as soon as
it is at all possible. The Diet, according to the proclamation, will
convene at Augsburg. And the Emperor graciously promises that he will
investigate the matter, and correct the errors on both sides. May Christ
stand by us!" (_C. R._ 2, 28; Foerstemann, 1, 45.) It was to these
articles (Torgau Articles) that the Elector referred when he wrote to
Luther from Augsburg on the 11th of May: "After you and others of our
learned men at Wittenberg, at our gracious desire and demand, have
drafted the articles which are in religious controversy, we do not wish
to conceal from you that Master Philip Melanchthon has now at this place
perused 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 still
in full accord with Luther doctrinally, framed the fundamental symbol of
the Lutheran Church were the thoughts and, in a large measure, the very
words of Luther. Melanchthon gave to the Augsburg Confession its form
and its irenic note, its entire doctrinal content, however must be
conceded to be "_iuxta sententiam Lutheri,_ according to the teaching of
Luther," as Melanchthon himself declared particularly with respect to
the 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 to
Luther: "We have hitherto followed your authority, _tuam secuti hactenus
auctoritatem,_" and now, says Melanchthon, Luther should also let him
know how much could be yielded to the opponents. (2, 146.) Accordingly,
in the opinion of Melanchthon, Luther, though absent, was the head of
the Evangelicals also at Augsburg.

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

Luther, then, was the prime mover also at Augsburg. Without him there
would have been no Evangelical cause, no Diet of Augsburg, no
Evangelical confessors, no Augsburg Confession. And this is what Luther
really meant when he said: "_Confessio Augustana mea;_ the Augsburg
Confession is mine." (Walch 22, 1532.) He did not in the least thereby
intend to deprive Melanchthon of any credit properly due him with
reference to the Confession. Moreover, in a letter written to Nicolaus
Hausmann on July 6, 1530, Luther refers to the Augustana as "our
confession, which our Philip prepared; _quam Philippus noster paravit._"
(St. L. 16, 882; Enders 8, 80.) As a matter of fact, however, the day of
Augsburg, even as the day of Worms, was the day of Luther and of the
Evangelical truth once more restored to light by Luther. At Augsburg,
too, Melanchthon was not the real author and moving spirit, but the
instrument and mouthpiece of Luther, out of whose spirit the doctrine
there 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 at
Augsburg or of any doctrinal disagreement between the Augsburg
Confession and the teaching of Luther. That, at the Diet, he was led,
and wished to be led, by Luther is admitted by Melanchthon himself. In
the letter of June 27, referred to above, he said: "The matters, as you
[Luther] know, have been considered before, though in the combat it
always turns out otherwise than expected." (St. L. 16, 899; _C. R._ 2,
146.) On the 31st of August he wrote to his friend Camerarius: "Hitherto
we have yielded nothing to our opponents, except what Luther judged
should be done, since the matter was considered well and carefully
before the Diet; _re bene ac diligenter deliberata ante conventum_." (2,
334.)

Very pertinently E. T. Nitzsch said of Melanchthon (1855): "With the son
of 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 to
follow his leader and to forge shields, helmets, armor, and swords for
this great work." This applies also to the Augsburg Confession, in which
Melanchthon merely shaped the material long before produced by Luther
from the divine shafts of God's Word. Replying to Koeller, Rueckert, and
Heppe, who contend that the authorship of the Augsburg Confession must
in every way be ascribed to Melanchthon, Philip Schaff writes as
follows: "This is true as far as the spirit [which Luther called
'pussyfooting,' _Leisetreten_] and the literary composition are
concerned; but as to the doctrines Luther had a right to say, 'The
Catechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg
Confession are _mine._'" (_Creeds_ 1, 229.)

23. Drafting the Confession.

May 11 the Confession was so far completed that the Elector was able to
submit it to Luther for the purpose of getting his opinion on it.
According to Melanchthon's letter of the same date, the document
contained "almost all articles of faith, _omnes fere articulos fedei._"
(_C. R._ 2, 45.) This agrees with the account written by Melanchthon
shortly before his death, in which he states that in the Augsburg
Confession he had presented "the sum of our Church's doctrine," and that
in so doing he had arrogated nothing to himself; for in the presence of
the princes, etc., each individual sentence had been discussed.
"Thereupon," says Melanchthon, "the entire Confession was sent also to
Luther, who informed the princes that he had read it and approved it.
The princes and other honest and learned men still living will remember
that such was the case. _Missa est denique et Luthero tota forma
Confessionis, qui Principibus scripsit, se hanc Confessionem et legisse
et probare. Haec ita acta esse, Principes et alii honesti et docti viri
adhuc superstites meminerint._" (9, 1052.) As early as May 15 Luther
returned the Confession with the remark: "I have read Master Philip's
Apology. I am well pleased with it, and know nothing to improve or to
change in it; neither would this be proper, since I cannot step so
gently and softly. Christ, our Lord, grant that it may produce much and
great 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 secus
docentes._" (Enders, 7, 336.)

Up to the time of its presentation the Augsburg Confession was
diligently improved, polished, perfected, and partly recast. Additions
were inserted and several articles added. Nor was this done secretly and
without Luther's knowledge. May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Daily
we change much in the Apology. I have eliminated the article On Vows,
since it was too brief, and substituted a fuller explanation. Now I am
also treating of the Power of the Keys. I would like to have you read
the articles of faith. If you find no shortcoming in them, we shall
manage to treat the remainder. For one must always make some changes in
them and adapt oneself to conditions. _Subinde enim mutandi sunt atque
ad 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 Nuernberg
delegates wrote to their Council: "The Saxon Plan [Apology] has been
returned by Doctor Luther. But Doctor Brueck, the old chancellor, still
has some changes to make at the beginning and the end." (_C. R._ 2, 62.)
The expression "beginning and end (_hinten und vorne_)," according to
Tschackert, is tantamount to "all over (_ueberall_)." However, even
before 1867 Plitt wrote it had long ago been recognized that this
expression refers to the Introduction and the Conclusion of the
Confession, which were written by Brueck. (Aug. 2, 11.) Bretschneider is
of the same opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 62.) June 3 the Nuernberg delegates
wrote: "Herewith we transmit to Your Excellencies a copy of the Saxon
Plan [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. Meanwhile
Your Excellencies may cause your learned men and preachers to study it
and deliberate upon it. When this Plan [Confession] is drawn up in
German, it shall not be withheld from Your Excellencies. The Saxons,
however, distinctly desire that, for the present, Your Excellencies keep
this Plan or document secret, and that you permit no copy to be given to
any one until it has been delivered to His Imperial Majesty. They have
reasons of their own for making this request. ... And if Your
Excellencies' pastors and learned men should decide to make changes or
improvements in this Plan or in the one previously submitted, these,
too, Your Excellencies are asked to transmit to us." (2, 83.) June 26
Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: "Daily I changed and recast much; and I
would have changed still more if our advisers (_sumphradmones_) had
permitted us to do so." (2, 140.)

24. Public Reading of the Confession.

June 15, after long negotiations, a number of other estates were
permitted to join the adherents of the Saxon Confession. (_C. R._ 2,
105.) As a result, Melanchthon's Introduction, containing a defense of
the Saxon Electors, without mentioning the other Lutheran estates, no
longer fitted in with the changed conditions. Accordingly, it was
supplanted by the Preface composed by Brueck, and translated into Latin
by Justus Jonas, whose acknowledged elegant Latin and German style
qualified 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-memorable
meeting of the Diet took place at which the Augustana was read by
Chancellor Beyer in German, and both manuscripts were handed over. The
Emperor kept the Latin copy for himself, and gave the German copy to the
Imperial Chancellor, the Elector and Archbishop Albrecht, to be
preserved in the Imperial Archives at Mainz. Both texts, therefore, the
Latin as well as the German, have equal authority, although the German
text has the additional distinction and prestige of having been publicly
read at the Diet.

As to where and how the Lutheran heroes confessed their faith, Kolde
writes 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 were
ordinarily conducted, but, as the Imperial Herald, Caspar Sturm,
reports, the 'Pfalz,' the large front room, _i.e._, the Chapter-room of
the bishop's palace, where the Emperor lived. The two Saxon chancellors,
Dr. Greg. Brueck and Dr. Chr. Beyer, the one with the Latin and the
other with the German copy of the Confession, stepped into the middle of
the hall, while as many of the Evangelically minded estates as had the
courage publicly to espouse the Evangelical cause arose from their seats.
Caspar Sturm reports: 'Als aber die gemeldeten Commissarii und
Botschaften der oesterreichischen Lande ihre Werbung und Botschaft
vollendet und abgetreten, sind darauf von Stund' an Kurfuerst von Sachsen
naemlich Herzog Johannes, Markgraf Joerg von Brandenburg, Herzog Ernst
samt seinem Bruder Franzisko, beide Herzoege zu Braunschweig und
Lueneburg, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Graf Wolf von Anhalt usw. von
ihrer Session auf; und gegen Kaiserliche Majestaet gestanden.' The
Emperor desired to hear the Latin text. But when Elector John had called
attention to the fact that the meeting was held on German soil, and
expressed the hope that the Emperor would permit the reading to proceed
in German, it was granted. Hereupon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. The
reading lasted about two hours; but he read with a voice so clear and
plain 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 in
every direction. Even before the Diet adjourned, Heilbronn, Kempten,
Windsheim, Weissenburg and Frankfurt on the Main professed their
adherence to it. Others had received the first impulse which
subsequently induced them to side with the Evangelicals. Brenz has it
that the Emperor fell asleep during the reading. However, this can have
been only temporarily or apparently, since Spalatin and Jonas assure us
that the Emperor, like the other princes and King Ferdinand, listened
attentively. Their report reads: "_Satis attentus erat Caesar,_ The
Emperor was attentive enough." Duke William of Bavaria declared: "Never
before has this matter and doctrine been presented to me in this
manner." And when Eck assured him that he would undertake to refute the
Lutheran doctrine with the Fathers, but not with the Scriptures, the
Duke responded, "Then the Lutherans, I understand, sit in the Scriptures
and we of the Pope's Church beside the Scriptures! _So hoer' ich wohl,
die Lutherischen sitzen in der Schrift und wir Pontificii daneben!_" The
Archbishop of Salzburg declared that he, too desired a reformation, but
the unbearable thing about it was that one lone monk wanted to reform
them all. In private conversation, Bishop Stadion of Augsburg exclaimed,
"What has been read to us is the truth, the pure truth, and we cannot
deny it." (St. L. 16, 882; Plitt, _Apologie,_ 18.) Father Aegidius, the
Emperor's confessor, said to Melanchthon, "You have a theology which a
person can understand only if he prays much." Campegius is reported to
have said that for his part he might well permit such teaching; but it
would be a precedent of no little consequence, as the same permission
would then have to be given other nations and kingdoms, which could not
be tolerated. (Zoeckler, _A. K._, 24.)

25. Luther's Mild Criticism.

June 26 Melanchthon sent a copy of the Confession, as publicly read, to
Luther, who adhering to his opinion of May 15, praised it yet not
without adding a grain of gentle criticism. June 29 he wrote to
Melanchthon: "I have received your Apology and can not understand what
you may mean when you ask what and how much should be yielded to the
<DW7>s. ... 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 see
nothing that might be yielded beyond what has been done, unless I see
the proofs they proffer, and clearer Bible-passages than I have hitherto
seen. ... As I have always written--I am prepared to yield everything to
them if we are but given the liberty to teach the Gospel. I cannot yield
anything that militates against the Gospel." (St. L. 16, 902; Enders, 8,
42. 45.) The clearest expression of Luther's criticism is found in a
letter to Jonas, dated July 21, 1530. Here we read: "Now I see the
purpose of those questions [on the part of the <DW7>s] whether you had
any further articles to present. The devil still lives, and he has
noticed very well that your Apology steps softly, and that it has veiled
the articles of Purgatory, the Adoration of the Saints, and especially
that of the Antichrist, the Pope." Another reading of this passage of
Luther: "_Apologiam vestram, die Leisetreterin, dissimulasse,_" is
severer even than the one quoted: "_Apologiam vestram leise treten et
dissimulasse._" (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 Nuernberg
delegates had also received the impression that the Confession, while
saying what was necessary, was very reserved and discreet. They reported
to their Council: "Said instruction [Confession], as far as the articles
of faith are concerned, is substantially like that which we have
previously sent to Your Excellencies, only that it has been improved in
some parts, and throughout made as mild as possible (_allenthalben aufs
glimpflichste gemacht_), yet, according to our view, without omitting
anything necessary." (2, 129.) At Smalcald, in 1537, the theologians
were ordered by the Princes and Estates "to look over the Confession, to
make no changes pertaining to its contents or substance, nor those of
the Concord [of 1536], but merely to enlarge upon matters regarding the
Papacy, which, for certain reasons, was previously omitted at the Diet
of Augsburg in submissive deference to His Imperial Majesty." (Kolde,
_Analecta,_ 297.)

Indirectly Melanchthon himself admits the correctness of Luther's
criticism. True, when after the presentation of the Confession he
thought of the angry <DW7>s, he trembled fearing that he had written
too severely. June 26 he wrote to his most intimate friend, Camerarius:
"Far from thinking that I have written milder than was proper, I rather
strongly fear (_mirum in modum_) that some have taken offense at our
freedom. For Valdes, the Emperor's secretary, saw it before its
presentation and gave it as his opinion that from beginning to end it
was 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, the
Confession is severe enough. For you will see that I have depicted the
monks sufficiently." (141.)

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

26. Luther Praising Confession and Confessors.

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

Luther said: "I rejoice beyond measure that I lived to see the hour in
which Christ was publicly glorified by such great confessors of His, in
so great an assembly, through this in every respect most beautiful
Confession. And the word has been fulfilled [Ps. 119, 46]: 'I will speak
of Thy testimonies also before kings;' and the other word will also be
fulfilled: 'I was not confounded.' For, 'Whosoever confesses Me before
men' (so speaks He who lies not), 'him will I also confess before My
Father which is in heaven.'" (16, 915; E. 8, 83.) July 9 Luther wrote to
Jonas "Christ was loudly proclaimed by means of the public and glorious
Confession (_publica et gloriosa confessione_) and confessed in the open
(_am Lichte_) and in their [the <DW7>s'] faces, so that they cannot
boast that we fled, had been afraid, or had concealed our faith. I only
regret that I was not able to be present when this splendid Confession
was 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 and
consider well that our Lord Christ Himself comforts the heart of Your
Electoral Grace better than I or any one else is able to do. This is
shown, too, and proved before our eyes by the facts, for the opponents
think that they made a shrewd move by having His Imperial Majesty
prohibit preaching. But the poor deluded people do not see that, through
the written Confession presented to them, more has been preached than
otherwise perhaps ten preachers could have done. Is it not keen wisdom
and great wit that Magister Eisleben and others must keep silence? But
in lieu thereof the Elector of Saxony, together with other princes and
lords, arises with the written Confession and preaches freely before His
Imperial Majesty and the entire realm, under their noses so that they
must hear and cannot gainsay. I think that thus the order prohibiting
preaching was a success indeed. They will not permit their servants to
hear the ministers, but must themselves hear something far worse (as
they regard it) from such great lords, and keep their peace. Indeed,
Christ is not silent at the Diet; and though they be furious, still they
must hear more by listening to the Confession than they would have heard
in a year from the preachers. Thus is fulfilled what Paul says: God's
Word will nevertheless have free course. If it is prohibited in the
pulpit, it must be heard in the palaces. If poor preachers dare not
speak it, then mighty princes and lords proclaim it. In brief, if
everything keeps silence, the very stones will cry out, says Christ
Himself." (16, 815.) September 15, at the close of the Diet, Luther
wrote to Melanchthon: "You have confessed Christ, offered peace, obeyed
the Emperor, endured reproach, been sated with slander, and have not
recompensed evil for evil; in sum you have performed the holy work of
God, 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 the
original manuscripts are lost to us. Evidently they have become a prey
to Romish rage and enmity. Eck was given permission to examine the
German copy in 1540, and possibly at that time already it was not
returned to Mainz. It may have been taken to Trent for the discussions
at the Council, and thence carried to Rome. The Latin original was
deposited in the Imperial Archives at Brussels, where it was seen and
perused by Lindanus in 1562. February 18, 1569, however, Philip II
instructed Duke Alva to bring the manuscript to Spain, lest the
Protestants "regard it as a Koran," and in order that "such a damned
work might forever be destroyed; _porque se hunda para siempre tan
malvada obra._" The keeper of the Brussels archives himself testifies
that the manuscript was delivered to Alva. There is, however, no lack of
other manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession. Up to the present time no
less than 39 have been found. Of these, five German and four Latin
copies contain also the signatures. The five German copies are in verbal
agreement almost throughout, and therefore probably offer the text as
read and presented at Augsburg.

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

For years this edition was also considered the authentic edition of the
Augsburg Confession. Its Latin text was embodied 1584 in the Book of
Concord as the _textus receptus._ But when attention was drawn to the
changes in the German text of this edition (also the Latin text had been
subjected to minor alterations), the Mainz Manuscript was substituted in
the German Book of Concord, as its Preface explains. (14.) This
manuscript, however contains no original signatures and was erroneously
considered the identical document presented to the Emperor, of which it
was probably but a copy. In his Introduction to the Symbolical Books, J.
T. Mueller expresses the following opinion concerning the Mainz
Manuscript: "To say the least, one cannot deny that its text, as a rule,
agrees with that of the best manuscripts, and that its mistakes can
easily be corrected according to them and the _editio princeps,_ so that
we have no reason to surrender the text received by the Church and to
accept another in place thereof, of which we cannot prove either that it
is any closer to the original." (78.) Tschackert, who devoted much study
to the manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession, writes: "The Saxon
theologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is still certainly
better than Melanchthon's original imprint [the _editio princeps_] yet,
when compared with the complete and--because synchronous with the
originally presented copy--reliable manuscripts of the signers of the
Confession, the Mainz Manuscript proves to be defective in quite a
number of places." (_L.c._ 621 f.)

However, even Tschackert's minute comparison shows that the Mainz
Manuscript deviates from the original presented to the Emperor only in
unimportant and purely formal points. For example, in sec. 20 of the
Preface the words: "Papst das Generalkonzilium zu halten nicht
geweigert, so waere E. K. M. gnaediges Erbieten, zu fordern und zu
handeln, dass der" are omitted. Art. 27 sec. 48 we are to read: "dass
die erdichteten geistlichen Orden Staende sind christlicher
Vollkommenheit" instead of: "dass die erdichteten geistlichen
Ordensstaende 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 the
German. 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 aber
bei unsern Herrn, Freunden und besonders den Kurfuersten, Fuersten und
Staenden des andern Teils die Handlung dermassen, wie E. K. M.
Ausschreiben vermag (bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb und
Guetigkeit) nicht verfangen noch erspriesslich sein wollte" etc. The
words, "bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb' und Guetigkeit," are
quoted from the imperial proclamation. (Foerstemann, 7, 378; Plitt, 2,
12.)

Originally only the last seven articles concerning the abuses had
separate titles, the doctrinal articles being merely numbered, as in the
Marburg and Schwabach Articles, which Melanchthon had before him at
Augsburg. (Luther, Weimar 30, 3, 86. 160.) Nor are the present captions
of the doctrinal articles found in the original German and Latin
editions of the Book of Concord, Article XX forming a solitary
exception; for in the German (in the Latin Concordia, too, it bears no
title) it is superscribed: "Vom Glauben und guten Werken, Of Faith and
Good Works." This is probably due to the fact that Article XX was taken
from the so-called Torgau Articles and, with its superscription there,
placed among the doctrinal articles. In the German edition of 1580 the
word "Schluss" is omitted where the Latin has "Epilogus."

As to the translations, even before the Confession was presented to the
Emperor, it had been rendered into French. (This translation was
published by Foerstemann, 1, 357.) The Emperor had it translated for his
own 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 many
other 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 as
follows: The names of the signers are most reliably determined from the
best manuscript copies of the original of the Confession, which have
been preserved to us. There we find the signatures of eight princes and
two free cities, to wit, Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of
Brandenburg-Ansbach, Duke Ernest of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Landgrave
Philip of Hesse, then John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony,
Ernest's brother Francis of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Prince Wolfgang of
Anhalt, Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and the cities Nuernberg and
Reutlingen. (_L.c._ 285; see also Luther's letter of July 6, 1530, St.
L. 16, 882.) Camerarius, in his Life of Melanchthon, relates that
Melanchthon desired to have the Confession drawn up in the name of the
theologians only, but that his plan did not prevail because it was
believed that the signatures of the princes would lend prestige and
splendor 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, had
zealously, but in vain, endeavored to secure for the article concerning
the Lord's Supper a milder form still, in the end, he did not refuse to
sign. Regius wrote to Luther, May 21, that he had discussed the entire
cause 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 had
presented all the arguments of the Sacramentarians and desired to hear
Regius refute them. But while the Landgrave did not side with Zwingli
(_non sentit cum Zwinglio_), yet he desired with all his heart an
agreement of the theologians, as far as piety would permit (_exoptat
doctorum hominum concordiam, quantum sinit pietas_). He was far less
inclined to dissension than rumor had it before his arrival. He would
hardly despise the wise counsel of Melanchthon and others. (Kolde,
_Analecta,_ 125; see also _C. R._ 2, 59, where the text reads, "_nam
sentit cum Zwinglio_" instead of, "_non sentit cum Zwinglio._")
Accordingly, the mind of the Landgrave was not outright Zwinglian, but
unionistic. He regarded the followers of Zwingli as weak brethren who
must be borne with, and to whom Christian fellowship should not be
refused. 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 he
can be drawn back to our side; still, a letter from you will be
necessary. 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 Landgrave
approves our Confession and has signed it. You will, I hope accomplish
much 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,_ the
South-German imperial cities (Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau)
presented the so-called _Confessio Tetrapolitana,_ prepared by Bucer and
Capito, which declares that the Sacraments are "holy types," and that in
the Lord's Supper the "true body" and the "true blood" of Christ "are
truly eaten and drunk as meat and drink for the souls which are thereby
nourished unto eternal life." However, in 1532 these cities, too, signed
the 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. From
this day on she stands before all the world as a body united by a public
confession and separate from the Roman Church. The lone, but courageous
confessor of Worms saw himself surrounded with a stately host of true
Christian heroes, who were not afraid to place their names under his
Confession, although they knew that it might cost them goods and blood,
life and limb. When the Emperor, after entering Augsburg, stubbornly
demanded that the Lutherans cease preaching, Margrave George of
Brandenburg finally declared: "Rather than deny my God and suffer the
Word of God to be taken from me, I will kneel down and have my head
struck off." (_C. R._ 2, 115.) That characterizes the pious and heroic
frame of mind of all who signed the Augustana in 1530 In a letter, of
June 18, to Luther, Jonas relates how the Catholic princes and estates
knelt down to receive the blessing of Campegius when the latter entered
the city, but that the Elector remained standing and declared: "To God
alone shall knees be bowed; _In Deo flectenda sunt genua._" (Kolde,
_Analecta,_ 135.) When Melanchthon called the Elector's attention to the
possible consequences of his signing the Augsburg Confession, the latter
answered that he would do what was right, without concerning himself
about his electoral dignity; he would confess his Lord, whose cross he
prized 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 over
me no small feeling of shame because we poor beggars [theologians] are
filled with fear of the Imperial Majesty." (_C. R._ 2, 125.) Luther
praises Elector John for having suffered a bitter death at the Diet of
Augsburg. There, says Luther, he had to swallow all kinds of nasty soups
and poison with which the devil served him; at Augsburg he publicly,
before all the world, confessed Christ's death and resurrection, and
hazarded property and people, yea, his own body and life; and because of
the confession which he made we shall honor him as a Christian. (St. L.
12, 2078 f.) And not only the Lutheran Church, but all Protestant
Christendom, aye, the entire world has every reason to revere and hold
sacred the memory of the heroes who boldly affixed their names to the
Confession of 1530.

29. Tributes to Confession of Augsburg.

From the moment of its presentation to the present day, men have not
tired of praising the Augsburg Confession, which has been called
_Confessio augusta, Confessio augustissima,_ the "_Evangelischer
Augapfel,_" etc. They have admired its systematic plan, its
completeness, comprehensiveness, and arrangement; its balance of
mildness and firmness; its racy vigor, freshness, and directness; its
beauty of composition, "the like of which can not be found in the entire
literature of the Reformation period." Spalatin exclaims: "A Confession,
the like of which was never made, not only in a thousand years, but as
long as the world has been standing!" Sartorius: "A confession of the
eternal truth, of true ecumenical Christianity, and of all fundamental
articles of the Christian faith!" "From the Diet of Augsburg, which is
the birthday of the Evangelical Church Federation, down to the great
Peace Congress of Muenster and Osnabrueck, this Confession stands as the
towering standard in the entire history of those profoundly troublous
times, 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 and
blood, and always finally victoriously holds the field. Under the
protection of this banner the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has
been built up on firm and unassailable foundations: under the same
protection the Reformed Church in Germany has found shelter. But the
banner was carried still farther; for all Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and
Prussians have sworn allegiance to it, and the Esthonians, Latts, Finns,
as well as all Lutherans of Russia, France, and other lands recognize
therein the palladium of their faith and rights. No other Protestant
confession has ever been so honored." (Guericke, _Kg._, 3, 116 f.)

Vilmar says in praise of the Confession: "Whoever has once felt a gentle
breath of the bracing mountain air which is wafted from this mighty
mountain of faith [the Augsburg Confession] no longer seeks to pit
against its firm and quiet dignity his own uncertain, immature, and
wavering thoughts nor to direct the vain and childish puff of his mouth
against that breath of God in order to give it a different direction."
(_Theol. d. Tatsachen,_ 76.) In his Introduction to the Symbolical
Books, J. T. Mueller says: "Luther called the Diet of Augsburg 'the last
trumpet before Judgment Day;' hence we may well call the confession
there made the _blast_ of that trumpet, which, indeed, has gone forth
into all lands, even as the Gospel of God which it proclaims in its
purity." (78.) The highest praise, however, is given the Augsburg
Confession by the Church which was born with it, when, _e.g._, in the
Formula of Concord, the Lutherans designate it as "the symbol of our
time," and glory in it as the Confession, which, though frowned upon and
assailed by its opponents, "down to this day has remained unrefuted and
unoverthrown (bis auf diesen Tag unwiderlegt und unumgestossen
geblieben)." (777, 4; 847, 3.)


IV. Melanchthon's Alterations of the Augsburg Confession.

30. Changes Unwarranted.

Melanchthon continued uninterruptedly to polish and correct the Augsburg
Confession till immediately before its presentation on June 25, 1530.
While, indeed he cannot be censured for doing this, it was though
originally not so intended by Melanchthon, an act of presumption to
continue to alter the document after it had been adopted, signed, and
publicly presented. Even the _editio princeps_ of 1531 is no longer in
literal agreement with the original manuscripts. For this reason the
German text embodied in the Book of Concord is not the one contained in
the _editio princeps,_ but that of the Mainz Manuscript, which, as
stated, was erroneously believed to be the identical German copy
presented to the Emperor. The Latin text of the _editio princeps,_
embodied in the Book of Concord, had likewise undergone some, though
unessential, changes. These alterations became much more extensive in
the Latin octavo edition of 1531 and in the German revision of 1533. The
Variata of 1540 and 1542, however, capped the climax as far as changes
are concerned, some of them being very questionable also doctrinally. In
their "Approbation" of the Concordia Germanico-Latina, edited by
Reineccius, 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 the
Augustana was the property and confession of the Church.

Tschackert is right when he comments as follows: "To-day it is regarded
as an almost incomprehensible trait of Melanchthon's character that
immediately after the Diet and all his lifetime he regarded the
Confession as a private production of his pen, and made changes in it as
often as he had it printed, while he, more so than others, could but
evaluate it as a state-paper of the Evangelical estates, which, having
been read and delivered in solemn session, represented an important
document of German history, both secular and ecclesiastical. In
extenuation it is said that Melanchthon made these changes in
pedagogical interests, namely, in order to clarify terms or to explain
them more definitely; furthermore, that for decades the Evangelical
estates and theologians did not take offense at Melanchthon's changes.
Both may be true. But this does not change the fact that the chief
editor of the Confession did not appreciate the world-historical
significance of this state-paper of the Evangelical estates." (_L.c._
288.) Nor can it be denied that Melanchthon made these changes, not
merely in pedagogical interests, but, at least a number of them, also
in the interest of his deviating dogmatic views and in deference to
Philip of Hesse, who favored a union with the Swiss. Nor can Melanchthon
be fully cleared of dissimulation in this matter. The revised Apology of
1540, for example, he openly designated on the titlepage as "diligently
revised, _diligenter recognita";_ but in the case of the Augsburg
Confession of 1540 and 1542 he in no way indicated that it was a changed
and 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 Reuss
Confession of 1567 contains the term "unaltered Augsburg Confession." In
its Epitome as well as in its Thorough Declaration the Formula of
Concord speaks of "the First Unaltered Augsburg Confession--_Augustana
illa prima et non mutata Confessio._" (777, 4; 851, 5.) The Preface to
the Formula of Concord repeatedly speaks of the Variata of 1540 as "the
other edition of the Augsburg Confession--_altera Augustanae
Confessionis 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 from
within and without. Church history records the manifold and sinister
ways in which they were exploited by the Reformed as well as the
<DW7>s; especially by the latter (the Jesuits) at the religious
colloquies beginning 1540, until far into the time of the Thirty Years'
War, in order to deprive the Lutherans of the blessings guaranteed by
the religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555. (Salig, _Gesch. d. A. K._, 1, 770
ff.; _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 and
slander that the Lutherans themselves did not know "which is the true
and genuine Augsburg Confession." (15.) Decrying the Lutherans, they
boldly declared "that not two preachers are found who agree in each and
every article of the Augsburg Confession, but that they are rent asunder
and separated from one another to such an extent that they themselves no
longer know what is the Augsburg Confession and its proper sense."
(1095.) In spite of the express declaration of the Lutherans at
Naumburg, 1561, that they were minded to abide by the original Augsburg
Confession as presented to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, 1530, the
<DW7>s and the Reformed did not cease their calumniations, but
continued to interpret their declarations to mean, "as though we [the
Lutherans] were so uncertain concerning our religion, and so often had
transfused it from one formula to another, that it was no longer clear
to us or our theologians what is the Confession once offered to the
Emperor at Augsburg." (11.)

As a result of the numerous and, in part radical changes made by
Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, the Reformed also, in the course
of time more and more, laid claim to the Variata and appealed to it over
against the loyal Lutherans. In particular, they regarded and
interpreted the alteration which Melanchthon had made in Article X, Of
the Lord's Supper, as a correction of the original Augustana in
deference to the views of Calvinism. Calvin declared that he (1539 at
Strassburg) had signed the Augustana "in the sense in which its author
[Melanchthon] explains it (_sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatur_)." And
whenever the Reformed, who were regarded as confessionally related to
the Augsburg Confession (_Confessioni Augustanae addicti_), and as such
shared in the blessings of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of
Westphalia (1648), adopted, and appealed to, the Augustana, they
interpreted it according to the Variata.

Referring to this abuse on the part of the Reformed and
Crypto-Calvinists, the Preface to the Book of Concord remarks: "To these
disadvantages [the slanders of the Romanists] there is also added that,
under the pretext of the Augsburg Confession [Variata of 1540], the
teaching conflicting with the institution of the Holy Supper of the body
and blood of Christ and also other corruptions were introduced here and
there into the churches and schools." (11. 17.)--Thus the changes made
in the Augsburg Confession did much harm to the Lutheran cause.
Melanchthon belongs to the class of men that have greatly benefited our
Church, but have also seriously harmed it. "These fictions" of the
adversaries, says the Preface to the Book of Concord concerning the
slanders based on Melanchthon's changes "have deterred and alienated
many good men from our churches, schools, doctrine, faith, and
confession." (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 that
most of the changes were intended merely as reenforcements of the
Lutheran position against the <DW7>s, and Melanchthon also declared
that he had made no changes in "the matter and substance or in the
sense," _i.e._, in the doctrine itself, the Lutherans at that time, as
the Preface to the Book of Concord shows, attached no further importance
to the matter. The freedom with which in those days formal alterations
were made even in public documents, and the guilelessness with which
such changes were received, appears, for example, from the translation
of the Apology by Justus Jonas. However, not all Lutherans even at that
time were able to view Melanchthon's changes without apprehension and
indifference. Among these was Elector John Frederick, who declared that
he considered the Augustana to be the confession of those who had signed
it, and not the private property of Melanchthon.

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

After Luther's death, however, when Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations
became apparent, and the Melanchthonians and the loyal Lutherans became
more and more opposed to one another, the Variata was rejected with
increasing determination by the latter as the party-symbol of the
Philippists. In 1560 Flacius asserted at Weimar that the Variata
differed essentially from the Augustana. In the Reuss-Schoenburg
Confession of 1567 the Variata was unqualifiedly condemned; for here we
read: We confess "the old, true, unaltered Augsburg Confession, which
later was changed, mutilated, misinterpreted, and falsified ... by the
Adiaphorists in many places both as regards the words and the substance
(_nach den Worten und sonst in den Haendeln_), which thus became a
buskin, _Bundschuh,_ pantoffle, and a Polish boot, fitting both legs
equally well [suiting Lutherans as well as Reformed] or a cloak and a
changeling (_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 the
cover and name of the Augsburg Confession, pretending to be likewise
confessors of the Augsburg Confession, for the sole purpose of enjoying
with us under its shadow, against rain and hail, the common peace of the
Empire, and selling, furthering, and spreading their errors under the
semblance of friends so much the more easily and safely." (Kolde,
_Einleitung,_ 30.) In a sermon delivered at Wittenberg, Jacob Andreae
also opposed the Variata very zealously.

Thus the conditions without as well as within the Lutheran Church were
such that a public declaration on the part of the genuine Lutherans as
to their attitude toward the alterations of Melanchthon, notably in the
Variata of 1540, became increasingly imperative. Especially the
continued slanders, intrigues, and threats of the <DW7>s necessitated
such a declaration. As early as 1555, when the Peace of Augsburg was
concluded, the Romanists attempted to limit its provisions to the
adherents of the Augustana of 1530. At the religious colloquy of Worms,
in 1557, the Jesuit Canisius, distinguishing between a pure and a
falsified Augustana, demanded that the adherents of the latter be
condemned, and excluded from the discussions.

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

As to the alterations themselves, the Latin text of the _editio
princeps_ of the Augsburg Confession of 1531 received the following
additions: sec. 3 in Article 13, sec. 8 in Article 18, and sec. 26 in
Article 26. Accordingly, these passages do not occur in the German text
of the Book of Concord. Originally sec. 2 in the conclusion of Article
21 read: "_Tota_ dissensio est de paucis quibusdam abusibus," and sec. 3
in Article 24: "Nam ad hoc _praecipue_ opus est ceremoniis, ut doceant
imperitos." The additions made to Articles 13 and 18 are also found in
the 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 by
George Rauh, according to the unanimous testimony of our theologians,
cannot be tolerated, "owing to the many additions and other changes
originating from Philip Melanchthon. For if one compares the 20th
Article of the Augsburg Confession as well as the last articles on the
Abuses: 'Of Monastic Vows' and 'Of Ecclesiastical Authority,' it will
readily be seen what great additions (_laciniae_) have been patched onto
this Wittenberg octavo edition of 1531. The same thing has also been
done with the Apology, especially in the article 'Of Justification and
Good Works,' where often entire successive pages may be found which do
not occur in the genuine copies. Furthermore, in the declaration
regarding the article 'Of the Lord's Supper,' where Paul's words, that
the bread is a communion of the body of Christ, etc., as well as the
testimony of Theophylact concerning the presence of the body of Christ
in the Supper have been omitted. Likewise in the defense of the articles
'Of Repentance,' 'Of Confession and Satisfaction,' 'Of Human
Traditions,' 'Of the Marriage of Priests,' and 'Of Ecclesiastical
Power,' where, again, entire pages have been added." (_L.c._ 8, 13; _C.
R._ 27, 437.) In the German edition of the Augsburg Confession of 1533
it was especially Articles 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 that were
remodeled. These alterations, however, involve no doctrinal changes,
with the possible exception of Article 5, where the words "where and
when He will" are expunged. (_C. R._ 26, 728.)

As to the Variata of 1540, however, the extent of the 21 doctrinal
articles was here almost doubled, and quite a number of material
alterations were made. Chief among the latter are the following: In
Article 5 the words, "ubi et quando visum est Deo," are omitted. In the
10th Article the rejection of the Reformed doctrine is deleted, and the
following is substituted for the article proper: "De coena Domini
docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi
vescentibus in Coena Domini." (_C. R._ 26, 357.) The following sentences
have also given offense: "Et cum hoc modo consolamur nos promissione seu
Evangelio et erigimus nos fide, certo consequimur remissionem
peccatorum, et _simul_ datur nobis Spiritus Sanctus." "Cum Evangelium
audimus aut cogitamus aut sacramenta tractamus et fide nos consolamur
_simul_ est efficax Spiritus Sanctus." (354.) For the words of the 18th
Article: "sed haec fit in cordibus, cum per Verbum Spiritus Sanctus
concipitur," the Variata substitutes: "Et Christus dicit: Sine me nihil
potestis facere. Efficitur autem spiritualis iustitia in nobis, cum
_audiuvamur_ a Spiritu Sancto. Porro Spiritum Sanctum concipimus, cum
Verbo Dei assentimur, ut nos fide in terroribus consolemur." (362.)
Toward the end of the same article we read: "Quamquam enim externa opera
aliquo modo potest efficere humana natura per sese, ... verum timorem,
veram fiduciam, patientiam, castitatem non potest efficere, nisi
Spiritus Sanctus gubernet et _adiuvet_ corda nostra." (363.) In the 19th
Article the phrase "non adiuvante Deo" is erased, which, by the way,
indicates that Melanchthon regarded these words as equivalent to those
of the German text: "so Gott die Hand abgetan," for else he would have
weakened the text against his own interests. (363.) To the 20th Article
Melanchthon added the sentence: "Debet autem ad haec dona [Dei] accedere
exercitatio nostra, quae et _conservat_ ea et meretur incrementum, iuxta
illud: Habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus praeclare dixit: Dilectio meretur
incrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur." (311.)

34. Alterations Render Confession Ambiguous.

True in making all these changes, Melanchthon did not introduce any
direct heresy into the Variata. He did, however, in the interest of his
irenic and unionistic policy and dogmatic vacillations, render ambiguous
and weaken the clear sense of the Augustana. By his changes he opened
the door and cleared the way, as it were, for his deviations in the
direction of Synergism, Calvinism (Lord's Supper), and Romanism (good
works are necessary to salvation). Nor was Melanchthon a man who did
not know what he was doing when he made alterations. Whenever he
weakened and trimmed the doctrines he had once confessed, whether in his
_Loci_ or in the Augustana, he did so in order to satisfy definite
interests of his own, interests self-evidently not subservient to, but
conflicting with, the clear expression and bold confession of the old
Lutheran truth.

Kolde, referring in particular to the changes made in the 10th Article,
says: "It should never have been denied that these alterations involved
real changes. The motives which actuated Melanchthon cannot be
definitely ascertained, neither from his own expressions nor from
contemporary remarks of his circle of acquaintances" [As late as 1575
Selneccer reports that Philip of Hesse had asked Melanchthon to erase
the _improbatio_ of the 10th Article, because then also the Swiss would
accept the Augustana as their confession]. "A comparison with the
Wittenberg Concord of May, 1536 (_cum pane et vino vere et
substantialiter adesse_--that the body and blood [of Christ] are really
and substantially present with the bread and wine, _C. R._ 3, 75)
justifies the assumption that by using the form: _cum pane et vino vere
exhibeantur,_ he endeavored to take into account the existing agreement
with 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 of
the Lord's Supper, be doubted that he sought to leave open for himself
and others the possibility of associating also with the Swiss." (25.)

An adequate answer to the question what prompted Melanchthon to make his
alterations will embrace also the following points: 1. Melanchthon's
mania for changing and remodeling in general. 2. His desire, especially
after the breach between the Lutherans and the <DW7>s seemed incurable,
to meet and satisfy the criticism that the Augustana was too mild, and
to reenforce the Lutheran position over against the <DW7>s. 3.
Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations, especially in Reformed and
synergistic directions.

35. Variata Disowned by Lutheran Church.

It cannot be denied that during Luther's life and for quite a time after
his death the Variata was used by Lutherans without any public
opposition and recognized as the Augsburg Confession. Martin Chemnitz,
in his "Iudicum de Controversiis quibusdam circa quosdam Augustanae
Confessionis Articulos--Decision concerning Certain Controversies about
Some Articles of the Augsburg Confession," printed 1597, says that the
edition of 1540 was employed at the religious colloquies with the
previous knowledge and approval of Luther; in fact, that it was drawn up
especially for the Colloquy at Hagenau, which the opponents (Cochlaeus
at Worms, Pighius at Regensburg) had taken amiss. "Graviter tulerant,"
says Chemnitz, "multis articulis pleniori declaratione plusculum lucis
accessisse, unde videbant veras sententias magis illustrari et Thaidis
Babyloniae turpitudinem manifestius denudare--They took it amiss that
more light had been shed on many articles by a fuller explanation,
whence they perceived the true statements to be more fully illustrated
and 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 Lutheran
princes, the Variata was employed without any sinister intentions
whatever, and without the slightest thought of deviating even in the
least from the doctrine of the original Augustana, as has been falsely
asserted by Heppe, Weber, and others. Wherever the Variata was adopted
by Lutheran princes and theologians, it was never for the purpose of
weakening the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in any point.
Moreover, the sole reason always was to accentuate and present more
clearly the contrast between themselves and the <DW7>s; and, generally
speaking, the Variata did serve this purpose. True, Melanchthon at the
same time, no doubt planned to prepare the way for his doctrinal
innovations; but wherever such was the case he kept it strictly to
himself.

The complete guilelessness and good faith in which the Lutheran princes
and theologians employed the Variata, and permitted its use appears
from the Preface to the Book of Concord. For here they state: "Therefore
we 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 or
to approve, as agreeing with the Gospel-doctrine, false and godless
doctrines and opinions which may be concealed under certain coverings of
words [in the Variata]. We, indeed, never received the latter edition
[of 1540] in a sense differing in any part from the former which was
presented [at Augsburg]. Neither do we judge that other useful writings
of Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Regius, Pomeranus, etc.,
should be rejected and condemned, as far as in all things, they agree
with the norm which has been set forth in the Book of Concord." (17.)

Accordingly, when the Variata was boldly exploited by the Romanists to
circulate all manner of slanders about the Lutherans; when it also
became increasingly evident that the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists
employed the Variata as a cover for their false doctrine of the Lord's
Supper; when, furthermore within the Lutheran Church the suspicion
gradually grew into conviction that Melanchthon, by his alterations had
indeed intended to foist doctrinal deviations upon the Lutheran Church;
and when, finally, a close scrutiny of the Variata had unmistakably
revealed the fact that it actually did deviate from the original
document not only in extent, but also with regard to intent, not merely
formally, but materially as well,--all loyal Lutheran princes and
theologians regarded it as self-evident that they unanimously and
solemnly declare their exclusive adherence to the Augsburg Confession
as presented to Emperor Charles at Augsburg, and abandon the Variata
without delay. At Naumburg, in 1561, the Lutheran princes therefore,
after some vacillation, declared that they would adhere to the original
Augsburg 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 Heidelberg
Catechism, thus revealing the spuriousness of his own Lutheranism.

It was due especially to the Crypto-Calvinists in Electoral Saxony and
to the _Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum_ that the Variata retained a
temporary and local authority, until it was finally and generally
disowned by the Lutheran Church and excluded from its symbols by the
adoption of the Formula of Concord. For here our Church pledges
adherence to "the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the
Emperor 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 the
princes and estates declare: "Accordingly, in order that no persons may
permit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our adversaries spun
out of their own minds, by which they boast that not even we are certain
which is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both those
who are now among the living and posterity may be clearly and firmly
taught and informed what that godly Confession is which we and the
churches and schools of our realms at all times professed and embraced,
we emphatically testify that next to the pure and immutable truth of
God's Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone which
was presented to the Emperor Charles V, in the year 1530, at the famous
Diet of Augsburg, this alone (we say), and no other." (15.) At the same
time the princes furthermore protest that also the adoption of the
Formula of Concord did not make any change in this respect. For
doctrinally the Formula of Concord was not, nor was it intended to be, a
"new or different confession," _i.e._, different from the one presented
to 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 disturbed
religious peace, the Lutherans were the first to take a step towards
reconciliation by delivering their Confession, June 25, 1530. In
accordance with the manifesto of Emperor Charles, they now expected that
the papal party would also present its view and opinion, in order that
the discussions might thereupon proceed in love and kindness, as the
Emperor put it. In the Preface to their Confession the Lutherans
declared: "In obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in
this matter of religion the Confession of our preachers and of
ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and
the 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 the
other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, according to
the said imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in
Latin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of religion, we,
with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial
Majesty, our most clement Lord, are prepared to confer amicably
concerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come
together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between
us on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife,
the dissension, by God's help, may be done away and brought back to one
true accordant religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do
battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor of
Your Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought to be conducted
according to the truth of God; and this is what, with most fervent
prayers, we entreat of God." (39, 8.)

The Lutherans did not believe that the manifesto of the Emperor could be
construed in any other way than that both parties would be treated as
equals at the Diet. Not merely as a matter of good policy, but _bona
fide,_ as honest Germans and true Christians, they clung tenaciously to
the words of the Emperor, according to which the Romanists, too, were to
be regarded as a party summoned for the trial, the Emperor being the
judge. The Lutherans simply refused to take the word of the Emperor at
anything less than par, or to doubt his good will and the sincerity of
his promise. The fact that from the very beginning his actions were in
apparent contravention of the manifesto was attributed by the Lutherans
to the sinister influence of such bitter, baiting, and unscrupulous
theologians as Eck, Cochlaeus, and Faber, who, they claimed, endeavored
to poison and incite the guileless heart of the Emperor. Thus the
Lutherans would not and could not believe that Charles had deceived
them,--a simple trust, which, however, stubborn facts finally compelled
them to abandon.

The Romanists, on the other hand, boasting before the Emperor that they
had remained with the true Christian faith, the holy Gospel, the
Catholic Church, the bull of the Pope, and the Edict of Worms, refused
with equal tenacity to be treated as a party summoned for trial. June
25, 1530, Elector John wrote to Luther: "Thus we and the other princes
and estates who are related to us in this matter had to consent to
submit our opinion and confession of faith. Our opponents, however, as
we are told, declined to present theirs and decided to show to the
Emperor that they adhered to the Edict [of Worms] and to the faith which
their fathers had bequeathed to and bestowed upon them, and which they
intended to adhere to even now; if, however the Pope or, in his place,
the Legate, together with His Imperial Majesty, would point out, and
expect them to adopt, a different and new faith, they would humbly hear
the 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 Christian
faith, the Romanists declared a presentation of their views unnecessary.
The Lutherans, they maintained, were convicted apostates and rebels
against Pope and Church, against Emperor and realm; sentence was not
first to be pronounced upon them, but had been pronounced long ago, the
Diet's duty merely being to confirm and execute it; hence, there was
nothing else to be done by the Emperor than to attend to his office as
warden and protector of the Church, and, together with the princes and
estates, to proceed against the heretics with drastic measures. Also in
the later discussions, conducted with a view of effecting a
reconciliation, the Romanists refused to relinquish this position. From
beginning to end they acted as the accusers, judges, and henchmen of the
Lutherans. Nor was anything else to be expected, since, unlike the
Lutherans, they considered not God's Word, but the Pope the supreme
arbiter in religious matters. Thus from the very outset, the gulf
between the two parties was such that it could not be bridged. Common
ground was lacking. On the one side conscience, bound by the Word of
God! On the other, blind subjection to human, papal authority! Also
Romanists realized that this fundamental and irreconcilable difference
was bound to render futile all discussions. It was not merely his own
disgust which the papal historian expressed when he concluded his report
on the prolonged discussions at Augsburg: "Thus the time was wasted with
vain discussions." (Plitt, _Apologie,_ 43.)

37. Further Success Not Hoped for by Luther.

Luther regarded the public reading of the Confession as an unparalleled
triumph of his cause. Further results, such as a union with the
Romanists, he did not expect. On July 9, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: _"Quid
sperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso?_ What can I hope of
the Emperor, even the best, when he is obsessed" [by the papal
theologians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political toleration.
In the letter quoted he continues: "But they [the <DW7>s] must expect a
sad, and we a happy issue. Not indeed, that there ever will be unity of
doctrine; for who can hope that Belial will be united with Christ?
Excepting that perhaps marriage [of priests] and the two kinds [of the
Sacrament] be permitted (here too however, this adverb 'perhaps' is
required, and perhaps too much 'perhaps'). But this I wish and earnestly
hope for, that, the difference in doctrine being set aside, a political
union may be made. If by the blessing of Christ this takes place, enough
and more than enough has been done and accomplished at this Diet. ...
Now, if we obtain also the third thing, that we adjourn with worldly
peace 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 that
these frogs [the papal theologians who wrote the Confutation] with their
croakings [_coaxitatibus_ = pasquinades against Luther, instead of
answers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor] chagrins me
very much in this great work in the most important matters. ... But this
happens to prove that I am a true prophet; for I have always said that we
work and hope in vain for a union in doctrine; it would be enough if we
could obtain worldly peace." (16, 927. 2324.) August 25, when the
prolonged discussions of reconciliation were nearing their end, he wrote
to Melanchthon: "In sum, it does not please me at all that unity of
doctrine is to be discussed, since this is utterly impossible, unless
the Pope would abolish his entire popery. It would have sufficed if we
had presented to them the reasons for our faith and desired peace. But
how can we hope that we shall win them over to accept the truth? We have
come to hear whether they approve our doctrine or not, permitting them
to remain what they are, only inquiring whether they acknowledge our
doctrine to be correct or condemn it. If they condemn it, what does it
avail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies?
If they acknowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of retaining
the 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 any
way. For this reason he also insisted that the Emperor should not be
recognized as judge and arbiter without qualification, but only with the
proviso that his decision would not conflict with the clear Word of God.
According to Luther, everybody, Pope and Emperor included, must submit
to the authority of the Scriptures. In a letter of July 9, 1530 he wrote
to the Elector: "In the first place; Should His Imperial Majesty desire
that the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, since it
was not His Majesty's purpose to enter into lengthy discussions, I think
Your Electoral Grace might answer that His Imperial Majesty's manifesto
promises that he would graciously listen to these matters. If such was
not intended, the manifesto would have been needless, for His Imperial
Majesty might have rendered his decision just as well in Spain without
summoning Your Electoral Grace to Augsburg at such great labor and
expense. ... In the second place: Should His Imperial Majesty insist
that the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters Your
Electoral Grace may cheerfully answer Yes, the Imperial Majesty shall
decide these matters, and Your Electoral Grace would accept and suffer
everything, provided only that His Imperial Majesty make no decision
against the clear Scriptures, or God's Word. For Your Electoral Grace
cannot put the Emperor above God, nor accept his verdict in opposition
to God's Word." (16, 815.)

38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor.

By their obstinate refusal to regard themselves as a party summoned, the
Romanists from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor to
maintain the role of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had never
really intended to be. At any rate, though earnestly desirous of
religious peace, his actions throughout the Diet do not reveal a single
serious effort at redeeming his promise and putting his beautiful words
into practise. Being bound to the Pope and the papal party both
religiously and politically, Charles did not require of the Romanists a
fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them by his manifesto. All
the concessions were to be made by the Lutherans. _Revoca!_--that was
the first and only word which Rome had hitherto spoken to Luther.
"Revoke and submit yourselves!"--that, in the last analysis, was also
the demand of the Emperor at Augsburg with respect to the Lutheran
princes, both when he spoke in tones friendly and gentle and when he
uttered severe and threatening words. Charles, it is true, desired
peace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by universal blind submission
to the Pope; not a peace by mutual understanding and concessions; least
of all a peace by political religious tolerance, such as Luther desired,
and which in our days is generally regarded as the outstanding feature
of modern civilization, notably of Americanism. To force the Lutherans
into submission and obedience to the Pope, that was the real object of
the Emperor. And the political situation demanded that this be
accomplished by peaceable and gentle means--if possible.

Self-evidently, in his endeavors to establish a Papal Peace, the
Emperor, who was haunted and tormented by the fear that all efforts
might prove futile, was zealously seconded, encouraged, and prodded on
by the papal theologians. To bring about a religious peace, such as the
Emperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be an
ever-memorable achievement, truly worthy of the Emperor: for the eyes of
all Christendom were upon him, and he had staked his honor upon the
success of this glorious undertaking. June 3 the Father Confessor of the
Emperor, Garsia, then at Rome, wrote to Charles: "At present there is
nothing so important in this life as that Your Majesty emerge victorious
in the German affair. In Italy you will be accounted the best prince on
earth if God should vouchsafe this grace unto us that the heresies which
have arisen in that nation be cured by your hand." (Plitt, 4.) June 6
Garsia 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 been
read at to-day's Consistorial Meeting, almost all the cardinals said
that Your Majesty was the angel sent from heaven to restore Christendom.
God knows how much I rejoiced, and although the sun burned fiercely when
I returned to my home, how patiently I bore it! I was not sensitive to
it from sheer joy at hearing such sweet words about my master from those
who a year ago had maligned him. My chief comfort, however, was to
behold that they were right; for it seems as if God were performing
miracles by Your Majesty, and to judge by the beginning you have made in
curing this ailment, it is evident that we may expect the issue to prove
far more favorable than our sins merit." (II. 67.)

39. Compulsion Advocated by Theologians.

All Romanists, the Emperor included, were of the opinion that the
Protestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they differed
somewhat as to the means of accomplishing this purpose. Some demanded
that force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled that
leniency be tried first. Campegius advised kindness at the beginning,
and greater severity only in dealing with certain individuals, but that
sharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At Rome
force 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 no
other or better means than by presents and flattery to persuade those
who 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 common
people, first of all publish your imperial edicts and Christian
admonitions. If they will not obey these, then the true rhubarb to cure
them is force. This alone cured Spain's rebellion against its king. And
force is what will also cure Germany's unfaithfulness to God, unless,
indeed, divine grace should not attend Your Majesty in the usual
measure. God would learn in this matter whether you are a faithful son
of His, and should He so find, then I promise you that among all
creatures you will find no power sufficiently strong to resist you. All
will but serve the purpose of enabling you to obtain the crown of this
world." (42.)

Among the open advocates of force were Cochlaeus, Eck, Faber, and the
theologians and monks who flocked to Augsburg in large numbers about the
time the Augsburg Confession was read. They all considered it their
prime duty to rouse the passions of the Emperor, as well as of the
Catholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the Lutherans.
Their enmity was primarily directed against the Augustana, whose
objective and moderate tone had gained many friends even among the
Catholics, and which had indirectly branded Eck and his compeers as
detractors and calumniators. For had not Duke William of Bavaria, after
the reading of the Confession, rebuked Eck, in the presence of the
Elector of Saxony, for having misrepresented the Lutheran doctrine to
him? The moderation of the Augustana, said these Romanists, was nothing
but the cunning of serpents, deception and misrepresentation, especially
on the part of the wily Melanchthon, for the true Luther was portrayed
in the 404 theses of Eck. Cochlaeus wrote that the Lutherans were slyly
hiding their ungodly doctrines in order to deceive the Emperor: "astute
occultari in illorum Confessione prava eorum dogmata, de quibus ibi
tacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypocrisi loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisque
principibus imponerent." (Laemmer, _Vortridentinische Theologie,_ 39.)
Thus the malice and fanaticism of the papal theologians and the monks
rose in proportion as friendliness was shown the Lutherans by Catholic
princes and the Emperor. They feared that every approach toward the
Lutherans would jeopardize the _pax Pontificia._

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

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

Naturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled the
employment of compulsory measures; indeed, he could not await the hour
when the order would be given to proceed against the heretics with fire
and sword. He lamented, in bitter terms, the fact that the Emperor had
not made use of stern measures as soon as he arrived in Germany. For
now, said he, procrastination and the conciliatory demeanor of the
Evangelicals, especially of Melanchthon and Brueck, had made it
impossible to rouse the Emperor to such a degree as the exigency of the
case demanded. (Plitt, 63.) Luther wrote: "For that shameless gab and
bloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief advisers, publicly
declared in the presence of our people that if the Emperor had followed
the resolution made at Bononia, and, immediately on entering Germany,
had courageously attacked the Lutherans with the sword, and beheaded one
after another, the matter would have been easily settled. But all this
was prevented when he permitted the Elector of Saxony to speak and be
heard through his chancellor." (St. L. 16, 1636.)

40. Emperor Employs Mildness.

While a number of the Catholic estates, incited by the theologians, were
also in favor of immediately resorting to brutal force, the Emperor, for
political reasons, considered it more advisable to employ kindness.
Lauding the extreme affability and leniency of Charles, Melanchthon
wrote 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 a
most cruel hatred against us. _Caesar satis benigne salutat nostrum
principem; ac velim vicissim nostros erga ipsum officiosiores esse. Ea
de re utinam iuniorem principem nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipso
Caesare mitius habet ipsius aula. Reliquii omnes crudelissime nos
oderunt_." (_C. R._ 2, 125.)

The reading of the Augustana strengthened this friendly attitude of
Charles. Both its content and its conciliatory tone, which was not at
all in harmony with the picture of the Lutherans as sketched by Eck,
caused him to be more kindly disposed toward Protestantism, and
nourished his hope that religious peace might be attained by peaceable
means. Other Catholic dignitaries and princes had been impressed in the
same manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: "Many bishops are inclined
to peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop [Stadion of
Augsburg] is said to have declared in a private conversation, 'This [the
Confession of the Lutherans] is the pure truth, we cannot deny it,' The
Bishop of Mainz is being praised very much for his endeavors in the
interest of peace. Likewise Duke Henry of Brunswick who extended a
friendly invitation to Philip to dine with him, and admitted that he was
not able to disprove the articles treating of both kinds, the marriage
of priests, and the distinction of meats. Our men boast that, of the
entire Diet, no one is milder than the Emperor himself. Such is the
beginning. The Emperor treats our Elector not only graciously, but most
respectfully. So Philip writes. It is remarkable how all are aglow with
love 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 this
last Emperor [Charles at Augsburg] will be very friendly. Only let us
pray; 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 his
theologians, he did not perceive and realize the impassable gulf fixed
between Lutheranism and the Papacy, as appeared also from the Augustana,
in which, however, the Emperor mistook moderation of tone for surrender
of substance.

41. Augustana Submitted to Catholic Party.

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

The Romanists furthermore resolved that the Lutherans be asked whether
they had any additional points to present, and, if so, to do this
immediately. The Lutherans, considering this a snare, declared, on July
10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point to present
the chief articles which it is necessary to believe in order to be
saved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to emphasize such
only as burdened the consciences, lest the paramount questions be
obscured; that they would let this [all that was enumerated in their
Confession] suffice, and have included other points of doctrine and
abuses which were not mentioned, that they would not fail to give an
answer from the Word of God in case their opponents should attack the
Confession or present anything new. (Foerstemann, 2, 16. _C. R._ 2,
181.) No doubt, the <DW7>s felt that the Lutherans really should have
testified directly also against the Papacy, etc. This, too, was the
interpretation which Luther put on the inquiry of the Romanists. July
21, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: But now I see what the questions aimed at
whether you had other articles to present. For Satan still lives and has
noticed very well that your Apology [Augustana] steps softly and has
passed by the articles concerning purgatory, the adoration of the
saints, and especially Antichrist, the Pope. (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders,
8, 133.)

July 5 the Emperor accepted the opinion of the estates and appointed the
confutators. At the same time he declared with reference to the
Lutherans that he was the judge of the content of their writing
(Augustana); that, in case they should not be satisfied with his
verdict, the final decision must remain with the Council, but that
meanwhile the Edict of Worms would be enforced everywhere. (Laemmer, 34;
_C. R._ 2, 175.) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indicated that
the Roman Confutation would bring his own final verdict, which no
further discussions could modify, and that he would compel the Lutherans
by force to observe the Edict of Worms if they refused to submit
willingly. The Catholic estates endorsed the Emperor's declaration, but
added the petition that, after the Confutation had been read, the
Lutherans be asked in all kindness to return and that, in case this
remained fruitless, an attempt be made to bring about an agreement to be
reached by a committee appointed by both parties. Evidently, the estates
as well as the Emperor expected the Lutherans to yield and surrender.
Still, for the present, they were willing and preferred to attain this
end by mild and gentle means.

42. Rabid Theologians Appointed as Confutators.

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

Among the Confutators (Brueck mentions 19, Spalatin 20, others 22, still
others 24), selected by Campegius and appointed by the Emperor, were
such rabid abusive and inveterate enemies of Luther as Eck, Faber,
Cochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slanderous tract against Luther's
marriage), Dietenberger etc. The first three are repeatedly designated
as the true authors of the Confutation. In his _Replica ad Bucerum,_ Eck
boasts: "Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen unanimously to
prepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I obeyed. _Augustae ab
omnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui responsum pararem contra
confessionem Saxonicam, et parui._" (Koellner, 407.) July 10 Brenz wrote
to Myconius: "Their leader (_antesignanus_) is that good man Eck. The
rest are 23 in number. One might call them an Iliad [Homer's Iliad
consists 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 the
nonsensical books of Faber." (253.) August 8, to Myconius: "Eck and
Faber have worked for six entire weeks in producing the Confutation of
our Confession." (260.) Hence also such allusions in Melanchthon's
letters as "confutatio Fabrilis," "Fabriliter scripta," and in the
Apology: "Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam hae
ineptiae excogitatae sunt ad eludendum ius naturae." (366, 10.) Brueck
was right when he said that some of the Confutators were "purely
partial, and altogether suspicious characters." (Koellner, 411.)

43. Confutation Prepared.

The resolution which the Catholic estates passed June 27 was to the
effect that the imperial answer to the Lutheran Confession be made "by
sober and not spiteful men of learning." The Emperor's Prolog to the
Confutation, accordingly, designated the confutators as "certain
learned, valiant, sensible, sober, and honorable men of many nations."
(_C. R._ 27, 189.) At the same time they were told to couch their answer
in winning, convincing, moderate, and earnest terms. The imperial
instruction read: "To this end it is indeed good and needful that said
document [the Augustana] be carefully considered and diligently studied
by learned, wise, and sober persons, in order that they [the Lutherans]
be shown in all kindness (_durch gute Wege_) where they err, and be
admonished to return to the good way, likewise, to grant them whatsoever
may be serviceable and adapted to our holy Christian faith; and to set
forth the errors, moderately and politely, with such good and holy
arguments as the matter calls for, to defend and prove everything with
suitable evangelical declarations and admonitions, proceeding from
Christian and neighborly love; and at the same time to mingle therewith
earnestness and severity with such moderation as may be likely to win
the five electors and princes, and not to destroy their hope or to
harden them still more." (Koellner, 403)

However, inspired by Campegius and goaded on by blind hatred, the
Confutators employed their commission for the purpose of casting
suspicion on the Lutherans and inciting the Emperor against them. They
disregarded the imperial admonition for moderation, and instead of an
objective answer to the Augustana, they produced a long-winded
pasquinade against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit companion
piece to the 404 theses of Eck--a general accusation against the
Protestants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quotations from Luther,
Melanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The insinuation lurking in
the document everywhere was that the Confession of the Lutheran princes
was in glaring contradiction to the real doctrine of their pastors. The
sinister scheme of the Romanists, as the Elector in 1536 reminded the
Lutheran theologians, was to bring the princes in opposition to their
preachers. (_C. R._ 3, 148.) The mildness and moderation of the
Augustana, they openly declared, was nothing but subtle cunning of the
smooth and wily Melanchthon, who sought to hide the true state of
affairs. In a book which Cochlaeus published against the Apology in 1534
he said that the open attacks of Luther were far more tolerable than the
serpentine cunning and hypocrisy of Melanchthon (_instar draconis
insidiantis fraudes intendens_), as manifested in particular by his
demeanor toward Campegius at Augsburg in 1530. (Laemmer, 56; Salig, 1,
376.) Thus the Roman Confutators disregarded their commission to refute
the Augustana, and substituted a caricature of Luther and his doctrines
designed to irritate the Emperor.

44. A Bulky, Scurrilous Document.

The Confutation, compiled by Eck and Faber from various contributions of
the Confutators, was ready by the 8th of July, and was presented to the
Emperor on the 12th or 13th. The German translation was prepared by the
Bavarian Chancellor, Leonhard von Eck. July 10 Brenz had written: "It is
reported that they are preparing wagonloads of commentaries against our
Confession." (_C. R._ 2, 180.) Spalatin reports that the Confutators
delivered to the Emperor "a pile of books against Doctor Martin with
most scurrilous titles." The chief document was entitled: "Catholic and,
as it were, Extemporaneous Response concerning Certain Articles
Presented in These Days at the Diet to the Imperial Majesty by the
Illustrious Elector of Saxony and Certain Other Princes as well as Two
Cities. _Catholica et quasi extemporanea Responsio super nonnullis
articulis Caesareae Maiestati hisce diebus in dieta imperiali Augustensi
per Illustrem Electorem Saxoniae et alios quosdam Principes et duas
Civitates oblatis._" It was supplemented by nine other treatises on all
manner of alleged contradictions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptistic
as 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 also
designates it as "very severe and extended, _acrior extensiorque._" July
14 Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutation
was "long and filled with scurrilities." (193. 218.) July 15: "I am
sending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents have
presented to the Emperor, from which you will see that the Confutation
is supplemented by antilogs and other treatises in order to stir up
against us the most gentle heart of the Emperor. Such are the stratagems
these slanderers (_sycophantae_) devise." (197.)

The effect of the Confutation on the Emperor, however, was not at all
what its authors desired and anticipated. Disgusted with the miserable
bulky botch, the Emperor convened the estates on July 15, and they
resolved to return the bungling document to the theologians for
revision. Tone, method, plan, everything displeased the Emperor and
estates to such an extent that they expunged almost one-third of it.
Intentionally they ignored the nine supplements and demanded that
reflections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely;
moreover, that the theologians confine themselves to a refutation of the
Augustana. (Laemmer, 39.) Cochlaeus writes: "Since the Catholic princes
all desired peace and concord, they deemed it necessary to answer in a
milder tone, and to omit all reference to what the [Lutheran] preachers
had formerly taught and written otherwise than their Confession stated."
(Koellner, 406.) In a letter to Brueck he declared that such coarse
extracts and articles [with which the first draft of the Confutation
charged 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 280
folios. But His Imperial Majesty is said to have weeded out many folios
and condensed the Confutation to such an extent that not more than
twelve folios remained. This is said to have hurt and angered Eck
severely." (St. L. 21a, 1539.) In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated July
30, Melanchthon remarks sarcastically: "Recently Eck complained to one
of his friends that the Emperor had deleted almost the third part of his
treatise, and I suspect that the chief ornaments of the book were rooted
out, that is, the glaring lies and the most stupid tricks, _insignia
mendacia et sycophantiae stolidissimae._" (_C. R._ 2, 241.) Brenz
regarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the Augustana had
perturbed the opponents, leaving them utterly helpless. July 15 he wrote
to Isemann: "Meanwhile nothing new has taken place in our midst, except
that I heard that the confession of the sophists was to-day returned by
the Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this for the reason that
it was so confused, jumbled, vehement, bloodthirsty, and cruel
(_confusa, incordita, violenta, sanguinolenta et crudelis_) that he was
ashamed to have it read before the Imperial Senate.... We experience
daily that we have so bewildered, stunned, and confused them that they
know not where to begin or to end." (198.) "Pussyfooting
(_Leisetreten_)!"--such was the slogan at Augsburg; and in this
Melanchthon was nowhere equaled. Privately also Cochlaeus elaborated a
milder answer to the Lutheran Confession. But even the friends who had
induced him to undertake this task considered his effort too harsh to be
presented to the Emperor.

The first, rejected draft of the Confutation has been lost, with the
sole exception of the second article, preserved by Cochlaeus. On the
difference between this draft and the one finally adopted, Plitt
comments as follows: "The Confutation as read simply adopted the first
article of the Confession [Augustana] as in complete agreement with the
Roman Church. The original draft also approved this article's appeal to
the Council of Nicaea, but added that now the Emperor should admonish
the confessing estates to accept everything else taught by the Catholic
Church, even though it was not verbally contained in the Scriptures, as,
for example, the Mass, Quadragesimal fasting, the invocation of the
saints, etc.; for the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity could be
found in the Scriptures just as little as that of the points mentioned,
furthermore, that he also call upon them to acknowledge said Synod of
Nicaea in all its parts, hence also to retain the hierarchical degrees
with their powers; that he admonish them to compel their preachers and
teachers to retract everything which they had said and written against
that Synod, especially Luther and Melanchthon, its public defamers.
Refusal of such retraction would invalidate their appeal to that Synod
and prove it to be nothing but a means of deception. Finally they were
to be admonished not to believe their teachers in anything which was
against the declarations of the Church catholic. Such was the form in
which the first draft of the Confutation was couched. Everywhere the
tendency was apparent to magnify the differences, make invidious
inferences, cast suspicion on their opponents, and place them in a bad
light with the Emperor and the majority. This was not the case in the
answer which was finally read." (37.)

45. Confutation Adopted and Read.

Only after repeated revisions in which Campegius and the imperial
counselors Valdes and Granvella took part was an agreement reached
regarding the form of the Confutation. July 30 the Emperor received the
fourth revision and on August 1 he presented it to the bishops, princes,
and estates for their opinion. There still remained offensive passages
which had to be eliminated. A fifth revision was necessary before the
approval of the Emperor and the estates was forthcoming. A Prolog and an
Epilog were added according to which the Confutation is drawn up in the
name of the Emperor. Thus the original volume was boiled down to a
comparatively small document. But to speak with Kolde, even in its final
form the Confutation is "still rather an accusation against the
Evangelicals, and an effort to retain all the medieval church customs
than a refutation of the Augustana." (34.) August 6 Jonas wrote to
Luther: "The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen Maria informed us that they
had five times changed their Confutation, casting and recasting, minting
and reminting it, and still there finally was produced nothing but an
uncouth and confused conglomeration and a hodgepodge, as when a cook
pours different soups into one pot. At first they patched together an
enormous volume, as Faber is known to be a verbose compiler; the book
grew 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 had
been submitted thirty-eight days before, in the presence of all the
estates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio,
immediately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Protestants, was read in
the German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary.
However, the reading, too, proved to be a discreditable affair. Owing to
the great haste in which the German copy had been prepared, an entire
portion had been omitted; the result was that the conclusion of Article
24 as well as Articles 25 and 26 were not presented. Furthermore,
Schweiss, overlooking the lines of erasure, read a part which had been
stricken, containing a very bold deliverance on the sacrifice of the
Mass, in which they labored to prove from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
that the word _facite_ in the institution of the Sacrament was
synonymous with "sacrifice." (Kolde, 34.) August 6, 1530, Jonas wrote to
Luther: The opponents presented their Confutation to the Emperor on July
30, and on the 3d of August it was read in the presence of the Emperor
and the estates, together with a Prolog and an Epilog of the Emperor.
"The reading also consumed two entire hours, but with an incredible
aversion, weariness, and disgust on the part of some of the more
sensible hearers, who complained that they were almost driven out by
this utterly cold, threadbare songlet (_cantilena_), being extremely
chagrined that the ears of the Emperor should be molested with such a
lengthy array of worthless things masquerading under the name of
Catholic doctrines." (St. L. 21a, 1539.) August 4 Brenz wrote to
Isemann: "The Emperor maintains neutrality; for he slept both when the
Augustana and when the Confutation was read. _Imperator neutralem sese
gerit; nam cum nostra confessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cum
adversariorum responsio legeretur, iterum obdormivit in media negotii
actione_." (_C. R._ 2, 245.)

The Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered to
the Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Emperor and the
estates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlaeus reports that
toward the close of the Diet Charles authorized him and Eck to publish
it, but that this was not done, because Duke George and the Emperor left
Augsburg shortly after, and the printer also moved away. (Koellner,
414.) All subsequent pleading and imploring, however, on the part of Eck
and others, to induce the Emperor to publish the Confutation fell on
deaf ears. Evidently Charles no longer took any interest in a document
that had so shamefully shattered his fond ambition of reconciling the
religious parties. What appeared in print, early in 1531, was merely an
extract prepared by Cochlaeus, entitled, _Summary of the Imperial
Answer,_ etc. The first Latin edition of the Confutation appeared as
late as 1573; the first German edition, in 1808. All previous German
impressions (also the edition of 1584) are translations of the Latin
edition of 1573. (_C. R._ 27, 25. 82.) Concerning the German text of the
Confutation Kolde remarks: "Since changes were made even after it had
been read, we have even less definite knowledge, respecting details, as
to what was read than in the case of the Augustana." (35.) One may
therefore also speak of a Confutatio Variata. The doctrine of the
Confutation does not differ essentially from that which was later on
affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). However, says Kolde,
"being written by the German leaders of the Catholic party under the eye
of the Papal Legate, and approved by the Emperor, the German bishops,
and the Roman-minded princes, it [the Confutation] must be reckoned
among the historically most important documents of the Roman Catholic
faith 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, with
few exceptions, personal defamations were omitted. The arrangement of
subjects was essentially the same as in the Augustana. Still it was not
what it pretended to be. It was no serious attempt at refuting the
Lutheran Confession, but rather an accumulation of Bible-texts,
arbitrarily expounded, in support of false doctrines and scholastic
theories. These efforts led to exegetical feats that made the
Confutators butts of scorn and derision. At any rate, the Lutherans
were charged with having failed, at the public reading, to control their
risibilities sufficiently. Cochlaeus complains: "During the reading many
of the Lutherans indulged in unseemly laughter. _Quando recitata fuit,
multi e Lutheranis inepte cachinnabantur._" (Koellner, 411.) If this did
not actually occur, it was not because the Confutators had given them no
cause for hilarity.

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

August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: "All things were written in the fashion
of Cochlaeus, Faber, and Eck. Truly a most stupid comment, so that I am
ashamed of the Roman name, because in their whole Church they can find
no men able to answer us heretics at least in a manner wise and
accomplished. _Sed omnia conscripta erant Cochleice et Fabriliter et
Eccianice. Commentum sane stupidissimum, ut pudeat me Romani nominis,
quod in sua religione non conquirant viros, qui saltem prudenter et
ornate nobis haereticis responderent._" (245.) August 15 Luther
answered: "We received all of your letters, and I praise God that he
made 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 <DW7>s 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 of
the Romanists, of a guilty conscience and of being ashamed themselves of
the document. In his _Warning to My Beloved Germans,_ which appeared
early in 1531, Luther wrote as follows: "But I am quite ready to believe
that extraordinary wisdom prompted them [the <DW7>s at Augsburg] to
keep this rebuttal of theirs and that splendid booklet [Confutation] to
themselves, because their own conscience tells them very plainly that it
is a corrupt, wicked, and frigid thing, of which they would have to be
ashamed if it were published and suffered itself to be seen in the light
or to endure an answer. For I very well know these highly learned
doctors who have cooked and brewed over it for six weeks, though with
the ignorant they may be able to give the matter a good semblance. But
when it is put on paper, it has neither hands nor feet, but lies there
in 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. For
there is neither rhyme nor rhythm in whatsoever they are compelled to
put into writing. Hence they are more sedulous to shout and prattle.
Thus I have also learned that when our Confession was read, many of our
opponents were astonished and confessed that it was the pure truth,
which they could not refute from the Scriptures. On the other hand, when
their rebuttal was read, they hung their heads, and showed by their
gestures that they considered it a mean and useless makeshift as
compared with our Confession. Our people, however, and many other pious
hearts were greatly delighted and mightily strengthened when they heard
that with all the strength and art which our opponents were then called
upon to display, they were capable of producing nothing but this flimsy
rebuttal, which now, praise God! a woman, a child, a layman, a peasant
are fully able to refute with good arguments taken from the Scriptures,
the Word of Truth. And that is also the true and ultimate reason why
they 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 that
they were confident, and that they had the Diet called together in the
conviction that our people would never have the boldness to appear, but
if the Emperor should only be brought to Germany in person, every one
would be frightened and say to them: Mercy, dear lords, what would you
have us do? When they were disappointed in this, and the Elector of
Saxony was the very first to appear on the scene, good Lord, how their
breeches began to--! How all their confidence was confounded! What
gathering 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 to
keep them from being heard [block the reading of the Augustana]. When
also this scheme of theirs was defeated, they finally succeeded in
gaining the glory that they did not dare to hand over their futile
rebuttal nor to give us an opportunity to reply to it! ... But some one
might say: The Emperor was willing to deliver the answer to our party
provided they would promise not to have it published nor its contents
divulged. 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 to
see nor hear) what manner of people they are who will not and dare not
permit their matter to come to the light. If it is so precious a thing
and 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 from
us and every one else such public matters as must nevertheless be taught
and held among them? But if it is unfounded and futile, why, then, did
they in the first resolution [of the Diet], have the Elector of
Brandenburg proclaim and publish in writing that our Confession had been
refuted [by the Confutation] with the Scriptures and stanch arguments?
If that were true, and if their own consciences did not give them the
lie, they would not merely have allowed such precious and well-founded
Refutation 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 and
still do with our Confession. ... What the Elector of Brandenburg said
in the resolution [read at the Diet], that our Confession was refuted
with the Scriptures and with sound arguments, is not the truth, but a
lie. ... For this well-founded refutation [Confutation] has as yet not
come to light, but is perhaps sleeping with the old Tannhaeuser on Mount
Venus (_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 is
indicated by the title: "Roman Imperial Confutation,
_Roemisch-Kaiserliche Konfutation._" (_C. R._ 21, 189.) And according to
his declaration of July 5, demanding that the Lutherans acknowledge him
as judge, the Emperor, immediately before the reading, announced: The
Confutation contained his faith and his verdict on the Confession of the
Lutherans; he demanded that they accept it; should they refuse to do so,
he would prove himself the warden and protector of the Church. In the
Epilog the Emperor gave expression to the following thoughts: From this
Confutation he saw that the Evangelicals "in many articles agree with
the Universal and also the Roman Church, and reject and condemn many
wicked teachings current among the common people of the German nation."
He therefore did not doubt that, having heard his answer to their
Confession, they would square themselves also in the remaining points,
and return to what, by common consent, had hitherto been held by all
true believers. Should they fail to heed his admonition, they must
consider that he would be compelled to reveal and demean himself in this
matter in such manner as "by reason of his office, according to his
conscience, behooved the supreme warden and protector of the Holy
Christian Church." (27, 228.) Immediately after the reading, Frederick,
Duke of the Palatinate, declared in the name of the Emperor that the
Confutation was the Emperor's answer to the Lutherans, the verdict he
rendered against their Confession; and they were now called upon to
relinquish the articles of their Confession that were refuted in the
Confutation, and to return to the Roman Church in unity of faith. (See
the reports of Brenz, Melanchthon, and the delegates from Nuernberg, _C.
R._ 2, 245. 250. 253.) Thus the Emperor, who had promised to have the
deliberations carried on in love and kindness, demanded blind
submission, and closed his demand with a threat. His manifesto was
Protestant; his actions remained Papistical. In the estimation of the
Romanists, the Emperor, by condescending to an extended reply to the
Lutheran Confession, had done more than his duty, and much more than
they had considered expedient. Now they rejoiced, believing that
everything they wished for had been accomplished, and that there was no
other way open for the Lutherans than to submit, voluntarily or by
compulsion.

Naturally the attitude of the Emperor was a great disappointment to the
Lutherans, and it caused much alarm and fear among them. From the very
beginning they had declared themselves ready in the interest of peace,
to do whatever they could "with God and conscience." And this remained
their position to the very last. They dreaded war, and were determined
to leave no stone unturned towards avoiding this calamity. In this
interest even Philip of Hesse was prepared to go to the very limits of
possibility. Melanchthon wrote: "The Landgrave deports himself with much
restraint. He has openly declared to me that in order to preserve peace,
he would accept even sterner conditions, as long as he did not thereby
disgrace the Gospel." (_C. R._ 2, 254.) But a denial of God, conscience,
and the Gospel was precisely what the Emperor expected. Hence the
Lutherans refer to his demands as cruel, impossible of fulfilment, and
as a breach of promise. Outraged by the Emperor's procedure, and fearing
for his own safety, the Landgrave secretly left the Diet on August 6.
War seemed inevitable to many. The reading of the Confutation had
shattered the last hopes of the Lutherans for a peaceful settlement.
They said so to each other, and wrote it to those at home, though not
all of them in the lachrymose tone of the vacillating Melanchthon, who,
filled with a thousand fears was temporarily more qualified for
depriving 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 were
sustained by the comforting letters of Luther and the bracing
consciousness that it was the divine truth itself which they advocated.
And the reading of the Confutation had marvelously strengthened this
conviction. Brueck reports an eyewitness of the reading of the Augustana
as saying: "The greater portion among them [the <DW7>s] is not so
ignorant 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 the
Confutation. "We stand for the divine truth, which God cannot but lead
to victory, while our opponents are condemned by their own consciences,"
--such was the buoying conviction of the Lutherans. And in this the
powerful letters of Luther strengthened the confessors at Augsburg. He
wrote: "This is the nature of our Christian doctrine, that it must be
held and grasped as certain and that every one must think and be
convinced: The doctrine is true and sure indeed and cannot fail. But
whoever falls to reasoning and begins to waver within himself, saying:
My dear friend, do you believe that it is true, etc.? such a heart will
never be a true Christian." (Plitt, 12.)

Concerning the spiritual support which the confessors at Augsburg,
notably Melanchthon, received from Luther, Plitt remarks: "What Luther
did during his solitary stay in the Castle at Coburg cannot be rated
high enough. His ideal deportment during these days, so trying for the
Church, is an example which at all times Evangelical Christians may look
up to, in order to learn from him and to emulate him. What he wrote to
his followers in order to comfort and encourage them, can and must at
all times refresh and buoy up those who are concerned about the course
of the Church." (24.) June 30 Veit Dietrich who shared Luther's solitude
at Coburg, wrote to Melanchthon: "My dear Philip, you do not know how
concerned I am for your welfare, and I beseech you for Christ's sake not
to regard as vain the Doctor's [Luther's] letters to you. I cannot
sufficiently admire that man's unique constancy, joy, confidence, and
hope in these days of most sore distress. And daily he nourishes them by
diligent contemplation of the Word of God. Not a day passes in which he
does not spend in prayer at least three hours, such as are most precious
for study. On one occasion I chanced to hear him pray. Good Lord, what a
spirit, what faith spoke out of his words! He prayed with such reverence
that one could see he was speaking with God, and withal with such faith
and such confidence as is shown by one who is speaking with his father
and friend. I know, said he, that Thou art our Father and our God.
Therefore I am certain that Thou wilt confound those who persecute Thy
children. 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 of
it; 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, so
earnestly, and reverently with God, and in his prayer insisted on the
promises in the Psalms, as one who was certain that everything he prayed
for would be done. Hence I do not doubt that his prayer will prove a
great help in the desperately bad affair of this Diet. And you, my
teacher, would do far better to imitate our father, the Doctor, also in
this point. For with your miserable cares and your weakling tears you
will accomplish nothing, but prepare a sad destruction for yourself and
us all, who take pleasure in, and are benefited by nothing more than
your 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 as
the Emperor's final verdict upon the Augsburg Confession the Lutherans
were compelled to declare themselves. Accordingly, Chancellor Brueck at
once responded to the demand for submission made through the Palatinate
after the reading of the Confutation, saying: The importance of this
matter, which concerned their salvation, required that the Confutation
be delivered to the Lutherans for careful inspection and examination to
enable them to arrive at a decision in the matter. The delegates from
Nuernberg reported, in substance: After the Confutation was read, Doctor
Brueck answered: Whereas, according to their Confession, the Lutherans
were willing to do and yield everything that could be so done with a
good conscience, whereas, furthermore, according to the Confutation,
some of their [the Lutherans'] articles were approved, others entirely
rejected, still others partly admitted to be right and partly
repudiated; and whereas the Confutation was a somewhat lengthy document:
therefore the Electors, princes, and cities deemed it necessary to scan
these articles more closely, the more so, because many writings were
adduced in them that made it necessary to show to what intent, and if at
all they were rightly quoted, and accordingly requested the Emperor,
since he had promised to hear both parties, to submit the Confutation
for their inspection. The Emperor answered: "As it was now late and
grown dark, and since the matter was important, he would consider their
request and reply to it later." Hereupon, according to the Nuernberg
delegates, "the chancellor pleaded again and most earnestly that His
Imperial Majesty would consider this important and great affair as a
gracious and Christian emperor ought to do, and not deny their prayer
and 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 submit
the Confutation to the Lutherans, they nevertheless did not consider it
wise to refuse their petition outright and bluntly; for they realized
that this would redound to the glory neither of themselves nor of their
document. The fanatical theologians, putting little faith in that sorry
fabrication of their own, and shunning the light, at first succeeded in
having a resolution passed declaring the entire matter settled with the
mere reading. However in order to save their faces and to avoid the
appearance of having refused the Confutation as well as "the scorn and
ridicule on that account" (as the Emperor naively put it), and "lest any
one say that His Imperial Majesty had not, in accordance with his
manifesto, first dealt kindly with" the Lutherans, the estates resolved
on August 4 to grant their request. At the same time, however, they
added conditions which the Lutherans regarded as dangerous, insinuating
and impossible, hence rendering the Catholic offer illusory and
unacceptable.

August 5 the Emperor communicated the resolutions adopted by the
Catholic estates to the Lutherans. According to a report of the
Nuernberg delegates the negotiations proceeded as follows: The Emperor
declared that the Confutation would be forwarded to the Lutherans, but
with the understanding that they must come to an agreement with the
Catholic princes and estates; furthermore that they spare His Imperial
Majesty with their refutations and make no further reply and, above all,
that they keep this and other writings to themselves, nor let them pass
out of their hands, for instance, by printing them or in any other way.
Hereupon Brueck, in the name of the Lutherans, thanked the Emperor, at
the same time voicing the request "that, considering their dire
necessity, His Imperial Majesty would permit his Elector and princes to
make answer to the Confutation." Duke Frederick responded: The Emperor
was inclined to grant them permission to reply, but desired the answer
to be "as profitable and brief as possible," also expected them to come
to an agreement with the Catholics, and finally required a solemn
promise that they would not permit the document to pass out of their
hands. Brueck answered guardedly: The Lutherans would gladly come to an
agreement "as far as it was possible for them to do so with God and
their conscience;" and as to their answer and the preservation of the
document, they would be found "irreprehensible." The Emperor now
declared: "The document should be delivered to the Lutherans in case
they would promise to keep it to themselves and not allow it to fall
into other hands; otherwise His Imperial Majesty was not minded to
confer with them any longer." Brueck asked for time to consider the
matter, and was given till evening. In his response he declined the
Emperor's offer, at the same time indicating that an answer to the
Confutation would be forthcoming nevertheless. The Lutherans, he said,
felt constrained to relinquish their petition, because the condition
that the document be kept in their hands had been stressed in such a
manner that they could not but fear the worst interpretation if it would
nevertheless leak out without their knowledge and consent; still, they
offered to answer the Confutation, since they had noted the most
important points while it was read; in this case, however, they asked
that it be not charged to them if anything should be overlooked; at the
same time they besought the Emperor to consider this action of theirs as
compelled by dire necessity, and in no other light. (_C. R._ 2, 255ff.)
In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon says: "This [a copy of the
Confutation] our princes could not obtain, except on the most perilous
conditions, 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 their
dealings with the Lutherans was characterized by Chancellor Brueck as
follows: "The tactics of the opponents in offering a copy [of the
Confutation] were those of the fox when he invited the stork to be his
guest and served him food in a broad, shallow pan, so that he could not
take the food with his long bill. In like manner they treated the five
electors and princes, as well as the related cities, when they offered
to accede to their request and submit a copy to them, but upon
conditions which they could not accept without greatly violating their
honor." (Koellner, 419.) Over against the Emperor's demand of blind
submission and his threat of violence, the Lutherans appealed to their
pure Confession, based on the Holy Scriptures, to their good conscience,
bound in the Word of God, and to the plain wording of the imperial
manifesto, which had promised discussions in love and kindness. In an
Answer of August 9, _e.g._, they declared: The articles of the Augustana
which we have presented are drawn from the Scriptures, and "it is
impossible for us to relinquish them with a good conscience and peace of
heart, unless we find a refutation founded on God's Word and truth, on
which we may rest our conscience in peace and certainty." (Foerstemann,
2, 185.) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon comments as follows
on the demand of the Romanists: "Afterwards, negotiations for peace were
begun, 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 certain
manifest abuses and errors; and as we could not do this, His Imperial
Majesty again demanded that our princes should assent to the
Confutation. This our princes refused to do. For how could they, in a
matter pertaining to religion, assent to a writing which they had not
been able to examine, especially as they had heard that some articles
were condemned in which it was impossible for them, without grievous
sin, to approve the opinions of the adversaries?" (99.)

Self-evidently the Lutherans also protested publicly that the procedure
of the Romanists was in contravention of the proclamation of the Emperor
as well as of his declaration on June 20, according to which both
parties were to deliver their opinions in writing for the purpose of
mutual friendly discussion. In the Answer of August 9, referred to above
they said: "We understand His Imperial Majesty's answer to mean nothing
else 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 the
Confutation, lest it be answered. (Foerstemann, 2, 184f.) Luther
expressed the same conviction, saying: "All the world was awaiting a
gracious diet, as the manifesto proclaimed and pretended, and yet, sad
to say, it was not so conducted." (St. L. 16, 1636.)

That the Romanists themselves fully realized that the charges of the
Lutherans were well founded, appears from the subterfuges to which they
resorted in order to justify their violence and duplicity, notably their
refusal to let them examine the Confutation. In a declaration of August
11 they stated "that the imperial laws expressly forbid, on pain of loss
of life and limb, to dispute or argue (_gruppeln_) about the articles of
faith in any manner whatever," and that in the past the edicts of the
Emperor in this matter of faith had been despised, scorned, ridiculed,
and derided by the Lutherans. (Foerstemann, 2, 190.) Such were the
miserable arguments with which the Romanists defended their treachery.
Luther certainly hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the
Romanists refused to deliver the Confutation "because their consciences
felt very well that it was a corrupt, futile, and frigid affair, of
which they would have to be ashamed in case it should become public and
show 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 not
remain indebted for an answer to the Confutation, even though a copy of
it was refused them. They knew the cunning Romanists, and had prepared
for every emergency. Melanchthon, who, according to a letter addressed
to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 254), was not present at the reading of the
Confutation, writes in the Preface to the Apology: "During the reading
some of us had taken down the chief points of the topics and arguments."
(101.) Among these was Camerarius. August 4 the Nuernberg delegates
reported to their senate that the Confutation comprising more than fifty
pages, had been publicly read on August 3, at 2 P.M., and that the
Lutherans had John Kammermeister "record the substance of all the
articles; this he has diligently done in shorthand on his tablet as far
as he was able, and more than all of us were able to understand and
remember, 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 theological
and a legal opinion drawn up, and a copy of the former (Osiander's
refutation of the Confutation) was delivered to Melanchthon on August 18
by the Nuernberg delegates. Osiander specially stressed the point that
the demand of the Romanists to submit to the decision of the Church in
matters of faith must be rejected, that, on the contrary, everything
must be subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. (Plitt, 87.) In drawing up
the Apology, however, Melanchthon made little, if any, use of Osiander's
work. Such, at least, is the inference Kolde draws from Melanchthon's
words to Camerarius, September 20: "Your citizens [of Nuernberg] have
sent us a book on the same subject [answer to the Confutation], which I
hope before long to discuss with you orally." (383.) There can be little
doubt that Melanchthon privately entertained the idea of writing the
Apology immediately after the reading of the Confutation. The
commission, however, to do this was not given until later; and most of
the work was probably done in September. For August 19 the Nuernberg
delegates reported that their "opinion" had been given to Melanchthon,
who as yet, however, had not received orders to write anything in reply
to the Confutation, "unless he is privately engaged in such
undertaking." (_C. R._ 2, 289.)

At Augsburg the execution of the resolution to frame an answer to the
Confutation had been sidetracked for the time being, by the peace
parleys between the Lutherans and the Catholics, which began soon after
the Confutation was read and continued through August. But when these
miscarried, the Evangelical estates, on the 29th of August, took
official action regarding the preparation of an Apology. Of the meeting
in which the matter was discussed the Nuernberg delegates report: "It
was furthermore resolved: 'Since we have recently declared before His
Majesty that, in case His Majesty refused to deliver to us the
Confutation of our Confession without restrictions [the aforementioned
conditions] we nevertheless could not refrain from writing a reply to
it, as far as the articles had been noted down during the reading, and
from delivering it to His Imperial Majesty: we therefore ought to
prepare ourselves in this matter, in order to make use of it in case of
necessity,' In this we, the delegates of the cities, also acquiesced.
... I, Baumgaertner, also said: In case such a work as was under
discussion should be drawn up, we had some opinions [the theological and
the legal opinions of the city of Nuernberg], which might be of service
in this matter, and which we would gladly submit. Hereupon it was
ordered that Dr. Brueck and other Saxons be commissioned to draft the
writing." (321.) The assumption, therefore, that Melanchthon was the
sole author of the first draft of the Apology is erroneous. In the
Preface to the Apology he writes: "They had, however, commanded me _and
some others_ to prepare an Apology of the Confession, in which the
reasons why we could not accept the Confutation should be set forth to
His Imperial Majesty, and the objections made by the adversaries be
refuted." (101.) In the same Preface he says that he had originally
drawn 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 day
he wrote to Camerarius: "The verdict [decision of the Diet] on our
affair has not yet been rendered. ... Our Prince thought of leaving
yesterday, and again to-day. The Emperor however, kept him here by the
promise that he would render his decision within three days. ... Owing
to the statements of evil-minded people, I am now remaining at home and
have in these days written the Apology of our Confession, which, if
necessary, shall also be delivered; for it will be opposed to the
Confutation of the other party, which you heard when it was read. I
have written it sharply and more vehemently" (than the Confession). (_C.
R._ 2, 383.)

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

Self-evidently, the Lutherans could not let this Roman boast pass by in
silence. Accordingly, in the name of the Elector, Brueck arose to voice
their objections, and, while apologizing for its deficiencies, presented
the Apology. In his protest, Brueck dwelt especially on the offensive
words of the imperial decision which claimed that the Augustana was
refuted by the Confutation. He called attention to the fact that the
Lutherans had been offered a copy only under impossible conditions; that
they had nevertheless, on the basis of what was heard during the
reading, drawn up a "counter-plea, or reply;" this he was now holding in
his hands, and he requested that it be read publicly; from it every one
might learn "with what strong, irrefutable reasons of Holy Scripture"
the Augustana was fortified. (Foerstemann, 2, 479.) Duke Frederick took
the Apology, but returned it on signal from the Emperor, into whose ear
King Ferdinand had been whispering. Sleidan relates: "Cumque hucusce
[tr. note: sic] perventum esset, Pontanus apologiam Caesari defert; eam
ubi Fridericus Palatinus accepit, subnuente Caesare, cui Ferdinandus
aliquid ad aures insusurraverat, reddit." A similar report is found in
the annals of Spalatin. (Koellner, 422.)

By refusing to accept the Apology, the Emperor and the Romanists _de
facto_ broke off negotiations with the Lutherans; and the breach
remained, and became permanent. September 23 the Elector left Augsburg.
By the time the second imperial decision was rendered, November 19, all
the Evangelical princes had left the Diet. The second verdict dictated
by the intolerant spirit of the papal theologians, was more vehement
than the first. Confusing Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists,
Charles emphasized the execution of the Edict of Worms; sanctioned all
dogmas and abuses which the Evangelicals had attacked; confirmed the
spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops; demanded the restoration of all
abolished rites identified himself with the Confutation; and repeated
the assertion that the Lutheran Confession had been refuted from the
Scriptures. (Foerstemann, 2, 839f.; Laemmer, 49.)

In his _Gloss on the Alleged Imperial Edict_ of 1531, Luther dilates as
follows on the Roman assertion of having refuted the Augustana from the
Scriptures: "In the first place concerning their boasting that our
Confession was refuted from the holy gospels, this is so manifest a lie
that they themselves well know it to be an abominable falsehood. With
this rouge they wanted to tint their faces and to defame us, since they
noticed very well that their affair was leaky, leprous, and filthy, and
despite such deficiency nevertheless was to be honored. Their heart
thought: Ours is an evil cause, this we know very well, but we shall say
the Lutherans were refuted; that's enough. Who will compel us to prove
such a false statement? For if they had not felt that their boasting was
lying, pure and simple, they would not only gladly, and without offering
any objections, have surrendered their refutation as was so earnestly
desired, but would also have made use of all printing-presses to publish
it, and heralded it with all trumpets and drums, so that such defiance
would have arisen that the very sun would not have been able to shine on
account of it. But now, since they so shamefully withheld their answer
and still more shamefully hide and secrete it, by this action their evil
conscience bears witness to the fact that they lie like reprobates when
they boast that our Confession has been refuted, and that by such lies
they 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 presentation
of the Apology, resolved to revise and recast it, the original draft was
forced into the background. It remained unknown for a long time and was
published for the first time forty-seven years after the Diet. Chytraeus
embodied it in his _Historia Augustanae Confessionis,_ 1578, with the
caption, "_Prima Delineatio Caesari Carolo Die 22. Septembris Oblata,
sed Non Recepta_--The First Draft which was Offered to Emperor Charles
on September 22, but Not Accepted." The German and Latin texts are found
in _Corp. Ref._ 27, 275ff. and 322. Following is the Latin title:
"Apologia Confessionis, 1530. Ps. 119: Principes persecuti sunt me
gratis." The German title runs: "Antwort der Widerlegung auf unser
Bekenntnis uebergeben." (245. 378.) Plitt says of the original Apology:
"It was well qualified to be presented to the Emperor, and, in form
also, far surpassed the Confutation of the <DW7>s. Still the
Evangelical Church suffered no harm when the Emperor declined to accept
it. The opportunity for revision which was thus offered and fully
exploited by Melanchthon, who was never able to satisfy himself,
resulted in a great improvement. The Apology as it appeared the
following year is much riper, sharper in its rebuttal, and stronger in
its argumentation." (88.)

The draft of the Apology presented at Augsburg concluded as follows: "If
the Confutation had been forwarded to us for inspection we would perhaps
have been able to give a more adequate answer on these and additional
points." (_C. R._ 27, 378.) When, therefore, the Emperor had refused to
accept it, Melanchthon determined to revise, reenforce, and augment the
document. September 23 he left Augsburg in the company of the Elector;
and already while _en route_ he began the work. In his _History of the
Augsburg Confession,_ 1730, Salig remarks: "Still the loss of the first
copy [of the Apology] does not seem to be so great, since we now possess
the Apology in a more carefully elaborated form. For while the Diet was
still in session, and also after the theologians had returned home,
Melanchthon was constantly engaged upon it, casting it into an entirely
different 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 that
Luther plucked the pen from his hand, saying that on this day he must
rest from such work." (1, 377.) However, since the first draft was
presented to the Emperor on September 22, and Melanchthon, together with
the Elector, left Augsburg on the following day, it is evident that he
could not have busied himself very much with the revision of the Apology
at Augsburg. And that Luther, in the Altenburg incident, should have put
especial stress on the Sunday, for this neither Salig nor those who
follow him (_e.g._, Schaff, _Creeds,_ 1, 243) offer any evidence. In his
_Seventeen Sermons on the Life of Luther,_ Mathesius gives the following
version of the incident: "When Luther, returning home with his
companions from Coburg, was visiting Spalatin, and Philip, constantly
engrossed in thoughts concerning the Apology, was writing during the
meal, he arose and took the pen away from him [saying]: 'God can be
honored not alone by work, but also by rest and recreation; for that
reason He has given the Third Commandment and commanded the Sabbath.'"
(243.) This report of Mathesius certainly offers no ground for a
Puritanic explanation of the incident in Spalatin's home.

Originally Melanchthon does not seem to have contemplated a revision on
a very large scale. In the Preface, which was printed first, he merely
remarks that he made "some additions" (_quaedam adieci_) to the Apology
drawn up at Augsburg. (101.) Evidently, at the time when he wrote this,
he had no estimate of the proportions the work, which grew under his
hands, would finally assume. Before long also he obtained a complete
copy 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 have
recently seen the Confutation, and have noticed how cunningly and
slanderously it was written, so that on some points it could deceive
even the cautious." (101.) Eck clamored that the Confutation "had gotten
into Melanchthon's hands in a furtive and fraudulent manner, _furtim et
fraudulenter ad manus Melanchthonis eandem pervenisse._" (Koellner,
426.) The possession of the document enabled Melanchthon to deal in a
reliable manner with all questions involved, and spurred him on to do
most careful and thorough work.

55. Completion of Apology Delayed.

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

These letters show that Melanchthon took particular pains with the
article of Justification, which was expanded more than tenfold. January
31, he was still hard at work on this article. Kolde says: "This was due
to the fact that he suppressed five and one-half sheets [preserved by
Veit Dietrich] treating this subject because they were not satisfactory
to him, and while he at first treated Articles 4 to 6 together, he now
included also Article 20, recasting anew the entire question of the
nature of justification and the relation of faith and good works.
Illness and important business, such as the negotiations with Bucer on
the Lord's Supper, brought new delays. He also found it necessary to be
more explicit than he had contemplated. Thus it came about that the work
could first appear, together with the Augustana, end of April, or, at
the latest, beginning of May." (37) According to the resolution of the
Diet, the Lutherans were to have decided by April 15, 1531, whether they
would accept the Confutation or not. The answer of the Lutherans was the
appearance, on the bookstalls, of the Augustana and the Apology, and a
few 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 of
1531 contained the German and the Latin texts of the Augsburg
Confession, 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 referred
to, it appeared six months later, in the fall of 1531. It was the work
of Justus Jonas. The title of the edition of 1531 reads: "_Apologie der
Konfession, aus dem Latein verdeutscht durch Justus Jonas, Wittenberg._
Apology of the Confession done into German from the Latin by Justus
Jonas, Wittenberg." For a time Luther also thought of writing a "German
Apology." April 8, 1531, Melanchthon wrote to Brenz: "_Lutherus nunc
instituit apologiam Germanicam._ Luther is now preparing a German
Apology." (_C. R._ 2, 494. 501.) It is, however, hardly possible that
Luther was contemplating a translation. Koellner comments on
Melanchthon's words: "One can understand them to mean that Luther is
working on the German Apology." _Instituit,_ however, seems to indicate
an independent work rather than a translation. Koestlin is of the
opinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology of his own, because he
was not entirely satisfied with Melanchthon's. (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382.)
However, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply to
Melanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expressly
confessed himself, but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, _e.g._,
the 10th Article seems to endorse the concomitance doctrine. (_Lehre und
Wehre_ 1918, 385.) At all events, Luther changed his plan when Jonas
began the translation of the new Apology.

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

57. Alterations of Apology.

Melanchthon, who was forever changing and improving, naturally could not
leave the Apology as it read in the first edition. This applies to both
the German and the Latin text. He was thinking of the Latin octavo
edition when he wrote to Brenz, June 7, 1531: "The Apology is now being
printed, and I am at pains to make some points in the article of
Justification clearer. It is an extremely great matter, in which we must
proceed carefully that Christ's honor may be magnified." (2, 504.) The
same 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 article
of Justification even more clearly; for there are some things in the
solution of the arguments which are not satisfactory to me." (506.)
Accordingly, this octavo edition, of which Melanchthon was able to send
a copy to Margrave George on September 14, revealed important
alterations: partly improvements, partly expansions, partly deletions.
The changes in the 10th Article, already referred to, especially the
omission of the quotation from Theophylact, attracted most attention.
The succeeding Latin editions likewise revealed minor changes. The
Apology accompanying the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, was
designated by Melanchthon himself as "_diligenter recognita,_ diligently
revised." (_C. R._ 26, 357. 419.)

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

58. Purpose, Arrangement, and Character of Apology.

The aim of the Apology was to show why the Lutherans "do not accept the
Confutation," and to puncture the papal boast that the Augustana had
been refuted with the Holy Scriptures. In its Preface we read:
"Afterwards a certain decree was published [by the Emperor], in which
the adversaries boast that they have refuted our Confession from the
Scriptures. You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology, from which you
will understand not only what the adversaries have judged (for we have
reported in good faith), but also that they have condemned several
articles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost, so far
are they from overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures."
(101.) The Apology is, on the one hand, a refutation of the Confutation
and, 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 as
the Confutation; and scholastic theology is discussed as well. On this
account also the sequence of the articles, on the whole, agrees with
that of the Augustana and the Confutation. However, articles treating of
related doctrines are collected into one, _e.g._, Articles 4, 5, 6, and
20. Articles to which the Romanists assented are but briefly touched
upon. Only a few of them have been elaborated somewhat _e.g._, Of the
Adoration of the Saints, Of Baptism, Of the Lord's Supper, Of
Repentance, Of Civil Government. The fourteen articles, however, which
the Confutation rejected are discussed extensively, and furnished also
with titles, in the _editio princeps_ as well as in the Book of Concord
of 1580 and 1584. In Mueller's edition of the Symbolical Books all
articles of the Apology are for the first time supplied with numbers and
captions corresponding with the Augsburg Confession.

In the Apology, just as in the Augsburg Confession, everything springs
from, and is regulated by, the fundamental Lutheran principle of Law and
Gospel, sin and grace, faith and justification. Not only is the doctrine
of justification set forth thoroughly and comfortingly in a particular
article, but throughout the discussions it remains the dominant note,
its heavenly strain returning again and again as the _motif_ in the
grand symphony of divine truths--a strain with which the Apology also
breathes, as it were, its last, departing breath. For in its Conclusion
we read: "If all the scandals [which, according to the <DW7>s, resulted
from Luther's teaching] be brought together, still the one article
concerning the remission of sins (that for Christ's sake, through faith,
we freely obtain the remission of sins) brings so much good as to hide
all evils. And this, in the beginning [of the Reformation], gained for
Luther not only our favor, but also that of many who are now contending
against us." (451.)

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

59. Moderate Tone of Apology.

The tone of the Apology is much sharper than that of the Augsburg
Confession. The situation had changed; hence the manner of dealing with
the opposition also changed. The Romanists had fully revealed themselves
as implacable enemies, who absolutely refused a peace on the basis of
truth and justice. In the Conclusion of the Apology we read: "But as to
the want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is well known how
these matters first happened and who caused the division namely, the
sellers of indulgences, who shamefully preached intolerable lies, and
afterwards condemned Luther for not approving of those lies, and
besides, they again and again excited more controversies, so that Luther
was induced to attack many other errors. But since our opponents would
not tolerate the truth, and dared to promote manifest errors by force it
is easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Surely, all the world, all
wisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and his holy Word. But the
devil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against
Christ to extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil
with his members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause
of the schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously sought
peace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not forced
to blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of all men's
hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy in this
awful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not been
willing to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon the
saving 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 reason
for Melanchthon to have any special consideration for these implacable
opponents of the Lutherans and hardened enemies of the Gospel, of the
truth, and of religious liberty and peace. Reconciliation with Rome was
out of the question. Hence he could yield more freely to his impulse
here than in the Augustana; for when this Confession was written an
agreement 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 shall
certainly remunerate these wretched, bloody men. _Si continget, ut
respondendum sit, ego profecto remunerabor istos nefarios viros
sanguinum_." (_C. R._ 2, 197.) And when about to conclude the Apology, he
wrote to Brenz, April 8, 1531: "I have entirely laid aside the mildness
which I formerly exercised toward the opponents. Since they will not
employ me as a peacemaker, but would rather have me as their enemy, I
shall do what the matter requires, and faithfully defend our cause."
(494.) But while Melanchthon castigates the papal theologians, he spares
and 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 the
Christians at Wittenberg, in publishing these Remarks, wish it to be
distinctly understood that anything I am writing in this booklet against
the alleged imperial edict or command is not to be viewed as written
against his Imperial Majesty or any higher power, either of spiritual or
civil estate.... I do not mean the pious Emperor nor the pious lords,
but the traitors and reprobates (be they princes or bishops), and
especially that fellow whom St. Paul calls God's opponent (I should say
God's vicar), the arch-knave, Pope Clement, and his servant Campegius,
and the like, who plan to carry out their desperate, nefarious roguery
under the imperial name, or, as Solomon says, at court." (16, 1666.)
Luther then continues to condemn the Diet in unqualified terms. "What a
disgraceful Diet," says he, "the like of which was never held and never
heard of, and nevermore shall be held or heard of, on account of his
disgraceful action! It cannot but remain an eternal blot on all princes
and the entire empire, and makes all Germans blush before God and all
the world." But he continues exonerating and excusing the Emperor: "Let
no one tremble on account of this edict which they so shamefully invent
and publish in the name of the pious Emperor. And should they not
publish their lies in the name of a pious Emperor, when their entire
blasphemous, abominable affair was begun and maintained for over six
hundred 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 gentle
disposition, _mansuetissimum Caesaris pectus,_" which Eck and his party
were seeking to incite to bloodshed. (_C. R._ 2, 197.) In the Preface he
says: "And now I have written with the greatest moderation possible; and
if any expression appears too severe, I must say here beforehand that I
am 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: "And
these their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,
Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the king
of modest face; for the saying appears concerning you: 'One modest in
face shall reign everywhere')." (363.)

The Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of truth and peace, were
spared no longer. Upon them Melanchthon now pours out the lye of bitter
scorn. He excoriates them as "desperate sophists, who maliciously
interpret the holy Gospel according to their dreams," and as "coarse,
sluggish, inexperienced theologians." He denounces them as men "who for
the greater part do not know whereof they speak," and "who dare to
destroy this doctrine of faith with fire and sword," etc. Occasionally
Melanchthon even loses his dignified composure. Article 6 we read: "Quis
docuit illos asinos hanc dialecticam?" Article 9: "Videant isti asini."
In his book of 1534 against the Apology, Cochlaeus complains that the
youthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags,
godless sophists, worthless hypocrites, etc. In the margin he had
written: "Fierce and vicious he is, a barking dog toward those who are
absent, but to those who were present at Augsburg, Philip was more
gentle 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 reason
to complain, for they had proved to be past masters in vilifying and
slandering the Lutherans, as well as implacable enemies, satisfied with
nothing short of their blood and utter destruction. As a sample of their
scurrility W. Walther quotes the following from a book written by Duke
George of Saxony: "Er [Luther] ist gewiss mit dem Teufel besessen, mit
der ganzen Legion, welche Christus von den Besessenen austrieb und
erlaubte ihnen, in die Schweine zu fahren. Diese Legion hat dem Luther
seinen Moenchschaedel hirnwuetig und wirbelsuechtig gemacht. Du
unruhiger, treuloser und meineidiger Kuttenbube! Du bist allein der
groesste, groebste Esel und Narr, du verfluchter Apostat! Hieraus kann
maenniglich abnehmen die Verraeterei und Falschheit deines
blutduerstigen Herzens, rachgierigen Gemuets und teuflischen Willens, so
du, Luther, gegen deinen Naechsten tobend, als ein toerichter Hund mit
offenem Maul ohne Unterlass wagest. Du treuloser Bube und teuflischer
Moench! Du deklarierter Mameluck and verdammter Zwiedarm, deren neun
einen Pickharden gelten. Ich sage vornehmlich, dass du selbst der aller
unverstaendigste Bacchant und zehneckichte Cornut und Bestia bist. Du
meineidiger, treuloser und ehrenblosser Fleischboesewicht! Pfui dich
nun, du sakrilegischer, der ausgelaufenen Moenche und Nonnen, der
abfaelligen Pfaffen und aller Abtruennigen Hurenwirt! Ei, Doktor
Schandluther! Mein Doktor Erzesel, ich will dir's prophezeit haben, der
allmaechtige Gott wird dir kuerzlich die Schanze brechen und deiner
boshaftigsten, groebsten Eselheit Feierabend geben. Du Sauboze, Doktor
Sautrog! Doktor Eselsohr! Doktor Filzhut! Zweiundsiebzig Teufel sollen
dich lebendig in den Abgrund der Hoelle fuehren. Ich will machen, dass
du als ein Hoellenhund sollst Feuer ausspruehen und dich endlich selbst
verbrennen. Ich will dich dem wuetenigen Teufel und seiner Hurenmutter
mit einem blutigen Kopf in den Abgrund der Hoelle schicken." (_Luthers
Charakter,_ 148.)

Despite the occasional asperity referred to, the Apology, as a whole, is
written with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep the
track as clear as possible for a future understanding. In the interest
of unity, which he never lost sight of entirely, he was conservative and
not disposed needlessly to widen the existing gulf. In the Preface to
the Apology he declares: "It has always been my custom in these
controversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form of the
customarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concord could
be reached the more readily. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far from
this custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this age still
farther from the opinions of the adversaries." (101.) This irenic
feature is perhaps most prominent in the 10th Article, Of the Lord's
Supper, where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to the
orthodoxy of the Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence,
emphasizes the agreement in such a manner that he has been misunderstood
as endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation.

60. Symbolical Authority of Apology.

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

The Apology, as revised and published by Melanchthon, was a private
work. His name, therefore, appeared on the title-page of the edition of
1531, which was not the case with respect to the Confession and Apology
presented at Augsburg. The latter were official documents, drawn up by
order of the Lutheran princes and estates, while the revised Apology was
an undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission.
Accordingly, as he was not justified in publishing a work of his own
under the name of the princes, there was nothing else for him to do than
to affix his own signature. In the Preface to the Apology he says: "As
it passed through the press, I made some additions. Therefore I give my
name, so that no one can complain that the book has been published
anonymously." (100.) Melanchthon did not wish to make any one beside
himself responsible for the contents of the revised Apology.

Before long, however, the Apology received official recognition. At
Schweinfurt, 1532, in opposition to the <DW7>s, the Lutherans appealed
to the Augustana and Apology as the confession of their faith,
designating the latter as "the defense and explanation of the
Confession." And when the <DW7>s advanced the claim that the Lutherans
had gone farther in the Apology than in the Augustana, and, April 11,
1532, demanded that they abide by the Augustana, refrain from making the
Apology their confession, and accordingly substitute "Assertion" for the
title "Apology," the Lutherans, considering the Apology to be the
adequate expression of their faith, insisted on the original title.
April 17 they declared: "This book was called Apology because it was
presented to Caesar after the Confession; nor could they suffer its
doctrine and the Word of God to be bound and limited, or their preachers
restricted to teach nothing else than the letter of the Augsburg
Confession, thus making it impossible for them to rebuke freely and most
fully all doctrinal errors, abuses, sins, and crimes. _Nominatum fuisse
Apologiam 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 praedicent
quam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis, neque libere et plenissime
adversus omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina dicere
possint._" Hereupon the Romanists, on April 22, demanded that at least a
qualifying explanation be added to the title Apology. Brueck answered on
the 23d: "It is not possible to omit this word. The Apology is the
correlate of the Confession. Still the princes and their associates do
not wish any articles taught other than those which have so far begun to
be discussed. _Omitti istud verbum non posse; Apologiam esse correlatum
Confessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii articuli
docerentur quam huiusque tractari coepti sint_." (Koellner, 430.)

In his Letter of Comfort, 1533, to the Leipzig Lutherans banished by
Duke George, Luther says: "There is our Confession and Apology....
Adhere to our Confession and Apology." (10, 1956.) Membership in the
Smalcald League was conditioned on accepting the Apology as well as the
Augustana. Both were also subscribed to in the Wittenberg Concord of
1536. (_C. R._ 3, 76.) In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology (together with
the Augustana and the Appendix Concerning the Primacy of the Pope) was,
by order of the Evangelical estates, subscribed by all of the
theologians present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of the
Lutheran Church. In 1539 Denmark reckoned the Apology among the books
which pastors were required to adopt. In 1540 it was presented together
with 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 the
said Augsburg Confession explained in it as much as is necessary and
guarded [against the slanders of the adversaries], but also proved by
clear, 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 the
<DW7>s, the Lutherans, from the very beginning, asked for a general
council. In the course of years this demand became increasingly frequent
and insistent. It was solemnly renewed in the Preface of the Augsburg
Confession. The Emperor had repeatedly promised to summon a council. At
Augsburg he renewed the promise of convening it within a year. The Roman
Curia, however, dissastisfied with the arrangements made at the Diet,
found ways and means of delaying it. In 1532, the Emperor proceeded to
Bologna, where he negotiated with Clement VII concerning the matter, as
appears 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 at
Placentia, Bologna, or Mantua. Clement, however, was not sincere in
making this offer. In reality he was opposed to holding a council. Such
were probably also the real sentiments of his successor, Paul III. But
when the Emperor who, in the interest of his sweeping world policy, was
anxious to dispose of the religious controversy, renewed his pressure,
Paul finally found himself compelled to yield. June 4 1536, he issued a
bull convoking a general council to meet at Mantua, May 8, 1537.
Nothing, however, was said about the principles according to which it
was to be formed and by which it should be governed in transacting its
business. Self-evidently, then, the rules of the former councils were to
be applied. Its declared purpose was the peace of the Church through the
extinction of heresy. In the Bull _Concerning the Reforms of the Roman
Court,_ which the Pope issued September 23, he expressly declared that
the purpose of the council would be "the utter extirpation of the
poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy." (St. L. 16, 1914.) Thus the
question confronting the Protestants was, whether they could risk to
appear at such a council, and ought to do so, or whether (and how) they
should decline to attend. Luther, indeed, still desired a council. But
after 1530 he no longer put any confidence in a council convened by the
Pope, although, for his person, he did not refuse to attend even such a
council. This appears also from his conversation, November 7, 1535, with
the papal legate Peter Paul Vergerius (born 1497; accused of Lutheranism
1546; deprived of his bishopric 1549; defending Protestantism after
1550; employed by Duke Christoph of Wuerttemberg 1553; died 1564.)
Koestlin writes: "Luther relates how he had told the legate: 'Even if
you do call a council, you will not treat of salutary doctrine, saving
faith, etc., but of useless matters, such as laws concerning meats, the
length of priest's garments, exercises of monks, etc.' While he was thus
dilating, says Luther, the legate, holding his head in his hand, turned
to a near-by companion and said: 'He strikes the nail on the head,' The
further utterances of Luther: 'We do not need a council for ourselves
and our adherents, for we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine and
order; Christendom, however, needs it, in order that those whom error
still holds captive may be able to distinguish between error and truth,'
appeared utterly intolerable to Vergerius, as he himself relates. He
regarded 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 decide
what Luther approved of. Boldly and angrily interrupting him Luther
said: 'Yes, I will come to the council and lose my head if I shall not
defend 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 to
the council; for, so he wrote to Rome, he thought that nothing more was
needed to break the courage of the heretics than the certain prospect
of a council, and at the same time he believed that in Luther's assent
he heard the decision of his master, the Elector, also. Luther declared
that it was immaterial to him where the council would meet, at Mantua,
Verona, or at any other place. Vergerius continued: 'Are you willing to
come to Bologna?' Luther: 'To whom does Bologna belong?' Vergerius: 'To
the Pope.' Luther: 'Good Lord, has this town, too, been grabbed by the
Pope? Very well, I shall come to you there.' Vergerius: 'The Pope will
probably not refuse to come to you at Wittenberg either,' Luther: 'Very
well, let him come; we shall look for him with pleasure.' Vergerius: 'Do
you expect him to come with an army or without weapons?' Luther: 'As he
pleases, in whatsoever manner he may come, we shall expect him and shall
receive him.'--Luther and Bugenhagen remained with Vergerius until he
departed with his train of attendants. After mounting, he said once more
to 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 expressed
in the Preface to the Smalcald Articles as follows: "But to return to
the subject. I verily desire to see a truly Christian council, in order
that many matters and persons might be helped. Not that we need it, for
our churches are now through God's grace, so enlightened and equipped
with the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge of
the various callings and of right works that we on our part ask for no
council, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from a
council. But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacant
and desolate that one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishops
nor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom nevertheless
Christ has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with them
as the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fear
that at some time he may send a council of angels upon Germany utterly
destroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him
with the council." (457.)

From a popish council Luther expected nothing but condemnation of the
truth and its confessors. At the same time he was convinced that the
Pope would never permit a truly free, Christian council to assemble. He
had found him out and knew "that the Pope would see all Christendom
perish and all souls damned rather than suffer either himself or his
adherents 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 Luther
concludes as follows: "In these four articles they will have enough to
condemn in the council. For they cannot and will not concede to us even
the least point in one of these articles. Of this we should be certain,
and animate ourselves with the hope that Christ, our Lord, has attacked
His adversary, and He will press the attack home both by His Spirit and
coming. Amen. For in the council we will stand not before the Emperor or
the political magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a
most gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly), but before
the Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely
to condemn, to murder, and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we ought
not here to kiss his feet or to say, 'Thou art my gracious lord,' but as
the angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O
Satan." (475.) Hence his Preface also concludes with the plaint and
prayer: "O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, and
deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherents
are done for, they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, who
are 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 a
council. And the question which particularly engaged his attention was,
whether the Lutherans should receive and hear the papal legate who would
deliver the invitation. Accordingly, on July 24, the Elector came to
Wittenberg and through Brueck delivered four (five) articles to the
local theologians and jurists for consideration with instructions to
submit their answer in writing. (_C. R._ 3, 119.) August 1, Melanchthon
wrote to Jonas: "Recently the Prince was here and demanded an opinion
from all theologians and jurists.... It is rumored that a
cardinal-legate will come to Germany to announce the council. The Prince
is therefore inquiring what to answer, and under what condition the
synod might be permitted." (106.) The articles which Brueck presented
dealt mainly with the questions: whether, in view of the fact that the
Pope is a party to the issue and his authority to convene a council is
questioned, the legate should be heard, especially if the Emperor did
not send a messenger along with him, whether one would not already
submit himself to the Pope by hearing the legate; whether one ought not
to protest, because the Pope alone had summoned the council; and what
should 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 Wittenberg
scholars to take into careful consideration also his own view of the
matter, which he persistently defended as the only correct one. For this
purpose he transmitted to them an opinion of his own on Brueck's
articles referred to in the preceding paragraph. In it he maintained
that the papal invitation must be declined, because acceptance involved
the recognition of the Pope "as the head of the Church and of the
council." According to the Elector the proper course for the Lutheran
confederates would be to inform the legate, immediately on his arrival
in Germany, that they would never submit to the authority which the Pope
had arrogated to himself in his proclamation, since the power he assumed
was neither more nor less than abominable tyranny; that they could not
consider the Pope as differing from, or give him greater honor than, any
other ordinary bishop; that, besides, they must regard the Pope as their
greatest enemy and opponent; that he had arranged for the council with
the sinister object of maintaining his antichristian power and
suppressing the holy Gospel, that there was no need of hearing the
legate any further, since the Pope, who was sufficiently informed as to
their teaching, cared neither for Scripture nor for law and justice, and
merely wished to be their judge and lord; that, in public print, they
would unmask the roguery of the Pope, and show that he had no authority
whatever to convoke a council, but, at the same time, declare their
willingness to take part in, and submit their doctrine to, a free,
common, Christian, and impartial council, which would judge according to
the Scriptures. Nor did the Elector fail to stress the point that, by
attending at Mantua, the Lutherans would _de facto_ waive their former
demand 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 diplomatic
jugglery, such as had been indulged in at Augsburg. And at Smalcald,
despite the opposing advice of the theologians, his views prevailed, to
the sorrow of Melanchthon, as appears from the latter's complaint to
Camerarius, March 1, 1637. (_C. R._ 3, 293.) The Elector was thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of Luther, who never felt more antagonistic
toward Rome than at Smalcald, although, as shown above, he was
personally willing to appear at the council, even if held at Mantua.
This spirit of bold defiance appears from the articles which Luther
wrote for the convention, notably from the article on the Papacy and on
the Mass. In the latter he declares: "As Campegius said at Augsburg that
he would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by
the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes
before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be
made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above
Him. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one
another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies
in ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to
death if they can." (465.) In the Pope, Luther had recognized the
Antichrist; and the idea of treating, seeking an agreement, and making a
compromise with the enemy of his Savior, was intolerable to him. At
Smalcald, while suffering excruciating pain, he declared, "I shall die
as the enemy of all enemies of my Lord Christ." When seated in the
wagon, and ready to leave Smalcald, he made the sign of the cross over
those who stood about him and said: "May the Lord fill you with His
blessing and with hatred against the Pope!" Believing that his end was
not 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 ero
mors tua, Papa!_"

The same spirit of bold defiance and determination not to compromise the
divine truth in any way animated the Elector and practically all of the
princes and theologians at Smalcald, with, perhaps, the sole exception
of Melanchthon. Koestlin writes: "Meanwhile the allies at Smalcald
displayed no lack of 'hatred against the Pope.' His letters, delivered
by the legate, were returned unopened. They decidedly refused to take
part in the council, and that in spite of the opinion of their
theologians, whose reasons Melanchthon again ardently defended. For, as
they declared in an explanation to all Christian rulers, they could not
submit to a council which, according to the papal proclamation, was
convoked to eradicate the Lutheran heresy, would consist only of
bishops, who were bound to the Pope by an oath, have as its presiding
officer the Pope, who himself was a party to the matter, and would not
decide freely according to the Word of God, but according to human and
papal decrees. And from the legal standpoint they could hardly act
differently. Theologians like Luther could have appeared even before
such 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's
articles and the views of the Elector. The opinion resolved upon was
drawn up by Melanchthon. Its contents may be summarized as follows: The
Lutherans must not reject the papal invitation before hearing whether
the legate comes with a citation or an invitation. In case they were
invited 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 of
the Pope, inasmuch as he thereby consented "that the opinion of our
gracious Lord [the Elector] should be heard and have weight, like that
of the other estates." Furthermore, by such invitation the Pope would
indicate that he did not consider these princes to be heretics. If the
legate were rebuffed the Romanists would proceed against the Lutherans
as obstinate sinners (_contumaces_) and condemn them unheard, which, as
is well known, would please the enemies best. The Lutherans would then
also be slandered before the Emperor as despisers of His Majesty and of
the council. Nor did the mere hearing of the legate involve an
acknowledgment of the papal authority. "For with such invitation [to
attend the council] the Pope does not issue a command, nor summon any
one to appear before his tribunal, but before another judge, namely, the
Council, the Pope being in this matter merely the commander of the other
estates. By hearing the legate, therefore, one has not submitted to the
Pope or to his judgments.... For although the Pope has not the authority
to summon others by divine law, nevertheless the ancient councils, as,
for example, that of Nicaea, have given him this charge, which external
church regulation we do not attack. And although in former years, when
the empire was under one head some emperors convoked councils, it would
be in vain at present for the Emperor to proclaim a council, as foreign
nations would not heed such proclamation. But while the Pope at present,
according to the form of the law has the charge to proclaim councils, he
is thereby not made the judge in matters of faith, for even popes
themselves have frequently been deposed by councils. Pope John
proclaimed the Council of Constance, but was nevertheless deposed by
it." Accordingly the opinion continues: "It is not for us to advise that
the council be summarily declined, neither do we consider this
profitable, for we have always appealed to a council. What manner of
suspicion, therefore, would be aroused with His Imperial Majesty and all
nations if at the outset we would summarily decline a council, before
discussing the method of procedure!" And even if the Lutherans should be
cited [instead of invited], one must await the wording of the citation,
"whether we are cited to show the reason for our teaching, or to hear
ourselves declared and condemned as public heretics." In the latter case
it might be declined. In the former, however, the citation should be
accepted, but under the protest "that they had appealed to a free
Christian council," and did not acknowledge the Pope as judge. "And if
(_caeteris paribus,_ that is, provided the procedure is correct
otherwise) the council is considered the highest tribunal, as it ought
to be considered, one cannot despise the command of the person to whom
the charge is given to proclaim councils, whoever he may be. But if
afterwards the proceedings are not conducted properly, one can then
justly lodge complaint on that account." "To proclaim a council is
within the province of the Pope; but the judgment and decision belongs
to the council.... For all canonists hold that in matters of faith the
council is superior to the Pope, and that in case of difference the
council's verdict must be preferred to that of the Pope. For there must
be a supreme court of the Church, _i.e._, the council." On account of
the place, however they should not refuse to appear. (_C. R._ 3,119.)

In their subsequent judgments the theologians adhered to the view that
the Protestants ought not to incur the reproach of having prevented the
council by turning down the legate. Luther says, in an opinion written
at Smalcald, February, 1537: "I have no doubt that the Pope and his
adherents are afraid and would like to see the council prevented, but in
such a manner as would enable them to boast with a semblance of truth
that it was not their fault, since they had proclaimed it, sent
messengers, called the estates, etc., as they, indeed, would brag and
trump 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 a
council, in which they mention nothing about church matters, nothing
about a hearing, nothing about other matters, but solely speak of the
extirpation and eradication of the poisonous Lutheran heresy, as they
themselves indicate in the bull _De Reformatione Curiae_ [of September
23, 1536, St. L. 16 1913ff.]. Here we have not only our sentence which
is 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 also
excluded. Moreover, these knaves of the devil are bent on doing their
pleasure, not only in condemning (for according to the said bull
launched against us they want to be certain of that) but also in
speedily beginning and ordering execution and eradication, although we
have not yet been heard (as all laws require) nor have they, the
cardinals, ever read our writing or learned its doctrine, since our
books are proscribed everywhere, but have heard only the false writers
and the lying mouths, having not heard us make a reply, although in
Germany both princes and bishops know, also those of their party, that
they are lying books and rascals, whom the Pope, Italy, and other
nations believe.... Hence they would like to frighten us into refusing
it [the Council] for then they could safely say that we had prevented
it. Thus the shame would not only cleave to us, but we would have to
hear that, by our refusal, we had helped to strengthen such abominations
of the Pope, which otherwise might have been righted." Such and similar
reasons prompted Luther to declare that, even though he knew "it would
finally end in a scuffle," he was not afraid of "the lousy, contemptible
council," 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 attend
the council, Luther expressed the opinion that it had been false wisdom
to decline it; the Pope should have been left without excuse; in case it
should convene, the council would now be conducted without the
Protestants.

66. Elector's Strictures on Opinion of Theologians.

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

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

67. Counter-Council Disadvised.

The other matters which engaged the Elector's attention dealt primarily
with measures of defense, the convening of a counter-council
(_Gegenkonzil_) and the preparation of articles which all would
unanimously accept, and by which they proposed to stand to the
uttermost. August 20 Brueck brought these points up for discussion. And
in a "memorandum" which the Elector personally presented to the
theologians at Wittenberg on December 1, 1536, he expressed his opinion
as follows: The Lutherans were not obligated to attend the council,
neither would it be advisable. One could not believe or trust the
opponents. Nothing but trickery, deception, harm, and destruction might
be expected. At the council the Lutheran doctrine would be condemned,
and its confessors excommunicated and outlawed. To be sure, the Lutheran
cause was in God's hands. And as in the past, so also in the future God
would protect it. Still they must not on this account neglect anything.
Luther should therefore draw up articles from which he was determined
not to recede. After they had been subscribed by the Wittenbergers and
by all Evangelical pastors at the prospective meeting [at Smalcald], the
question might also be discussed whether the Lutherans should not
arrange 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, as
the pastors." However, one might also consider whether this should not
preferably be done by the princes and estates. In such an event,
however, one had to see to it that the Emperor be properly informed, and
that the entire blame be saddled upon the Pope and his adherents, the
enemies and opponents of our side. (141)

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

The theologians answered in an opinion of December 6, 1536, endorsing
the Protest referred to above, but disapproving the counter-council.
Concerning the first point they advised that a writing be published and
sent to the Emperor and all rulers in which the Lutherans were to
"request that ways and means be considered of adopting a lawful
procedure [at the council] promoting the true Christian unity of
Christendom." Concerning the counter-council, however, they advised at
all events not to hasten with it. For to convoke it would produce a
great and terrible appearance of creating a schism, and of setting
oneself against all the world and contemplating taking the field soon.
Therefore such great, apparent resistance should not be undertaken till
one intends to do something in the matter openly and in deed. Concerning
the defense, the Wittenberg theologians were of the opinion that it was
the right and duty of the princes to protect and defend their subjects
against notorious injuries (if, for example, an attempt should be made
to force upon them the Romish idolatry, or to rend asunder the marriages
of their pastors), and also against the Emperor, even after the council
had condemned them as heretics. Luther signed this opinion with the
following 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 Luther
was to frame as follows: Although, in the first place, it may easily be
perceived 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 is
founded on Holy Scripture moreover, everything will have to be Lutheran
heresy, and their verdict, which probably has already been decided and
agreed upon, must be adopted and immediately followed by their proposed
ban and interdict [decree excommunicating and outlawing our party], it
will, nevertheless, be very necessary for Doctor Martin to prepare his
foundation and opinion from the Holy Scriptures, namely, the articles as
hitherto taught, preached, and written by him, and which he is
determined to adhere to and abide by at the council, as well as upon his
departure from this world and before the judgment of Almighty God, and
in which we cannot yield without becoming guilty of treason against God,
even though property and life, peace or war, are at stake. Such articles
however, as are not necessary, and in which for the sake of Christian
love, yet without offense against God and His Word, something might be
yielded (though, doubtless, they will be few in number), should in this
connection also be indicated separately by said Doctor Martin. And when
Doctor Martin has completed such work (which, if at all possible for the
Doctor, must be done between the present date and that of the Conversion
of St. Paul [January 25], at the latest), he shall thereupon present it
to the other Wittenberg theologians, and likewise to some prominent
preachers whose presence he should require to hear from them, at the
same time admonishing them most earnestly, and asking them whether they
agreed with him in these articles which he had drawn up, or not, and
thereupon, as they hoped for their souls salvation their sentiment and
opinion be learned in its entirety, but not in appearance, for the sake
of peace, or because they did not like to oppose the Doctor, and for
this reason would not fully open their hearts, and still, at a later
time would teach, preach, write, and make public something else or
advise the people against said articles, as some have in several
instances done before this. An agreement having been reached, the
articles were to be subscribed by all and prepared in German and Latin.
At the prospective meeting [at Smalcald] they should be submitted to the
religious confederates for discussion and subscription. Hence, in the
invitation, every prince should be asked "to bring with him two or three
theologians, in order that a unanimous agreement might be reached there,
and no delay could be sought or pretended." (139.) Accordingly, the
Elector planned to have Luther draw up articles which were to be
accepted by all, first at Wittenberg and then at Smalcald, without
compulsion and for no other reason than that they expressed their own
inmost convictions. The situation had changed since 1530, and the
Elector desired a clearer expression, especially on the Papacy. Hence he
did not appoint Melanchthon, but Luther, to compose the articles. The
truth was to be confessed without regard to anything else.

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

The Elector seems also to have enjoined silence on Luther with respect
to the articles until they had been approved at Wittenberg. For in his
letter to Spalatin, of December 15, 1536, Luther wrote: "But you will
keep 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 to
the articles, desiring that Amsdorf, Agricola, and other outside
theologians be called to Wittenberg at his expense to take part in the
discussion. Shortly after, Luther must have finished the articles. The
numerous changes and improvements appearing in the original manuscript,
which is still preserved in the Heidelberg library, show how much time
and labor he spent on this work. Concluding his articles, Luther says:
"These are the articles on which I must stand, and, God willing, shall
stand even to my death; and I do not know how to change or to yield
anything in them. If any one wishes to yield anything, let him do it at
the peril of his conscience." (501, 3.)

Toward the close of the year Luther submitted the draft to his
colleagues, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melanchthon, and those who had
come from abroad, Spalatin, Amsdorf, and Agricola. After thorough
discussion it was adopted by all with but few changes, _e.g._ regarding
the adoration of the saints, concerning which Luther had originally said
nothing. (Kolde, 44.) Spalatin reports that all the articles were read,
and successively considered and discussed. The Elector had spoken also
of points in which a concession might be possible. In the discussion at
Wittenberg, Spalatin mentioned as such the question whether the
Evangelicals, in case the Pope would concede the cup to them, should
cease preaching against the continuance of the one kind among the
<DW7>s; furthermore, what was to be done with respect to ordination and
the adiaphora. Luther had not entered upon a discussion of these
questions, chiefly, perhaps, because he was convinced that the council
would condemn even the essential articles. (Compare Melanchthon's
letter of August 4, 1530, to Campegius, _C. R._ 2, 246.) After the
articles had been read and approved, Spalatin prepared a copy (now
preserved in the archives at Weimar), which was signed by the eight
theologians present, by Melanchthon, however, with the limitation that
the Pope might be permitted to retain his authority "iure humano," "in
case he would admit the Gospel." Perhaps Melanchthon, who probably would
otherwise have dissimulated, felt constrained to add this stricture on
account of the solemn demand of the Elector that no one should hide any
dissent 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 Elector
on January 3, 1537, by the hand of Spalatin. In the accompanying letter
of the same date he informed the Elector that he had asked Amsdorf,
Eisleben [Agricola], and Spalatin to come to Wittenberg on December 28
or the following days. "I presented the articles which I had myself
drawn up according to the command of Your Electoral Grace and talked
them over with them for several days, owing to my weakness, which
intervened (as I think, by the agency of Satan); for otherwise I had
expected to deliberate upon them no longer than one day. And herewith I
am sending them, as affirmed with their signatures, by our dear brother
and good friend, Magister George Spalatin, to deliver them to Your
Electoral Grace, as they all charged and asked me so to do. At the same
time, since there are some who, by suspicion and words, insinuate that
we parsons (_Pfaffen_), as they call us, by our stubbornness desire to
jeopardize 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 all
means Your Electoral Grace would reprimand us for this. For if it would
prove dangerous for other humble people, to say nothing of Your
Electoral Grace, together with other lords, lands, and people, we would
much rather take it upon ourselves alone. Accordingly, Your Electoral
Grace will know well how far and to what extent you will accept these
articles, for we would have no one but ourselves burdened with them,
leaving it to every one whether he will, or will not, burden also
himself with them." (St. L. 21b, 2142.)

In his answer of January 7, 1537, the Elector expressed his thanks to
Luther for having drawn up the articles "in such Christian, true, and
pure fashion," and rejoiced over the unanimity of his theologians. At
the same time he ordered Chancellor Brueck to take steps toward having
the most prominent pastors of the country subscribe the articles, "so
that these pastors and preachers, having affixed their names, must abide
by these articles and not devise teachings of their own, according to
their own opinion and liking, in case Almighty God would summon Doctor
Martin from this world, which rests with His good will." (Kolde, 45.) In
the letter which the Elector sent to Luther, we read: "We give thanks to
Almighty God and to our Lord Christ for having granted you health and
strength to prepare these articles in such Christian, true, and pure
fashion; also that He has given you grace, so that you have agreed on
them 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 you
have always taught, preached, and written, which are also built on the
foundation, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom the gates of
hell cannot prevail, and who shall also remain in spite of the Pope, the
council, and its adherents. May Almighty God, through our Lord Christ,
bestow His grace on us all, that with steadfast and true faith we abide
by them, and suffer no human fear or opinion to turn us therefrom!...
After reading them over for the second time we can entertain no other
opinion of them, but accept them as divine, Christian, and true, and
accordingly shall also confess them and have them confessed freely and
publicly before the council, before the whole world, and whatsoever may
come, and we shall ask God that He would vouchsafe grace to our brother
and to us, and also to our posterity, that steadfastly and without
wavering 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 the
qualified subscription of Melanchthon. "Concerning the Pope," he said,
"we have no hesitation about resisting him most vehemently. For if, from
good opinion, or for the sake of peace, as Magister Philip suggests, we
should suffer him to remain a lord having the right to command us, our
bishops, pastors, and preachers, we would expose ourselves to danger and
burden (because he and his successors will not cease in their endeavors
to destroy us entirely and to root out all our posterity), for which
there is no necessity, since God's Word has delivered and redeemed us
therefrom. And if we, now that God has delivered us from the Babylonian
captivity, should again run into such danger and thus tempt God, this
[subjection to the Pope] would, by a just decree of God, come upon us
through our wisdom, which otherwise, no doubt, will not come to pass."
(2145.) Evidently, the Elector, though not regarding Melanchthon's
deviation as a false doctrine, did not consider it to be without danger.

At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther had entertained similar
thoughts, but he had long ago seen through the Papacy, and abandoned
such opinions. In the Smalcald Articles he is done with the Pope and his
superiority, also by human right. And this for two reasons: first,
because it would be impossible for the Pope to agree to a mere
superiority _iure humano,_ for in that case he must suffer his rule and
estate to be overturned and destroyed together with all his laws and
books; in brief, he cannot do it; in the second place, because even such
a purely human superiority would only harm the Church. (473, 7. 8.)
Melanchthon, on the other hand, still adhered to the position which he
had occupied in the compromise discussions at Augsburg, whence, _e.g._,
he wrote to Camerarius, August 31, 1530 "Oh, would that I could, not
indeed fortify the domination, but restore the administration of the
bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when the
ecclesiastical body has been disorganized. I see that afterwards there
will arise a much more intolerable tyranny [of the princes] than there
ever was before." (_C. R._ 2, 334.) At Smalcald, however, his views met
with so little response among the princes and theologians that in his
"Tract on the Primacy of the Pope" he omitted them entirely and followed
Luther's trend of thought. March 1, 1537, Melanchthon himself wrote
concerning his defeat at the deliberations of the theologians on the
question in which articles concessions might be made in the interest of
peace, saying that the unlearned and the more vehement would not hear of
concessions, since the Lutherans would then be charged with
inconsistency and the Emperor would only increase his demands. (_C. R._
3, 292.) Evidently then, even at that time Melanchthon was not entirely
cured of his utopian dream.

"If the Pontiff would admit the Gospel, _si pontifex evangelium
admitteret._" A. Osiander remarked: "That is, if the devil would become
an apostle." In the Jena edition of Luther's works Melanchthon's phrase
is commented upon as follows: "And yet the Pope with his wolves, the
bishops, even now curses, blasphemes, and outlaws the holy Gospel more
horribly than ever before, raging and fuming against the Church of
Christ and us poor Christians in most horrible fashion, both with fire
and 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 is
found in the edition of the Smalcald Articles prepared 1553 by Stolz
and Aurifaber, where the passage begins: "O quantum mutatus ab illo [the
former 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], nor
was it approved by Luther; moreover, it was later on repudiated by
Philip himself." (_Isagoge_ 823. 894.)

71. Luther's Articles Sidetracked at Smalcald.

It was a large and brilliant assembly, especially of theologians, which
convened at Smalcald in February, 1537. Luther, too, was present. On
January 7 the Elector had written: "We hope that our God will grant you
grace, strength, and health that you may be able to make the journey to
Smalcald 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 to
a confession officially recognized and subscribed to by all Lutheran
princes, estates, and theologians. Accordingly, on February 10, at the
first meeting held at Smalcald, Chancellor Brueck moved that the
theologians deliberate concerning the doctrine, so that, in case the
Lutherans would attend the council, they would know by what they
intended to stand, and whether any concessions were to be made, or, as
Brueck put it, whether anything good [perhaps a deliverance on the
Papacy] should be adopted, or something should be conceded.

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

This situation was exploited by Melanchthon in the interest of his
attitude toward the Zwinglians, which now was much more favorable than
it had been at Augsburg, 1530. From the very outset he opposed the
official adoption of Luther's articles. He desired more freedom with
regard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was offered by
Luther's articles. The first appears from his subscription. Concerning
the article of the Lord's Supper, however, which the Strassburgers and
others refused to accept, Melanchthon does not seem to have voiced any
scruples during the deliberations at Wittenberg. Personally he may even
have been able to accept Luther's form, and this, too, more honestly
than Bucer did at Smalcald. For as late as September 6, 1557, he wrote
to Joachim of Anhalt: "I have answered briefly that in doctrine all are
agreed, and that we all embrace and retain the Confession with the
Apology and Luther's confession written before the Synod of Mantua.
_Respondi breviter, consensum esse omnium de doctrina: amplecti nos
omnes et retinere Confessionem cum Apologia et confessione Lutheri
scripta ante Mantuanam Synodum._" (_C. R._ 9, 260.) But, although
Melanchthon, for his person, accepted Luther's article on the Lord's
Supper, he nevertheless considered it to be dangerous to the Concord
with the Southern Germans and to the Smalcald League. Privately he also
made known his dissatisfaction in no uncertain manner. And in so doing,
he took shelter behind Philip of Hesse, who, as at Augsburg, 1530, still
desired to have the Zwinglians regarded and treated as weak brethren.

Kolde relates: "On the same day (February 10) Melanchthon reported to
the Landgrave: 'One article, that concerning the Sacrament of the Holy
Supper, has been drawn up somewhat vehemently, in that it states that
the bread is the body of the Lord which Luther at first did not draw up
in 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 to
Pomeranus, for he is a vehement man and a coarse Pomeranian. Otherwise
he [Melanchthon] knew of no shortcoming or complaint in all the
articles.' ... 'He also said' (this the Landgrave reports to Jacob Sturm
of Strassburg as an expression of Melanchthon) 'that Luther would hear
of no yielding or receding, but declared: This have I drawn up; if the
princes and estates desired to yield anything, it would rest with them,'
etc. The estates, Melanchthon advised, might therefore in every way
declare that they had adopted the Confession and the Concord, and were
minded to abide by them. At the same time he promised to demand at the
prospective deliberation of the theologians, 'that the article of the
Sacrament be drawn up as contained in the Concord. 'Melanchthon's
assertion that Bugenhagen influenced Luther's formulation of the article
on the Lord's Supper is probably correct. At any rate, it can be proved
that Luther really changed the article. For a glance at the original
manuscript shows that he had at first written, in conformity with the
Concord, 'that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and
wine,' but later on changed it to read: 'that the bread and wine of the
Lord's Supper are the true body and blood of Christ.'" (48.) Melanchthon
was diplomatic enough to hide from the Landgrave his strictures on
Luther's articles about the Pope, knowing well that in this point he
could expect neither approval nor support.

72. Articles Not Discussed in Meeting of League.

As the Southern Germans regarded Luther's formulation of the article on
the Lord's Supper with disfavor, the Landgrave found little difficulty
in winning over (through Jacob Sturm) the delegates of Augsburg and Ulm
to Melanchthon's view of declaring adherence only to the Confession and
the Wittenberg Concord. Already on February 11 the cities decided to
"decline on the best grounds" the Saxon proposition. Following were the
reasons advanced: It was not necessary at present to enter upon the
proposition, since the council would make slow progress, as the Emperor
and the King of France were not yet at peace. They had not understood
this (the adoption of the Saxon proposition) to be the purpose of the
invitation to bring scholars with them. They had a confession, the
Augustana, presented to the Emperor. It was also to be feared that
deliberations on the question whether any concessions should be made,
might lead to a division; nor would this remain concealed from the
<DW7>s. If the Elector desired to present some articles, he might
transmit them, and they, in turn, would send them to their superiors
for inspection. (Kolde, _Analecta,_ 296.)

In the afternoon of February 11 the princes according to the report of
the Strassburgers, expressed their satisfaction with the resolution of
the cities. At the same time they declared that they were not minded to
make any concessions to the <DW7>s, nor to dispute about, or question,
anything in the Confession or the Wittenberg Concord, "but merely to
review the Confession, not to change anything against its contents and
substance, 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 His
Imperial Majesty and for other reasons;" that such was the purpose of
the deliberation for which the scholars had been summoned; and that this
was not superfluous, since "they were all mortal, and it was necessary
that their posterity be thoroughly informed as to what their doctrine
had been, lest others who would succeed to their places accept something
else." The report continues: "The cities did not object to this." (296.)
According to this report, then, Luther's articles were neither discussed
nor adopted at the official meeting of the princes and estates belonging
to the Smalcald League. Without mentioning them, they declared in their
final resolution: Our scholars have "unanimously agreed among themselves
in all points and articles contained in our Confession and Apology,
presented at the Diet of Augsburg, excepting only that they have
expanded and drawn up more clearly than there contained _one article,_
concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome." (Koellner, 468.) Koestlin
remarks: "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 was
once more to discuss the Augustana and the Apology carefully, and to
acknowledge both as their own confessions by their signatures. Thereupon
they were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on the Papacy. The
Strassburg delegates report: "It has also come to pass that the scholars
received orders once more to read the articles of the Confession and to
enlarge somewhat on the Papacy, which they did." (Kolde, _Analecta,_
298.) However, since neither the Augustana nor its Apology contained an
article against the Papacy, the demand of the princes could only be
satisfied by a special treatise, the "Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu
Papae," which Melanchthon wrote and completed by February 17, whereupon
it was immediately delivered to the princes.

The princes had furthermore ordered the theologians, while reviewing and
discussing the Augustana (and its Apology), to reenforce its doctrine
with additional proofs. Owing to lack of time and books, this was not
carried out. February 17 Osiander reports to the Nuernberg preachers:
"We are enjoying good health here, although we traveled in stormy
weather and over roads that offered many difficulties, and are living
under a constantly beclouded sky, which unpleasantries are increased by
troublesome and difficult questions in complicated matters.... The first
business imposed on us by the princes embraces two things: first, to
fortify the Confession and the Apology with every kind of argument from
the Holy Scriptures, the fathers, councils, and the decrees of the
Popes; thereupon, diligently to discuss in detail everything concerning
the Primacy, which was omitted in the Confession because it was odious.
The latter we completed so far to-day that we shall immediately deliver
a copy to the princes. The former, however will be postponed to another
time 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 of
obtaining mutual assurance whether they were all really agreed in
doctrine. This led to deliberations on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper
as well as on the question what concessions might be made to the
Romanists. According to a report of Melanchthon, March 1, the
theologians were to discuss the doctrines, not superficially, but very
thoroughly, in order that all disagreement might be removed, and a
harmonious and complete system of doctrines exist in our churches. They
were to review the Confession in order to learn whether any one
deviated in any article or disapproved of anything. But Melanchthon
remarks that this object was not reached, since the special request had
been voiced not to increase the disagreement by any quarrel and thus to
endanger the Smalcald League. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) In a second letter of
the same date he says that a real doctrinal discussion had never come to
pass, partly because Luther's illness prevented him from taking part in
the meetings, partly because the timidity of certain men [the Landgrave
and others] had prevented an exact disputation lest any discord might
arise. (296.) March 3 he wrote to Jonas in a similar vein saying that
the reports of violent controversies among the theologians at Smalcald
were false. For although they had been in consultation with one another
for the purpose of discovering whether all the theologians in attendance
there agreed in doctrine the matter had been treated briefly and
incidentally. (298.)

As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned Melanchthon's report concerning
the superficial character of the doctrinal discussions is little if at
all exaggerated. He himself was one of those timid souls of whom he
spoke having from the beginning done all he could not only to bar
Luther's articles from the deliberations but also to prevent any
penetrating discussion of the Lord's Supper. Assent to the Wittenberg
Concord was considered satisfactory although all felt, and believed to
know, that some of the Southern Germans did not agree with the loyal
Lutherans in this matter. Of the attending theologians who were under
suspicion Bucer, Blaurer, Fagius, Wolfart, Fontanus, and Melander, only
the first two took part in the deliberations. (292.) March 1 Melanchthon
wrote to Camerarius: "Bucer spoke openly and clearly of the Mystery [the
Lord's Supper] affirming the presence of Christ. He satisfied all of our
party also those who are more severe. Blaurer, however, employed such
general expressions as, that Christ was present. Afterward he added
several more ambiguous expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly;
but since we did not desire to arouse any very vehement quarrel, I
terminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement was
restored among all others, while he [Blaurer] did not seem to
contradict. I know that this is weak but nothing else could be done at
this time, especially since Luther was absent, being tortured by very
severe 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 they
completed the first nine articles of the Augustana. Blaurer, Wolfart,
and some others of those who were doctrinally under suspicion (_nobis
suspecti de doctrina_) were present. "However, when the article of the
Lord's Supper was to be discussed on the following day, the meeting was
prevented, 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 the
disputation was prevented, we were commissioned to write on the Power of
the Pope in order to have something to do. Report had it that Blaurer
did not approve the Concord of Wittenberg; certainly, he asked Philip
for expressions of the Fathers (which are now in my possession), in
order to be better furnished with arguments. This prompted Pomeranus and
Amsdorf 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 not
receive the body of Christ." Wolfart declared that he was present at the
Concord made at Wittenberg, and had approved it. It was unpleasant for
him [Dietrich] when hereupon Stephanus Agricola and then Wolfart
rehashed some old statements, _vetera quaedam dicta._ (370.)

74. Luther's Articles Subscribed.

As to the articles of Luther, Veit Dietrich reports that they were
privately circulated at Smalcald and read by all. They were also to be
read 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 real
discussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Strassburg delegates
report: "Doctor Martin Luther has also drawn up some special articles,
which he purposed to send to the council on his own accord, copies of
which we have designated with W." The Strassburgers, then, were in
position to send home a copy of these articles. Furthermore Osiander
relates in a letter dated February 17: "Besides this, Luther has also
written articles at Wittenberg, short indeed, but splendid and keen
(_illustres et argutos_), in which everything is summed up in German
wherefrom we cannot recede in the council without committing sacrilege.
To-morrow we shall read them publicly in our meeting, in order that any
one who wishes to add anything to them may present this in the presence
of all. They will also, as I hope, deliberate on the [Wittenberg]
Concord in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. I regard Bucer as
being sincerely one of us; Blaurer, however, by no means. For Philip
tells 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 this
day 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 been
transacted, they were presented for voluntary subscription. Bugenhagen
had called the theologians together for this purpose. He proposed that
now all those who wished (_qui velint_) should sign the articles Luther
had brought with him. Hereupon Bucer declared that he had no commission
to do this. However, in order to obliterate the impression that he
declined to subscribe because of doctrinal differences, he added that he
knew nothing in Luther's articles which might be criticized. Blaurer of
Constance, Melander of Hesse, and Wolfart of Augsburg followed his
example in declaring that they had no commission to sign the articles.
In order not to endanger the Smalcald League, Bugenhagen, as appears
from his proposition refrained from urging any one to sign. This was
also the position of the other theologians.

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

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

Although, therefore, the subscription of the Smalcald Articles lacked
the official character and was not by order of the Smalcald League as
such, it nevertheless is in keeping with the actual facts when the
Formula of Concord refers to Luther's Articles as "subscribed at that
time [1537] by the chief theologians." (777, 4; 853, 7.) All true
Lutheran pastors assembled at Smalcald recognized in Luther's articles
their own, spontaneous confession against the <DW7>s as well as against
the Zwinglians and other enthusiasts.

75. Endorsed by Princes and Estates.

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

Kolde and others surmise that Luther wrote as he did because, owing to
his illness, he was not acquainted with the true situation at Smalcald.
Tschackert, too, takes it for granted that Luther, not being
sufficiently informed, was under the erroneous impression that the
princes and estates as well as the theologians had adopted, and
subscribed to, his articles. (300. 302.) Nor has a better theory of
solving the difficulty hitherto been advanced. Yet it appears very
improbable. If adopted, one must assume that Luther's attention was
never drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit his
assertion 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 articles
adopted at Smalcald; I shall not be able to improve on them; nor do I
know 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 the
title, Booklet of the Smalcald Agreement--_Buechlein der geschehenen
Schmalkaldischen Vergleichung,_ the "Articles of Agreement,
Vergleichungsartikel," on which he and Melanchthon had come to an
agreement in 1537, at Smalcald, with the other allied estates, scholars,
and theologians. (St. L. 21b, 2913.) October 17, 1552, immediately after
he had obtained his liberty, the Elector made a similar statement. (_C.
R._ 7, 1109.) Nor did Spalatin possess a knowledge in this matter
differing from that of Luther and the Elector. He, too, believed that
not only the theologians, but the princes and estates as well, with the
exception of Hesse, Wuerttemberg, Strassburg, etc., had subscribed to
Luther's articles. (Kolde, 51.)

Evidently, then, Luther's statement was generally regarded as being
substantially and approximately correct and for all practical purposes
in keeping, if not with the exact letter and form at least with the real
spirit of what transpired at Smalcald and before as well as after this
convention. It was not a mere delusion of Luther's, but was generally
regarded as agreeing with the facts, that at Smalcald his articles were
not only subscribed by the theologians, but adopted also by the Lutheran
princes and estates, though, in deference to the Landgrave and the South
German 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 the
Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists appears from a statement made by the
Elector of Saxony, October 17, 1552 (shortly after his deliverance from
captivity), in which he maintained that the Lutheran Church could have
been spared her internal dissensions if every one had faithfully abided
by the articles of Luther. He told the Wittenberg theologians that
during his captivity he had heard of the dissensions and continued
controversies, "which caused us no little grief. And we have therefore
often desired with all our heart that in the churches of our former
lands and those of others no change, prompted by human wisdom, had been
undertaken nor permitted in the matters [doctrines] as they were held
during the life of the blessed Doctor Martin Luther and during our rule,
and confirmed at Smalcald, in the year 1537, by all pastors and
preachers of the estates of the Augsburg Confession then assembled at
that place. For if this had been done, no doubt, the divisions and
errors prevailing among the teachers of said Confession, together with
the grievous and harmful offenses which resulted therefrom, would, with
the help of God, have been avoided." (_C. R._ 7, 1109.)

In the Prolegomena to his edition of the Lutheran Confessions, Hase
remarks concerning the symbolical authority of Luther's articles: "The
formula of faith, drawn up by such a man, and adorned with such names,
immediately enjoyed the greatest authority. _Fidei formula a tali viro
profecta talibusque nominibus ornata maxima statim auctoritate
floruit._" To rank among the symbolical books, Luther's articles
required a special resolution on the part of the princes and estates as
little as did his two catechisms; contents and the Reformer's name were
quite sufficient. Voluntarily the articles were subscribed at Smalcald.
On their own merits they won their place of honor in our Church. In the
situation then obtaining, they voiced the Lutheran position in a manner
so correct and consistent that every loyal Lutheran spontaneously gave
and declared his assent. In keeping with the changed historical context
of the times, they offered a correct explanation of the Augsburg
Confession, adding thereto a declaration concerning the Papacy, the
absence of which had become increasingly painful. They struck the
timely, logical, Lutheran note also over against the Zwinglian and
Bucerian [Reformed and Unionistic] tendencies. Luther's articles offered
quarters neither for disguised <DW7>s nor for masked Calvinists. In
brief they gave such a clear expression to genuine Lutheranism that
false spirits could not remain in their company. It was the recognition
of these facts which immediately elicited the joyful acclaim of all true
Lutherans. To them it was a recommendation of Luther's articles when
Bucer, Blaurer, and others, though having subscribed the Augsburg
Confession, refused to sign them. Loyal Lutherans everywhere felt that
the Smalcald Articles presented an up-to-date touchstone of the pure
Lutheran truth, and that, in taking their stand on them, their feet were
planted, over against the aberrations of the Romanists as well as the
Zwinglians, 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 on
the Interim, as well as in the subsequent controversies with the
Crypto-Calvinists, the Lutherans became more and more convinced that the
Smalcald Articles and not the Variata, contained the correct exposition
of the Augsburg Confession. At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, the
Elector, by his delegates, sent word to Melanchthon "to stand by the
Confession and the Smalcald Agreement [Smalcald Articles] in word and in
sense." The delegates answered that Philip would not yield anything
"which was opposed to the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement," as he
had declared that "he would die rather than yield anything against his
conscience." (_C. R._ 4, 292.) In an opinion of 1544 also the
theologians of Hesse, who at Smalcald had helped to sidetrack Luther's
articles put them on a par with the Augustana. At Naumburg in 1561,
where Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and the Crypto-Calvinists
endeavored to undermine the authority of Luther, Duke John Frederick of
Saxony 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 to
be "the norm by which controversies are to be decided, _norma decidendi
controversias_." Similarly, the Synod of Moelln, 1559. In 1560 the
ministerium of Luebeck and the Senate of Hamburg confessionally accepted
the Articles. Likewise, the Convention of Lueneburg in 1561, and the
theologians of Schleswig-Holstein in 1570. The Thorough Declaration
could truthfully say that the Smalcald Articles had been embodied in the
confessional writings of the Lutheran Church "for the reason that these
have always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimously
accepted meaning of our churches and, moreover, have been subscribed at
that time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have held
sway in all evangelical churches and schools." (855, 11.)

77. Editions of Smalcald Articles.

In 1538 Luther published his Articles, which _editio princeps_ was
followed by numerous other editions, two of them in the same year. In
the copy of the Articles which Spalatin took at Wittenberg the title
reads: "Opinion concerning the Faith, and What We Must Adhere to
Ultimately at the Future Council. _Bedenken des Glaubens halben, und
worauf im kuenftigen Konzil endlich zu beharren sei._" The _editio
princeps_ bears the title: "Articles which were to be Delivered on
Behalf of Our Party at the Council of Mantua, or Where Else It Would
Meet. _Artikel, so da haetten aufs Konzilium zu Mantua, oder wo es
wuerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen._" These
titles designate the purpose for which the articles were framed by order
of the Elector. In the edition of 1553, published by John Stolz and John
Aurifaber, Luther's Articles are designated as "prepared for the Diet of
Smalcald in the year 1537, _gestellt auf den Tag zu Schmalkalden Anno
1537._" Says Carpzov: "They are commonly called Smalcald Articles after
the place where they were composed [an error already found in Brenz's
letter of February 23, 1537, appended to the subscriptions of the "Tract
on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (529). See also Formula of Concord
777, 4; 853, 7], as well as solemnly approved and subscribed since the
articles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants at
Smalcald a town in the borders of Saxony and Ducal Hesse, and selected
for the convention of the Protestants for the reason that the
individuals who had been called thither might have an easy and safe
approach." (_Isagoge,_ 769.)

The text of the Smalcald Articles, as published by Luther, omits the
following motto found in the original: "This is sufficient doctrine for
eternal life. As to the political and economic affairs, there are enough
laws to trouble us, so that there is no need of inventing further
troubles much more burdensome. Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof. _His satis est doctrinae pro vita aeterna. Ceterum in politia
et oeconomia satis est legum, quibus vexamur, ut non sit opus praeter
has molestias fingere alias quam miserrimas [necessarias]. Sufficit diei
malitia sua._" (Luther, Weimar 50, 192. St. L. 16 1918.) Apart from all
kinds of minor corrections, Luther added to the text a Preface (written
1538) and several additions, some of them quite long, which, however,
did not change the sense. Among these are sec. 5, secs. 13 to 15, and
secs. 25-28 of the article concerning the Mass; secs. 42-45 concerning
the False Repentance of the <DW7>s; secs. 3-13 about Enthusiasm in the
article concerning Confession. The editions of 1543 and 1545 contained
further emendations. The German text of Luther's first edition of 1538
was received into the Book of Concord, "as they were first framed and
printed." (853, 7.) The first Latin translation by Peter Generanus
appeared in 1541, with a Preface by Veit Amerbach (later on Catholic
Professor of Philosophy at Ingolstadt). In 1542 it was succeeded by an
emended edition. In the following year the Elector desired a
Latin-German edition in octavo. The Latin translation found in the Book
of Concord of 1580 was furnished by Selneccer; this was revised for the
official 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 the
same thoughts Luther had already discussed in his article "Of the
Papacy." Melanchthon here abandons the idea of a papal supremacy _iure
humano,_ which he had advocated at Augsburg 1530 and expressed in his
subscription to Luther's articles, and moves entirely in the wake of
Luther and in the trend of the Reformer's thoughts. The Tract was
written not so much from his own conviction as from that of Luther and
in accommodation to the antipapal sentiment which, to his grief, became
increasingly dominant at Smalcald. (_C. R._ 3, 270. 292f. 297.) In a
letter to Jonas, February 23, he remarks, indicating his accommodation
to the public opinion prevailing at Smalcald: "I have written this
[Tract] somewhat sharper than I am wont to do." (271. 292.) Melanchthon
always trimmed his sails according to the wind; and at Smalcald a
decidedly antipapal gale was blowing. He complains that he found no one
there who assented to his opinion that the papal invitation to a council
ought not be declined. (293.) It is also possible that he heard of the
Elector's criticism of his qualified subscription to Luther's articles.
At all events, the Tract amounts to a retraction of his stricture on
Luther's view of the Papacy. In every respect, Smalcald spelled a defeat
for Melanchthon. His policy toward the South Germans was actually
repudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic subscriptions to Luther's
articles, foreshadowing, as it were, the final historical outcome, when
Philippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord. And his
own Tract gave the _coup de grace_ to his mediating policy with regard
to the Romanists. For here Melanchthon, in the manner of Luther, opposes
and denounces the Pope as the Antichrist, the protector of ungodly
doctrine and customs, and the persecutor of the true confessors of
Christ, from whom one must separate. The second part of the Tract,
"Concerning the Power and the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, _De Potestate
et Iurisdictione Episcoporum,_" strikes an equally decided note.

The Tract, which was already completed by February 17, received the
approval of the estates, and, together with the Augustana and the
Apology, was signed by the theologians upon order of the princes. (_C.
R._ 3, 286.) Koellner writes: "Immediately at the convention Veit
Dietrich translated this writing [the Tract] into German, and (as
appears from the fact that the Weimar theologians in 1553 published the
document from the archives with the subscriptions) this German
translation was, at the convention, presented to, and approved by, the
estates as the official text, and subscribed by the theologians." (464.)
Brenz's letter appended to the subscriptions shows that the signing did
not take place till after February 23, perhaps the 25th of February. For
on 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 in
Brenz's and Melander's subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, the
princes and estates nevertheless passed no resolution requiring its
subscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declared
that they would abide by the Wittenberg Concord. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) Veit
Dietrich's remark to Foerster, May 16, 1537, that only the Augustana and
the Concord were signed at Smalcald, is probably due to a mistake in
writing. (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 and
done into German by Veit Dietrich." (_C. R._ 23 722.) In the edition of
the Smalcald Articles by Stolz and Aurifaber, 1553, the Tract is
appended with the caption: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the
Pope, Composed by the Scholars. Smalcald, 1537." In the Jena edition of
Luther's Works the Smalcald Articles are likewise followed by the Tract
with the title: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope,
Composed by the Scholars in the Year 37 at Smalcald and Printed in the
Year 38." (6, 523.) This superscription gave rise to the opinion that
the German was the original text. At any rate, such seems to have been
the 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 version
contained also the offensive misprint referred to in our article on the
Book of Concord. In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted by
the 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 forgotten
both that Melanchthon was the author of the Tract, and that it was
originally composed in Latin. However, it remains a mystery how this
should have been possible--only twelve years after Dietrich had published
the Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as its
author, and states that the German text is a translation. The evidence
for Melanchthon's authorship which thus became necessary was furnished
by J. C. Bertram in 1770. However, before him Chytraeus and Seckendorf,
in 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon's authorship. Be it
mentioned as a curiosity that the <DW7> Lud. Jac. a St. Carolo
mentioned a certain "Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germanus, Lutheranus" as
the author of the Tract. In the Formula of Concord and in the Preface to
the Book of Concord the Tract is not enumerated as a separate
confessional writing, but is treated as an appendix to the Smalcald
Articles.

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 threefold
criticism. In the first place, he opines that Luther's Articles are
"very improperly called 'Smalcald Articles.'" However, even if Luther's
Articles were not officially adopted by the Smalcald League as such,
they were nevertheless, written for the Convention of Smalcald, and were
there signed by the assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers and
privately adopted also by most of the princes and estates. For Luther's
Articles then, there is and can be no title more appropriate than
"Smalcald Articles." Tschackert remarks: "Almost all [all, with the
exception of the suspected theologians] subscribed and thereby they
became weighty and important for the Evangelical churches of Germany;
and hence it certainly is not inappropriate to call them 'Smalcald
Articles,' even though they were written at Wittenberg and were not
publicly deliberated upon at Smalcald." (302.)

"It is entirely unhistorical," Kolde continues in his strictures, "to
designate Melanchthon's Tract, which has no connection with Luther's
Articles, as an 'Appendix' to them when in fact it was accepted as an
appendix of the Augustana and Apology." (50.) It is a mistake,
therefore, says Kolde, that the Tract is not separately mentioned in the
Book of Concord, nor counted as a separate confessional writing. (53.)
Likewise Tschackert: "On the other hand, it is a mistake to treat
Melanchthon's Tract as an appendix to the Smalcald Articles, as is done
in the Book of Concord. The signatures of the estates have rather given
it an independent authority in the Church." (302.) However, there is
much more of a connection between Luther's Articles and the Tract than
Kolde and Tschackert seem to be aware of. Luther's Articles as well as
the Tract were prepared for the Convention at Smalcald. Both were there
signed by practically the same Lutheran theologians. The fact that in
the case of the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily rather
enhances and does not in the least diminish, their importance. Both
also, from the very beginning, were equally regarded as Lutheran
confessional writings. The Tract, furthermore, follows Luther's
Articles also in substance, as it is but an acknowledgment and
additional exposition of his article "Of the Papacy." To be sure, the
Tract must not be viewed as an appendix to Luther's Articles, which,
indeed, were in no need of such an appendix. Moreover, both the Articles
and the Tract may be regarded as appendices to the Augsburg Confession
and the Apology. Accordingly, there is no reason whatever why, in the
Book of Concord, the Tract should not follow Luther's Articles or be
regarded as closely connected with it, and naturally belonging to it.
Koellner is right when he declares it to be "very appropriate" that the
Tract 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. Likewise
Tschackert. (303.) The criticism is justified inasmuch as the expression
"composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus,_ by the scholars" cannot very
well be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. But
even this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degree
assumed by Kolde and Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes and
estates did not order Melanchthon, but the theologians, to write the
treatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was presented in
their name. Koellner writes: "It is certainly a splendid testimony for
the noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Elector
should know of, and partly disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, and
still entrust him with the composition of this very important document
[the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon so
splendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and
the interests of the party without infringing upon his own conviction."
"Seckendorf also," Koellner adds "justly admires this unusual
phenomenon." (471.) However, Koellner offers no evidence for the
supposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the
composition of the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburg
delegates, the princes declared that "the scholars" should peruse the
Confession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues: "The
scholars received orders ... to enlarge somewhat on the Papacy which
_they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector
and the princes." (Kolde, _Anal.,_ 297.) This is corroborated by
Melanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March 1, 1537: "We
received orders (_iussi sumus_) to write something on the Primacy of
Peter or the Roman Pontiff." (_C. R._ 3, 292.) February 17 Osiander
reported: "The first business imposed on _us_ by the princes was ...
diligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confession
because it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties _we_ have
to-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to the
princes." (3, 267.) These statements might even warrant the conclusion
that the theologians also participated, more or less in the drawing up
of the Tract, for which however, further evidence is wanting. Nor does
it appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit Dietrich's
assertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: "Orders were given to write
about the power of the Pope the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. Philip alone performed this very well." (3, 370.) However,
entirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that the
theologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it was
delivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrants
us to speak of the document as "The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald"
with the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which Melanchthon
drew up on August 6, 1536, is entitled: "The First Proposal of the
Wittenberg 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 later
students, G. Buchwald, F. Cohrs, and O. Albrecht have, since the middle
of the past century, rendered no mean service by their researches
pertaining to Luther's Catechisms. Buchwald edited the three series of
sermons on the Five Chief Parts which Luther delivered in 1528, pointed
out their important bearing on his Catechisms, and shed new light on
their origin by discovering and exploiting the Stephan Roth
correspondence. He published the results of his labors in 1894 under the
title, "The Origin of the Two Catechisms of Luther and the Foundation of
the Large Catechism. _Die Entstehung der beiden Katechismen Luthers und
die Grundlage des Grossen Katechismus._" F. Cohrs enriched this
department of knowledge by his articles in the third edition of Herzog's
_Realenzyklopaedie,_ and especially by his five-volume work on _The
Evangelical Catechism; Attempts Prior to Luther's Enchiridion,_ in
_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica,_ 1900 to 1907. In 1905 O. Albrecht was
entrusted with the preparation of Luther's Catechisms for the Weimar
Critical Edition of Luther's Complete Works. He also contributed the
extensive 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 the
latest important research work on the origin of Luther's Catechisms. In
its preface R. Drescher says: "The writings of 1529 to 1530, in their
totality were a difficult mountain, and it gives us particular joy
finally to have surmounted it. And the most difficult and laborious part
of the way, at least in view of the comprehensive treatment it was to
receive, was the publication of the Large and the Small Catechism,
including the three series of Catechism Sermons. ... The harvest which
was 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 recens
natorum, ante quam baptizentur_--the instruction of children, also those
recently born, before their baptism." The synonymous expression,
_catechesis,_ he describes as "_institutio primorum fidei Christianae
rudimentorum, de quibus kateceseis suas scripsit S. Cyrillus
Jerusolymitanus_--instruction in the first rudiments of the Christian
faith, 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 who
desire to be Christians." (Weimar 30, 1, 57.) At first Luther seems to
have employed the term but seldom; later on, however, especially after
1526, more frequently. Evidently he was bent on popularizing it. Between
the Preface and the Decalog of the first Wittenberg book edition of the
Small Catechism we find the title, "A Small Catechism or Christian
Training--_Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht._" No doubt,
Luther added the explanation "christliche Zucht" because the word
catechism had not yet become current among the people. May 18, 1528, he
began 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 of
November 30: "Catechism, _i.e._, a sermon for children." In the Preface
to his Small Catechism he again explains the term as "Christian
doctrine." Thus Luther endeavored to familiarize the people with the
word catechism.

The meaning of this term, however, is not always the same. It may
designate the act of instructing, the subject-matter or the doctrine
imparted, a summary thereof, the text of the traditional chief parts, or
a book containing the catechismal doctrine, text, or text with
explanation. Luther used the word most frequently and preferably in the
sense of instruction. This appears from the definitions quoted in the
preceding paragraph, where catechism is defined as "sermon,"
"instruction," "Christian training," etc. "You have the catechism" (the
doctrine), says Luther, "in small and large books." Bugenhagen defines
thus: "Katechismus, dat is, christlike underrichtinge ut den teyn
gebaden Gades." In the Apology, Melanchthon employs the word catechism
as identical with _kathechesis puerorum,_ instruction of the young in
the 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 the
contents of a book, and finally, as the book itself." This usage must be
borne in mind also where Luther speaks of his own Catechisms. "German
Catechism" means instruction in, or preaching on, the traditional chief
parts in the German language. And while "Enchiridion" signifies a book
of small compass, the title "Small Catechism" (as appears from the old
subtitle: "Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht") means
instruction in the chief parts, proceeding with compact brevity, and, at
the same time, these parts themselves together with the explanations
added. (W. 30, 1, 454. 539.) As the title of a book the word catechism
was first employed by Althamer in 1528, and by Brenz as the subtitle of
his "Questions" (_Fragestuecke_). A school-book written by John Colet in
the beginning of the sixteenth century bears the title "_Catechyzon,_
The Instructor." (456.)

Not every kind of Christian instruction, however, is called catechism by
Luther. Whenever he uses the word, he has in mind beginners, children,
and unlearned people. In his "German Order of Worship, _Deutsche
Messe,_" of 1526, he writes: "Catechism is an instruction whereby
heathen who desire to become Christians are taught and shown what they
must believe, do, not do, and know in Christianity, hence the name
catechumens was given to pupils who were accepted for such instruction
and who learned the Creed previous to their baptism." (19, 76.) In his
sermon 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 if
he does not know these things, it is evident that God and Christ mean
nothing to him." (30, 1, 57.) In his sermon of September 14: "This
[catechism] is preaching for children, or, the Bible of the laity, which
serves the plain people. Whoever, then, does not know these things, and
is unable to recite them and understand them, cannot be considered a
Christian. It is for this reason, too, that it bears the name catechism,
_i.e._, instruction and Christian teaching, since all Christians at the
very least should know this much. Afterward they ought to learn more of
the 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 an
instruction for children and the unlearned. ... For every Christian must
necessarily know the Catechism. Whoever does not know it cannot be
numbered among the Christians." (2.) In the short Preface to the Large
Catechism: "This sermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an
instruction for children and the simpleminded. Hence, of old it was
called in Greek catechism, _i.e._, instruction for children, what every
Christian must needs know, so that he who does not know this could not
be 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 of
the doctrine every one must learn if he would be regarded and treated as
a Christian. "Those who are unwilling to learn it," says Luther, "should
be told that they deny Christ and are no Christians; neither should they
be admitted to the Sacraments, accepted as sponsors at Baptism, nor
exercise any part of Christian liberty." (CONC. TRIGL. 535, 11.) Of
course, Luther considered these three parts only a minimum, which,
however, Christians who partake of the Lord's Supper should strive to
exceed, but still sufficient for children and plain people. (575, 5.)
Even in his later years, Luther speaks of the first three parts as the
Catechism proper.

However, probably in consequence of the controversy with the
Enthusiasts, which began in 1524, Luther soon added as supplements the
parts treating of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Confession. In the
Large Catechism, where Baptism and the Lord's Supper appear as
appendices, Luther emphasizes the fact that the first three parts form
the kernel of the Catechism, but that instruction in Baptism and the
Lord's Supper must also be imparted. "These" (first three), says he,
"are the most necessary parts, which one should first learn to repeat
word for word. ... Now, when these three parts are apprehended, it
behooves a person also to know what to say concerning our Sacraments,
which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood of
Christ, namely, the text which Matthew and Mark record at the close of
their gospels, when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent them
forth." (579, 20.) Luther regarded a correct knowledge of Baptism and
the Lord's Supper not only as useful, but as necessary. Beginning his
explanation of the Fourth Chief Part, he remarks: "We have now finished
the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we
have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which
also every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief
instruction, 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- and
confession-books, which appeared in the late Middle Ages, also treat of
the Sacraments. As for the people, however, it was considered sufficient
for laymen to be able to recite the names of the seven Roman sacraments.
Hence Luther, in the passage cited from the Large Catechism, declares
that in Popery practically nothing of Baptism and the Lord's Supper was
taught, certainly nothing worth while or wholesome.

84. Parts Inherited from Ancient Church.

The text of the first three chief parts, Luther considered a sacred
heirloom from the ancient Church. "For," says he in his Large Catechism,
"the holy Fathers or apostles have thus embraced in a summary the
doctrine life, wisdom, and art of Christians, of which they speak and
treat, and with which they are occupied." (579, 19.) Thus Luther, always
conservative, did not reject the traditional catechism, both bag and
baggage, but carefully distinguished between the good, which he
retained, and the worthless, which he discarded. In fact, he no more
dreamt of foisting a new doctrine or catechism on the Christian Church
than he ever thought of founding a new church. On the contrary, his sole
object was to restore the ancient Apostolic Church, and his catechetical
endeavors 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 remained
faithful to the true and ancient Church; aye, we are the true and
ancient Church. You <DW7>s, however, have apostatized from us, _i.e._,
from the ancient Church, and have set up a new church in opposition to
the ancient Church." In harmony with this view, Luther repeatedly and
emphatically asserted that in his Catechism he was merely protecting and
guarding an inheritance of the fathers, which he had preserved to the
Church by his correct explanation. In his _German Order of Worship_ we
read: "I know of no simpler nor better arrangement of this instruction
or doctrine than the arrangement which has existed since the beginning
of Christendom, _viz._, the three parts, Ten Commandments, Creed, and
the Lord's Prayer." (W. 19, 76.) In the ancient Church the original
parts for catechumens and sponsors were the _Symbolum_ and the
_Paternoster,_ the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer. To these the
Ten Commandments were added as a formal part of doctrine only since the
thirteenth century. (30, 1, 434.) The usual sequence of these parts was:
Lord's Prayer, Apostles' Creed, and, wherever it was not supplanted by
other matter, the Decalog. It was with deliberation then, that Luther
substituted his own objective, logical order.

In his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's
Prayer,_ 1520 Luther speaks as follows of the three traditional parts,
which God preserved to the Church in spite of the Papacy: "It did not
come to pass without the special providence of God, that, with reference
to the common Christian, who cannot read the Scriptures, it was
commanded to teach and to know the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord's
Prayer which three parts indeed thoroughly and completely embrace all
that is contained in the Scripture and may ever be preached, all also
that a Christian needs to know, and this, too, in a form so brief and
simple 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 his
salvation. 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 he
realizes that by his own strength he is unable to do it and leave it
undone, he must know where he may take, seek, and find that which will
enable him to do and to refrain. Thirdly, he must know how he may seek
and obtain it. Even as a sick man needs first of all to know what
disease he has, what he may or may not do, or leave undone. Thereupon he
needs to know where the medicine is which will help him, that he may do
and leave undone like a healthy person. Fourthly, he must desire it,
seek and get it, or have it brought to him. In like manner the
commandments teach a man to know his disease, that he may see and
perceive what he can do and not do, leave and not leave, and thus
perceive that he is a sinner and a wicked man. Thereupon the Creed holds
before his eyes and teaches him where to find the medicine, the grace
which will help him become pious, that he may keep the commandments, and
shows 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 comprise
the entire Scriptures." (W. 7, 204.) It was things such as the chief
parts of the Catechism that Luther had in mind when he wrote against the
fanatics, 1528: "We confess that even under the Papacy there are many
Christian blessings aye, all Christian blessings, and thence they have
come to us: the true Holy Scriptures, true Baptism, the true Sacrament
of the Altar, true keys for the forgiveness of sins, the true office of
the ministry, the true catechism, such as the Lord's Prayer, the Ten
Commandments the Articles of Faith, etc." (26, 147.) Luther's meaning
is, that in the midst of antichristendom and despite the Pope, the text
of the three chief parts was, among other things, preserved to the
Church.

85. Service Rendered Catechism by Luther.

The fact that the text of the three chief parts existed long before
Luther does not detract from the service which he rendered the
Catechism. Luther's work, moreover, consisted in this, 1. that he
brought about a general revival of the instruction in the Catechism of
the ancient Church; 2. that he completed it by adding the parts treating
of Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Supper; 3. that he purged its
material from all manner of papal ballast; 4. that he eliminated the
Romish interpretation and adulteration in the interest of
work-righteousness; 5. that he refilled the ancient forms with their
genuine Evangelical and Scriptural meaning. Before Luther's time the
study of the Catechism had everywhere fallen into decay. There were but
few who knew its text, and when able to recite it, they did not
understand it. The soul of all Christian truths, the Gospel of God's
free pardon for Christ's sake, had departed. Concerning "the three parts
which have remained in Christendom from of old" Luther said that "little
of it had been taught and treated correctly." (CONC. TRIGL. 575, 6.)

In his _Warning to My Dear Germans,_ of 1531, he enlarges on the same
thought as follows; "Thanks to God, our Gospel has produced much and
great good. Formerly no one knew what was Gospel, what Christ, what
Baptism, what Confession, what Sacrament, what faith, what spirit, what
flesh, what good works, what the Ten Commandments, what the Lord's
Prayer, what praying, what suffering, what comfort, what civil
government, what matrimony, what parents, what children, what lords,
what servant, what mistress what maid, what devil, what angel, what
world, what life, what death, what sin, what right, what forgiveness of
sin, 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 in
Christian matters they are asses indeed, aye, great, coarse, unlearned
asses. For I also was one of them and know that in this I am speaking
the truth. And all pious hearts who were captive under the Pope, even as
I, 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 that
the priests and monks alone were everything; on their works we based our
hope of salvation and not on Christ. Thanks to God, however, it has now
come to pass that man and woman, young and old, know the Catechism, and
how to believe, live, pray, suffer, and die; and that is indeed a
splendid instruction for consciences, teaching them how to be a
Christian and to know Christ." (W. 30, 3, 317.)

Thus Luther extols it as the great achievement of his day that now every
one knew the Catechism, whereas formerly Christian doctrine was unknown
or at least not understood aright. And this achievement is preeminently
a service which Luther rendered. He revived once more the ancient
catechetical parts of doctrine, placed them in the proper Biblical
light, permeated them with the Evangelical spirit, and explained them in
conformity with the understanding of the Gospel which he had gained
anew, stressing especially the _finis historiae_ (the divine purpose of
the historical facts of Christianity, as recorded in the Second
Article), 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 chief
parts for sponsors (_Patenhauptstuecke_), since the canons required
sponsors to know them, and at Baptism they were obligated to teach these
parts to their godchildren. The children, then, were to learn the Creed
and the Lord's Prayer from their parents and sponsors. Since the
Carolingian Epoch these regulations of the Church were often repeated,
as, for example, in the _Exhortation to the Christian Laity_ of the
ninth century. From the same century dates the regulation that an
explanation of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer should be found in every
parish, self-evidently to facilitate preaching and the examination in
confession. In confession, which, according to the Lateran Council,
1215, everybody was required to make at least once a year, the priests
were to inquire also regarding this instruction and have the chief parts
recited. Since the middle of the thirteenth century the Creed, the
Lord's Prayer, together with the Benedicite, Gratias, Ave Maria, Psalms,
and other matter, were taught also in the Latin schools, where probably
Luther, too, learned them. In the _Instruction for Visitors,_
Melanchthon still mentions "der Kinder Handbuechlein, darin das
Alphabet, Vaterunser, Glaub' und andere Gebet' innen stehen--Manual for
Children, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and
other prayers," as the first schoolbook. (W. 26, 237.) After the
invention of printing, chart-impressions with pictures illustrating the
Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments came into the
possession also of some laymen. The poorer classes, however, had to
content themselves with the charts in the churches, which especially
Nicolaus of Cusa endeavored to introduce everywhere. (Herzog's
_Realenzyklopaedie_ 10, 138.) They were followed by confessional
booklets, prayer-booklets, and also by voluminous books of devotion.
Apart from other trash, these contained confessional and communion
prayers instructions on Repentance, Confession, and the Sacrament of
the Altar; above all, however, a mirror of sins, intended as a guide for
self-examination, on the basis of various lists of sins and catalogs of
virtues, which supplanting the Decalog were to be memorized.
Self-evidently, all this was not intended as a schoolmaster to bring
them to Christ and to faith in the free grace of God, but merely to
serve the interest of the Romish penances, satisfactions, and
work-righteousness. Says Luther in the Smalcald Articles: "Here, too,
there was no faith nor Christ, and the virtue of the absolution was not
declared to him, but upon his enumeration of sins and his self-abasement
depended his consolation. What torture, rascality, and idolatry such
confession has produced is more than can be related." (485, 20.) The
chief parts of Christian doctrine but little taught and nowhere
correctly taught,--such was the chief hurt of the Church under the
Papacy.

In the course of time, however, even this deficient and false
instruction gradually fell into decay. The influence of the Latin
schools was not very far-reaching, their number being very small in
proportion to the young. Public schools for the people did not exist in
the Middle Ages. As a matter of fact not a single synod concerned itself
specifically with the instruction of the young. (_H. R._ 10, 137.) At
home, parents and sponsors became increasingly indifferent and
incompetent for teaching. True, the reformers of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries did attempt to elevate the instruction also in the
Catechism. Geiler's sermons on the Lord's Prayer were published. Gerson
admonished: "The reformation of the Church must begin with the young,"
and published sermons on the Decalog as models for the use of the
clergy. John Wolf also urged that the young be instructed, and
endeavored 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 the
same thing. Peter Tritonius Athesinus wrote a similar book of
instruction for the Latin schools. However, all of these attempts proved
ineffectual, and even if successful, they would have accomplished little
for truly Christian instruction, such as Luther advocated, since the
real essence of Christianity, the doctrine of justification, was unknown
to these reformers.

Thus in the course of time the people, and especially the young, grew
more and more deficient in the knowledge of even the simplest Christian
truths and facts. And bishops and priests, unconcerned about the ancient
canons, stolidly looked on while Christendom was sinking deeper and
deeper 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 children
whatever, concerning which even the canons give commands. ... Among the
adversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain], during the entire
year no sermons are delivered, except in Lent." (325, 41.)

87. Medieval Books of Prayer and Instruction.

Concerning the aforementioned Catholic books of prayer and edification
which, during the Middle Ages, served the people as catechisms, Luther,
in his Prayer-Booklet of 1522 (which was intended to supplant the Romish
prayer-books), writes as follows: "Among many other harmful doctrines
and booklets which have seduced and deceived Christians and given rise
to countless superstitions, I do not consider as the least the
prayer-booklets, by which so much distress of confessing and enumerating
sins, such unchristian folly in the prayers to God and His saints was
inculcated upon the unlearned, and which, nevertheless, were highly
puffed with indulgences and red titles, and, in addition, bore precious
names, 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 the
Passional or Legend books, to which also a great deal has been added by
the devil." (W. 10, 1, 375.)

The _Hortulus Animae,_ which is mentioned even before 1500, was widely
circulated at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It embraced all
forms of edifying literature. Sebastian Brandt and Jacob Wimpheling
helped to compile it. The _Paradisus Animae_ had the same contents, but
was probably spread in Latin only. The _Hortulus Animae_ contains very
complete rosters of sins and catalogs of virtues for "confessing and
enumerating sins." Among the virtues are listed the bodily works of
mercy (Matt. 25, 35) and the seven spiritual works of mercy: to instruct
the ignorant, give counsel to the doubtful, comfort the afflicted,
admonish sinners, pardon adversaries suffer wrong, and forgive the
enemies. Among the virtues were counted the seven gifts of the Holy
Ghost: wisdom, understanding, ability, kindness, counsel, strength, and
fear. Furthermore the three divine virtues: faith, hope and charity. The
four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. The
eight 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, correct
purpose and simplicity of deeds, harmony of doctrine and works, fleeing
the cause of sin, brotherly admonition. Finally also the seven
sacraments. The list of sins contains the nine foreign sins, the six
sins against the Holy Ghost, the four sins that cry to God for
vengeance, the five senses the Ten Commandments, and the seven mortal
sins: pride, covetousness, unchastity, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.
Each of these mortal sins is again analyzed extensively. The Weimar
edition of Luther's Works remarks: "If these catalogs were employed for
self-examination, confusion, endless torment, or complete
externalization of the consciousness of sin was bound to result. We can
therefore understand why the Reformer inveighs against this 'enumerating
of sins.'" (10, 2, 336.)

The _Hortulus Animae_ also shows how Luther was obliged to purge the
Catechism 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 read
as follows: "O Mary, thou mediator between God and men, make of thyself
the medium between the righteous God and me, a poor sinner! O Mary, thou
helper in all anguish and need, come to my assistance in all
sufferrings, and help me resist and strive against the evil spirits and
overcome all my temptations and afflictions. O Mary, thou restorer of
lost grace to all men, restore unto me my lost time, my sinful and
wasted life! O Mary, thou illuminator, who didst give birth to the
eternal Light of the whole world, illumine my blindness and ignorance,
lest I, poor sinner that I am, enter the darkness of eternal death. O
Mary, thou advocate of all miserable men, be thou my advocate at my last
end before the stern judgment of God, and obtain for me the grace and
the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ! Amen." Another prayer calls Mary
the "mighty queen of heaven, the holy empress of the angels, the one who
stays divine wrath." A prayer to the eleven thousand virgins reads as
follows: "O ye, adorned with chastity, crowned with humility, clad with
patience, covered with the blossoms of virtue, well polished with
moderation--O ye precious pearls and chosen virgin maids, help us in the
hour of death!"

With this idolatry and saint-worship silly superstition was combined. In
order to be efficacious, a certain prayer prescribed in the _Hortulus_
must be spoken not only with "true contrition and pure confession," but
also "before a figure which had appeared to St. Gregory." Whoever offers
a certain prayer "before the image of Our Lady in the Sun" "will not
depart this life unshriven, and thirty days before his death will see
the very adorable Virgin Mary prepared to help him." Another prayer is
good "for pestilence" when spoken "before the image of St. Ann;" another
prayer to St. Margaret profits "every woman in travail;" still another
preserves him who says it from "a sudden death." All of these promises
however, are far surpassed by the indulgences assured. The prayer before
the apparition of St. Gregory obtains 24,600 years and 24 days of
indulgence: another promises "indulgence for as many days as our Lord
Jesus Christ received wounds during His passion, _viz._ 5,475." Whoever
prays the Bridget-prayers not only obtains indulgence for himself, but
15 souls of his kin are thereby delivered from purgatory, 15 sinners
converted, and 15 righteous "confirmed and established in their good
standing." (W. 10, 2, 334.)

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

Indeed, the dire need of the Church in this respect was felt and
lamented by none sooner and more deeply than Luther. Already in his
tract _To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,_ 1520, he
complained that Christian instruction of the young was being neglected.
He writes: "Above all, the chief and most common lesson in the higher
and lower schools ought to be the Holy Scriptures and for the young
boys, 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, either
in German or in Latin! Truly, in the past the schools and convents for
men and women were founded for this purpose, with very laudable
Christian intention, as we read of St. Agnes and other saints. There
grew up holy virgins and martyrs, and Christendom fared very well. But
now it amounts to nothing more than praying and singing. Ought not,
indeed, every Christian at the age of nine or ten years know the entire
holy Gospel, in which his name and life is written? Does not the spinner
and the seamstress teach the same handicraft to her daughter when she is
still young? But now even the great men, the learned prelates and
bishops, do not know the Gospel. How unjustly do we deal with the poor
youth 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 set
before 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 daughter
of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the
streets 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 their
soul was poured out into their mothers' bosom.' But we do not see the
wretched misery, how the young people, in the midst of Christendom, now
also languish and perish miserably for lack of the Gospel, in which they
should 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 all
Christian knowledge and of Christian instruction as even Luther had not
anticipated. Aside from other evils (clergymen cohabiting with their
cooks, addicted to drink, or even conducting taverns, etc.), the people,
especially in the villages, were found to be grossly ignorant of even
the simplest rudiments of Christian doctrine and most unwilling to learn
anything, while many pastors were utterly incompetent to teach.
According to the official records, one priest, who enjoyed a great
reputation as an exorcist, could not even recite the Lord's Prayer and
the Creed fluently. (Koestlin, _Martin Luther,_ 2, 41.) Luther took part
in the visitation of the Electoral circuit from the end of October till
after 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 the
decay 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 the
peasants learn nothing, know nothing, never pray, do nothing but abuse
their liberty, make no confession, receive no communion, as if they had
been altogether emancipated from religion. They have neglected their
papistical affairs (ours they despise) to such extent that it is
terrible to contemplate the administration of the papal bishops."
(Enders 7, 45.) The intense heartache and mingled feelings which came
over Luther when he thought of the ignorance which he found during the
visitation, are described in the Preface to the Small Catechism as
follows: "The deplorable miserable condition which I discovered lately
when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare this
Catechism, 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 Christian
doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable, and
incompetent to teach. Nevertheless, all maintain that they are
Christians, all have been baptized and receive the holy Sacrament. Yet
they cannot recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten
Commandments, they live like dumb brutes and irrational swine; and yet
now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all
liberty like experts. O ye bishops! what will ye ever answer to Christ
for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment
discharged your office? May all misfortune flee you! You command the
Sacrament in one form and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same
time you do not care in the least whether the people know the Lord's
Prayer, 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 when
he says in the Short Preface to the Large Catechism: "For I well
remember the time, indeed, even now it is a daily occurrence that one
finds rude old persons who knew nothing and still know nothing of these
things, and who, nevertheless, go to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and
use everything belonging to Christians, notwithstanding that those who
come to the Lord's Supper ought to know more and have a fuller
understanding of all Christian doctrine than children and new scholars."
(575, 5.) In his "Admonition to the Clergy" of 1530, Luther describes
the conditions before the Reformation as follows: "In brief, preaching
and teaching were in a wretched and heart-rending state. Still all the
bishops kept silence and saw nothing new, although they are now able to
see a gnat in the sun. Hence all things were so confused and wild, owing
to the discordant teaching and the strange new opinions, that no one was
any longer able to know what was certain or uncertain, what was a
Christian or an unchristian. The old doctrine of faith in Christ, of
love, of prayer, of cross, of comfort in tribulation was entirely
trodden down. Aye, there was in all the world no doctor who knew the
entire Catechism, that is, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and
the Creed, to say nothing of understanding and teaching it, as now, God
be praised, it is being taught and learned, even by young children. In
support of this statement I appeal to all their books, both of
theologians and jurists. If a single part of the Catechism can be
correctly learned therefrom, I am ready to be broken upon the wheel and
to have my veins opened." (W. 30, 1, 301.)

Melanchthon, Jonas, Brenz, George of Anhalt, Mathesius, and many others
draw a similar picture of the religious conditions prevailing in
Germany, England, and other lands immediately prior to the Reformation.
To be sure, <DW7>s, particularly Jesuits, have disputed the accuracy
and truth of these descriptions from the pen of Luther and his
contemporaries. But arrayed against these Romish apologetes is also the
testimony of <DW7>s themselves. In his _Catholicus Catechismus,_
published at Cologne, 1543, Nausea writes: "I endeavored to renew the
instruction, once well known among all churches, which, however, not
only recently, but long ago (I do not know to whose stupidity,
negligence, or ignorance this was due) was altogether forgotten, not
without lamentable loss to the catholic religion. _Veterem illam
catechesin, per omnes quondam ecclesias percelebrem non modo tum, sed et
ante pridem, nescio quorum vel socordia vel negligentia vel ignorantia,
non sine poenitenda catholicae religionis iactura prorsus in oblivionem
coeptam repetere coepi_." (W. 30, 1, 467.) Moreover, when Romanists
dispute Luther's assertions, they refer to the one point only, that
religious instruction (as conceived by Catholics) had not declined in
the measure claimed by Luther. As to the chief point in Luther's
assertion, however, _viz._, the correct Evangelical explanation of the
Catechism, which, in Luther's opinion, is essential to all truly
Christian instruction, the Catholic Church has always been utterly
devoid of it not only prior to the Reformation, but also after it, and
down to the present day. True, even during the Reformation some <DW7>s
were incited to greater zeal in preaching and teaching. It was a
reaction against the Reformation of Luther, who must be regarded as the
indirect cause also of the formal improvement in the instruction of the
young among the Romanists. To maintain their power, bishops and priests
were compelled to resume and cultivate it. This revival, however, meant
only an intensified instruction in the old work-righteousness, and
therefore was the very opposite of the instruction which Luther desired
and advocated. In the Apology, Melanchthon, after charging the <DW7>s
with totally neglecting the instruction of the young, continues: "A few
among them now also begin to preach of good works. But of the knowledge
of Christ, of faith, of the consolation of consciences they are unable
to preach anything, moreover, this blessed doctrine, the precious holy
Gospel, they call Lutheran." (326, 44.)

89. Luther Devising Measures to Restore Catechism.

Fully realizing the general decay of Christian training, Luther at once
directed all his efforts toward bringing about a change for the better.
And well aware of the fact that the future belongs to the rising
generation, the instruction of the common people, and particularly of
the young, became increasingly an object of his especial concern. If the
Church, said he, is to be helped, if the Gospel is to be victorious, if
the Reformation is to succeed, if Satan and Antichrist are to be dealt a
mortal blow, a blow from which they will not recover, it must be done
through the young. For every cause which is not, or cannot be made, the
cause of the rising generation, is doomed from the very outset. "This is
the total ruin of the Church," said Luther as early as 1516; "for if
ever 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 people
would soon disappear from the scene. Hence, if Christianity and its
saving truths were to be preserved to the Church, the children must
learn them from earliest youth.

In his Large Catechism Luther gave utterance to these thoughts as
follows: "Let this, then, be said for exhortation, not only for those of
us who are old and grown, but also for the young people, who ought to be
brought up in the Christian doctrine and understanding. For thereby the
Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer might be the more
easily inculcated upon our youth, so that they would receive them with
pleasure and earnestness, and thus would practise them from their youth
and 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 the
people 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, that
the Word of God and the Christian Church may be preserved. Therefore let
every father of a family know that it is his duty, by the injunction and
command of God, to teach these things to his children, or have them
learn what they ought to know." (773, 85.)

A thorough and lasting revival of the Catechism can be hoped for only
through the young--such were Luther's convictions. Accordingly he
implored and adjured pastors and parents not to refuse their help in
this matter. In the Preface to his Small Catechism we read: "Therefore I
entreat you all for God's sake, my dear sirs and brethren, who are
pastors or preachers, to devote yourselves heartily to your office, to
have pity on the people who are entrusted to you, and to help us
inculcate the Catechism upon the people, especially upon the young."
(533, 6.) And as he earnestly admonished the pastors, so he also
tenderly invited them to be faithful in this work. He was firmly
convinced that nothing except the Gospel, as rediscovered and preached
by himself, was able to save men. How, then, could he remain silent or
abandon this work because of the hatred and ungratefulness of men! It
was this new frame of mind, produced by the Gospel, to which Luther
appealed in the interest of the Catechism. "Therefore look to it, ye
pastors and preachers," says he, concluding the Preface to his Small
Catechism. "Our office is now become a different thing from what it was
under the Pope; it is now become serious and salutary. Accordingly it
now involves much more trouble and labor, danger and trials, and in
addition 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 the
preachers frequent opportunity for Catechism-work. Since 1525 Wittenberg
had a regulation prescribing quarterly instruction in the Catechism by
means of special sermons. The _Instruction for Visitors,_ of 1527,
demanded "that the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith, and the
Lord's Prayer be steadily preached and expounded on Sunday afternoons.
... And when the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Creed have
been preached on Sundays in succession, matrimony, and the sacraments of
Baptism and the Lord's Supper shall also be preached diligently. In this
interest the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Articles of
Faith shall be recited word for word, for the sake of the children and
other simple and ignorant folk." (W. 26, 230.) November 29, 1528, in an
admonition to attend these Catechism-sermons, Luther proclaimed from the
pulpit: "We have ordered, as hitherto has been customary with us, that
the first principles and the fundamentals of Christian knowledge and
life be preached four times each year, two weeks in each quarter four
days per week, at 10 A.M." (W. 27, 444; 29, 146.) In Luther's sermon of
November 27, 1530, we read: "It is our custom to preach the Catechism
four times a year. Therefore attend these services, and let the children
and the rest of the household come." (32, 209.) September 10, 1531,
Luther concluded his sermon with the following admonition: "It is the
custom, and the time of the Catechism-sermons is at hand. I admonish you
to give these eight days to your Lord and permit your household and
children to attend, and you yourself may also come and profit by this
instruction. No one knows as much as he ought to know. For I myself am
constrained to drill it every day. You know that we did not have it
under the Papacy. Buy while the market is at the door; some day you will
behold the fruit. We would, indeed, rather escape the burden, but we do
it 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 saw
that church, school, and home must needs cooperate. The home especially
must not fail in this. Accordingly, in his admonitions, he endeavored to
interest the fathers and mothers in this work. He was convinced that
without their vigorous cooperation he could achieve but little. In his
_German Order of Worship,_ 1526, we read: "For if the parents and
guardians of the young are unwilling to take such pains with the young,
either personally or through others, Catechism [catechetical
instruction] will never be established." (W. 19, 76.) In this he was
confirmed by the experiences he had while on his tour of visitation. If
the children were to memorize the Catechism and learn to understand it,
they must be instructed and questioned individually, a task to which the
Church was unequal, and for the accomplishment of which also the small
number of schools was altogether inadequate. Parents, however, were able
to reach the children individually. They had the time and opportunity,
too, morning, noon, and evening, at the table, etc. Furthermore, they
had the greatest interest in this matter, the children being their own
flesh and blood. And they, in the first place, were commanded by God to
provide for the proper training of their children. The fathers and
mothers, therefore, these natural and divinely appointed teachers of the
children, Luther was at great pains to enlist for the urgent work of
instructing the young. They should see that the children and servants
did not only attend the Catechism-sermons in church, but also memorized
the text and learned to understand it. The Christian homes should again
become home-churches, home-schools, where the house-fathers were both
house-priests and house-teachers performing the office of the ministry
there just as the pastors did in the churches.

With ever-increasing energy Luther, therefore, urged the parents to
study the Catechism in order to be able to teach it to their children.
In his sermons on the Ten Commandments, 1516, he admonishes them to
bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. "But
alas," he exclaims, "how has not all this been corrupted! Nor is it to
be wondered at, since the parents themselves have not been trained and
educated." 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 to
heart. I hear that many are still so ignorant that they do not know the
Ten Commandments nor are able to pray. It plainly shows that they are
altogether careless. Parents ought to see what their children and family
are doing. In the school at home they should learn these three. I hear
that in the city, too, there are wicked people. We cannot enter the
homes; parents, masters, and mistresses ought to be sufficiently skilled
to require their children and servants to say the prayers before
retiring. But they do not know any themselves. What, then, avails it
that we do a great deal of preaching concerning the kingdom of Christ? I
thought conditions had improved. I admonish you master--for it is your
duty--to instruct the servants, the mistress, the maids, and the
children; and it is publicly preached in church for the purpose that it
may be preached at home." (W. 20 485.)

In his sermon of September 14, 1528, Luther declares that the Catechism
is the laymen's Bible, which every one must know who wishes to be
considered a Christian and to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. He then
proceeds: "Hence all children should behave accordingly, and learn. And
you parents are bound to have your children learn these things. Likewise
you lords, take pains that your family, etc. Whoever does not know these
things does not deserve any food. These five points are a brief summary
of the Christian doctrine. When the question is put, 'What is the First
Commandment?' 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 you
are freed from the care of your household when you say: 'Oh, if they are
unwilling to go [to Catechism instruction], why should I force them? I
am not in need of it.' You have been appointed their bishop and
house-pastor; beware lest you neglect your duty toward them!" (27, 444.)
On the following day, beginning the sermons he had announced Luther
said: "Therefore I have admonished you adults to have your children and
your servants, attend it [the Catechism-sermon], and also be present
yourselves; otherwise we shall not admit you to Holy Communion. For if
you parents and masters will not help us we shall accomplish little by
our preaching. If I preach an entire year, the household comes, gapes at
the walls and windows of the church, etc. Whoever is a good citizen is
in duty bound to urge his people to learn these things; he should refuse
them food unless, etc. If the servants complain, slam the door on them.
If you have children, accustom them to learn the Ten Commandments, the
Symbol, the Paternoster, etc. If you will diligently urge them, they
will learn much in one year. When they have learned these things, there
are everywhere in the Scriptures fine passages which they may learn
next; if not all, at least some. For this reason God has appointed you a
master, a mistress, that you may urge your household to do this. And
this you are well able to accomplish: that they pray in the morning and
evening, before and after meals. In this way they would be brought up in
the fear of God. I am no idle prattler: I ask you not to cast my words
to 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 a
priestess; therefore see that you help us to perform the office of the
ministry in your homes as we do in church. If you do, we shall have a
propitious 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 our
fathers, that they should make them known to their children.'" (30, 1,
57.) In the same sermon: "Able teachers are necessary because of the
great need, since parents do not concern themselves about this. But each
master and mistress must remember that they are priests and priestesses
over Hans and Gretchen," their sons and daughters.

In the same way Luther urges this matter in his Catechisms. For here we
read: "Therefore it is the duty of every father of a family to question
and examine his children and servants at least once a week and to
ascertain what they know of it [the Catechism], or are learning, and, if
they do not know it, to keep them faithfully at it." (575, 4.) "Likewise
every head of a household is obliged to do the same with respect to his
domestics, man-servants and maid-servants, and not to keep them in his
house 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 these
things is not to be tolerated; for in these three parts everything that
we have in the Scriptures is comprehended in short, plain and simple
terms." (577, 17.) "Therefore let every father of a family know that it
is his duty, by the injunction and command of God, to teach these things
to his children, or have them learn what they ought to know. For since
they are baptized and received into the Christian Church, they should
also enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serve
us 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 render
account of the manner in which they discharged these duties. In his
sermon of July 11, 1529, Luther said: "You will therefore instruct your
children and servants according to this Catechism.... For you have the
Catechism in small and large books; therefore study it. You had the
visitors, and you have furthermore those who will examine you
housefathers and your household, that they may see how you have
improved.... You should have given money and property for it; yet you
neglect it when it is offered freely; therefore you housefathers ought
to be diligent students of this preaching, that as you learn you may
instruct, _discendo doceatis._" (W. 29, 472; 30, 1, 121.)

91. German Services with German Catechism.

With great emphasis Luther advocated diligent Catechism instruction in
his _Deutsche Messe_ (German Mass, _i.e._, German Service or German
Order of Worship), which he completed toward the end of 1525 and
published in 1526. Luther issued this Service "because German masses and
services are everywhere insisted upon." The demand was made especially
in the interest of the unlearned and the children, for whose benefit,
according to Luther, all such measures were adopted. "For," says he, "we
do 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 those
who are still to become Christians or to grow stronger. Just as a
Christian does not need Baptism, the Word, and Sacrament as a Christian,
since he already has everything, but as a sinner. Chiefly, however, this
is done for the sake of the unlearned and the young people, who should
and must be exercised daily and brought up in the Scriptures, the Word
of God, that they may become accustomed to the Scripture, skilled,
fluent, and at home in it, in order that they may be able to defend
their faith, and in time teach others and help to increase the kingdom
of Christ. For their sake one must read, sing, preach, write, and
compose. And if it would help and promote this aim, I would have all
bells rung, all organs played, and everything that is capable of giving
sound to sound forth. For the Catholic services are so damnable because
they [the <DW7>s] made laws, works, and merits of them, thereby
smothering faith, and did not adapt them to the young and unlearned, to
exercise them in the Scriptures, in the Word of God, but themselves
clung to them [as works], regarding them as beneficial and necessary for
salvation 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 the
unlearned laity" German services be introduced. And since the unlearned
could be truly served only by instruction in the fundamental truths of
Christianity, the Catechism, according to Luther, was to constitute a
chief part in these services. "Very well," says he, "in God's name!
First of all a clear, simple plain, good Catechism is needed in the
German service. Catechism, however, is an instruction whereby heathen
who desire to become Christians are taught and instructed in what they
must believe, do, not do, and know concerning Christianity. Pupils who
were accepted for such instruction and learned the faith before being
baptized were therefore called catechumens. Nor do I know how to present
this instruction, or teaching, in a form more simple than it already has
been presented since the beginning of Christianity, and hitherto
retained, to wit, the three parts: the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and
the Lord's Prayer. These three parts contain in simple and brief form
everything that a Christian must know. And since as yet we have no
special congregation (_weil man noch keine sonderliche Gemeinde hat_),
this instruction must proceed in the following manner, by preaching from
the pulpit at various times or daily, as necessity demands, and by
repeating and reading it to the children and servants at home in the
houses morning and evening (if one would make Christians of them). Yet
not only so that they memorize the words or recite them, as was done
hitherto, but by questioning them part for part, and having them state
in their answer what each part means and how they understand it. If all
parts cannot be asked at one time, take one, the next day another. For
if the parents or guardians are unwilling to take such pains with the
young, either personally or through others the Catechism will never be
established." (19, 76.) German Catechism in German services--such, then,
was the slogan which Luther now sounded forth with ever-increasing
emphasis.

92. Luther Illustrating Method of Procedure.

According to Luther's _German Worship,_ pastors were to preach the
Catechism on Mondays and Tuesdays. To insure the desired results
(memorizing and understanding the text), the children should be
questioned, especially at home by the parents. Exemplifying such
catechization, Luther writes: "For so shall they be asked: 'What do you
pray?' Answer: 'The Lord's Prayer,' What do you mean by saying: 'Our
Father who art in heaven?' Answer: 'That God is not an earthly, but a
heavenly Father, who would make us rich and blessed in heaven,' 'What
does "Hallowed be Thy name" mean?' Answer: 'That we should honor God's
name and not use it in vain, lest it be profaned,' 'How, then, is it
profaned and desecrated?' Answer: 'When we who are regarded as His
children lead wicked lives, teach and believe what is wrong,' And so
forth, what God's kingdom means; how it comes; what God's will is, what
daily bread, etc. Likewise also of the Creed: 'What do you believe?'
Answer: 'I believe in God the Father,' etc. Thereupon part for part, as
leisure permits, one or two at a time. Thus: 'What does it mean to
believe in God the Father Almighty?' Answer: 'It means that the heart
trusts Him entirely, and confidently looks to Him for all grace, favor,
help, and comfort, here and hereafter,' 'What does it mean to believe
in Jesus Christ, His Son?' Answer: 'It means that the heart believes we
should all be lost eternally if Christ had not died for us,' etc. In
like manner one must also question on the Ten Commandments, what the
first, the second, the third and other commandments mean. Such questions
you may take from our Prayer-Booklet, where the three parts are briefly
explained, or you may formulate others yourself, until they comprehend
with their hearts the entire sum of Christian knowledge in two parts, as
in two sacks, which are faith and love. Let faith's sack have two
pockets; into the one pocket put the part according to which we believe
that we are altogether corrupted by Adam's sin, are sinners and
condemned, Rom. 5, 12 and Ps. 51, 7. Into the other pocket put the part
telling us that by Jesus Christ we have all been redeemed from such
corrupt, sinful, condemned condition, Rom. 5, 18 and John 3, 16. Let
love's sack also have two pockets. Into the one put this part, that we
should 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 and
endure all manner of evil." (19, 76.)

In like manner passages of Scripture were also to be made the child's
property, as it were; for it was not Luther's idea that instruction
should cease at the lowest indispensably necessary goal (the
understanding of the text of the chief parts). In his _German Order of
Worship_ he goes on to say: "When the child begins to comprehend this
[the text of the Catechism], accustom it to carry home passages of
Scripture from the sermons and to recite them to the parents at the
table, at meal-time, as it was formerly customary to recite Latin, and
thereupon to store the passages into the sacks and pockets, as one puts
_pfennige,_ and _groschen,_ or _gulden_ into his pocket. Let the sack of
faith be, as it were, the gulden sack. Into the first pocket let this
passage be put, Rom. 5: 'By one man's disobedience many were made
sinners': and Ps. 51: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did
my mother conceive me,' Those are two Rheinish gulden in the pocket. The
other pocket is for the Hungarian gulden, such as this passage, Rom. 5:
'Christ was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our
justification:' again, John 1: 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world,' That would be two good Hungarian gulden in
the pocket. Let love's sack be the silver sack. Into the first pocket
belong the passages of well-doing, such as Gal. 5: 'By love serve one
another'; Matt. 25: 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least
of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' That would be two silver
groschen 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 whom
He receiveth.' Those are two Schreckenbergers [a coin made of silver
mined from Schreckenberg] in the pocket." (19, 77f.)

Believing that understanding, not mere mechanical memorizing, of the
Catechism is of paramount import, Luther insisted that the instruction
must be popular throughout. Preachers and fathers are urged to come down
to the level of the children and to prattle with them, in order to bring
the 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 to
train children, we also must become children with them. Would to God
that such child's play were carried on well; then we should in a short
time see a great wealth of Christian people, and souls growing rich in
the Scriptures and the knowledge of God until they themselves would give
more heed to these pockets as _locos communes_ and comprehend in them
the entire Scriptures; otherwise they come daily to hear the preaching
and leave again as they came. For they believe that the object is merely
to spend the time in hearing, no one intending to learn or retain
anything. Thus many a man will hear preaching for three, four years and
still not learn enough to be able to give account of his faith in one
particular, as I indeed experience every day. Enough has been written in
books. 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 the
Catechism unduly multiplies the material to be memorized, and does not
sufficiently stress the understanding. Both charges, however, are
without any foundation. As to the first, it is true that Luther did not
put a low estimate on the memorizing of the Catechism. In the Large
Catechism he says: "Therefore we must have the young learn the parts
which belong to the Catechism or instruction for children well, and
fluently and diligently exercise themselves in them and keep them
occupied with them. Hence it is the duty of every father of a family to
question and examine his children and servants at least once a week, and
to ascertain what they know of it, or are learning, and, if they do not
know it, to keep them faithfully at it." (575, 3f.) Again: "These are
the most necessary parts which one should first learn to repeat word for
word, and which our children should be accustomed to recite daily when
they arise in the morning, when they sit down to their meals, and when
they retire at night; and until they repeat them, they should be given
neither food nor drink." (577, 15.)

According to the Preface to the Small Catechism, the teacher is to abide
with rigid exactness by the text which he has once chosen and have the
children learn it verbatim. "In the first place," says Luther, "let the
preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts
and forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the
Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he
inculcates all the time, year after year. For young and simple people
must be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise they
easily become confused when the teacher to-day teaches them thus, and in
a year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus
all effort and labor will be lost. Also our blessed fathers understood
this well; for they all used the same form of the Lord's Prayer, the
Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should teach the
young and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a
syllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in
another. Hence, choose whatever form you please, and adhere to it
forever. But when you preach in the presence of learned and intelligent
men, you may exhibit your skill and may present these parts in as varied
and intricate ways and give them as masterly turns as you are able. But
with the young people stick to one fixed, permanent form and manner, and
teach them, first of all, these parts, namely, the Ten Commandments, the
Creed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so
that they, too, can repeat it in the same manner after you and commit it
to memory." (533, 7ff.) Thus Luther indeed placed a high value on exact
memorizing of the Catechism.

As to the quantity of memorizing, however, Luther did not demand more
than even the least gifted were well able to render. He was satisfied if
they knew, as a minimum, the text of the first three chief parts and the
words of institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (579, 22. 25.)
That was certainly not overburdening even a weak memory. Luther was
right when he declared in his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments,_ of
1520: In the three chief parts everything "is summed up with such
brevity and simplicity that no one can complain or offer the excuse that
it is too much or too hard for him to remember what he must know for his
salvation." (W. 7, 204.)

Self-evidently, it was not Luther's opinion that instruction or
memorizing should end here. In the Preface to the Small Catechism he
says: "In the third place, after you have thus taught them this Short
Catechism, then take up the Large Catechism, and give them also a richer
and fuller knowledge. Here explain at length every commandment,
petition, and part with its various works, uses, benefits, dangers, and
injuries as you find these abundantly stated in many books written about
these matters." (535, 17.) Then, as Luther often repeats, Bible-verses,
hymns, and Psalms were also to be memorized and explained. Nor did he
exclude the explanation of the Small Catechism from the material for
memorizing. For this very reason he had written the Small Catechism in
questions 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 have
remained in Christendom from of old." (575, 5.) As far, then, as the
material for memorizing is concerned, Luther certainly did not demand
more 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 the
understanding of what was memorized, is still more unfounded. The fact
is that everywhere he was satisfied with nothing less than correct
understanding. Luther was a man of thought, not of mere sacred formulas
and words. To him instruction did not mean mere mechanical memorizing,
but conscious, personal, enduring, and applicable spiritual
appropriation. Says he: "However, it is not enough for them to
comprehend and recite these parts according to the words only, but the
young people should also be made to attend the preaching, especially
during the time which is devoted to the Catechism, that they may hear it
explained, and may learn to understand what every part contains, so as
to be able to recite it as they have heard it, and, when asked, may give
a correct answer, so that the preaching may not be without profit and
fruit." (579, 26.) In the Preface to the Small Catechism, Luther
instructs the preachers: "After they [the children] have well learned
the text then teach them the sense also, so that they know what it
means." (535, 14.) Correct understanding was everything to Luther.
Sermons in the churches and catechizations at home were all to serve
this purpose.

In the same interest, _viz._, to enrich the brief text of the Catechism
and, as it were, quicken it with concrete perceptions, Luther urged the
use of Bible-stories as illustrations. For the same reason he added
pictures to both of his Catechisms. His _Prayer-Booklet_ contained as
its most important part the text and explanation of the Catechism and,
in addition, the passional booklet, a sort of Bible History. To this
Luther remarks: "I considered it wise to add the ancient passional
booklet [augmented by Luther] to the Prayer-Booklet, chiefly for the
sake of the children and the unlearned, who are more apt to remember the
divine histories if pictures and parables are added, than by mere words
and teaching, as St. Mark testifies, that for the sake of the simple
Christ, too, preached to them only in parables." (W. 10, 2, 458.)
Indeed, Luther left no stone unturned to have his instruction
understood. On words and formulas, merely memorized, but not
appropriated intellectually, he placed but little value.

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

The instruction advocated by Luther differed fundamentally from the
mechanical methods of the Middle Ages. He insisted on a thorough mental
elaboration, by means of sermons, explanations, questions and answers,
of the material memorized, in order to elevate it to the plane of
knowledge. With Luther we meet the questions: "What does this mean? What
does this signify? Where is this written? What does it profit?" He
engages 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 as
a sort of forerunner of Luther's Small Catechism. "At the same time,
however," Cohrs adds, "it clearly shows the difference between the
demands made by the Church of the Middle Ages and the requirements of
the Evangelical Church; yonder, numerous parts without any word of
explanation, sacred formulas, which many prayed without an inkling of
the 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 had
fallen into decay. Force on the part of the popes and priests and blind
submission on the part of the people had supplanted instruction and
conviction from the Word of God. Hence the cure of the Church, first of
all, called for an instructor in Christian fundamentals. And just such a
catechist Luther was, who made it his business to teach and convince the
people from the Bible. Indeed, in his entire work as a Reformer, Luther
consistently appealed to the intellect, as was strikingly demonstrated
in the turmoil which Carlstadt brought about at Wittenberg. Instruction
was the secret, was the method, of Luther's Reformation. In the Preface
to the Small Catechism he says that one cannot and must not force any
one 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 of
the Gospel, which is spontaneous action flowing from conviction, be
defeated. (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! he
did not lose sight of the fact that this required certain helps for both
parents and preachers. A book was needed that would contain not only the
text to be memorized, but also necessary explanations. Accordingly, in
his _German Order of Worship,_ Luther referred to his _Prayer-Booklet_
as a help for instruction. However, the _Brief Form of the Ten
Commandments,_ etc., incorporated in the _Prayer-Booklet,_ was not
adapted for children and parents, as it was not drawn up in questions
and answers. To the experienced teacher it furnished material in
abundance, but children and parents had need of a simpler book.
Hardeland says: "It is certain that Luther in 1526 already conceived the
ideal catechism to be a brief summary of the most important knowledge
[in questions and answers], adapted for memorizing and still
sufficiently extensive to make a thorough explanation possible, at once
confessional in its tone, and fitted for use in divine service."
(_Katechismusgedanken_ 2.) But if Luther in 1526 had conceived this
idea, it was not carried out until three years later.

However, what Luther said on teaching the Catechism by questions and
answers, in the _German Order of Worship,_ was reprinted repeatedly
(probably for the first time at Nuernberg) under the title: "Doctor
Martin Luther's instruction how to bring the children to God's Word and
service, which parents and guardians are in duty bound to do, 1527."
This appeal of Luther also called forth quite a number of other
explanations of the Catechism. Among the attempts which appeared before
Luther's Catechisms were writings of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Eustasius
Kannel, John Agricola, Val. Ickelsamer, Hans Gerhart, John Toltz, John
Bader, 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 the
first to bear the title "Catechism." As yet it has not been ascertained
whether, or not, Luther was acquainted with these writings. Cohrs says:
"Probably Luther followed this literature with interest, and possibly
consulted some of it; the relationship is nowhere close enough to
exclude chance; still the frequent allusions must not be overlooked; as
yet it cannot be simply denied that Luther was influenced by these
writings." On the other hand, it has been shown what an enormous
influence Luther exercised on that literature, especially by his _Brief
Form_ and his _Prayer-Booklet._ "In fact," says Cohrs, "Luther's
writings can be adduced as the source of almost every sentence in most
of these books of instruction." (W. 30, 1, 474.) Evidently, Luther's
appeal 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 very
beginning he was, time and again, occupied with reading the text of the
Catechism to the people, and then explaining it in sermons. From the end
of June, 1516, to Easter, 1517, he preached on the Ten Commandments and
the Lord's Prayer. (W. 1, 394; 2, 74; 9, 122.) In 1518 the explanation
of the Ten Commandments appeared in print: "_Decem Praecepta
Wittenbergensi Praedicata Populo._ The Ten Commandments Preached to the
People 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 a
spiritual, Christian, and Evangelical way, that its like cannot be
found, though many teachers have written on the subject." (1, 394.)
Agricola published Luther's sermons on the Lord's Prayer at the
beginning of 1518 with some additions of his own, which fact induced
Luther to publish them himself. April 5, 1519, his _Explanation of the
Lord's Prayer in German_ appeared in print. It was intended for the
plain people, "not for the learned." (2, 81 to 130.) July 2, 1519, the
Humanist Beatus Rhenanus wrote to Zwingli that he would like to see this
explanation of the Lord's Prayer offered for sale throughout all
Switzerland, in all cities, markets, villages, and houses. Mathesius
reports: "At Venice Doctor Martin's Lord's Prayer was translated into
Italian, his name being omitted. And when the man saw it from whom the
permission to print it was obtained, he exclaimed: Blessed are the hands
that wrote this, blessed the eyes that see it, and blessed will be the
hearts 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 in
Latin 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, being
busy with so many works. Every day at evening I pronounce the
commandments 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 also
essentially an explanation of the Ten Commandments. It is an extract
from Luther's Latin work, _Instructio pro Confessione Peccatorum,_
published by Spalatin. Luther recast this work and published it in
March, 1520, entitled: _Confitendi Ratio._ (W. 2, 59. 65.) As a late
fruit of his _Explanation of the Lord's Prayer in German_ there
appeared, in 1519, the _Brief Form for Understanding and Praying the
Lord's Prayer_ which explains it in prayers. (6, 11-19.) In 1519 there
appeared also his _Short and Good Explanation Before Oneself and Behind
Oneself_ ("vor sich und hinter sich") a concise explanation how the
seven petitions must be understood before oneself ("vor sich"), _i.e._,
being ever referred to God, while many, thinking only of themselves, put
and 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 _Brief
Explanation of the Ten Commandments,_ of 1518, and the _Brief Form for
Understanding the Lord's Prayer,_ of 1519, with a newly written
explanation of the Creed. With few changes Luther embodied it in his
_Prayer-Booklet,_ which appeared for the first time in 1522. Here he
calls it a "simple Christian form and mirror to know one's sins, and to
pray." The best evidence of the enthusiastic reception of the
_Prayer-Booklet_ are the early editions which followed hard upon each
other, and the numerous reprints during the first years. (10, 2,
350-409.) In 1525 Luther's sermons on Baptism, Confession, and the
Lord's Supper were also received into the _Prayer-Booklet,_ and in 1529
the entire Small Catechism.

After his return from the Wartburg, Luther resumed his Catechism labors
with increased energy. March 27 Albert Burer wrote to Beatus Rhenanus:
"Luther intends to nourish the weak, whom Carlstadt and Gabriel aroused
by their vehement preaching, with milk alone until they grow strong. He
daily preaches the Ten Commandments." At Wittenberg special attention
was given to the instruction of the young, and regular Catechism-sermons
were instituted. In the spring of 1521 Agricola was appointed catechist
of the City Church, to instruct the young in religion. Lent 1522 and
1523, Luther also delivered Catechism-sermons, Latin copies of which
have been preserved. In the same year Bugenhagen was appointed City
Pastor, 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 Romish
confession, abolished during the Wittenberg disturbances, communicants
were to announce for communion to the pastor and submit to an
examination in the Catechism. As appears from Luther's _Formula Missae_
of this year, the pastor was to convince himself whether they were able
to recite and explain the words of institution by questioning them on
what the Lord's Supper is, what it profits, and for what purpose they
desired to partake of it. (12, 215. 479.) To enable the people to
prepare for such examination, Luther (or Bugenhagen, at the instance of
Luther) published a few short questions on the Lord's Supper, culled
from one of Luther's sermons. This examination became a permanent
institution at Wittenberg. In a sermon on the Sacrament of 1526, Luther
says: "Confession, though it serve no other purpose, is a suitable means
of instructing the people and of ascertaining what they believe, how
they learn to pray, etc., for else they live like brutes. Therefore I
have said that the Sacrament shall be given to no one except he be able
to give an account of what he receives [in the Sacrament] and why he is
going. This can best be done in confession." (19, 520.)

Furthermore, on Sundays, after the sermon, the Catechism was read to the
people, a custom which likewise became a fixture in Wittenberg.
According to a small pamphlet of 1526, entitled, "What Shall be Read to
the Common People after the Sermon?" it was the text of the five chief
parts that was read. (Herz., _R._ 10, 132.) These parts came into the
hands of the people by means of the _Booklet for Laymen and Children,_
of 1525, written probably by Bugenhagen. He also reorganized the
Wittenberg school which the fanatics had dissolved; and, self-evidently,
there, too, Catechism instruction was not lacking. In a similar way
religious instruction of the young was begun at other places, as
appears, for example, from the _Opinions on Reformation_ by Nicolaus
Hausmann (Zwickau), of 1523 and 1525. Melanchthon's _Instructions for
Visitors_ (Articuli de quibus egerunt per visitatores), drawn up in
1527, and used in the visitation of 1528 and 1529 as the guide by which
pastors were examined, and pointing out what they should be charged to
do, provide, above all, for Catechism-preaching on every Sunday, and
give instructions for such sermons. (_C. R._ 26, 9. 48.)

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

97. Immediate Forerunners of Luther's Catechisms.

Luther's entire pastoral activity was essentially of a catechetical
nature and naturally issued in his two Catechisms, which, more than any
other 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 the
Lord's Prayer,_ of 1520, the _Booklet for Laymen and Children,_ of 1525,
and the three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528, delivered in
Bugenhagen's absence. True, they are not yet real catechisms, but they
paved the way for them. The _Short Form_ is a summary and explanation of
the three traditional chief parts. In the preface to this work, Luther
expresses himself for the first time on the value and the coherence of
these parts, which he considered to be the real kernel of the Catechism.
In the _Short Form_ he also abandoned the traditional division of the
Creed into twelve parts, choosing, instead, the threefold division of
the later Small Catechism. In 1522 he embodied the _Short Form_ into his
_Prayer-Booklet,_ in consequence of which it was given extended
circulation. It has been called Luther's first catechism, and Luther
himself regarded it so for in his _German Order of Worship_ he
recommends its use for catechetical instruction. In it are summed up
Luther's catechetical efforts since 1516.

The _Booklet for Laymen and Children_ appeared at Wittenberg in 1525, at
first in Low German (_Ein Boekeschen vor de leyen unde Kinder_), but
done into High German in the same year. Though Bugenhagen is probably
its author, no doubt, the book was written at the suggestion and under
the influence of Luther, parts of whose earlier explanations it
contains, and who also since 1526, made use of it in his public
services. Besides the three traditional parts, it offered for the first
time also those on Baptism (without the baptismal command) and on the
Lord's Supper. The wording of the text was practically the same as that
of Luther's Enchiridion. Several prayers, later found in Luther's
Enchiridion, were also added. Hence the _Booklet for Laymen and
Children_ is properly considered a forerunner of Luther's Catechisms.

The three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528 must be considered the
last preparatory work and immediate source of the explanation of the
Catechisms. 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 a
transcript which Roerer made from a copy (_Nachschrift_); the third
series also in a copy by a South German. In his _Origin of the
Catechism,_ Buchwald has shown how Luther's Large Catechism grew out of
these sermons of 1528. In his opinion, Luther, while engaged on the
Large Catechism, "had those three series of sermons before him either in
his own manuscript or in the form of a copy (_Nachschrift_)." This
explains the extensive agreement of both, apparent everywhere.

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

Following is a sample of the German-Latin form in which Roerer preserved
these sermons: "Zaehlet mir her illos, qui reliquerunt multas divitias,
wie reiche Kinder sie gehabt haben; du wirst finden, dass ihr Gut
zerstoben und zerflogen ist, antequam 3. et 4. generatio venit, so ist's
dahin. Die Exempel gelten in allen Historien. Saul 1. fuit bonus etc. Er
musste ausgerottet werden, ne quidem uno puello superstite, quia es
musste wahr bleiben, quod Deus hic dicit. Sed das betreugt uns, dass er
ein Jahr oder 20 regiert hat, et fuit potens rex, das verdreusst uns ut
credamus non esse verum. Sed verba Dei non mentiuntur, et exempla
ostendunt etc. Econtra qui Verbo Dei fidunt, die muessen genug haben
etc., ut David, qui erat vergeucht [verjagt] und verscheucht ut avicula;
tamen mansit rex. Econtra Saul. Sic fit cum omnibus piis. Ideo nota bene
1. praeceptum, i.e., debes ex tota corde fidere Deo et praeterea nulli
aliae rei, sive sit potestas etc., ut illis omnibus utaris, ut sutor
subula etc., qui tantum laborat cum istis suis instrumentis. Sic utere
bonis et donis; sie sollen dein Abgott nicht sein, sed Deus." (30, 1,
29.) The three series of sermons of 1528, therefore, were to the
explanation of Luther's Catechisms what the _Booklet for Laymen_ was to
the 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 that
time had been in use for about sixty years. This catechism, which was
not clear in its teaching on the Lord's Supper, came to the notice of
Luther 1520 in Bohemian or Latin, and 1523 in German and Bohemian. In
his treatise, _Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament of the Holy
Body of Christ,_ 1523, Luther remarks: "A book has been circulated by
your people [the Bohemian Brethren] in German and Bohemian which aims to
give Christian instruction to the young. Among other things the
statement is made that [the presence of] Christ in the Sacrament is not
a personal and natural one, and that He must not be adored there, which
disquiets us Germans very much. For without doubt it is known to you
how, through the delegates you sent to me, I requested you to make this
particular article clear in a separate booklet. For by word of mouth I
heard them confess that you hold unanimously that Christ is truly in the
Sacrament with His flesh and blood as it was born of Mary and hung on
the cross, as we Germans believe. That booklet has now been sent to me
by Mr. Luca in Latin. Still, in this article it has not yet been made as
pure and clear as I should like to have seen it. Hence I did not have it
translated into German nor printed as I promised, fearing I might not
render the obscure words correctly, and thus fail to give your meaning
correctly. For it may be regarded as a piece of good luck if one has hit
upon an exact translation, even if the passage is very clear and
certain, 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 German
booklet which you have published may be removed, I shall present to you
and everybody, as plainly and as clearly as I am able to do, this
article as we Germans believe it, and as one ought to believe according
to the Gospel. There you may see whether I have stated correctly what
you believe or how much we differ from one another. Perhaps my German
language will be clearer to you than your German and Latin is to me."
(11, 431.) Luther, then, was familiar with the catechism of the
Bohemians, which contained, besides the chief parts of the ancient
Church, also the doctrine of the Sacraments. This, therefore, may have
suggested to him the idea of publishing a small book for children with
questions and answers, which would also contain the parts of Baptism and
the Lord's Supper. Such at least is the opinion of Cohrs, Kolde,
Koestlin, Kawerau, and Albrecht. (W. 30, 1, 466.) But we have no sure
knowledge of this. At any rate, it is not likely that it was the book of
the Bohemian Brethren which prompted Luther to embody the Sacraments in
his Catechism. The further assertion of Ehrenfeuchter, Moenckeberg, _et
al._ that Luther in his Table of Duties followed the Bohemian Brethren,
is incorrect, since the Table of Duties appeared much later in their
catechism.


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 of
February 2, 1525, to Nicolaus Hausmann. He informs him: "Jonas and
Eisleben [Agricola] have been instructed to prepare a catechism for
children. I am devoting myself to the Postil [last part of the Winter
Postil] and to Deuteronomy, where I have sufficient work for the
present." (Enders, 5, 115.) In a letter of March 26, 1525, also to
Hausmann, Luther repeats: "The Catechism, as I have written before, has
been given to its authors, _ist seinen Verfassern aufgetragen worden._"
(144.) However, when Jonas and Agricola (who soon moved from Wittenberg
to Eisleben) failed, Luther resolved to undertake the work himself,
which, according to his letter of February 2, he had declined merely for
the reason that he was already sufficiently burdened. The execution of
his plan, however, was deferred. September 27, 1525, he wrote to
Hausmann: "I am postponing the Catechism, as I would like to finish
everything at one time in one work." (246.) The same letter shows what
Luther meant. For here he speaks of the reformation of the parishes and
of the introduction of uniform ceremonies. Evidently, then, he at that
time 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 and
Children,_ offered a temporary substitute for the contemplated
Catechism. The deplorable conditions, however, which the Saxon
visitation brought to light would not permit him to tarry any longer.
"The deplorable, miserable condition," says Luther in the Preface to his
Small Catechism, "which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor,
has forced and urged me to prepare this Catechism, or Christian
doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form." (535, 1.) Thus the Small
Catechism sprang, as it were, directly from the compassion Luther felt
for the churches on account of the sad state of destitution to which
they had been brought, and which he felt so keenly during the
visitation. However, Luther's statements in the _German Order of
Worship_ concerning the catechetical procedure in question and answer
quoted above show that the thought of such a Catechism did not first
occur to him at this time. Still it was the visitation that added the
decisive impulse to put the idea into immediate execution. Besides, it
was a time in which Luther was entirely engrossed in the Catechism,
having preached in 1528 on the five chief parts no less than three
times. Thus the harvest was at hand. In January, 1529, according to his
own letters, Luther was engaged in this work, having probably begun
about the close of 1528. He was able to make rapid progress, since ample
material was at his command.

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

100. Tables Published First.

January 15, 1529, Luther wrote to Martin Goerlitz: "_Modo in parando
catechismo pro rudibus paganis versor._ I am now busy preparing the
Catechism for the ignorant heathen" (not "peasants," for in his _German
Order of Worship,_ Luther says: "Catechism is an instruction by means of
which heathen who desire to become Christians are taught"). It was
formerly asserted that the expression "_pro rudibus paganis_" showed
that Luther here meant the Small Catechism. Appealing to the statement
in the Preface to the Large Catechism: "This sermon is designed and
undertaken that it might be an instruction for children and the
simple-minded," Koellner was the first one to assert that Luther's
phrase of January 15 referred to the Large Catechism. In this he was
followed by Cohrs, Enders, and others. (Enders, 7, 44.) However,
according to the usage of the word catechism described above, the
statement quoted does not preclude that Luther, when writing thus, was
engaged on both Catechisms. And such indeed was the case. For on January
20, 1529, Roerer, the Wittenberg proofreader, wrote to Roth: "Nothing
new has appeared. I believe that the Catechism as preached by D. M. for
the unlettered and simple will be published for the coming Frankfurt
mass. Yet, while writing this, I glance at the wall of my dwelling, and
fixed to the wall I behold tables embracing in shortest and simplest
form Luther's Catechism for children and the household, and forthwith I
send them to you as a sample, so that by the same messenger they may be
brought to you immediately. _Iam novi nihil in lucem prodiit; ad
nundinas credo Francofurdenses futuras Catechismus per D. M. praedicatus
pro rudibus et simplicibus edetur. Hoc vero scribens inspicio parietem
aestuarioli mei, affixas parieti video tabulas complecententes
brevissime 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's
Catechisms are mentioned together and distinguished from each other. By
catechism Roerer means the text of the five chief parts which Luther put
at the head of his Large Catechism. "_Catechismus per D. M.
praedicatus_" designates the explanation of this text as comprised in
Luther's three series of sermons of 1528 and summed up in the Large
Catechism. From this preached and later on so-called Large Catechism,
which appeared in April, entitled "German Catechism," Roerer
distinguishes "tables, summing up Luther's Catechism in shortest and
simplest form for children and the household." He means the series of
charts containing the first three chief parts, which Luther considered
the Catechism _par excellence_. And at the time when Roerer spoke of
the prospective publication of the Large Catechism for the Frankfurt
mass, these tables were already hanging on his wall.

Albrecht comments: "For the moment Roerer had not remembered the very
interesting novelty, which had already appeared in the first tables of
the later so-called Small Catechism. However, a glance at the wall of
his room reminded him of it. And from a letter of his dated March 16 we
must infer that they were the three charts containing the Ten
Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer with Luther's
explanation. These he calls 'tables which in shortest and simplest form
embrace Luther's Catechism for the children and the household,' Thus he
wrote in view of the superscription: 'As the head of the family should
teach them in a simple way to his household,' without implying a
difference between the expression _pro pueris et familia_ and the
preceding _pro rudibus et simplicibus,_ since the former are included in
the latter. The difference between the two works is rather indicated by
the words _brevissime simul et crasse._ But at the same time their inner
connection is asserted, for by sending the tables _pro exemplari,_ he
characterizes them as a model or sample of Luther's manner of treating
the Catechism. They are the _catechismus Lutheri,_ that is, the
aforementioned _catechismus per D. M. praedicatus_ in its shortest form
and draft (conceived as an extract of the sermons or of the Large
Catechism). He thought that this sample would indicate what was to be
expected from the forthcoming larger work." (W. 30, 1, 429.)

When, therefore, Luther wrote on January 15: "Modo in parando
catechismo pro rudibus paganis versor," he was engaged on both
Catechisms, and had proceeded far enough to enable him to send the first
tables of the Small Catechism to the printer. Buchwald remarks regarding
the letter of January 20 that Roerer probably had just received the
tables 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 of
the Catechism" (evidently the same to which he referred January 20) to
Spalatin. Accordingly, these tables were forwarded about January 12. The
following remark in the Church Order for Schoenewald in the district of
Schweinitz: "First to pronounce for the people the Ten Commandments, the
Creed and the Lord's Prayer, thereupon to explain them in the most
simple way, _as published [each] on a printed table,_" takes us back
still 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 which
also the Schoenewald Church Order dates. At this visitation, therefore,
even prior to January 7, Luther himself distributed the first series of
tables, comprising the first three chief parts, of his Small Catechism.
Cohrs opines that Luther sent this series to the printer about Christmas
1528 at the latest. However, it does not appear why the printing should
have consumed three to four weeks Seb. Froeschels however, is mistaken
when he declares in his book on the _Priesthood of Christ,_ 1565, that,
at a table conversation of 1528, Luther had advised Hans Metsch
constantly to have with him a good small catechism, such as the one he
had 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 appeared
before the second was published. This delay is accounted for by Luther's
illness and his being burdened with other work, especially with his book
against the Turk. March 3 he wrote to Hausmann: "By reason of Satan's
afflictions I am almost constantly compelled to be a sick well man (_als
Gesunder krank zu sein_), hence I am much hindered in writing and other
work." (Enders, 7, 61.) However, in the same letter Luther informed his
impatiently waiting friend: "The Catechism is not completed, my dear
Hausmann, but it will be completed shortly." Enders remarks that this
refers to the Large Catechism. However, it harmonizes best with Luther's
usage and with the facts if the words are understood as referring to
both Catechisms. "Shortly," Luther had written, and on March 16 Roerer,
according to his letter of this date, forwarded "the tables of
Confession, the German Litany, the tables of the Sacrament of Baptism
and of the blood of Christ." Roerer calls them a novelty, _recens
excussa,_ recently printed, from which it appears that the _tabulae
catechismum Lutheri brevissime simul et crasse complectentes,_ to which
he referred on January 20, did not contain the Sacraments. Thus, then,
the five chief parts, Decalog, Creed, Lord's Prayer, Baptism, and Lord's
Supper were completed by March 16, 1529. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise, but
without further ground for their assumption, that the table with the
Benedicite and the Gratias was issued together with the first series in
January. At the latest, however, the prayers appeared with the second
series. For March 7, 1529, Levin Metzsch wrote to Roth, evidently
referring to Luther's tables: "I am herewith also sending to you the
Benedicite and the Gratias, also the Morning and Evening Prayers,
together with the Vice of Drunkenness." (W. 30, 1, 432.) The exact time
when Luther composed the Table of Duties is not known. And the first
evidence we have of the Small Catechism's appearing in book form is
Roerer's letter of May 16, 1529, saying that he is sending two copies of
the Small Catechism, the price of which, together with other books, is
two groschen. (432.) The necessary data are lacking to determine how
long Luther's manuscript was ready before it was printed, and before the
printed copies were distributed.

As to the large Catechism, it was not completed when the second table
series appeared in March. In a letter, the date of which must probably
be fixed about the end of March, Roerer says: "The Turk is not yet
entirely struck off; neither the Catechism." April 23, however, the
Large Catechism was on the market, for on this day Roerer wrote: "I am
sending three copies of the Catechism." It was the Large Catechism; for
the price of each copy was two groschen, whereas on May 16, 1529, Roerer
had sent two copies of the Small Catechism and other books for two
groschen. (432.) The Large Catechism probably had appeared several weeks
before April 23. Albrecht: "Even if all [of Luther's] sermons from Palm
Sunday to Maundy Thursday, 1529, are considered preliminary works,
according to which the last paragraphs of the Large Catechism were
elaborated, we can assume that its appearance in the beginning or the
first half of April, 1529, was possible. To be sure, the printing must
then have been advanced so far before Holy Week that the rest could be
finished speedily on the basis of the manuscript delivered immediately
after the sermons of Monday and Maundy Thursday had been preached.["]

This theory fits in with the facts that John Lonicer of Marburg had
already completed his Latin translation on May 15, 1529 (although,
according to the title-page, it first appeared in September), and that
Roerer in a letter of April 23 merely mentions the Large Catechism in
passing, 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 copies
which were ordered subsequently. (482.)

While thus the Small Catechism in chart form was completed and published
before the Large Catechism, the former succeeded the latter in book
form. However, though completed after the Small Catechism, it can be
shown that the beginning and perhaps even part of the printing of the
Large Catechism dates back to 1528, thus preceding in this respect even
the Charts of January 9. If the short Preface to the Large Catechism, as
well as the exhortation at the beginning: "Let the young people also
come to the preaching, that they hear it explained and learn to
understand it," etc., had been written after the 9th of January, Luther
would probably have mentioned the Tables, just as he refers to the Large
Catechism in the Preface to the Small Catechism, which was written about
the end of April or the beginning of May. (535, 17.) Since, however,
Luther makes no such indication, these paragraphs of the Large Catechism
were, no doubt, composed before January, 1529. (575, 1; 579, 26.) The
same inference may be drawn from the fact that, in the explanation of
the First Commandment, the wording of the conclusion of the Ten
Commandments shows a number of variations from its wording in the Small
Catechism, whereas its wording at the close of the explanation of the
commandments 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 the
one hand, so great, on the other, is the similarity. If one did not know
that the Large Catechism was begun before the Small, and that both
originated in the sermons of 1528, he might either view the Large
Catechism as a subsequent expansion of the Small, or the latter as a
summary of the former. Yet neither the one nor the other is the case. If
the Large Catechism influenced the Small, so also the latter the former.
Albrecht says: "It is more probable that the Small Catechism influenced
the Large Catechism than _vice versa._" (W. 30, 1, 558.) At all events,
the second table-series could not have been extracted from the Large
Catechism as such, since the latter was only completed after March 25,
whereas these tables were published already on March 16. The Small
Catechism has been characterized as "a small basketful of ripe fruit
gathered from that tree" [the Large Catechism]. In substance that is
true, since both originate from the same source, the sermons of 1528.
Already Roerer calls attention to this similarity, when in the
aforementioned letter, he designates the Large Catechism as
"_Catechismus per D. M. praedicatus,_" and then describes the Small
Catechism as "_tabulae complectentes brevisissime simul et crasse
catechismum Lutheri pro pueris et familia._" Both treat of the same five
chief parts; the explanation of both presupposes the knowledge of the
text of these parts, both owe their origin to the doctrinal ignorance,
uncovered particularly in the Saxon visitation; and the purpose of both
is the instruction of the plain people and the young. Indeed, it was not
for scholars, but for the people that Luther lived, labored, and
contended. "For," says he in his _German Mass,_ "the paramount thing is
to teach and lead the people." (W. 19, 97.)

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

Accordingly, both Catechisms, though in various respects, are intended
for all: people, youth, parents, preachers, and teachers. It is not
correct 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 to
Luther, it is the duty of every Christian to learn constantly, in order
also to be able to teach others in turn. If any one, said he, really no
longer needed the Catechism for himself, he should study it nevertheless
for the sake of the ignorant. Nor did Luther exempt himself from such
study. In the Long Preface to the Large Catechism we read: "But for
myself I say this: I am also a doctor and preacher, yea, as learned and
experienced as all those may be who have such presumption and security;
yet I do as a child who is being taught the Catechism, and every
morning, and whenever I have time, I read and say, word for word the Ten
Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, etc. And I must
still read and study daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, but
must remain a child and pupil of the Catechism, and am glad so to
remain." (569, 7.)

April 18, 1530, Luther repeated this in a sermon as follows: "Whoever is
able to read, let him, in the morning, take a psalm or some other
chapter 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, the
Lord's Prayer, and also a psalm with the children. I do so because I
wish 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 same
year, Luther warns: "Beware lest you become presumptuous, as though,
because you have heard it often, you knew enough of the Catechism. For
this knowledge ever desires us to be its students. We shall never finish
learning it, since it does not consist in speech, but in life. ... For I
also, D. M., doctor and preacher, am compelled day by day to pray and to
recite the words of the Decalog, the Symbol, and the Lord's Prayer as
children are wont to do. Hence you need not be ashamed; for much fruit
will result." (209.)

103. Particular Purpose of Large Catechism.

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

In particular, the Large Catechism was to enable the less educated
pastors in the villages and in the country to do justice to their sacred
duty. The instructions of the visitors called for regular
Catechism-sermons. For this purpose Luther sought to furnish the
preachers with material. From the Large Catechism they were to learn how
to deliver simple, plain sermons on the five chief parts. In the longer
Preface Luther therefore directs his admonition "to all Christians, but
especially to all pastors and preachers, that they should daily exercise
themselves in the Catechism, which is a short summary and epitome of the
entire Holy Scriptures, and that they may always teach the same." And
why? Luther explains: "We have no slight reasons for treating the
Catechism so constantly, and for both desiring and beseeching others to
teach it, since we see to our sorrow that many pastors and preachers are
very negligent in this, and slight both their office and this teaching;
some from great and high art, but others from sheer laziness and care
for their paunches," etc. (567.)

Ministers, according to Luther, were to study the Catechism for their
own instruction and edification as well as in the interest of their
office. Hence he concludes his Preface, saying: "Therefore I again
implore all Christians, especially pastors and preachers, not to be
doctors too soon, and imagine that they know everything (for imagination
and cloth unshrunk fall far short of the measure), but that they daily
exercise themselves well in these studies and constantly treat them;
moreover, that they guard with all care and diligence against the
poisonous infection of such security and vain imagination, but steadily
keep on reading, teaching, learning, pondering, and meditating, and do
not cease until they have made a test and are sure that they have taught
the devil to death, and have become more learned than God Himself and
all His saints." (573, 19; 535, 17.)

From the Large Catechism, therefore, pastors were to learn how to preach
the fundamental Christian truths. "To be sure," says Albrecht, "Luther
did not make it as easy for the pastors as was later done by Osiander
and Sleupner in the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons,_ where the individual
sermons are exactly marked off, the form of address to the children is
retained, and, in each instance, a short explanation, to be memorized,
is added to the longer explanation." (W. 30, 1, 478.)--That it was
Luther's purpose to have his Large Catechism serve also parents appears
from 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 Small
Catechism. But above all it was to be placed into the hands of the
children, who were to use and to memorize it at home, and to bring it
with them for instruction in the church. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise that
Luther published the second table series during Lent with special
reference to "grown people." However, Luther was accustomed to direct
his admonition to partake of the Lord's Supper diligently also to
children, and that, too, to children of comparatively tender years. In
his sermon of March 25, 1529, he says: "This exhortation ought not only
to move us older ones, but also the young and the children. Therefore
you parents ought to instruct and educate them in the doctrine of the
Lord: the Decalog, the Creed, the Prayer, and the Sacraments. Such
children ought also to be admitted to the Table that they may be
partakers" [of the Lord's Supper]. (W. 30, 1, 233.) In his sermon of
December 19, 1528, we read: "Hence, you parents and heads of families,
invite your subordinates to this Sacrament, and we shall demand an
account of you if you neglect it. If you will not go yourselves, let the
young go; we are much concerned about them. When they come, we shall
learn, by examining them how you instruct them in the Word as
prescribed. Hence, do come more frequently to the Sacrament, and also
admonish your children to do so when they have reached the age of
discretion. For in this way we want to learn who are Christians, and who
not. If you will not do so, we shall speak to you on the subject. For
even though you older people insist on going to the devil, we shall
still inquire about your children. Necessity: because sin, the devil,
and death are ever present. Benefit: because the remission of sins and
the Holy Spirit are received." (121f.) The tender age at which the young
were held to partake of the Lord's Supper appears from Bugenhagen's
preface to the Danish edition of the Enchiridion of 1538, where he says
"that after this confession is made, also the little children of about
eight 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 not
intended for children, but specifically for adults, is without
foundation. In all its parts the Small Catechism was intended to serve
the children.

When the first table appeared, it bore the superscription: "The Ten
Commandments, as _the head of the family_ should teach them in a simple
way to his household." Similar to this were the titles of the remaining
charts. And these superscriptions were permitted to stand when Luther
published the Enchiridion in book form. The book edition, therefore, as
well as the chart edition, was to render services also to parents, who
were to take upon themselves a large part of the work in teaching the
young. But how were they to do it, in view of the fact that many of them
did not know the Catechism themselves? This had occurred also to Luther.
He realized that, besides the Large Catechism, parents were in need of a
text-book containing questions and answers, adapted for catechizing the
children on the meaning of each part of the Catechism. This, too, was
the reason why the Small Catechism was rapidly completed before the
Large, which had been begun first. Luther intended parents to use it
first of all for their own instruction and edification, but also for the
purpose of enabling them to discharge their duty by their children and
household.

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 nor
the children, but solely the "ordinary pastors and preachers." The
Preface also is addressed to "all faithful, pious pastors and
preachers," and it shows in detail how they were to make use of the
book. Evidently, then, the book edition was intended to render special
services also to preachers. The reason, however, was not, as has been
surmised, because it embodied the booklet on Marriage (the booklet on
Baptism was added in the second edition); for the Preface, which is
addressed to the preachers, does not even mention it. The pastors,
moreover, were especially designated on the title-page as the recipients
of the Enchiridion, inasmuch as they were to employ it in their
religious instruction and catechetical sermons, in order to imbue the
young with its contents. The expression "ordinary pastors and preachers"
referred primarily to the plain preachers in the villages, where no
properly regulated school system existed, and where, at best, the sexton
might assist the pastor in seeing to it that the Catechism was
memorized. Albrecht: "When Luther prepared both Catechisms at the same
time and with reference to each other, he evidently desired their
simultaneous use, especially on the part of the plain pastors, who in
the Small Catechism possessed the leading thoughts which were to be
memorized, and in the Large Catechism their clear and popular
explanation." (W. 30, 1, 548.)

Luther's intention was to make the Small Catechism the basis of
instruction in the church as well as in the homes; for uniform
instruction was required to insure results. Having, therefore, placed
the Catechism into the hands of the parents, Luther could but urge that
it be introduced in the churches, too. He also showed them how to use
it. On June 11, 1529, for instance, he expounded the First Article after
he 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. The
charts were suspended in the churches; the people and children were wont
to bring the book edition with them to church; the preachers read the
text, expounded it, and had it recited. The Schoenewald Church Order
prescribed that the pastor "first pronounce for the people" the text of
the 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 did
not overlook the schools and the schoolteachers. The first booklet of
the charts for the Latin schools of the Middle Ages contained the abc;
the second, the first reading-material, _viz._, the Paternoster, Ave
Maria, and the Credo; the third, the Benedicite, Gratias, and similar
prayers. Albrecht writes: "We may surmise that Luther, when composing
the German tables and combining them in a book, had in mind the old
chart-booklets. This view is supported by the fact that in it he
embodied the prayers, the Benedicite and Gratias, and probably also by
the title Enchiridion, which, besides the titles 'Handbooklet' or 'The
Children'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 the
children Christian instruction. ... Hereupon the schoolteacher shall
simply and correctly expound at one time the Lord's Prayer, at another
the Creed, at another the Ten Commandments, etc." (W. 26, 238.) In these
schools Luther's Small Catechism served as text-book. From 1529 until
the beginning of the eighteenth century Sauermann's Latin translation
(_Parvus Catechismus pro Pueris in Schola_) was employed in the Latin
schools of Saxony. In the German schools the German Enchiridion was used
as the First Reader. Hence, the Marburg reprint of the first Wittenberg
edition of the Catechism begins with the alphabet, and makes it a point
to mention this fact on its title-page.

Down to the present day no other book has become and remained a
schoolbook for religious instruction to such an extent as Luther's Small
Catechism. And rightly so; for even Bible History must be regarded as
subordinate to it. The assertion of modern educators that instruction in
Bible History must precede instruction in Luther's Catechism rests on
the false assumption that Luther's Catechism teaches doctrines only. But
the truth is that it contains all the essential facts of salvation as
well, though in briefest form, as appears particularly from the Second
Article, which enumerates historical facts only. The Small Catechism is
"the Laymen's Bible, _der Laien Biblia,_" as Luther called it in a
sermon of September 14, 1528, an expression adopted also by the Formula
of Concord. (777, 5.) Luther's Enchiridion presents both the facts of
salvation and their divine interpretation. The picture for which the
Small Catechism furnishes the frame is Christ, the historical Christ, as
glorified by the Holy Spirit particularly in the writings of the Apostle
Paul. In the Lutheran Church the Small Catechism, therefore, deserves to
be and always to remain what it became from the first moment of its
publication: the book of religious instruction for home, school, and
church; for parents, children, teachers, and preachers, just as Luther
had planned and desired.

107. Titles of Large Catechism.

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

The title of the Low German edition of 1541 runs: "De Grote Katechismus
Duedesch." The Latin translation by Obsopoeus of 1544 is entitled
"Catechismus Maior." The Index of the Wittenberg complete edition of
Luther's Works of 1553 has "Der grosse Katechismus," while the Catechism
itself still bears the original title, "Deutscher Katechismus." The Jena
edition of 1556 also has the original title, but paraphrases in the
Index: "_Zweierlei Vorrede, gross und klein, D. M. L. auf den
Katechismum, von ihm gepredigt Anno 1529._ Two Prefaces, large and
small, of Dr. M. L. to the Catechism, preached by him in the year 1529."
Since 1570, the _Corpora Doctrinae_ give the title, "The Large
Catechism, German. _Der Grosse Katechismus, deutsch._" So also the Book
of 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," means
German preaching for children, German instruction in the fundamental
doctrines of Christianity. Luther wrote "German Mass" in order to
distinguish it from the Latin, which was retained for many years at
Wittenberg beside the German service (this is also what Wolfgang
Musculus meant when he reported in 1536 that in Wittenberg services were
conducted predominantly in papistic fashion, _ad morem papisticum_). So
also "German Catechism" is in contrast to the Latin instruction in the
churches and especially in the schools. Concerning the latter we read,
_e.g._, in the instruction of the visitors: "The boys shall also be
induced to speak Latin, and the schoolteachers shall, as far as
possible, speak nothing but Latin with them." (26, 240.) Ever since the
early part of the Middle Ages the Latin Credo, Paternoster, etc., had
been regarded and memorized as sacred formulas, the vernacular being
permitted only rarely, and reluctantly at that. Also in the Lutheran
Church the Latin language was not immediately abolished. A number of
Evangelical catechisms, antedating Luther's, were written in, and
presuppose 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, prescribed
that on Saturday evening and early on Sunday morning the chief parts of
the 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 or
on festival-days the boys in the choir, on both sides, shall read the
entire Catechism in Latin, verse by verse, without ornamental tone
(_sine tono distincto_)." (477.) Accordingly, when Luther began to
preach on the chief parts in German, he was said to conduct "German
Catechism." And since German services with German instruction were
instituted by Luther in the interest of the unlearned and such as were
unable to attend the Latin schools, the term "German Catechism" was
equivalent to popular instruction in religion. That Luther's Catechism,
also in point of racy language, was German to the core, appears from the
frequent use of German words and expressions which, in part, have since
become obsolete. (Mueller, _Symb. Buecher,_ 857--860.)

108. Editions of Large Catechism.

The first edition (quarto) of the Large Catechism, of which Roerer
forwarded copies on April 23, 1529, contains, as text, the Commandments,
the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the words of institution of the
Sacraments. The text is preceded by a Brief Preface, which, however,
Luther, considering it a part of the Catechism, did not designate and
superscribe as such. Some instructions and admonitions are inserted
between the Catechism-text, which is followed by the detailed
explanation. Such is the form in which the Large Catechism first
appeared, and which, in the main, it also retained. The second edition
(also in quarto and from the year 1529) reveals numerous textual
corrections 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 of
1580, was received into the official Latin Concordia of 1584.
Furthermore, the second edition of 1529 adds the "Short Admonition to
Confession;" hence the sub-title: "Increased by a New Instruction and
Admonition to Confession." This addition, however, was embodied in
neither the German nor the Latin Concordia. In the Seventh Commandment
the second edition of 1529 omits the words "with whom [arch-thieves]
lords and princes keep company" (644, 230), which, according to
Albrecht, was due to a timid proof-reader. Numerous marginal notes,
briefly summarizing the contents, were also added to this edition and
retained in the Latin Concordia of 1584. Furthermore, it contained 24
woodcuts, the first three of which were already used in Melanchthon's
fragmentary Catechism sermons of 1528, for which book probably also the
remaining cuts were originally intended. Albrecht remarks: "Let it
remain undecided whether the cuts, which Melanchthon probably was first
to select for his catechism sermons of 1528, were received into the
edition of 1529 (which Luther corrected) upon a suggestion of the
printer Rhau, or Bugenhagen, or Luther himself." (W. 30, 1, 493.)

Two Latin as well as a Low German translation (by Bugenhagen) also
appeared in 1529. The Low German edition, printed by Rhau, seems to have
paved the way in using the aforementioned pictures. Of the Latin
translations, one was prepared by Lonicer and printed at Marburg, while
the other, by Vicentius Obsopoeus, rector of the school at Ansbach, was
printed at Hagenau. After making some changes, which were not always
improvements, Selneccer embodied the latter in the Latin Concordia,
adding the longer Preface from the Frankfurt edition of 1544. In the
Large Catechism this new Preface is found for the first time in Rhau's
quarto 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 written
at Castle Coburg. (Enders, 8, 47. 37.) In the Jena edition of Luther's
Works, the Dresden edition of the Book of Concord of 1580, the Magdeburg
edition of 1580, the Heidelberg folio edition of 1582, and the Latin
edition of 1580, this longer Preface follows the shorter. However, since
the shorter Preface forms part of the Catechism itself, the longer
Preface ought to precede it, as is the case in the official Latin
Concordia of 1584. In the Low German edition of 1531 Bugenhagen defends
the expressions, criticized by some: I believe "an Gott, an Christum" in
the 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 evening
prayers are added, probably only as fillers. The changes in Rhau's
edition of 1538, styling itself, "newly corrected and improved," consist
in linguistic improvements and some additions and omissions. Albrecht
believes that most, but not all, of these changes were made by Luther
himself, 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 it
a catechism. In the first Wittenberg book edition, however, one finds
inserted, between the Preface and the Decalog, the superscription: "_Ein
kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht._ A Small Catechism or
Christian Discipline." This may have been the title of the charts, since
it would hardly have been introduced for the book edition, where it was
entirely superfluous, the title-page designating it as "The Small
Catechism for the Ordinary Pastors and Preachers." Likewise it cannot be
proved that the opening word on the title-page of this first book
edition was "Enchiridion," since this edition has disappeared without a
trace, 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 on
faith, hope, and charity, which could easily be carried in the hand, or,
rather, ought continually to be so carried, since it contained the
things most necessary for salvation." (3, 265.) The Erfurt
_Hymn-Booklet_ of 1524 was called "Enchiridion or Handbooklet, very
profitable for every Christian to have with him for constant use and
meditation." In 1531 Luther praised the Psalter, saying: "It may be
called a little Bible, wherein all that is found in the entire Bible is
most beautifully and briefly summed up and has been made and prepared
to be a splendid Enchiridion, or Handbook." (E. 63, 28.) The
_Instruction for Visitors_ calls the primer "the handbooklet of the
children, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and
other prayers." In 1523 Melanchthon had published such a book, entitled
"Enchiridion." Thus Enchiridion denotes a book of pithy brevity, an
elementary book. The various Church Orders employ the word in a similar
sense. (W. 30, 1, 540.)

110. Editions of Small Catechism.

At Wittenberg, George Rhau printed the Large Catechism and Michel
Schirlentz the Small Catechism (the chart impressions of which must be
considered the first edition). In the Preface to the Small Catechism,
Luther speaks of "these tables" and "the form of these tables," thus
referring to the chief parts, which were already printed on placards.
However, since "table" also denotes a list, the term could be applied
also to the chief parts in book form. It was nothing new to employ
tables ("_Zeddeln," i.e._, placards printed on one side) in order to
spread the parts of the Catechism in churches, homes, and schools. In
1518 Luther published his "Ten Commandments with a brief exposition of
their fulfilment and transgression," on placards. Of the charts of the
Small Catechism only a Low German copy has as yet been discovered. It
contains Luther's Morning and Evening Prayers, a reduced reproduction of
which 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 (but
here the traces are rather indefinable) that the first three tables were
summed up into a booklet as early as January or February, 1529. At
Hamburg, Bugenhagen published the charts, which he had received till
then, as a booklet, in Low German. It contained the five chief parts and
the Benedicite and Gratias. Shortly after the first Wittenberg book
edition had reached him Bugenhagen translated the Preface and had it
printed as a supplement.

Shortly after the completion of the Large Catechism Luther made
arrangements to have the Small Catechism appear in book form. May 16
Roerer sent two copies of the _Catechismus Minor._ But, as stated above,
all copies of this edition were completely used up. The edition has been
preserved in three reprints only, two of which appeared at Erfurt and
one at Marburg. Th. Harnack published the one Erfurt and the Marburg
reprint, and H. Hartung the other Erfurt reprint in separate facsimile
editions. Evidently these reprints appeared before the second
Wittenberg edition of June, 1529, was known at Erfurt and Marburg. In
estimating their value, however, modern scholars are not agreed as to
whether they represent three direct or one direct and two indirect
reprints. Albrecht is of the opinion that only one of the three may be
looked upon as a direct reprint. Judging from these reprints, the
original edition was entitled: "_Der kleine Katechismus fuer die
gemeinen Pfarrherrn und Prediger._ The Small Catechism for Ordinary
Pastors and Preachers." Aside from the five chief parts, it contained
the Preface, the Morning and Evening Prayers, the Table of Duties, and
the Marriage Booklet. On the other hand, these reprints omit not only
the word Enchiridion, but also the question, "How can bodily eating and
drinking do such great things?" together with its answer. Now, in case
all three should be direct reprints, the omitted question and answer
evidently were not contained in the first Wittenberg edition either. On
the other hand, if only one of them is a direct reprint, the mistake
must be charged to the original Wittenberg impression or to the reprint.
That the omission is an error, probably due to the printer, appears from
the fact that the omitted question and answer were already found on the
charts; for the Hamburg book edition of the charts in Low German has
them, as also Stifel's written copies of the charts. (W. 30, 1, 573.)

Of the Wittenberg editions which followed the _editio princeps,_ those
of 1529, 1531, and 1542 deserve special mention. The first appeared
under the title: "Enchiridion. The Small Catechism for the Ordinary
Pastors and Preachers, enlarged and improved." On the 13th of June this
edition was completed, for Roerer reports on this date: "Parvus
Catechismus sub iucudem iam tertio revocatus est et in ista postrema
editione adauctus." (Kolde _l.c._, 60.) Roerer designates this edition
as the third, probably because two imprints had been made of the _editio
princeps._ According to a defective copy, the only one preserved, this
edition adds to the contents of the _editio princeps_ the word
Enchiridion in the title, the Booklet of Baptism, A Brief Form of
Confessing to the Priest, for the Simple, and the Litany. The fifth
chief part has the question: "How can bodily eating and drinking do such
great things?" In the Lord's Prayer, however, the explanation of the
introduction is still lacking. This emended edition of 1529 furthermore
had the pictures, for the first time as it seems. The booklets on
Marriage and Baptism were retained, as additions, in all editions of the
Small Catechism published during the life of Luther, and in many later
editions as well. As yet, however, it has not been proved directly that
such was intended and arranged for by Luther himself.

Also in the succeeding editions Luther made various material and
linguistic changes. In the edition of 1531 he omitted the Litany, and
for the "Short Form of Confession" he substituted an instruction in
confession, which he inserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts,
under the caption, "How the Unlearned Shall be Taught to Confess." The
Lord's Prayer was complemented by the addition of the Introduction and
its explanation, and the number of cuts was increased to 23. This
edition of 1531, of which but one copy (found in the Bodleiana of
Oxford) is in existence, shows essentially the form in which the
Enchiridion was henceforth regularly printed during and after Luther's
life. (W. 30, 1, 608.) The editions of 1537 reveal several changes in
language, especially in the Bible-verses, which are made to conform to
Luther's translation. In the edition of 1542 the promise of the Fourth
Commandment appears for the first time, and the Table of Duties is
expanded. The Bible-verses referring to the relation of congregations to
their pastors were added, and the verses setting forth the relation of
subjects to their government were considerably augmented. Hence the
title: "Newly revised and prepared, _aufs neue uebersehen und
zugerichtet._" Probably the last edition to appear during Luther's life
was the one of 1543, which, however, was essentially a reprint of the
edition of 1542.

Knaake declared that all the editions which we possess "must be
attributed to the enterprise of the book dealers," and that one cannot
speak of a direct influence of Luther on any of these editions. In
opposition to this extreme skepticism, Albrecht points out that, for
instance, the insertion of the explanation of the Introduction to the
Lord's Prayer and the new form of confession, as well as its insertion
between 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,_ the
Latin translation of Luther's _Prayer-Booklet,_ which appeared toward
the end of August, 1529. Roerer met with great difficulties in editing
the book. August, 1529, he wrote: "You may not believe me if I tell you
how much trouble I am having with the Latin _Prayer-Booklet_ which is
now being printed. Somebody else, it is true, translated it from German
into 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 Roerer
refers. It certainly was not Lonicer, the versatile Humanist of Marburg
who at that time had completed the Large Catechism with a Preface dated
May 15, 1529. Kawerau surmises that it was probably _G. Major._
Evidently Luther himself had nothing to do with this translation. This
Catechism is entitled: _Simplicissima et Brevissima Catechismi
Expositio._ Almost throughout the question form was abandoned. In 1532 a
revised form of this translation appeared, entitled: _Nova Catechismi
Brevioris Translatio._ From these facts the theory (advocated also by v.
Zezschwitz and Knaake) has been spun that the Small Catechism sprang
from a still shorter one, which was not throughout cast in questions and
answers, and offered texts as well as explanations in a briefer form.
This would necessitate the further inference that the Preface to the
Small Catechism was originally written in Latin. All of these
suppositions, however, founder on the fact that the charts as we have
them in the handwriting of Stifel are in the form of questions and
answers. The _Prayer-Booklet_ discarded the form of questions and
answers, because its object was merely to reproduce the contents of
Luther'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 Johannes
Sauermann of Bambergen, who matriculated at Wittenberg in the winter
semester of 1518. (W. 30, 1, 601.) Sauermann's translation was intended
as a school edition of the Small Catechism. First came the alphabet,
then followed the texts: Decalog, Creed, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the
Lord's Supper. Luther's Preface, the Litany, and the Booklets of
Marriage and Baptism were omitted as not adapted for school use. The
chapter on Confession, from the second Wittenberg book edition was
inserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts. The note to the
Benedicite was put into the text with the superscription "Scholion"
(instead of the incorrect "Scholia" of the German edition, found also in
the Book of Concord). "Paedagogus" was substituted for "head of the
family (_Hausvater_)." The word "Haustafel" remained untranslated. The
words of the Third Petition, "so uns den Namen Gottes nicht heiligen und
sein Reich nicht kommen lassen wollen," are rendered: "quae nobis nomen
Dei 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 from
early youth carefully and diligently to instruct the boys in the
principles of Christian piety. And since I believe that of all the
elementary books of the theologians of this age none are better adapted
for this purpose than those of Dr. Martin Luther, I have rendered into
Latin 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 they
enter the Latin school." At the same time Sauermann declares that his
translation 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. And
being in entire conformity with the _Instruction for Visitors,_ of 1528,
for the Latin city schools, the book was soon in general use. In 1556
Michael Neander speaks of it as "the common Latin version, hitherto
used in all schools." (603.) The Latin Concordia of 1584 contains
Sauermann'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 the
German edition of the Catechism of 1531. The textual changes which were
made in Sauermann's translation for the Concordia of 1584 "show that he
was careful and usually felicitous, and are partly to be explained as
combinations of the first and second Latin translations." (604.)

When, in 1539, Justus Jonas translated the Nuernberg _Sermons for
Children,_ he made a third Latin translation of the Small Catechism. He
calls it "this my Latin translation, not carefully finished indeed, but
nevertheless rendered in good faith." (627.) This Latin text obtained
special 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 see
Weimar Edition of Luther's Complete Works (10, 1, 718f.)

Among the earliest elaborations of the Small Catechism was the Catechism
of Justus Menius, 1532, and the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533.
Both exploit Luther's explanations without mentioning his name. At the
same time some changing, abbreviating, polishing, etc., was done, as
Luther's text was considered difficult to memorize. Albrecht says of
Menius's emendations: "Some of his formal changes are not bad; most of
them, however are unnecessary. The entire book finally serves the
purpose of bringing to light the surpassing merit of the real
Luther-Catechism." (617.) The same verdict will probably be passed on
all the substitute catechisms which have hitherto appeared. John
Spangenberg's Small Catechism of 1541, which was widely used, is, as he
himself says, composed "from the Catechism of our beloved father, Dr.
Martin, and those of others." It contains Luther's Catechism mainly as
changed by Menius. The Nuernberg _Children's Sermons,_ which embodied
also 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's
Small Catechism as concluding sentences of the individual sermons, but
in original minting, with abbreviations, additions, and other changes,
which, however, are not nearly as marked as those of Menius. These
changes were also made to facilitate memorizing. Between Baptism and
the Lord's Supper was found the doctrinal part on the Office of the
Keys, which in this or a similar form was, after Luther's death,
appended to or inserted in, the Small Catechism as the sixth or fifth
chief part, respectively.

112. The Part "Of Confession."

The Small Catechism did not spring from Luther's mind finished and
complete at one sitting. Originally he considered the first three chief
parts as constituting the Catechism. Before long, however, he added the
parts of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These five parts are for the
first time mentioned in the _German Order of Worship,_ and printed
together in the Booklet for Laymen and Children. The Introduction to the
Large Catechism also offers no more. The chart and book editions added
as real parts of the Catechism (the Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism
cannot be viewed as such) the Benedicite and Gratias, the Morning and
Evening Prayers, the Table of Duties, and Confession. It is the last of
these parts which played a peculiar role in the history of the Small
Catechism. Albrecht writes: "In the textual history of the Small
Catechism, Confession (besides the Table of Duties) is the most restless
and movable part. In the Low German editions since 1531 and 1534 it is
found after the Lord's Supper as a sort of sixth chief part. In
individual instances it is entirely omitted. On the other hand, in
elaborations of the Catechism, notably in the Nuernberg
Catechism-sermons, it is supplanted by the Office of the Keys, and in
later 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 there
were already those which dealt with Confession. In fact, Luther must
have here treated this part at comparative length. For Roerer reports
that the price of the Confession charts was three pfennige, whereas the
price of the Sacrament charts was two pfennige. Yet nothing of
Confession was embodied in the first book edition of the Small
Catechism. The first edition also of the Large Catechism had no part
treating of Confession. But the second Wittenberg edition, of 1529
appeared "augmented with a new instruction and admonition concerning
Confession." Likewise the "augmented and improved" Small Catechism of
1529, superscribed, "Enchiridion," contained a "Short Form how the
Unlearned shall Confess to the Priest. _Eine kurze Weise zu beichten
fuer die Einfaeltigen, dem Priester._" This Form was not to serve the
pastor in admonishing, etc., but Christians when going to confession.
Possibly it was one of the charts which Roerer, March 16, mentioned as
novelties. The addition of this part was, no doubt, caused by Luther
himself. This is supported by the fact that Sauermann's translation,
which appeared by Luther's "advice and order," also contained it. And
while in the German book edition it was found in the Appendix, following
the Booklet on Baptism, Sauermann inserted it between Baptism and the
Lord's Supper with the superscription: "How schoolmasters ought in
simplest manner to teach their boys a brief form of confession. _Quo
pacto paedagogi suos pueros brevem confitendi rationem simplicissime
docere debeant._" Evidently this, too, was done with Luther's approval
(_auctoris consilio et iussu_). "Thus Luther at that time already," says
Albrecht, "selected this place for Confession and retained it later on,
when [1531] he furnished another form of confession for the Catechism
which to him seemed more appropriate." The gradual insertion of a new
chief part (of Confession and Absolution) between Baptism and the Lord's
Supper was therefore entirely according to Luther's mind; indeed, it had
virtually been carried out by him as early as 1529.

The original part Of Confession, however, was no catechetical and
doctrinal part in the proper sense of the word, but purely a liturgical
formula of Confession, even the Absolution being omitted. It merely
contained two confessions similar to the forms found in the Book of
Concord, page 552, sections 21 to 23. Hence Luther, in the edition of
1531, replaced it with a catechetico-liturgical form entitled, "How the
Unlearned Should be Taught to Confess." It is identical with the one
found in the Book of Concord of 1580, save only that the original
contained the words, "What is Confession? Answer," which are omitted in
the German Concordia. Luther placed the part Of Confession between
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, thereby actually making this the fifth
and the Lord's Supper the sixth chief part. And when later on (for in
Luther's editions the chief parts are not numbered) the figures were
added, 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 of
Concord, 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 part
form the most important and independent addition to Luther's Small
Catechism. However, they are not only in complete agreement with
Luther's doctrine of Absolution, but, in substance, also contained in
what he himself offered in the part Of Confession. For what Luther says
in paragraphs 26 to 28 in a liturgical form is expressed and explained
in the three questions on the Office of the Keys in a doctrinal and
catechetical form. Not being formulated by Luther, however, they were
not received into the Book of Concord. In the Nuernberg _Text-Booklet_
of 1531 they are placed before Baptism. Thence they were taken over into
the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533 as a substitute for Luther's
form of Confession. Andrew Osiander, in the draft of his Church Order of
1531, in the article on "Catechism and the Instruction of Children,"
added as sixth to the five chief parts: "Of the Keys of the Church, or
the Power to Bind and to Unbind from Sins," quoting as Bible-verse the
passage: "The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples," etc. Brenz, though
not, as frequently assumed, the author of the Nuernberg Catechism, also
contributed toward introducing and popularizing this part of the
Catechism. In his Questions of 1535 and 1536, which appeared in the
Appendix to the Latin translation of Luther's Large Catechism, he
offered an original treatment to the Keys of Heaven, as the sixth chief
part, 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 six
chief parts of catechetical instruction; but he enumerates Absolution as
the part between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, hence as the fifth chief
part of the Catechism.

As to the Christian Questions for Those Who Intend to Go to the
Sacrament, it was claimed very early that Luther was the author. They
were first published in 1549, and a number of separate impressions
followed. After 1558 they are usually found in the appendix to the Small
Catechism. The Note, "These questions and answers," etc., designating
Luther as the author, first appeared in an edition of 1551. Together
with this note, the Questions are found in an undated Wittenberg edition
of the Small Catechism, which appeared about 1560, containing pictures
dated 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 Lang
of Erfurt (+ 1548). The question at issue has not yet been decided. For
while the contents of the Questions reproduce, from beginning to end,
Luther's thoughts, and the last answers are almost literally taken from
the Large Catechism, we have no evidence that Luther compiled them; but,
on the other hand, also no convincing proof against this. Claus Harms
and Koellner asserted that Luther is the author of the Questions, while
Kliefoth and Loehe declared it as probable.--The Introduction to the Ten
Commandments, "I the Lord, thy God," and the Doxology, at the close of
the 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 preceding
ones in that it was superscribed: "Table of Duties (Haustafel),
Consisting of Certain Passages of Scripture for Various Holy Orders and
Stations. Whereby These are to be Admonished, as by a Special Lesson,
Regarding Their Office and Service." The exact time when Luther drew up
this Table is not known. The latest date to which its composition can be
assigned 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. The
two 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 not
contained in the German editions but appeared for the first time in the
Latin translation. 2. Their superscriptions differ in form from those of
the other groups. 3. They adduce quite a number of Bible-verses, and
repeat some already quoted, _e.g._, 1 Tim. 2, 1, Rom. 13, 1. The German
Book of Concord omitted these passages, while the Latin Concordia of
1580 and 1584 embodied them. Albrecht writes: "The Table of Duties is an
original part of the Catechism, bearing a true Lutheran stamp. But it
was old material worked over, as is the case almost throughout the Small
Catechism." "The oft-repeated assertion, however, that the Table of
Duties was borrowed from the catechism of the Waldensians or Bohemian
Brethren, is not correct. For this Table is not found in the Catechism
of the Brethren of 1522, with which Luther was acquainted, but first in
Gyrick's Catechism of 1554, in which Lutheran material is embodied also
in other places." (W. 30, 1, 645.)

The confession books of the Middle Ages, however, which classified sins
according to the social estates, and especially John Gerson's tract (_De
Modo Vivendi Omnium Fidelium_ reprinted at Wittenberg 1513), which
treated of the offices of all sorts of lay-people in every station of
life, may have prompted Luther to draw up this Table. But, says
Albrecht, "it certainly grew under his hand into something new and
characteristic. The old material is thoroughly shortened, sifted,
supplemented, newly arranged, recast. While Gerson's tract throughout
bears the stamp of the Middle Ages, Luther's Table of Duties, with its
appeal to the Scriptures alone, its knowledge of what is a 'holy
estate,' its teaching that, as divine ordinances, civil government and
the household (when embraced by the common order of Christian love) are
equally as holy as the priesthood, reveals the characteristic marks of
the Reformer's new ideal of life, which, rooting in his faith, and
opposed to the hierarchy and monkery of the Middle Ages, as well as to
the fanaticism of the Anabaptists, became of far-reaching importance for
the 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 the
Catechism which treats of the duties of the household." This verbal
definition, 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 account
inappropriate. Table (_Tafel, tabula_) signifies in general a roster, a
list, or index of leading points, with or without reference to the chart
form. And such a table suspended in the home and employed in the
instruction of the home congregation, is properly termed "Haustafel."
Agreeably to this, Andreas Fabricius, in 1569, called the "Haustafel" a
domestic table of works, _tabula operum domestica._ Daniel Kauzmann, in
his _Handbook_ (16 sermons on the Catechism) of 1569, says: "It is
called 'Haustafel' of the Christians because every Christian should
daily view it and call to mind therefrom his calling, as from a table
which portrays and presents to every one what pertains to him. It
teaches all the people who may be in a house what each one ought to do
or to leave undone in his calling." (642.)

In his _Catechismus Lutheri_ of 1600 Polycarp Leyser offers the
following explanation: "Why are these passages called a table? Beyond
doubt this is due to the fact that, from of old, good ordinances have
been written and graven on tables. So did God, who prescribed His Law to
the Jews in ten commandments on two tables. Similarly Solon wrote the
laws of Athens on tables. The Romans also had their law of twelve tables
brought from Athens. And so, when the government to-day issues certain
commands, it is customary to suspend them on tables, as also princes and
lords suspend on tables their court rules. But why is it called
'Haustafel' when it also treats of preachers and the government? The
reason for this is given by St. Paul, I Tim. 3, where he calls the
Church a house of the living God. For as the housefather in a large
house 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 been
received into His house by Holy Baptism, and to prescribe to them in
this table how each one in his calling shall conduct himself." (641.)

Concerning the purpose of the Table of Duties, Albrecht remarks: "If I
am correct, Luther, by these additions, would especially inculcate that
Christianity, the essence of which is set forth in the preceding chief
parts, must daily be practised." That is certainly correct, for the
Catechism must not only be learned, but lived. And the Table of Duties
emphasizes the great truth, brought to light again by Luther, that
Christianity does not consist in any peculiar form of life; as Romish
priests, monks, and nuns held, who separated themselves from the world
outwardly, but that it is essentially faith of the heart, which,
however, is not to flee into cloisters and solitudes but courageously
and cheerfully to plunge into practical life with its natural forms and
relations as ordained by Creation, there to be tried as well as
glorified. In his _Admonition to the Clergy,_ 1530, Luther says:
"Furthermore, by such abominable doctrine all truly good works which God
appointed and ordained were despised and utterly set at naught [by the
<DW7>s]. For instance, lord, subject, father, mother, son, daughter,
servant, maid were not regarded as good works, but were called
worldliness, dangerous estates, and lost works." (W. 30, 2, 291.) The
Table of Duties is a protest against such perverted views. For here
Luther considers not only the calling of preachers and teachers, but
also all those of government and subjects, of fathers, mothers, and
children, of masters and servants, of mistresses and maids, of employees
and employers, as "holy orders and estates," in which a Christian may
live with a good conscience, and all of which the Catechism is to
permeate with its truths. "Out into the stream of life with the
Catechism you have learned!" Such, then, is the admonition which, in
particular, the Table of Duties adds to the preceding parts of the
Catechism.

115. Symbolical Authority of Catechisms.

The symbolical authority of Luther's Catechisms must be distinguished
from the practical use to which they were put in church, school, and
home. As to his doctrine, Luther knew it to be the pure truth of the
divine Word. Hence he could not but demand that every one acknowledge
it. Self-evidently this applies also to the doctrinal contents of the
Catechisms. Luther, however, did not insist that his Catechisms be made
the books of instruction in church, school, and home; he only desired
and counseled it. If for the purpose of instruction the form of his
Small Catechism did not suit any one, let him, said Luther, choose
another. 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 your
choice, and adhere to it without the change of a single syllable."
Self-evidently Luther is here not speaking of the doctrine of the
Catechism, but of the form to be used for instruction. And with respect
to the latter he makes no demands whatever. However, the contents of
these books and the name of the author sufficed to procure for them the
widest circulation and the most extensive use. Everywhere the doors of
churches, schools, and homes were opened to the writings of Luther.

The tables had hardly been published when catechism instruction already
generally was given according to Luther's Explanation. The church
regulations, first in Saxony, then also in other lands, provided that
Luther's Small Catechism be memorized word for word, and that preaching
be according to the Large Catechism. The Church Order of Henry the
Pious, 1539, declares: "There shall not be taught a different catechism
in every locality, but one and the same form, as presented by Dr. Martin
Luther at Wittenberg, shall be observed everywhere." In 1533 the
ministers of Allstaedt were ordered "to preach according to Luther's
Large Catechism." (Kolde, 63.) The authority of the Catechisms grew
during the controversies after Luther's death, when the faithful
Lutherans appealed to the Smalcald Articles and especially to Luther's
Catechisms. The Lueneburg Articles of 1561 designate them, together with
the Smalcald Articles, as the correct "explication and explanation" of
the true sense of the Augustana. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum_ of
1564 declares that "the sum of Christian and evangelical doctrine is
purely and correctly contained in Luther's Catechisms." Their authority
as a genuinely Lutheran norm of doctrine increased when the Reformed of
Germany, in 1563, made the Heidelberg Catechism their particular
confession.

Like the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms achieved their
symbolical authority by themselves, without resolutions of princes
estates, and theologians. The Thorough Declaration of the Formula of
Concord is merely chronicling actual facts when it adopts the Catechisms
for this reason: "because they have been unanimously approved and
received by all churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and have
been publicly used in churches, schools, and homes, and, moreover,
because the Christian doctrine from God's Word is comprised in them in
the most correct and simple way, and, in like manner, is explained, as
far as necessary for simple laymen." (852, 8.) The Epitome adds: "And
because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their
souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther as
they are included in Luther's works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein
everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy
Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his
salvation." (777, 5.)

116. Enemies and Friends of Small Catechism.

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

The best refutation of such and similar aspersions is a reference to the
enormous circulation which Luther's Small Catechism has enjoyed, to its
countless editions, translations, elaborations, and its universal use in
church, school, and home for four centuries. Thirty-seven years after
the publication of Luther's Catechisms, Mathesius wrote: "Praise God it
is said that in our times over one hundred thousand copies have been
printed and used in great numbers in all kinds of languages in foreign
lands and in all Latin and German schools." And since then, down to the
present day, millions and millions of hands have been stretched forth to
receive Luther's catechetical classic. While during the last four
centuries hundreds of catechisms have gone under, Luther's Enchiridion
is 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 will
hardly be able to believe that the entire Lutheran Church has, for four
centuries, 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 of
friends who down to the present day have not tired of praising the
Catechisms, especially the Enchiridion. They admire its artistic and
perfect form; its harmonious grouping, as of the petals of a flower, the
melody and rhythm of its language, notably in the explanation of the
Second Article, its clarity, perspicuity, and popularity; its
simplicity, coupled with depth and richness of thought; the absence of
polemics and of theological terminology, etc. However, with all this and
many other things which have been and might be said in praise of the
Catechism, the feature which made it what it truly was, a Great Deed of
the Reformation, has not as yet been pointed out. Luther Paulinized,
Evangelicalized, the Catechism by properly setting forth in his
explanations the _finis historiae,_ the blessed meaning of the great
deeds of God, the doctrine of justificaiton. Indeed, also Luther's
Catechism is, in more than one way, conditioned by its times, but in its
kernel, in its doctrine, it contains, as Albrecht puts it, "timeless,
never-aging material. For in it pulsates the heartbeat of the primitive
Christian faith, as witnessed by the apostles, and experienced anew by
the Reformer." (648.) This, too, is the reason why Luther's Enchiridion
is, indeed, as G. v. Zezschwitz remarks, "a booklet which a theologian
never 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 quite
cold and indifferent about arranging my books, for, incited by a
Saturnine hunger, I would much rather have them all devoured, _eo quod
Saturnina fame percitus magis cuperem eos omnes devoratos._ For none do
I acknowledge as really my books, except perhaps _De Servo Arbitrio_ and
the Catechism." (Enders, 11, 247.) Justus Jonas declares: "The Catechism
is but a small booklet, which can be purchased for six pfennige but six
thousand worlds could not pay for it." He believed that the Holy Ghost
inspired the blessed Luther to write it. Mathesius says "If in his
career Luther had produced and done no other good thing than to give his
two Catechisms to homes, schools, and pulpits, the entire world could
never sufficiently thank or repay him for it." J. Fr. Mayer: "_Tot res
quot verba. Tot utilitates, quot apices complectens. Pagellis brevis,
sed rerum theologicarum amplitudine incomparabilis._ As many thoughts as
words; 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 Leyser
says: "That sainted man, Martin Luther, never took greater pains than
when he drew up into a brief sum those prolix expositions which he
taught most energetically in his various books.... Therefore he composed
the Short Catechism, which is more precious than gold or gems, in which
the pure doctrine of the prophets and apostles (_prophetica et
apostolica doctrinae puritas_) is summed up into one integral doctrinal
body, and set forth in such clear words that it may justly be considered
worthy of the Canon (for everything has been drawn from the canonical
Scriptures). I can truthfully affirm that this very small book contains
such a wealth of so many and so great things that, if all faithful
preachers of the Gospel during their entire lives would do nothing else
in their sermons than explain aright to the common people the secret
wisdom of God comprised in those few words and set forth from the divine
Scriptures the solid ground upon which each word is built they could
never exhaust this immense abyss."

Leopold von Ranke, in his _German History of the Time of the
Reformation,_ 1839, declares: "The Catechism which Luther published in
1529, 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 a
thin shell the kernel of truth, which satisfies the wisest of the wise."

Loehe, another enthusiastic panegyrist of Luther, declares: "The Small
Lutheran Catechism can be read and spoken throughout with a praying
heart; in short, it can be prayed. This can be said of no other
catechism. It contains the most definitive doctrine, resisting every
perversion, and still it is not polemical--it exhales the purest air of
peace. In it is expressed the manliest and most developed knowledge, and
yet 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 most
universal, in which God's children most frequently meet in conscious
faith, and still this universal confession speaks in a most pleasing
personal tone. Warm, hearty, childlike, yet it is so manly, so
courageous, so free the individual confessor speaks here. Of all the
confessions comprised in the Concordia of 1580, this is the most
youthful, the clearest, and the most penetrating note in the harmonious
chime, and, withal, as rounded and finished as any. One may say that in
it the firmest objectiveness appears in the garb of the most pleasing
subjectiveness."

Schmauk writes: "The Small Catechism is the real epitome of Lutheranism
in the simplest, the most practical, the most modern and living, and, at
the same time, the most radical form. It steers clear of all obscure
historical allusions; it contains no condemnatory articles, it is based
on the shortest and the oldest of the ecumenical symbols. It is not a
work for theologians, but for every Lutheran; and it is not nearly as
large as the Augsburg Confession." (_Conf. Prin.,_ 696.)

McGiffert says: "In 1529 appeared his [Luther's] Large and Small
Catechisms, the latter containing a most beautiful summary of Christian
faith and duty, wholly devoid of polemics of every kind, and so simple
and concise as to be easily understood and memorized by every child. It
has formed the basis of the religious education of German youth ever
since. Though preceded by other catechisms from the pen of this and that
colleague or disciple, it speedily displaced them all, not simply
because of its authorship, but because of its superlative merit, and has
alone maintained itself in general use. The versatility of the Reformer
in adapting himself with such success to the needs of the young and
immature is no less than extraordinary. Such a little book as this it is
that reveals most clearly the genius of the man." (_Life of Luther,_
316.)

O. Albrecht writes: "Reverently adhering to the churchly tradition and
permeating it with the new understanding of the Gospel, such are the
characteristics of Luther's Catechisms, especially the Small Catechism."
"On every page new and original features appear beside the traditional
elements." "The essential doctrinal content of the booklet is thoroughly
original; in it Luther offered a carefully digested presentation of the
essence of Christianity, according to his own understanding as the
Reformer, in a manner adapted to the comprehension of children--a
simple, pithy description of his own personal Christian piety, without
polemics and systematization, but with the convincing power of
experienced truth." (W. 30, 1, 647.)--Similar testimonies might easily
be multiplied and have been collected and published repeatedly.

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

118. Literary Merit of Small Catechism.

Moenckeberg remarks: The Small Catechism betrays "the imperfection of
the 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 language
in order, by pithy brevity and simple, attractive form, to make its
glorious truths the permanent property of the children and unlearned who
memorized it. In his publication "_Zur Sprache und Geschichte des
Kleinen Katechismus Luthers,_ Concerning the Language and History of
Luther's Small Catechism," 1909, J. Gillhoff writes: "Here, if ever,
arose a master of language, who expressed the deepest mysteries in
sounds most simple. Here, if ever, there was created in the German
language and spirit, and in brief compass, a work of art of German
prose. If ever the gods blessed a man to create, consciously or
unconsciously, on the soil of the people and their needs, a perfect work
of popular art in the spirit of the people and in the terms of their
speech, to the weal of the people and their youth throughout the
centuries, it was here. The explanation of the Second Article is one of
the chief creations of the home art of German poetry. And such it is,
not for the reason that it rises from desert surroundings, drawing
attention to itself alone, but because it sums up and crowns the
character of the book throughout." (16.)

Speaking in particular of the Second Article, Bang, in 1909, said in his
lecture "_Luthers Kleiner Katechismus, ein Kleinod der Volksschule_
--Luther's Small Catechism, a Jewel of the Public Schools": "The
Catechism is precious also for the reason that Luther in the
explanations strikes a personal, subjective, confessional note. When at
home I read the text of the Second Article in silence, and then read
Luther's explanation aloud, it seems to me as if a hymn rushing
heavenward arises from the lapidary record of facts. It is no longer the
language of the word, but of the sound as well. The text reports
objectively, like the language of a Roman, writing tables of law. The
explanation witnesses and confesses subjectively. It is Christianity
transformed into flesh and blood. It sounds like an oath of allegiance
to the flag. In its ravishing tone we perceive the marching tread of the
myriads of believers of nineteen centuries; we see them moving onward
under the fluttering banner of the cross in war, victory, and peace. And
we, too, by a power which cannot be expressed in words, are drawn into
the great, blessed experience of our ancestors and champions. Who would
dare to lay his impious hands on this consecrated, inherited jewel, and
rob 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 peace
and concord departed from the Lutheran Church. His death was everywhere
the signal for action against true Lutheranism on the part of both its
avowed enemies and false brethren. As long as that hero of faith and
prayer was still living, the weight of his personal influence and
authority proved to be a veritable bulwark of peace and doctrinal purity
against the enemies within as well as without the Church. Though enemies
seeking to devour had been lurking long ago, the powerful and commanding
personality of Luther had checked all forces making for war from without
and for dissension from within. The Emperor could not be induced to
attack the Lutherans. He knew that they would stand united and strong as
long as the Hero of the Reformation was in their midst. Nor were the
false brethren able to muster up sufficient courage to come out into the
open and publish their errors while the voice of the lion was heard.

But no sooner had Luther departed than strife began its distracting
work. War, political as well as theological, followed in the wake of his
death. From the grave of the fallen hero a double specter began to loom
up. Pope and Emperor now joined hands to crush Protestantism by brute
force as they had planned long ago. The result was the Smalcald War. The
secret enemies which Lutheranism harbored within its own bosom began
boldly to raise their heads. Revealing their true colors and coming out
in the open with their pernicious errors, they caused numerous
controversies which spread over all Germany (Saxony, the cradle of the
Reformation, becoming the chief battlefield), and threatened to undo
completely the blessed work of Luther, to disrupt and disintegrate the
Church, or to pervert it into a unionistic or Reformed sect. Especially
these discreditable internal dissensions were a cause of deep
humiliation and of anxious concern to all loyal Lutherans. To the
Romanists and Reformed, however, who united in predicting the impending
collapse of Lutheranism, they were a source of malicious and triumphant
scoffing and jeering. A prominent theologian reported that by 1566
matters had come to such a pass in Germany that the old Lutheran
doctrine was publicly proclaimed only in relatively few places. In the
Palatinate public thanks were rendered to God in the churches that also
Electoral 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 more
entitled 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 ever
gratefully remembered as a special grace and a remarkable favor of
Almighty God.

120. Luther Foretold Coming Distress.

Though fully conscious of the gravity of the political and theological
situation, and convinced that war and dissensions were bound to come,
Luther was at the same time confident that it would not occur during his
life. With respect to the coming war he said: "With great earnestness I
have asked God, and still pray daily, that He would thwart their [the
<DW7>s'] 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 know
that 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 a
great consolation when he says (Is. 57, 1) that the righteous are taken
away from the evil to come. Thus we, too, shall die in peace before
misfortune and misery overtake Germany." (St. L. 1, 1758.)

Luther spoke frequently also of the impending doctrinal dissensions. As
early as 1531 he declared that the Gospel would abide only a short time.
"When the present pious, true preachers will be dead," said he, "others
will come who will preach and act as it pleases the devil." (8, 72.) In
1546 he said in a sermon preached at Wittenberg: "Up to this time you
have heard the real, true Word; now beware of your own thoughts and
wisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and lead you away
from the faith, as he did the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians.... I see
clearly 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 is
plainly his object. If he cannot accomplish it through the Pope and the
Emperor, he will do it through those who are [now] in doctrinal
agreement with us.... Therefore pray earnestly that God may preserve
the 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's
prophecies would be fulfilled. His address to the students of Wittenberg
University, on February 19, 1546, in which he announced the death of
Luther, concludes: "_Obiit auriga et currus Israel._ He is dead, the
chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof, who guided the Church in
this last old age of the world. For the doctrine of the forgiveness of
sins and of faith in the Son of God was not discovered by human
sagacity, but revealed by God through this man. Let us therefore love
his memory and his teaching, and may we be all the more humble and
ponder the terrible calamity and the great changes which will follow
this misfortune." (_C. R._ 6, 59.)

Nor were these prophecies of Luther mere intuitions or deductions based
on general reflections only. They were inductions from facts which he
had not failed to observe at Wittenberg, even in his immediate
surroundings. Seckendorf relates that Luther, when sick at Smalcald in
1537, told the Elector of Saxony that after his death, discord would
break out in the University of Wittenberg and that his doctrine would be
changed. (_Comm. de Lutheranismo_ 3, 165.) In his Preface to Luther's
Table Talk, John Aurifaber reports that Luther had frequently predicted
that after his death his doctrine would wane and decline because of
false brethren, fanatics, and sectarians, and that the truth, which in
1530 had been placed on a pinnacle at Augsburg, would descend into the
valley, since the Word of God had seldom flourished more than forty
years in one place. (Richard, _Conf. Hist_., 311.) Stephanus Tucher, a
faithful Lutheran preacher of Magdeburg, wrote in 1549: "Doctor Martin
Luther, of sainted memory, has frequently repeated before many
trustworthy witnesses, and also before Doctor Augustine Schurf, these
words: 'After my death not one of these [Wittenberg] theologians will
remain steadfast.'" Tucher adds: "This I have heard of Doctor Augustine
Schurf not once, but frequently. Therefore I also testify to it before
Christ, 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 and
deplored in his Wittenberg colleagues: Melanchthon, Bugenhagen,
Cruciger, Eber, and Major. Shortly before his last journey to Eisleben
he invited them to his house, where he addressed to them the following
solemn words of warning: They should "remain steadfast in the Gospel;
for I see that soon after my death the most prominent brethren will fall
away. I am not afraid of the <DW7>s," he added, "for most of them are
coarse, unlearned asses and Epicureans; but our brethren will inflict
the damage on the Gospel; for 'they went out from us, but they were not
of us' (1 John 2, 19); they will give the Gospel a harder blow than did
the <DW7>s." About the same time Luther had written above the entrance
to 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: "The
meaning of these words is precisely what you read and what they say; and
when 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 he
was not addicted to any false doctrine. Luther answered: "It is by your
silence and cloaking that you cast suspicion upon yourself. If you
believe as you declare in my presence, then speak so also in the church,
in public lectures, in sermons, and in private conversations, and
strengthen your brethren, and lead the erring back to the right path,
and contradict the contumacious spirits; otherwise your confession is
sham pure and simple, and worth nothing. Whoever really regards his
doctrine, faith and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remain
in the same stall with such as teach, or adhere to, false doctrine; nor
can he keep on giving friendly words to Satan and his minions. A teacher
who remains silent when errors are taught, and nevertheless pretends to
be a true teacher, is worse than an open fanatic and by his hypocrisy
does greater damage than a heretic. Nor can he be trusted. He is a wolf
and a fox, a hireling and a servant of his belly, and ready to despise
and to sacrifice doctrine, Word, faith, Sacrament, churches, and
schools. He is either a secret bedfellow of the enemies or a skeptic and
a weathervane, waiting to see whether Christ or the devil will prove
victorious; or he has no convictions of his own whatever, and is not
worthy to be called a pupil, let alone a teacher; nor does he want to
offend anybody, or say a word in favor of Christ, or hurt the devil and
the world." (Walther, 39f.)

121. Unfortunate Issue of Smalcald War.

All too soon the predictions of Luther, and the fears expressed by
Melanchthon and others, were realized. June 26, 1546, four months after
Luther's death, Pope and Emperor entered into a secret agreement to
compel the Protestants by force of arms to acknowledge the decrees of
the 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 and
assistance of His Papal Holiness, His Imperial Majesty should prepare
himself for war, and equip himself with soldiers and everything
pertaining to warfare against those who objected to the Council, against
the Smalcald League, and against all who were addicted to the false
belief and error in Germany, and that he do so with all his power and
might in order to bring them back to the old [papal] faith and to the
obedience of the Holy See." The Pope promised to assist the Emperor with
200,000 Krontaler, more than 12,000 Italian soldiers, and quite a number
of horsemen. He furthermore permitted the Emperor to appropriate, for
the purpose of this war, one half of the total income of the church
property in Spain and 500,000 Krontaler from the revenue of the Spanish
cloisters.

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

The Smalcald War, so called because it was directed against the Smalcald
League, was easily won by the Emperor. Among the causes of this
unfortunate issue were the neutral attitude of Joachim II of Brandenburg
and of other Lutheran princes, and especially the treachery of the
ambitious and unscrupulous Maurice, Duke of Saxony and nephew of Elector
John Frederick of Saxony, who, in order to gain the Electorate of
Saxony, had made a secret agreement with the Emperor according to which
he was to join his forces with those of the Emperor against the
Lutherans. 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 sentenced
to death. The sentence was read to him while he was playing chess with
his 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 might
order his affairs with his wife and children. He then calmly turned to
the 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 fell
into the hands of the Emperor; and when he threatened to execute the
Elector, having already erected a scaffold for this purpose, Wittenberg,
too, though well protected by 5,000 soldiers, signed a capitulation on
May 19, in order to save the Elector's life. On the 23d of May,
Wittenberg was occupied by the Emperor. Here Charles, when standing at
the grave of Luther, and urged to have the body of "the heretic"
exhumed, spoke the memorable words that he was warring not with the
dead, but with the living. The death-sentence was rescinded, but, apart
from other cruel conditions forced upon the Elector, he was compelled to
resign in favor of Maurice and promise to remain in captivity as long as
the Emperor should desire. His sons were granted the districts of
Weimar, Jena, Eisenach, and Gotha. Philip of Hesse surrendered without
striking a blow, and was likewise treacherously held in captivity and
humiliated in every possible way by the Emperor. The imperial
plenipotentiaries had assured the Landgrave that he would not be
imprisoned. Afterwards, however, the words in the document, "not any
bodily captivity--_nit eenige Leibesgefangenschaft,_" were fraudulently
changed by Granvella to read, "not eternal captivity--_nit ewige
Leibesgefangenschaft_" (Marheineke, _G. d. Deut. Ref._ 4, 438.) The sons
of the Landgrave remained in possession of his territory. Thus all of
Southern and, barring a few cities, also all of Northern Germany was
conquered by Charles. Everywhere the Lutherans were at the tender mercy
of 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 the
so-called Augsburg Interim. It was proclaimed by the Emperor at Augsburg
on May 15, 1548, as the law of the Empire under the title: "Der
roemischen kaiserlichen Majestaet Erklaerung wie es der Religion halben
im heiligen Reich bis zu Austrag des gemeinen Concilii gehalten werden
soll." The people were also forbidden to teach, write, or preach against
the document. The Interim had been prepared by the papal bishops Julius
Pflug and Michael Helding and the court-preacher of Elector Joachim of
Brandenburg, John Agricola, a man with whom Luther had, already since
1540, refused to have any further intercourse owing to his insincerity
and duplicity. "I go forth as the Reformer of all Germany," Agricola
boasted when he left Berlin to attend the Diet at Augsburg, which was to
open September 1, 1547. After the Diet he bragged that in Augsburg he
had flung the windows wide open for the Gospel; that he had reformed the
Pope and made the Emperor a Lutheran, that a golden time had now
arrived, for the Gospel would be preached in all Europe; that he had not
only been present, but had presided at the drafting of the Interim; that
he 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 Interim
because its object was to regulate the church affairs until the
religious controversy would be finally settled by the Council of Trent,
to the resolutions of which the Lutherans were required to submit. It
was, however, essentially papal. For the time being, indeed, it
permitted Protestant clergymen to marry, and to celebrate the Lord's
Supper in both kinds, but demanded the immediate restoration of the
Romish customs and ceremonies, the acknowledgment of papal supremacy
_iure divino,_ as well as the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the
adoption of articles in which the doctrines were all explained in the
sense of the Catholic dogmas, and in which truth and falsehood, in
general, were badly mingled. Transubstantiation, the seven sacraments,
and other papal errors were reaffirmed, while Lutheran tenets, such as
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, were either denied or
omitted. And from the fact that this Interim was nevertheless condemned
by the Pope and the Romanists, who demanded an unqualified, blind, and
unconditional submission, the Lutherans could infer what they were to
expect after consenting to these interimistic provisions. The general
conviction among Catholics as well as Protestants was that the Interim
was but the first step to a complete return to Romanism. Indeed, soon
after its promulgation, the Catholic Electors of Mainz and Koeln
endeavored to rob the Lutherans also of the use of the cup and of the
marriage of the priests. The Elector of Mainz declared all such
marriages void and their children bastards. (Jaekel, 162.)

In the most important point, the doctrine of justification, the Augsburg
Interim not only omitted the _sola fide,_ but clearly taught that
justification embraces also renewal. When God justifies a man, the
Interim declared, He does not only absolve him from his guilt, but also
"makes him better by imparting the Holy Ghost, who cleanses his heart
and incites it through the love of God which is shed abroad in his
heart." (Frank, _Theologie d. Konkordienformel,_ 2, 80.) A man "is
absolved from the guilt of eternal damnation and renewed through the
Holy Spirit and thus an unjust man becomes just." (143.) Again: "This
faith obtains the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which the love of God is
shed abroad in our hearts; and after this has been added to faith and
hope, we are truly justified by the infused righteousness which is in
man; 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 Interim
outwardly and temporarily. Free cities rejecting it were deprived of
their liberties and privileges. Constance, having fallen after a heroic
defense, was annexed to Austria. Magdeburg offered the longest
resistance and was outlawed three times. Defiantly its citizens
declared: "We are saved neither by an Interim nor by an Exterim, but by
the Word of God alone." (Jaekel 1, 166.) Refractory magistrates were
treated as rebels. Pastors who declined to introduce the Interim were
deposed, some were banished, others incarcerated, still others even
executed. In Swabia and along the Rhine about four hundred ministers
were willing to suffer imprisonment and banishment rather than conform
to the Interim. They were driven into exile with their families, and
some of them were killed. When Jacob Sturm of Augsburg presented his
grievances to Granvella, the latter answered: "If necessary, one might
proceed against heretics also with fire." "Indeed," Sturm retorted, "you
may kill people by fire, but even in this way you cannot force their
faith." (165.) Bucer and Fagius, preachers in Augsburg, left for
England. Musculus was deposed because he had preached against the
Interim. Osiander was compelled to leave Nuernberg, Erhard Schnepf,
Wuerttemberg. Among the fugitives eagerly sought throughout Germany by
the imperial henchmen was Brenz in Schwaebisch-Hall, the renowned
theologian 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 his
eloquence, style, piety, faithfulness, and ardor." (Jaekel, 164.) A
prize of 5,000 gulden was offered for the head of Caspar Aquila, who was
one of the first to write against the Interim. (Preger 1, 12.) Of
course, by persecuting and banishing their ministers, the Emperor could
not and did not win the people. Elector Frederick II of the Palatinate
consented to introduce the Interim. But even in Southern Germany the
success of the Emperor was apparent rather than real. The churches in
Augsburg, Ulm, and other cities stood empty as a silent protest against
the Interim and imperial tyranny.

In Northern Germany the Emperor met with more than a mere passive
resistance on the part of the people as well as the preachers. The
Interim was regarded as a trap for the Lutherans. The slogan ran: "There
is a rogue behind the Interim! _O selig ist der Mann, Der Gott vertrauen
kann 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 Brandenburg
endeavored to introduce it, but soon abandoned these efforts. At a
convent of 300 preachers assembled in Berlin for the purpose of
subscribing to the Interim, an old minister whose name was Leutinger,
arose and declared in the presence of Agricola, the coauthor of the
Interim: "I love Agricola, and more than him I love my Elector; but my
Lord Jesus Christ I love most," and saying this, he cast the document
handed him for subscription into the flames of the fire burning in the
hearth. Before this, Margrave Hans, of Kuestrin, had flung away the pen
handed him for the subscription of the infamous document, saying: "I
shall 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 Hans
Ernest, declared in a letter of August 20, 1548, to the Emperor: "Most
gracious Emperor and Lord! As for our government, the greater part of
the people are miners, who have not much to lose and are easily induced
to leave. Nor are they willing to suffer much coercion. Yet the welfare
of our whole government depends upon them. Besides, we know that, if we
should press the matter, all of the preachers would leave, and the
result would be a desolation of preaching and of the Sacraments. And
after losing our preachers, our own lives and limbs would not be safe
among the miners, and we must needs expect a revolt of all the people."
(Walther 19f.) Thus the Interim before long became a dead letter
throughout the greater part of Germany.

123. Attitude of John Frederick toward Interim.

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

In a written answer to the Emperor the ex-Elector declared, boldly
confessing his faith: "I cannot refrain from informing Your Majesty that
since the days of my youth I have been instructed and taught by the
servants of God's Word, and by diligently searching the prophetic and
apostolic Scriptures I have also learned to know, and (this I testify as
in the sight of God) unswervingly to adhere in my conscience to this,
that the articles composing the Augsburg Confession, and whatever is
connected therewith, are the correct, true, Christian, pure doctrine,
confirmed by, and founded in, the writings of the holy prophets and
apostles, and of the teachers who followed in their footsteps, in such a
manner that no substantial objection can be raised against it.... Since
now in my conscience I am firmly persuaded of this, I owe this
gratefulness and obedience to God, who has shown me such unspeakable
grace, that, as I desire to obtain eternal salvation and escape eternal
damnation, I do not fall away from the truth of His almighty will which
His Word has revealed to me, and which I know to be the truth. For such
is the comforting and also the terrible word of God: 'Whosoever
therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My
Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him
will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven,' If I should
acknowledge and adopt the Interim as Christian and godly, I would have
to condemn and deny against my own conscience, knowingly and
maliciously, the Augsburg Confession, and whatever I have heretofore
held and believed concerning the Gospel of Christ, and approve with my
mouth what I regard in my heart and conscience as altogether contrary
to the holy and divine Scriptures. This, O my God in heaven, would
indeed be misusing and cruelly blaspheming Thy holy name,... for which I
would have to pay all too dearly with my soul. For this is truly the sin
against the Holy Ghost concerning which Christ says that it shall never
be forgiven, neither in this nor in the world to come, _i.e._, in
eternity." (Walther, 16.)

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

124. Melanchthon's Attitude toward the Interim.

In the beginning, Melanchthon, too, assumed an attitude of defiance over
against the Augsburg Interim. Especially among his friends and in his
private letters he condemned it. In several letters, also to Elector
Maurice, he and his Wittenberg colleagues declared that they disapproved
of the document, and that the doctrine must not be denied, changed, nor
falsified. (_C. R._ 6, 874. 954.) April 25, 1548 he wrote to Camerarius
that 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 our
persecutors are vain. Even though some kind of concord is patched up,
still a peace will be established such as exists between wolves and
lambs. _Etiam cum sarcitur concordia qualiscumque, tamen pax
constituitur, qualis est inter lupos et agnos._" (_C. R._ 6, 889; Frank
4, 90.) In a letter to Christian, King of Denmark (June 13, 1548), he
said that the Interim "confirmed and reestablished many papal errors and
abuses," and that the "abominable book would cause many dissensions in
the German nation." (_C. R._ 6, 923.) June 20 he wrote with reference to
the Interim: "I shall not change the doctrine of our churches, nor
assent to those who do." (946.) July 31, to the Margrave John of
Brandenburg: "As for my person I do not intend to approve of this book,
called Interim, for which I have many weighty reasons, and will commend
my 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 found
in the Augsburg sphinx," and declares that he is determined faithfully
to guard the doctrine of the Gospel. (97.) August 13, 1548, he wrote to
Medler: "Brenz, Nopus [Noppius], Musculus, learned, pious, and most
deserving men, have been driven from their churches, and I hear that
everywhere 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 of
July, 1548, Melanchthon declared: "Although war and destruction are
threatened, it is, nevertheless, our duty to regard the Word of God as
higher; that is to say, we must not deny what we know to be the truth of
the Gospel." On November 10, 1548, he said before a convention of
theologians: "Remember that you are the guardians of truth, and consider
what has been entrusted to you for preservation by God through the
prophets and the apostles, and, last of all, through Dr. Luther. If that
man were still living, the misfortune of a change of doctrine would not
be threatening us; but now that there is no one who is clothed with the
authority which he had, now that there is no one who warns as he was
wont to do, and many are accepting error for truth, the churches are
brought to ruin, the doctrine heretofore correctly transmitted is
distorted, idolatrous customs are established, fear, doubt, and strife
are reigning everywhere." (Walther, 21.)

However, though Melanchthon disapproved of the imperial Interim, he was
afraid to antagonize it openly and unflinchingly. Yet it was just such a
public and decided testimony that was needed, and everywhere expected of
Melanchthon; for he was generally regarded as the logical and lawful
successor of Luther and as the theological leader of the Church. July
22, 1548, Aquila wrote: "What shall I say of the arch-knave Eisleben,
Agricola? He said: 'The Interim is the best book and work making for
unity in the whole Empire and for religious agreement throughout all
Europe. 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 highest
good on earth) against that virulent sycophant Agricola, who is an
impostor." (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 was
determined to die rather than submit to the Interim, and while hundreds
of Lutheran ministers were deposed, banished, imprisoned, and some of
them even executed because of their devotion to the truth, Melanchthon
was unwilling to expose himself to the anger of the Emperor. And before
long his fear to confess and his refusal to give public testimony to the
truth was followed by open denial. At the behest of Elector Maurice he
consented to elaborate, as a substitute for the Augsburg Interim, a
compromise document--the so-called Leipzig Interim.

125. Melanchthon and the Leipzig Interim.

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

It is generally held that fear induced Melanchthon to condescend to this
betrayal of Lutheranism,--for such the Leipzig Interim amounted to in
reality. And, no doubt, there is a good deal of truth in this
assumption. For Melanchthon had been told that because of his opposition
to the Augsburg Interim the anger of the Emperor was directed against
him especially, and that he had already called upon Maurice to banish
this "arch-heretic." It certainly served the purpose of Maurice well
that he had to deal with Melanchthon, whose fear and vacillation made
him as pliable as putty, and not with Luther, on whose unbending
firmness all of his schemes would have foundered. However, it cannot
have been mere temporary fear which induced Melanchthon to barter away
eternal truth for temporal peace. For the theologians of Wittenberg and
Leipzig did not only identify themselves with the Leipzig Interim while
the threatening clouds of persecution were hovering over them, but also
afterwards continued to defend their action. When the representatives of
the Saxon cities protested against some of the provisions of the
Interim, they declared, on December 28, 1548: "We have learned your
request and are satisfied with the articles [Leipzig Interim] delivered,
which not we alone, but also several other superintendents and
theologians prepared and weighed well; therefore we are unable to change
them. For they can well be received and observed without any violence to
good conscience." (_C. R._ 7, 270.) It was as late as September, 1556
that Melanchthon, though even then only in a qualified way, admitted
that he had sinned in this matter, and should have kept aloof from the
insidious counsels of the politicians. (8, 839.) Indeed, in 1557 and
1560 the Leipzig and Wittenberg theologians still defended the position
they had occupied during the Interim. Evidently, then apart from other
motives of fear, etc., Melanchthon consented to write the Interim
because he still believed in the possibility of arriving at an
understanding with the Romanists and tried to persuade himself that the
Emperor seriously sought to abolish prevailing errors and abuses, and
because the theological views he entertained were not as far apart from
those of the Leipzig compromise as is frequently assumed.

126. Provisions of Leipzig Interim.

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

As a matter of fact, however, the Leipzig Interim, too, was in every
respect a truce over the corpse of true Lutheranism. It was a unionistic
document sacrificing Lutheranism doctrinally as well as practically. The
obnoxious features of the Augsburg Interim had not been eliminated, but
merely toned down. Throughout, the controverted doctrines were treated
in ambiguous or false formulas. Tschackert is correct in maintaining
that, in the articles of justification and of the Church, "the
fundamental thoughts of the Reformation doctrine were catholicized" by
the Leipzig Interim. (508.) Even the Lutheran _sola_ (_sola fide,_ by
faith alone) is omitted in the article of justification. The entire
matter is presented in terms which Romanists were able to interpret in
the sense of their doctrine of "infused righteousness, _iustitia
infusa._" Faith is coordinated with other virtues, and good works are
declared to be necessary to salvation. "Justification by faith," says
Schmauk, "is there [in the Leipzig Interim] so changed as to mean that
man is renewed by the Holy Spirit, and can fulfil righteousness with his
works, and that God will, for His Son's sake accept in believers this
weak beginning of obedience in this miserable, frail nature." (_Conf.
Prin.,_ 596.)

Furthermore, the Leipzig Interim indirectly admits the Semi-Pelagian
teaching regarding original sin and free will, while other doctrines
which should have been confessed are passed by in silence. It recognizes
the supremacy of the Pope, restores the power and jurisdiction of the
bishops, acknowledges the authority of the council, approves of a number
of ceremonies objectionable as such (_e.g._, the Corpus Christi
Festival), and advocates the reintroduction of these and others in order
to avoid persecution and to maintain outward peace with the <DW7>s.

Self-evidently, in keeping with the Interim, the Pope also could no
longer be regarded as, and publicly declared to be, the Antichrist. In
1561 Flacius wrote that at that time the suspected Lutherans did not
consider the Pope the Antichrist. Simon Musaeus and others were banished
because they refused to eliminate the hymn "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem
Wort" from their services. (Walther, 25.)--Such, then, being the
character of the Leipzig Interim, it stands to reason that this
document, adopted as it was by Melanchthon and other Lutheran leaders,
was bound to become a fertile source of numerous and violent
controversies.

127. Flacius and Other Opponents of Interimists.

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

December 24, three days after the adoption of the Interim,
representatives of the cities in Saxony presented complaints to Elector
Maurice and Melanchthon against some of the provisions of the document.
They protested particularly against the reinstitution of Extreme
Unction, the Festival of Corpus Christi, and the use of chrism at
Baptism. (_C. R._ 7, 270.) Even the Wittenberg theologians finally
admitted that in consequence of "the Interim the rupture had become so
great that there was an agreement neither of one church with another,
nor, in the same church, of any deacon, any schoolmaster, or sexton with
his pastor, nor of one neighbor with another, nor of members of the
household with one another." (Walther, 23.)

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

In 1549, when he was no longer safe in Wittenberg, Flacius removed to
Magdeburg then the only safe asylum in all Germany for such as were
persecuted on account of their Lutheran faith and loyalty, where he was
joined by such "exiles of Christ" as Wigand, Gallus, and others, who had
also been banished and persecuted because of their opposition to the
Interim. Here they inaugurated a powerful propaganda by publishing
broadsides of annihilating pamphlets against the Interim, as well as its
authors, patrons, and abettors. They roused the Lutheran consciousness
everywhere, and before long the great majority of Lutherans stood behind
Flacius and the heroes of Magdeburg. The publications emanating from
this fortress caused such an aversion to the Adiaphoristic princes as
well as theologians among the people that from the very outset all their
plans and efforts were doomed to failure, and the sinister schemes of
the Pope and Emperor were frustrated. Because of this able and staunch
defense of Lutheranism and the determined opposition to any unionistic
compromise, Magdeburg at that time was generally called "God's
chancellery, _Gottes Kanzlei._" Nor did the opposition subside when this
Lutheran stronghold, thrice outlawed by the Emperor, was finally, after
a siege of thirteen months, captured by Maurice. In their attacks the
champions of Magdeburg were joined also by the ministers of Hamburg and
other places. Only in Saxony and Brandenburg the policy of Melanchthon
was defended.

As the conflict extended, it grew in bitterness, revealing with
increasing luridness the insincerity and dishonesty of the Philippists.
True Lutherans everywhere were satisfied that the adoption also of the
Leipzig Interim was tantamount to a complete surrender of Lutheranism.
Their animosity against this document was all the stronger because it
bore the stamp of the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians and was
sponsored by Melanchthon, the very man whom they had regarded as
Luther's successor and as the leader of the Church. This, too, was the
reason why the Leipzig Interim caused even more resentment among the
Lutherans, especially in Northern Germany, than did the Augsburg
Interim. In their view, Melanchthon and his colleagues had betrayed the
cause of the Reformation and practically joined their forces with those
of the Romanists, even as Maurice had betrayed the Lutherans politically
when fighting at the side of the Emperor against his own coreligionists.
Tschackert remarks: "In view of the fact that at that time about 400
Evangelical pastors in Southern Germany, because of their refusal to
adopt the Augsburg Interim, had suffered themselves to be driven from
their charges and homes and wandered about starving, many with their
wives and children, the yielding of the theologians of Electoral Saxony
could 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 before
this had been generally honored as the leader of the Lutheran Church,
completely lost his prestige, even among many of his formerly most
devoted friends. The grief and distress experienced by loyal Lutherans
at his wavering and yielding is eloquently expressed by Antonius
Corvinus, Superintendent at Kalenberg-Goettingen, the Lutheran martyr,
who, because of his opposition to the Interim, was incarcerated for
three years, in consequence of which he died, 1553. In a letter dated
September 25, 1549, he implored his friend to abandon the Interim, and
to "return to his pristine candor, his pristine sincerity, and his
pristine constancy," and "to think, say, write, and do what is becoming
to Philip, the Christian teacher, not the court philosopher." Peace,
indeed, was desirable, but it must not be obtained by distracting the
churches. Christ had also declared that He did not come to bring peace,
but the sword. Even the heathen Horatius Flaccus had said: "_Si fractus
illabitur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae._" How much more should
Christians avoid cowardice! One must not court the cross wantonly, but
it must be borne courageously when for the sake of truth it cannot be
avoided, etc.

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

In a similar manner Melanchthon was admonished also by Brenz, who
preferred exile and misery to the Interim. In a letter written early in
1549 he said: "It is also most manifest that the Interitus [Ruin, a term
employed by Brenz for Interim] conflicts with the Word of the Lord. What
concord, then, can be found between such conflicting things? You think
that one ought to come to the assistance of the churches and pious
ministers. Correct if such can be done without dishonor to Christ.
Perhaps you believe that the Interimists will tolerate the pious
doctrine if we agree to accept all their ceremonies. But do you not know
that it is clearly commanded in the introduction of the Interitus that
no one shall speak or write against this book? What kind of liberty in
regard to doctrine is this? Therefore, if the Church and the pious
ministers cannot be saved in any other way than by dishonoring the pious
doctrine, let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God. He will take
care of them. Meanwhile let us patiently bear our exile and wait for the
Lord." (_C. R._ 7, 289.)

June 18, 1550, Calvin also wrote a letter of warning to Melanchthon, in
which he said in substance: "My grief renders me almost speechless. How
the enemies of Christ enjoy your conflicts with the Magdeburgers appears
from their mockeries. Nor do I acquit you altogether of all guilt.
Permit me to admonish you freely as a true friend. I should like to
approve 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 be
pertinaciously contended for (_modo retineatur doctrinae puritas, de
rebus externis non esse pertinaciter dimicandum_). But you extend the
adiaphora 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 to
struggle all the more manfully (_eo virilius nos eniti decebat_). You
know that your position differs from that of the multitude. The
hesitation of the general or leader is more disgraceful than the flight
of an entire regiment of common soldiers. Unless you set an example of
unflinching steadfastness, all will declare that vacillation cannot be
tolerated in such a man. By yielding but a little, you alone have caused
more lamentations and complaints than a hundred ordinary men by open
apostasy (_Itaque plures tu unus paululum cedendo querimonias et gemitus
excitasti quam centum mediocres aperta defectione_). I would die with
you a hundred times rather than see you survive the doctrine surrendered
by you. You will pardon me for unloading into your bosom these pitiable,
though useless groans." (Schluesselburg 13, 635; _C. R._ 41 [_Calvini
Opera_ 13], 593; Frank 4, 88.)

129. Interim Eliminated Politically, But Not Theologically.

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

At the same time Maurice was provoked by the arbitrary manner in which
the Emperor exploited and abused his victory by a repeated breach of his
promises, and by the treacherous and shameful treatment accorded his
father-in-law, Philip of Hesse. Chagrined at all this and fully
realizing the utter impossibility of enforcing the Interim, Maurice
decided to end the matter by a single stroke which at the same time
would atone for his treachery, and turn shame into glory and the vile
name of a "traitor" into the noble title of "Champion of Protestantism."
Accordingly Maurice, easily the match of Charles in duplicity and
cunning, secretly prepared his plans, and, suddenly turning his army
against the unsuspecting Emperor, drove him from Innsbruck, scared the
"Fathers of Trent" to their homes, and on April 5, 1552, victoriously
entered Augsburg, where he was received with great rejoicing. The fruits
of this victory were the Treaties of Passau August 2, 1552, and of
Augsburg, 1555, which for the first time granted religious liberty to
the Protestants. The latter placed Lutherans and Catholics on an equal
footing in the Empire and, according to the rule: _Cuius regio, eius
religio,_ gave every prince religious control in his own territory,
non-conformists being granted the right of emigration. To the great
advantage of the Romanists, however, the treaty also provided that
territories ruled by bishops must remain Catholic even though the ruler
should turn Protestant.

But while the Interim was thus eliminated as a political and practical
issue, the theological controversy precipitated by it continued
unabated. Its political elimination cleared the situation toward the
Romanists, but left conditions within the Lutheran Church unsettled. It
neither unified nor pacified the Church. It neither eliminated the false
doctrines and unionistic principles and tendencies injected by the
Interimists, nor did it restore confidence in the doctrinal soundness,
loyalty, and sincerity of the vacillating Philippists, who had caused
the first breach in the Lutheran Church. "Does it agree with the
character of the Lutheran Church to tolerate and approve the doctrines
and principles contained and involved in the Interim, and to harbor and
fellowship such indifferentists as framed, indorsed, and defended this
document?" such and similar were the questions which remained live
issues even after the Interim was politically dead. The theological
situation within the Lutheran Church, therefore, was not changed in the
least when the annihilation threatening her from without was warded off
by the victory of Maurice over the Emperor. The Interim was fraught with
doctrinal issues which made unavoidable the subsequent controversies.


XI. Controversies Following the Interim and Settled by the Formula of
Concord.

130. Three Theological Parties.

In the theological conflicts after Luther's death three parties may be
distinguished. The first party embraced chiefly the Interimists, the
Synergists, and the Crypto-Calvinists. They were adherents of Philip
Melanchthon, hence called Melanchthonians or, more commonly,
Philippists, and were led by the theologians of Electoral Saxony. Their
object was to supplant the authority and theology of Luther by the
unionistic and liberal views of Melanchthon. Their headquarters were the
universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig. Some of their chief
representatives were: Joachim Camerarius (born 1500, professor of Greek
in Leipzig, a close friend of Melanchthon, died 1574); Paul Eber (born
1511, professor in Wittenberg, died 1568); Caspar Cruciger, Jr. (born
1525, 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, imprisoned
from 1574 till 1586 died 1602); Paul Crell (born 1531, professor in
Wittenberg, died 1579); John Pfefflnger (born 1493, professor in
Leipzig, died 1573); Victorin Strigel (born 1524, 1548 professor in
Jena, died in Heidelberg 1569); John Stoessel (born 1524, died in prison
1576); George Cracow (born 1525, professor of jurisprudence in
Wittenberg, 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 embraced
such staunch and loyal men as Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Matthias
Judex, Moerlin, Tileman Hesshusius, Timann, Westphal, and Simon Musaeus.
Though some of these leaders were later discredited by falling into
extreme positions themselves, they all proved to be valiant champions of
Luther and most determined opponents of the Philippists. The strongholds
of this party were Magdeburg and the University of Jena, founded by the
sons of John Frederick in 1547. Led by Flacius, this university
unflinchingly opposed the modified and unionistic Lutheranism advocated
by the Philippists at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Seeberg says, in
substance: The Gnesio-Lutherans were opposed to the philosophy of the
Philippists and stood for "the simple Biblical truth as Luther had
understood it." Even when opposed by the government, they defended the
truth, and were willing to suffer the consequences. Strict doctrinal
discipline was exercised by them. They opposed with equal determination
the errors also of their fellow-combatants: Amsdorf, Flacius, Poach, and
others. Intellectually they were superior to the Philippists. Seeberg
concludes: "In the forms of their time (which were not outgrown by any
one of the Philippists either) they preserved to the Church genuine
Luther-treasures--_echtes Luthergut._" (_Dogmengeschichte_ 4, 2, 482.)

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

131. Various Theological Controversies.

Following is a synopsis and summary of the main controversies within the
Lutheran Church after the death of Luther, which were settled in the
first eleven articles of the Formula of Concord. The sequence of these
articles, however, is not strictly historical and chronological, but
dogmatic. In the main, the arrangement of the Augsburg Confession is
observed.

The first of these controversies was the so-called Adiaphoristic
Controversy, from 1548 to 1555, in which the Wittenberg and Leipzig
theologians (Melanchthon, Eber, Pfeffinger, etc.) defended the Leipzig
Interim and the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies into the Lutheran
Church. They were opposed by the champions of a consistent and
determined Lutheranism, led by Flacius, who declared: "_Nihil est
adiaphoron in statu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron
in case of confession and offense." The controversy was decided by
Article X.

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

The third is the Synergistic Controversy, from 1555 to 1560, in which
Pfeffinger, Eber, Major, Crell, Pezel, Strigel, and Stoessel held with
Melanchthon that man by his own natural powers cooperates in his
conversion. Their opponents (Amsdorf, Flacius, Hesshusius, Wigand,
Gallus, Musaeus, and Judex) taught, as formulated by Flacius: "_Solus
Deus convertit hominem.... Non excludit voluntatem, sed omnem efficaciam
et operationem eius...._ God alone converts man.... He does not exclude
the will, but all efficaciousness and operation of the same." This
controversy was decided and settled by Article II.

The fourth is the Flacian Controversy, from 1560 to 1575, in which
Flacius, supported by Cyriacus Spangenberg, Christian Irenaeus, Matthias
Wolf, I. F. Coelestinus, Schneider, and others, maintained that original
sin is not an accident, but the very substance of fallen man. The
Lutherans, including the Philippists, were practically unanimous in
opposing this error. It was decided by Article I.

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

The sixth was the Antinomistic Controversy, from 1527 to 1556, in which
various 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 a
modified form was later on defended also by Wittenberg Philippists),
and, after Luther's death, by Poach and Otto, who rejected the so-called
Third Use of the Law. The questions involved in these Antinomian
controversies 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's
doctrines concerning the Lord's Supper and the majesty of the human
nature of Christ by the Calvinistic teachings on these points. These
secret and dishonest enemies of Lutheranism were opposed by true
Lutherans everywhere, notably by the theologians of Ducal Saxony. In
1574 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 chiefly
confined to Hamburg, the second to Strassburg. In the former city John
Aepinus taught that Christ's descent into hell was a part of His
suffering and humiliation. He was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg.
In Strassburg John Marbach publicly denounced Zanchi, a
Crypto-Calvinist, for teaching that faith, once engendered in a man,
cannot be lost. The questions involved in these two articles are dealt
with in Articles IX and XI, respectively.

132. Conflicts Unavoidable.

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

True, "pure doctrine," "unity in the pure doctrine of the Gospel," such
was the shibboleth of the faithful Lutherans over against the
Melanchthonians and other errorists. But this was neither reprehensible
doctrinalism nor a corruption of original Lutheranism, but the very
principle from which it was born and for which Luther contended
throughout his life--a principle of life or death for the Lutheran
Church. It was the _false_ doctrine of justification which made Luther a
most miserable man. It was the _pure_ doctrine as taught by St. Paul
which freed his conscience, transported him into Paradise, as he himself
puts it, and made him the Reformer of the Church. Ever since, purity of
doctrine was held, by Luther and all true Lutheran theologians, to be of
paramount import to Christianity and the Church. Fully realizing that
adulteration of any part of the Christian doctrine was bound to infect
also the doctrine of faith and justification and thus endanger
salvation, they earnestly warned against, and opposed, every deviation
from the clear Word of God, no matter how insignificant it might appear.
They loved the truth more than external peace, more even than their own
lives. Hence they found it impossible to be silent, apathetic, and
complacent 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 doctrines
and principles subversive of genuine Lutheranism and was prepared,
introduced, and defended by the very men who were regarded as pillars of
the Lutheran Church, it was evident from the outset that this document
must of necessity precipitate most serious internal troubles. From the
moment the Wittenbergers cast the Interim as a firebrand into the
Church, a domestic warfare was unavoidable,--if indeed any true
disciples of Luther still remained in the Church of which he, and not
Melanchthon, was the founder. While the Augsburg Interim resulted in an
external theological warfare of the Lutherans against the Romanists,
the Leipzig Interim added a most serious domestic conflict, which
conscientious Lutherans could not evade, though it well-nigh brought our
Church to the brink of destruction. For now the issue was not merely how
to resist the Pope and the Romanists, but, how to purge our own Church
from the Interimists and their pernicious principles. And as long as the
advocates of the Interim or of other aberrations from the old Lutheran
moorings refused to abandon their errors, and nevertheless insisted on
remaining in the Church, there was no real unity in the truth. Hence
there could also be no true peace and brotherly harmony among the
Lutherans. And the way to settle these differences was not indifferently
to ignore them, nor unionistically to compromise them by adopting
ambiguous formulas, but patiently to discuss the doctrines at issue
until an agreement in the truth was reached, which finally was done by
means 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 loyal
Lutherans offered to the errorists, nor even the unseemly severity by
which the prosecution of these controversies was frequently marred, but
the un-Lutheran spirit and the false principles and doctrines manifested
and defended by the opponents. In so far as divine truth was defended
and error opposed, these controversies were truly wars to end war, and
to establish real peace and true unity within our Church. A cowardly
surrender to the indifferentistic spirit, the unionistic policy, the
false principles, and the erroneous doctrines of the Interimists would
have been tantamount to a complete transformation of our Church and a
total annihilation of genuine Lutheranism.

The manner in which these controversies were conducted, it is true, was
frequently such as to obstruct, rather than further, mutual
understanding and peace. As a rule, it is assumed that only the genuine
Lutherans indulged in unseemly polemical invective, and spoke and wrote
in a bitter and spiteful tone. But the Melanchthonians were to say the
least, equally guilty. And when censuring this spirit of combativeness,
one must not overlook that the ultimate cause of the most violent of
these controversies was the betrayal of the Lutheran Church by the
Interimists; and that the severity of the polemics of the loyal
Lutherans did not, at least not as a rule, emanate from any personal
malice toward Melanchthon, but rather from a burning zeal to maintain
sound Lutheranism, and from the fear that by the scheming and the
indifference of the Philippists the fruits of Luther's blessed work
might be altogether lost to the coming generations. The "peace-loving"
Melanchthon started a conflagration within his own church in order to
obtain a temporal and temporary peace with the Romanists; while the
loyal Lutherans, inasmuch as they fought for the preservation of genuine
Lutheranism, stood for, and promoted, a truly honorable, godly, and
lasting peace on the basis of eternal truth. And while the latter fought
honestly and in the open, the Philippists have never fully cleared
themselves 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 warfare
within the Lutheran Church. It contained the germs of various doctrinal
errors, and produced a spirit of general distrust and suspicion, which
tended to exaggerate and multiply the real differences. Schmauk says:
"The seeds of the subsequent controversies are all to be found in the
Leipzig Interim." (595.) At any rate, most of the controversies after
Luther's death flowed from, or were in some way or other connected with,
this unfortunate document. Such is the view also of the Formula of
Concord, which declares that the thirty years' controversies which it
settled originated especially in the Interim. (857, 19; 947, 29.)

Yet the Interim was rather the occasion than the ultimate cause of these
conflicts. Long before the flames of open discord burst forth, the
embers of secret doctrinal dissension had been glowing under the
surface. Even during the life of Luther much powder had been secretly
stored up for which the Interim furnished the spark. This is proved,
among other things, by Luther's predictions (referred to in the
preceding chapter) concerning his own colleagues. And above all it was
the "peace-loving" Philip who first and most successfully sowed the
dragon's teeth of discord. Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations from the
teachings of Luther and from his own former position must be regarded as
the last cause of both the Leipzig Interim and the lamentable
controversies that followed in its wake. Indeed, a tragic sight to
behold: The co-laborer of Luther, the servant of the Reformation second
only to Luther, the Praeceptor Germaniae, the ardent and anxious lover
of peace, etc.--untrue to his confiding friend, disloyal to the cause of
the Reformation, and the chief cause of strife and dissension in the
Lutheran Church! And withal, Melanchthon, mistaking external union for
real unity and temporal peace with men for true peace with God, felt
satisfied that he had spent the efforts of his entire life in the
interest of the true welfare of the Church! Shortly before his death
(April 19, 1560) he expressed his joy that now he would be delivered
from the "fury of the theologians." On a sheet of paper found on his
table were written a number of reasons why he feared death less. One of
them was: "_Liberaberis ab aerumnis et a rabie teologorum._ You will be
delivered 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 himself
was the chief cause of the conflicts that had embittered his declining
years!

134. Melanchthon's Humanistic and Unionistic Tendencies.

Till about 1530 Melanchthon seems to have been in complete harmony with
Luther, and to have followed him enthusiastically. To propagate, coin,
and bring into scholastic form the Christian truths once more brought to
light by the Reformer he considered to be his peculiar mission. But his
secret letters and, with gradually increasing clearness and boldness,
also his publications show that later on he began to strike out on paths
of his own, and to cultivate and disseminate doctrines incompatible with
the Lutheranism of Luther. In a measure, these deviations were known
also to the Wittenberg students and theologians, to Cordatus, Stifel,
Amsdorf, the Elector John Frederick, Brueck, and Luther, who also called
him 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 bold
enough to state that he had made many corrections in his writings and
was glad of the fact: "_Multa ultro correxi in libellis meis et
correxisse me gaudeo._" (_C. R._ 3, 342.) In discussing the squabble
between Cordatus and Melanchthon whether good works are necessary for
salvation, Luther is reported by the former to have said, in 1536: "To
Philip I leave the sciences and philosophy and nothing else. But I shall
be compelled to chop off the head of philosophy, too." (Kolde,
_Analecta,_ 266.) Melanchthon, as Luther put it, was always troubled by
his philosophy; that is to say, instead of subjecting his reason to the
Word of God, he was inclined to balance the former against the latter.
The truth is that Melanchthon never fully succeeded in freeing himself
from his original humanistic tendencies, a fact which gave his mind a
moralistic rather than a truly religious and Scriptural bent. Even
during the early years of the Reformation when he was carried away with
admiration for Luther and his work, the humanistic undercurrent did not
disappear altogether. January 22, 1525, he wrote to Camerarius: "_Ego
mihi conscius sum, non ullam ob causam unquam tetheologekenai, nisi at
mores meos emendarem_. I am conscious of the fact that I have never
theologized 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 he
should finally desert Luther in most important points, lapse into
synergism and other errors, and, in particular value
indifferentistically doctrinal convictions, notably on the real presence
in the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ. "Over against Luther,"
says Schaff, "Melanchthon represented the unionistic and liberal type of
Lutheranism." (_Creeds,_ 1, 259.) This is correct; but the stricture
must be added that, since unionism and liberalism are incompatible with
the very essence of Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism as such was in
reality not a "type," but a denial of Lutheranism.

Melanchthon lacked the simple faith in, and the firm adherence and
implicit submission to, the Word of God which made Luther the undaunted
and invincible hero of the Reformation. Standing four-square on the
Bible and deriving from this source of divine power alone all his
theological thoughts and convictions, Luther was a rock, firm and
immovable. With him every theological question was decided and settled
conclusively by quoting a clear passage from the Holy Scriptures, while
Melanchthon, devoid of Luther's single-minded and whole-hearted devotion
to the Word of God, endeavored to satisfy his reason as well.
Consequently he lacked assurance and firm conviction, wavered and
vacillated, and was never fully satisfied that the position he occupied
was really the only correct one, while, on the other hand, he endeavored
to present his views concerning some of the disputed doctrines in
ambiguous and indefinite terms. "We have twenty-eight large volumes of
Melanchthon's writings," says C. P. Krauth, "and, at this hour,
impartial and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on
some of the profoundest questions of church doctrine, on which
Melanchthon was writing all his life!" (_Conservative Ref.,_ 291;
Schmauk, 748.) This indefinite and wavering attitude towards divine
truth, the natural consequence of the humanistic bent of his mind,
produced in Melanchthon a general tendency and proneness to surrender or
compromise doctrinal matters in the interest of policy, and to barter
away eternal truth for temporal peace. It made him an indifferentist and
a unionist, always ready to strike a bargain also in matters pertaining
to Christian faith, and to cover doctrinal differences with ambiguous
formulas. While Luther's lifelong attitude on matters of Christian
doctrine is characterized by the famous words spoken by him at Worms in
1521: "_Ich kann nicht anders,_ I cannot do otherwise," Melanchthon,
treating even questions of faith as matters of expediency rather than of
conscience, was the man who, as a rule, could also do otherwise, and who
was great in manufacturing "Polish boots," as the ambiguous phrases by
which he endeavored to unite opposing parties were called by the
Lutherans in Reuss.

In order to preserve peace with the Romanists at Augsburg in 1530, he
did not hesitate to sacrifice Lutheran truths and to receive into the
bargain a number of what he considered minor papal errors. In his
subsequent overtures to the Reformed he was more than willing to make
similar concessions. The spirit of Melanchthon was the spirit of
religious indifference and of unionism, which, though thoroughly
eliminated by the Formula of Concord, was from time to time revived
within 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 Melanchthon
injected into Lutheranism were all the more dangerous to our Church
because they derived special weight and prestige from the fact that
Luther had unstintingly praised his gifts, his books, and the services
he had rendered the Church (St. L. 18, 1671; 23, 1152), that he was now
generally regarded as Luther's successor with regard to theological
leadership of the Church; and that he was gratefully admired as the
Praeceptor Germaniae by a host of loyal pupils, who made it a point also
to cultivate just those theological peculiarities of Master Philip, as
they called him, in which he differed from Luther.

135. Melanchthon's "Shameful Servitude."

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

That fear of an open conflict with Luther which, he felt, would result
in a crushing defeat for himself, bulked large among the motives which
prompted him to maintain a semblance of true orthodoxy as long as Luther
lived, is clearly admitted by Melanchthon himself. In his notorious and
most discreditable letter to Carlowitz (counselor of Elector Maurice),
written April 28, 1548, eight days after the meeting at Celle, where he
had debauched his conscience by promising submission to the religious
demands of the Emperor, Melanchthon, pouring forth his feelings and
revealing his true inwardness and his spirit of unionism and
indifferentism as much as admitted that in the past he had been
accustomed to hiding his real views. Here he declared in so many words
that it was not he who started, and was responsible for, the religious
controversy between the Lutherans and Romanists, but rather Luther whose
contentious 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 me
tibi [Carlowitz] aperio.... Ego, cum decreverit princeps etiamsi quid
non probabo, tamen nihil seditiose faciam, sed vel tacebo, vel cedam,
vel feram, quidquid accidet. _Tuli etiam antea servitutem paene
deformem,_ cum saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua filoneikia erat
non exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi serviret. Et
scio, omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita aliqua in
gubernatione 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 evidently
feared because of his own secret doctrinal deviations. (_Lehre und
Wehre_ 1908, 61. 68.) No doubt, as stated above, fear was also among the
motives which induced him to identify himself with the Leipzig Interim.
But evidently his own theological attitude, too, differed little from
the spirit pervading this document. At any rate, the letter to Carlowitz
does not support the assumption that Melanchthon really outraged his own
convictions 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 1556
before he was ready to make even a qualified admission of one of the
errors connected with it.

While, therefore, the Lutheran Church will always gratefully acknowledge
the splendid services which Melanchthon rendered in the work of Luther's
Reformation, it must at the same time be admitted and cannot be gainsaid
that, in the last analysis, Melanchthon, by reason of his deviations
from Luther, which will be set forth more fully in the following, was
the ultimate cause and originator of most of the dissensions which began
to distract the Lutheran Church soon after the death of Luther. Andrew
Musculus, who assisted in drafting the _Formula of Concord,_ brought out
this fact (though in terms too strong) when he characterized Melanchthon
as a "philosophical theologian and a patriarch of all heretics."
(Meusel, _Handl._ 4, 710.) In a way, Melanchthon may even be regarded as
the indirect cause of the Smalcald War and its unfortunate issue,
inasmuch, namely, as his vacillating and compromising attitude and his
incompetent leadership created conditions of internal weakness among the
Lutherans, 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, we
submit the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: "As far as
the doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall is
concerned, there is no controversy" (between the Lutherans and
Romanists). The article "Of Justification," in which the Lutheran _sola
fide_ is omitted, declares: "The merciful God does not work with man as
with a block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he be
of understanding years." Again: "And they who have thus received the
forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghost
begins faith and trust in the Son of God, love and hope, then become
heirs of eternal salvation for the Savior's sake." In the article "Of
Good Works" we read: "Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works are
so highly necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart there
would be no reception of divine grace." Again: "It is certainly true
that these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and are
necessary to salvation.... And since the virtues and good works, as has
been said, please God, they merit also a reward in this life, both
spiritual and temporal, according to God's counsel, and still more
reward in the eternal life, because of the divine promise."

The article "Of Ecclesiastical Power" runs as follows: "What the true
Christian 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 Holy
Scriptures." Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_
endorsement of the Council and its resolutions. In the article "Of
Ecclesiastical Ministers" we read: "And that all other ministers should
be subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to other
bishops who administer their episcopal office according to God's
command, using the same for edification and not for destruction; which
ministers should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation by
the patrons." This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and the
ecclesiastical 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 such
bishops as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should be
allowed to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presented
by the patrons and have the permission of the bishops." That was
tantamount to a restoration of the "sacrament" of episcopal ordination.

The Interim furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction of
abolished 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 diligently
taught and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receive
of them absolution in God's stead, and be also diligently admonished and
urged to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admitted
to the highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [in
this indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in the
Interim] unless he have first confessed to the priest and received of
him absolution." Again: "Although in this country the unction [Extreme
Unction] has not been in use for many years, yet ... such unction,
according to the apostle, may be hereafter observed." Again: "That
henceforth the mass be observed in this country with ringing of bells,
with lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies." Among
the holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi and
the festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: "The images and
pictures of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be also
retained in the churches." Again: "In the churches where the canonical
hours have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung in
chapters and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals,
and also on Sundays." "Likewise, that on Fridays and Saturdays, as well
as during fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this be
observed as an external ordinance at the command of His Imperial
Majesty." The clause, "that this be observed," etc., was regarded by
Flacius and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the part
of the Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119.) Again, as to the apparel of
priests, that "a distinction be observed between ministers and secular
persons, and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate." The
Introduction of the Interim gives the assurance that the Lutherans would
obey the Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. The
Conclusion adds the humble promise: "In all other articles we are ready
... in a friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved and
Princely 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 was
inoculated with the germs of many controversies. However, while in the
beginning its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generally
recognized and realized, the Emperor's demand for, and approval of, the
Wittenberg and Leipzig theologian's reintroduction of the Romish
ceremonies immediately created an acute situation and a great commotion
everywhere. The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latter
point in particular was called the Adiaphoristic or Interimistic
Controversy. And, as explained above, even after the Interim had become
a dead letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because its
paramount object was not merely to pass a correct judgment on past
events during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similar
situations in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Church
the spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well as
indirect denial of the Gospel-truth.

Accordingly, the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: May
Lutherans, under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, when
the Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded the
reinstitution of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies in
question be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a good
conscience, that is to say, without denying the truth and Christian
liberty, without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without giving
offense either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church,
especially its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists and
denied by their opponents.

138. Opposition to the Adiaphorists.

Prominent among the theologians who participated in the controversy
against the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, who
in Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, and
advocates of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publications
which dealt with the questions involved: "Opinion concerning the
Interim, by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548," published by Flacius without
the knowledge of Melanchthon.--"Report on the Interim by the Theologians
of Meissen," 1548.--"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesen
geschwinden Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of God in
Order to Please the Devil and the Antichrist," by John Hermann, 1548. A
Latin edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius as
its author.--"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim from
which One may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book,"
1548.--"A General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeine
Protestation und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against the
Interim and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemies
of the Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548." Waremund was a pseudonym for
Flacius.--"Against the Interim, Papal Mass, Canon, and Master Eisleben,"
1519.--"Against the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who Now
Again Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i.e._, against the New
Interim, by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549." Of this book, too,
Flacius was the author. (Preger 1, 67.)--"Apology (Entschuldigung) of
Matthias Flacius Illy. to a Certain Pastor," 1549.--"Several Letters of
the Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial,
Written 1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg," 1549, with a
preface by Flacius.--"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy., Addressed to
the University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora," 1549.--"Writing
of Matthias Flacius Illy. against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Book
of the Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Order
to Guard Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the True
Religion," 1549.--"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and Matthias
Flacius Illy. to the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding the
Question whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don the
Cassock" (_linea vestis, Chorrock_).--"Against the Extract of the
Leipzig Interim, or the Small Interim," by Flacius, 1549.--"Book
concerning True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et Falsis
Adiaphoris_), in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almost
in Its Entirety, by Flacius, 1549." This book, which is most frequently
quoted and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is found
in Schluesselburg's _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff.--"An Admonition
(Vermahnung) to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross and
Prayer, by Flacius," 1549.--"A Christian Admonition by Matthias Flacius
Illy. to be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and in
the Augsburg Confession," 1550.--"Against the Alleged Power and Primacy
of the Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavors
again to Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, by
Matthias Flacius Illy."--"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock,
D. Geitz Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy., 1552."--For a complete list
of the writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger's _Matthias
Flacius Illyricus,_ 2, 540 ff.

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

Since the loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther and
the Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, they
could not but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treachery
against the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted that
their opponents answer the question, "whether the Pope with his
government is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Word
of God he has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whether
he still should and must be regarded and confessed as such." And if
Luther's doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union be
effected between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and his
bishops) and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religion
of Christ? (53. 107.) On the title-page of his _Apology,_ of 1549,
Flacius declares: "The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment of
the Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple of
Christ, the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over the
Church of Christ and to grieve the godly, likewise weakening, leading
into 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_), together
with his fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. There
is, however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: "The
Pope should use his power not for destruction, but for edification"],
they have counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In my
opinion this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to the
temple from which he has been expelled by the Finger of God." (Preger 1,
191.) Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and trembling
with fear for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthon
with want of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterized
the Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of light
and darkness, of Christ and Antichrist.

While Flacius thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors and
abettors, he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheran
pastors to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross and
persecution, and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. That
minister, he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or who
yields to a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess with
our mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of the
flock, but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant.
Flacius also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princes
and acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if they
advocated and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged both
pastors and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding the
reinstitution of the Roman ceremonies. "A government," said he in his
_Admonition,_ "no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastor
to preach the pure doctrine." When the government persecutes the truth,
we must not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christians
will 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 Adiaphorists
may be summarized as follows: Ceremonies which God has neither commanded
nor prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceteris
paribus_ (other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adopted
or rejected. However, under circumstances testing one's faith they may
become a matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case wherever
and whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introduction
involves a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringement
of Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemies
of the Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or an
offense to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, they
maintained, prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope and
Emperor plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romish
religion in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and the
reinstitution of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, by
Catholics as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such a
reestablishment of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzig
theologians, instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to God
for the protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded to
the demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when the
consciences of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever the
abolished rites were reinstituted. Accordingly, they declared that under
the prevailing circumstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies
was nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian love
as well.

Flacius, in particular, maintained that under the prevailing
circumstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora
ceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good
conscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies
of the Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons,
such as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because
their reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and
gave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people,
Protestants as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard such
reintroduction both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans that
they had been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as the
beginning of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain the
reintroduction of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to the
Interimists, the common people, especially the Romanists, always
impressed by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer that
those teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy in
every respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veris
et Falsis Adiaphoris_ we read: "Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certe
praecipua capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas cum in
nostris ecclesiis in eorum gratiam restituimus, an non videmur tum eis,
tum aliis eorum impiis cultibus assentiri? Nec dubitant, quin
quandoquidem in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessuri
simus, nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esse
confiteamur." (Schluesselburg 13, 217.) Accordingly, Flacius contended
that under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists,
even in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of
Lutheranism. The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by him
reduced to the following principle or axiom: "_Nihil est adiaphoron in
casu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession
and offense are involved." And wherever the Interim was enforced, the
consequences foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences were
confused, simple Christians were offended, and the enemies were
strengthened in their error and emboldened in their attacks and in
further demands made upon the Lutherans.

140. Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted.

The Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their attitude by a
series of sophisms to which they also adhered in the "Final Report
(Endlicher Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzig
and Wittenberg," 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2.) By adopting the Interim, the
Wittenbergers, in reality, had assented also to doctrinally false and
dubious statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such.
Yet they pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and the
harmlessness of their procedure. They maintained that they had yielded
merely in minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded nor
prohibited by the Word of God; that this was done in order to preserve
intact the central Christian truth of justification; to preserve
political peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak,
whose shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that in
their concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom,
which always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this they
had merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimized
the entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of the
situation. In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting and
sounding the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discovered
nothing but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney.

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

The weak and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly and
convincingly refuted by their opponents. To the assertion of the
Wittenbergers that the dispute was concerning mere unimportant
ceremonies which were neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Flacius
and Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers of
Meissen whether they should leave their charges rather than don the
_Chorrock, lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to such
seemingly most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_)
one must not overlook what is attached to it. "We do not believe," they
said, "that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, although
first he only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time,
however, not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he will
also demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, as
well as all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since the
beginning is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are at
present demanded only that a door may be opened for all the other
impieties that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationum
initia iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per ea
aditus reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat._"
(Schluesselburg 13, 644.)

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

To the claims of the Interimists that they were but following the
example of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romish
ceremonies, etc., the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times and
conditions! Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciences
still felt bound to the Roman usages, while the "weakness" spoken of by
Adiaphorists is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution.
Moreover Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as there
was 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 adversaries
of the truth. Accordingly, Luther's attitude in this matter flowed from
pure love for truth and from compassion with the weak, whom he
endeavored to win for the truth, while the submission of the
Adiaphorists to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short of
unchristian denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55.) Brenz
declared: "_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt._ Adiaphora
must be judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, the
adiaphoron, too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however,
the condition is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observance
of it is prohibited." (Schl. 13, 562.)

Furthermore, when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintained
that, in preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to the
greater (persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, the
voice of true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not be
placed on a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order to
avoid suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _Explicatio
Generalis Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: "Impium
est, amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sed
accersuntur et augentur poenae._ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins,
nor are they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinduced
and increased." (13, 251.) "It is better to take upon oneself
punishments and great dangers than to offend God and to provoke His
wrath by such offense." (250.) "It is better and easier to bear many
evils and to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the least
commandment of God, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a single
sin." (251.) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but to
retain a good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was the
counsel of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65.)

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

As to the Wittenberg School, Flacius said: "It would certainly be better
that the school were closed not one, but many years than that we, by
avoiding confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well as
strengthen the one opposed to it." (13, 231.) "As for myself, I do not
doubt that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the Wittenberg
School would have been to-day much firmer than it is.... The Interim
sprang from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians.... Even a
thousand Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highly
by pious men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they would
rather suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel.
_Certe non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, ut
propter earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luce
privari._" (232.) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginning
of 1549, Brenz said: "If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannot
be preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the pious
doctrine, then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God; He will
take care of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear our
banishment and wait for the Lord." (_C. R._ 7, 290.)

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

141. Theological Attitude of Flacius Sanctioned.

The theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatants
occupied over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Article
of the _Formula of Concord,_ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church as
a whole. Frank says concerning this most excellent article which our
Church owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notably
Flacius: "The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formula
of Concord_ were those of Flacius." The entire matter, too, concerning
the adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that the
subsequent formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused but
little difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f.)

Even Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of any
doctrinal deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponents
and admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding the
adiaphora. In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was not
satisfied with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September
5, 1556, he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: "I knew
that even the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to the
people. However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would rather
have our people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry of
the Gospel. _Cum doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hanc
servitutem subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii._ And I confess
that I have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This I
have done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed....
Afterwards you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. In
Homer, Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields and
admits that the former is victor. You never come to an end with your
accusations. Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking those
who yield and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contend
concerning those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churches
would enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in this
matter, and ask forgiveness of God, that I did not flee far from those
insidious deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hoc
in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi
insidiosas illas deliberationes_." (_C. R._ 8, 839.)

On January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: "I was
drawn into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if in
any way I have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of God
and of the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church."
(9, 61.) In the _Formula Consensus,_ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in
1557, the Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: "With the
help of God we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine of
justification, agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with the
confessions which were published in the church of Hamburg against the
book called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to be
mixed with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine in
all its articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical and
proper forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided." (9,
369.) The _Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon and
signed by the princes, maintains: "Where the true Christian doctrine of
the holy Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as well
as 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 of
Majorism, Melanchthon must be regarded as the real father also of this
controversy. He was the first to introduce and to cultivate the phrase:
"Good works are necessary to salvation." In his _Loci_ of 1535 he taught
that, in the article of justification, good works are the _causa sine
qua non_ and are necessary to salvation, _ad vitam aeternam, ad
salutem._ (Herzog, _R. E._, 1903, 12, 519; Galle, _Melanchthon,_ 345.
134.) Melanchthon defined: "_Causa sine qua non_ works nothing, nor is
it a constituent part but merely something without which the effect does
not occur, or by which, if it were not present, the working cause would
be hindered because it was not added. _Causa sine qua non nihil agit,
nec est pars constituens, sed tantum est quiddam, sine quo non fit
effectus, seu quo, si non adesset, impediretur agens, ideo quia illud
non accessisset."_ (Preger 1, 356.) According to Melanchthon, therefore,
justification cannot occur without the presence of good works. He
explained: "_Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam,
quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent._ Nevertheless good works
are necessary to eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily follow
reconciliation." (_C. R._ 21, 429. 775.) According to the context in
which it is found, this statement includes that good works are necessary
also to justification; for Melanchthon, too, correctly held "that the
adoption to eternal life or the gift of eternal life was connected with
justification, that is, the reconciliation imparted to faith." (453.)

At Wittenberg Melanchthon's efforts to introduce the new formula met
with energetic opposition, especially on the part of Cordatus and
Amsdorf. The formula: "_Bona opera non quidem esse causam efficientem
salutis, sed tamen causam sine qua non_--Good works are indeed not the
efficient 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 at
Leipzig, January 1, 1504; professor in Wittenberg; assisted Luther in
translating the Bible and in taking down his lectures and sermons;
present at colloquies in Marburg 1529, in Wittenberg 1536, in Smalcald
1537, in Worms and Hagenau 1540 in Regensburg 1541, in Augsburg 1548;
died November 16, 1548]. According to Ratzeberger, Cruciger had
dictated: "_Bona opera requiri ad salutem tamquam causam sine qua non._"
Cordatus reports Cruciger's dictation as follows: "_Tantum Christus est
causa propter quem; interim tamen verum est, homines agere aliquid
oportere; oportere nos habere contritionem et debere Verbo erigere
conscientiam, ut fidem concipiamus, ut nostra contritio et noster
conatus sunt causae iustificationis sine quibus non_--our contrition and
our endeavor are causes of justification without which it does not take
place." (3, 350.)

Cordatus immediately attacked the new formula as false. "I know," said
he, "that this duality of causes cannot stand with the simple article of
justification." (3, 350.) He demanded a public retraction from Cruciger.
Before long Amsdorf also entered the fray. September 14, 1536, he wrote
to Luther about the new-fangled teaching of Melanchthon, "that works are
necessary to eternal life." (3, 162; Luther, St. L. 21b, 4104.) Pressed
by Cordatus, Cruciger finally admitted that Melanchthon was back of the
phrases 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 had
been led into this matter; and that he did not know how it happened. _Se
esse D. Philippi discipulum, et dictata omnia esse D. Philippi, se ab eo
in illam rem traductum, et nescire quomodo._" [tr. note: no opening
quotation mark in original] (_C. R._ 3, 162.)

That Melanchthon had been making efforts to introduce the new phrases in
Wittenberg 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, its
neighborhood, and even the Court against me because in the explanation
of the controversy on justification I have said that new obedience is
necessary to salvation, _novam obedientiam necessariam esse ad
salutem._" (185. 179.) May 16, 1537, Veit Dietrich wrote to Forester:
"Our Cordatus, driven, I know not, by what furies, writes against Philip
and Cruciger as against heretics, and is determined to force Cruciger to
retract because he has said that good works are necessary to
salvation.... This matter worries Philip very much, and if certain
malicious men do not control themselves, he threatens to leave." (372.)
As for Melanchthon, he made no efforts to shirk the responsibility for
Cruciger's dictation. "_Libenter totam rem in me transfero_--I
cheerfully 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 also
lodged with Luther by Cordatus, Amsdorf, and Stiefel. Cordatus reports
Luther as saying after the matter had been related to him, October 24,
1536: "This is the very theology of Erasmus, nor can anything be more
opposed to our doctrine. _Haec est ipsissima theologia Erasmi, neque
potest quidquam nostrae doctrinae esse magis adversum._" To say that new
obedience is the "_causa sine qua non--sine qua non contingit vita
aeterna,_" Luther declared, was tantamount to treading Christ and His
blood under our feet. "_Cruciger autem haec, quae publice dictavit,
publice revocabit._ What he has publicly dictated, Cruciger shall
publicly retract." (Kolde, _Analecta,_ 266.)

According to Ratzeberger, Luther immediately warned and censured
Cruciger "in severe terms." (_C. R._ 4, 1038.) Flacius reports that
Luther had publicly declared more than five times: "_Propositionem: Bona
opera esse necessaria ad salutem, volumus damnatam, abrogatam, ex
ecclesiis et scholis nostris penitus explosam._" (Schluesselburg 7,
567.) After his return from Smalcald, where he had expressed grave fears
as 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 to
salvation as a _causa sine qua non_. (_Lehre u. Wehre_ 1908, 65.) Both
parties were present at the disputation, Cordatus as well as Melanchthon
and Cruciger. In a letter to Veit Dietrich, June 27, 1537, Cruciger
reports: Luther maintained that new obedience is an "effect necessarily
following justification," but he rejected the statement: "New obedience
is necessary to salvation, _necessariam ad salutem._" He adds: "_Male
hoc habuit nostrum [Melanchthon], sed noluit eam rem porro agitare._
Melanchthon was displeased with this, but he did not wish to agitate the
matter any further." (_C. R._ 3, 385.) After the disputation Cruciger
was handed an anonymous note, saying that his "Treatise on Timothy" was
now branded as "heretical, sacrilegious, impious, and blasphemous
(_haeretica, sacrilega, impia et blasphema_)," and unless he retracted,
he would have to be regarded as a <DW7>, a teacher and servant of Satan
and not of Christ, and that his dictations would be published. (387.) In
a letter to Dietrich, Cruciger remarks that Luther had disapproved of
this anonymous writing, but he adds: "I can't see why he [Luther] gives
so much encouragement to Cordatus." (385.)

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

A number of private letters written by Melanchthon during and
immediately after his conflict with Cordatus, however, reveal much
animosity, not only against Cordatus, but against Luther as well. Nor do
those written after Luther's disputation, June 1, 1537, indicate that he
was 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 nevertheless
this new spiritual obedience is necessary to eternal life." (21, 429.)
Evidently, then, Melanchthon did not grasp the matter, and was not
convinced of the incorrectness of his phraseology. Yet he made it a
point to avoid and eliminate from his publications the obnoxious
formula: "_Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem._" At any rate, his
essay on Justification and Good Works, of October 1537, as well as
subsequent publications of his, do not contain it. In the _Loci_ of
1538, just referred to, he replaced the words _bona opera_ by the phrase
_obedientia haec nova spiritualis,_--indeed, a purely verbal rather than
a doctrinal change. Nor did it reappear even in the _Variata_ of 1540.
In 1541, at Regensburg, Melanchthon consented to the formula "that we
are justified by a living and efficacious faith--_iustificari per fidem
vivam et efficacem._" But when Luther deleted the words "_et efficacem,_
and efficacious," Melanchthon acquiesced. (4, 499.) In the _Loci_ of
1543 he expunged the appendix "_ad salutem,_ to salvation." At the same
time, however, he retained the error in a more disguised form, _viz._,
that good works are necessary to retain faith. For among the reasons why
good works are necessary he here enumerates also "the necessity of
retaining the faith, since the Holy Spirit is expelled and grieved when
sins against the conscience are admitted." (21, 775.)

143. Formula Renewed--Abandoned.

Under the duress of the Augsburg Interim, Melanchthon relapsed into his
old error. July 6, 1548, he (together with Caspar Cruciger, John
Pfeffinger, Daniel Gresser, George Major, and John Foerster) agreed to
the statement: "For this proposition is certainly true that no one can
be saved without love and good works. Yet we are not justified by love
and good works, but by grace for Christ's sake." (7, 22.) In the Leipzig
Interim, adopted several months later, the false teaching concerning the
necessity of good works to salvation was fully restored, as appears from
the quotations from this document cited in the chapter on the
Adiaphoristic Controversy. According to the _Formula of Concord_ this
renewal of the obnoxious formula at the time of the Interim furnished
the direct occasion for the Majoristic Controversy. For here we read:
"The aforesaid modes of speech and false expressions [concerning the
necessity of good works to salvation] were renewed by the Interim just
at a time when there was special need of a clear, correct confession
against all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article of
justification." (947, 29.) However, when the controversy on good works
began, 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 the
phrase: Good works are necessary to salvation, "because," said he, "this
appendix [to salvation, _ad salutem_] is interpreted as merit, and
obscures the doctrine of grace."

In an opinion of December, 1553, Melanchthon explains: "New obedience is
necessary; ... but when it is said: New obedience is necessary to
salvation, the <DW7>s understand that good works merit salvation. This
proposition is false, therefore I relinquish this mode of speech." (_C.
R._ 8, 194.) January 13, 1555, he wrote to the Senate of Nordhausen that
their ministers "should not preach, defend, and dispute the proposition
[Good works are necessary to salvation], because it would immediately be
interpreted to mean that good works merit salvation--_weil doch alsbald
diese Deutung angehaengt wird, als sollten gute Werke Verdienst sein der
Seligkeit._" (410.) September 5, 1556, he said in his letter to Flacius:
"I have always admonished George [Major] not only to explain his
sentence (which he did), but to abandon that form of speech. And he
promised that he would not use it. What more can I ask? The same I did
with others." (842.)

In the Frankfurt Recess of 1558, written by Melanchthon and signed by
the Lutheran princes, we read: "Although therefore this proposition,
'New obedience is necessary (_Nova obedientia est necessaria, nova
obedientia est debitum_),' must be retained, we nevertheless do not wish
to attach these words, '_ad salutem,_ to salvation,' because this
appendix is interpreted as referring to merit and obscures the doctrine
of grace, for this remains true that man is justified before God and is
an 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, 'Good
works are necessary to salvation.'" (969.) In his _Responsiones ad
Articulos Bavaricos_ of 1559 he wrote: "_Ego non utor his verbis: Bona
opera sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia hoc additione 'ad salutem'
intelligitur meritum._ I do not use these words: Good works are
necessary to salvation, because by the addition 'to salvation' a merit
is understood." In his lectures, too, Melanchthon frequently rejected
the appendix (to salvation), and warned his pupils not to use the
phrase. (4, 543; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 78.)

Thus Melanchthon, time and again, disowned the proposition which he
himself had first introduced. Nowhere, however, did he reject it or
advise against its use because it was inherently erroneous and false as
such but always merely because it was subject to abuse and
misapprehension,--a qualified rejection which self-evidently could not
and did not satisfy his opponents. In an opinion, dated March 4, 1558,
Melanchthon refuses to reject flatly the controverted formula, and
endeavors to show that it is not in disagreement with the mode of speech
employed in the Bible. We read: "Illyricus and his compeers are not
satisfied when we say that the appendix [to salvation] is to be omitted
on account of the false interpretation given it, but demand that we
simply 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 concerning
salvation (_Confessio fit de salute_). Again, 2 Cor. 7: 'For godly
sorrow worketh repentance to salvation,' Likewise Phil. 2: 'Work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling.' Nor do these words sound
any differently: 'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be
saved,' Acts 2, 21. But, they say, one must understand these expressions
correctly! That is what we say, too. This disputation however, would be
ended if we agreed to eliminate the appendix and rack our brains no
further--_dass wir den Anhang ausschliessen und nicht weiter
gruebelten._" (9, 474.)

144. Major Champions Error.

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

"_That Dr. Pommer_ [Bugenhagen] _and Dr. Major have Caused Offense and
Confusion._ Nicholas Amsdorf, Exul Christi. Magdeburg, 1551,"--such was
the title of a publication which appeared immediately prior to Major's
appointment as Superintendent in Eisleben. In it Bugenhagen (who died
1558) and Major (of course, Melanchthon could and should have been
included) were denounced for their connection with the Leipzig Interim.
Major in particular, was censured for having, in the Interim, omitted
the word _sola,_ "alone," in the phrase "_sola fide justificamur,_ we
are justified by faith alone," and for having emphasized instead that
Christian virtues and good works are meritorious and necessary to
salvation. When, as a result of this publication the preachers of
Eisleben and Mansfeld refused to recognize Major as their superior the
latter promised to justify himself publicly. He endeavored to do so in
his _Answer_ published 1552 at Wittenberg, after he had already been
dismissed 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 im
Druck ausgegangen. Antwort Georg Majors._ In it Major disclaimed
responsibility 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 confess
that I have hitherto taught and still teach, and henceforth will teach
all my life: that good works are necessary to salvation. And I declare
publicly and with clear and plain words that no one is saved by evil
works, and also that no one is saved without good works. Furthermore I
say, let him who teaches otherwise, even though an angel from heaven, be
accursed (_der sei verflucht_)!" Again: "Therefore it is impossible for
a man to be saved without good works." Major explained that good works
are necessary to salvation, not because they effect or merit forgiveness
of sins, justification, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life
(for these gifts are merited alone by the death of our only Mediator and
Savior Jesus Christ, and can be received only by faith), "but
nevertheless good works _must be present,_ not as a merit, but as due
obedience toward God." (Schlb. 7, 30.)

In his defiant attitude Major was immediately and firmly opposed by
Amsdorf, Flacius, Gallus, and others. Amsdorf published his "_Brief
Instruction Concerning Dr. Major's Answer, that he is not innocent, as
he boasts._ Ein kurzer Unterricht auf Dr. Majoris Antwort, dass er nicht
unschuldig sei, wie er sich ruehmet," 1552. Major's declaration and
anathema are here met by Amsdorf as follows: "First of all, I would like
to know against whom Dr. George Major is writing when he says: Nobody
merits heaven by evil works. Has even the angry and impetuous Amsdorf
ever taught and written thus? ...We know well, praise God, and confess
that a Christian should and must do good works. Nobody disputes and
speaks concerning that; nor has anybody doubted this. On the contrary,
we speak and dispute concerning this, whether a Christian earns
salvation by the good works which he should and must do.... For we all
say and confess that after his renewal and new birth a Christian should
love and fear God and do all manner of good works, but not that he may
be saved, for he is saved already by faith (_aber nicht darum, dass er
selig werde, denn er ist schon durch den Glauben selig_). This is the
true prophetic and apostolic doctrine, and whoever teaches otherwise is
already accursed and damned. I, therefore, Nicholas von Amsdorf,
declare: Whoever teaches and preaches these words as they read (Good
works are necessary to salvation), is a Pelagian, a mameluke, and a
denier of Christ, and he has the same spirit which prompted Drs. Mensing
and Witzel to write against Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, that good
works 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 this
publication--maintained that neither justification, nor salvation, nor
the preservation of the state of grace is to be based on good works. He
objected to Major's propositions because they actually made good works
the antecedent and cause of salvation and robbed Christians of their
comfort. He declared: "When we say: That is necessary for this work or
matter, it means just as much as if we said: It is a cause, or, by this
or that work one effects this or that." As to the practical consequences
of Major's propositions, Flacius remarks: "If therefore good works are
necessary to salvation, and if it is impossible for any one to be saved
without them, then tell us, Dr. Major, how can a man be saved who all
his life till his last breath has led a sinful life, but now when about
to die, desires to apprehend Christ (as is the case with many on their
death-bed or on the gallows)? How will Major comfort such a poor
sinner?" The poor sinner, Flacius continues, would declare: "Major, the
great theologian, writes and teaches as most certain that no one can be
saved without good works, and that good works are absolutely necessary
(_ganz notwendig_) to salvation; therefore I am damned, for I have
heretofore never done any good works." "Furthermore Major will also have
to state and determine the least number of ounces or pounds of good
works one is required to have to obtain salvation." (Preger 1, 363f.)

In his "Explanation and Answer to the New Subtle Corruption of the
Gospel of Christ--_Erklaerung und Antwort auf die neue subtile
Verfaelschung des Evangelii Christi,_" 1554 Nicholas Gallus maintained
that, if the righteousness presented by Christ alone is the cause of our
justification and salvation, then good works can only be the fruits of
it. In a similar way Schnepf, Chemnitz, and others declared themselves
against 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 on
the Conversion to God of St. Paul and All God-fearing Men._ In it he
most emphatically denied that he had ever taught that good works are
necessary in order to _earn_ salvation, and explained more fully
"whether, in what way, which, and why good works are nevertheless
necessary to salvation." Here he also admits: "This proposition would be
dangerous and dark if I had said without any distinction and
explanation: Good works are necessary to salvation. For thus one might
easily 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 not
just and saved by renewal, and because the fulfilment of the Law is
begun in us, as the Interim teaches, but in this life we always remain
just and saved by faith _alone._" (Preger 1, 364ff.)

Major explains: "When I say: The new obedience or good works which
follow faith are necessary to salvation, this is not to be understood in
the sense that one must earn salvation by good works, or that they
constitute, or could effect or impart the righteousness by which a man
may stand before the judgment-seat of God, but that good works are
effects and fruits of true faith, which are to follow it [faith] and are
wrought by Christ in believers. For whoever believes and is just, he, at
the risk of losing his righteousness and salvation, is in duty bound and
obliged 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 are
necessary to salvation, not in order to obtain but to retain, salvation.
"In order to retain salvation and not to lose it again," he said, "they
are necessary to such an extent that, if you fail to do them, it is a
sure indication that your faith is dead and false, a painted faith, an
opinion existing only in your imagination." The reason, said Major
(Menius, too, later on expressed his agreement in this point with
Major), why he had urged his proposition concerning the necessity of
good works to salvation, was the fact that the greater number also of
those who claim to be good evangelical Christians "imagine that they
believe, and imagine and fabricate a faith which may exist without good
works, though this is just as impossible as that the sun should not emit
brightness and splendor." (Tschackert 515; Frank 2, 162. 373.)

Reducing his teaching to a number of syllogisms, Major argued, in
substance, as follows: Eternal life is given to none but the regenerate;
regeneration, however, is new obedience and good works in the believers
and the beginning of eternal life: hence the new life, which consists in
good works, is necessary to believers for salvation. Again: No one is
saved unless he confesses with his mouth the faith of his heart in
Christ and remains steadfast in such faith, Rom. 10, 9. 10; Matt. 22,
13; hence the works of confessing and persevering faith are necessary to
salvation as fruits of faith, in order that salvation, obtained by
faith, may not be lost by denial and apostasy. (Frank 2, 162.) Again:
The thing without which salvation cannot be preserved is necessary to
salvation; without obedience toward God salvation, received by grace
through faith, cannot be preserved; hence obedience toward God is
necessary in order that by it salvation, received by grace, may be
preserved and may not be lost by disobedience. At the conclusion of his
"Sermon on Paul's Conversion," Major also repeated his anathema against
all those who teach otherwise, and added: "Hiewider moegen nun Amseln
[Amsdorf] oder Drosseln singen und schreien, Haehne [Gallus] kraehen
oder 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 diese
Lehre, so in diesem Sermon steht die rechte goettliche Wahrheit ist,
wider welche auch alle hoellischen Pforten nichts Bestaendiges oder
Gruendliches koennen aufbringen, wie boese sie sich auch machen."
(Preger 1, 371. 380.)

Schluesselburg charges Major also with confounding justification with
sanctification. In proof of this he quotes the following from Major's
remarks on Rom. 8: "Salvation or justification is twofold: one in this
life and the other in eternal life. The salvification in this life
consists, first, in the remission of sins and in the imputation of
righteousness; secondly, in the gift and renewing of the Holy Spirit and
in the hope of eternal life bestowed freely for the sake of Christ. This
salvification and justification is only begun [in this life] and
imperfect; for in those who are saved and justified by faith there still
remains sin, the depravity of nature, there remain also the terrors of
sin and of the Law, the bite of the old Serpent, and death, together
with all miseries that flesh is heir to. Thus by faith and the Holy
Ghost we, indeed, _begin to be justified,_ sanctified, and saved, but we
are not yet _perfectly justified,_ sanctified, and saved. It remains,
therefore, that we become _perfectly just and saved._ Sic per fidem et
Spiritum Sanctum _coepimus quidem iustificari,_ sanctificari, et
salvari, nondum tamen perfecte iusti et salvi sumus. Reliquum igitur
est, ut perfecte iusti et salvi fiamus." (7, 348.)

146. Menius Sides with Major.

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

In 1556, however, Menius himself proved by his publications that this
suspicion was not altogether unwarranted. For in his _Preparation for a
Blessed 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.) This
caused Flacius to remark in his book, _Concerning the Unity of Those who
in the Past Years have Fought for and against the Adiaphora,_ 1556:
"Major and Menius, in their printed books, are again reviving the error
that good works are necessary to salvation, wherefore it is to be feared
that the latter misfortune will be worse than the former." (Preger 1,
382.) Soon after, Menius was suspended from office and required to clear
himself before the Synod in Eisenach, 1556. Here he subscribed seven
propositions in which the doctrine that good works are necessary to
salvation, 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 be
tolerated in the doctrine of the Law abstractly and ideally (_in
doctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari potest_), nevertheless
there are many weighty reasons why it should be avoided and shunned no
less than the other: Christ is a creature. 2. In the forum of
justification and salvation this proposition, Good works are necessary
to salvation, is not at all to be tolerated. 3. In the forum of new
obedience, after reconciliation, good works are not at all necessary to
salvation but for other causes. 4. Faith alone justifies and saves in
the beginning, middle, and end. 5. Good works are not necessary to
retain salvation (_ad retinendam salutem_). 6. Justification and
salvation are synonyms and equipollent or convertible terms, and neither
can nor must be separated in any way (_nec ulla ratione distrahi aut
possunt aut debent_). 7. May therefore the papistical buskin be banished
from our church on account of its manifold offenses and innumerable
dissensions 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 and
orthodox, and that, according to the gift given me by God, I have
heretofore by word and writing publicly defended it, and shall continue
to defend it." In this subscription Menius also promised to correct the
offensive 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 violently
polemical books, published there in 1557 and 1558, he freely vented his
long pent-up feelings of anger and animosity, especially against
Flacius. (384f.)

In these publications, Menius denied that he had ever used the
proposition of Major. However, he not only refused to reject it, but
defended the same error, though in somewhat different terms. He merely
replaced the phrase "good works" by "new life," "new righteousness,"
"new obedience," and affirmed "that it is necessary to our salvation
that such be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost." He wrote: The Holy Spirit
renews those who have become children of God by faith in Christ, and
that this is performed in them "this, I say, they need for their
salvation--_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 this
sinful flesh) very weak and imperfect, _but nevertheless necessary to
salvation,_ and will be perfect after the resurrection, that we may walk
in 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 of
sanctification, "then it is correct to say: Sanctification, or renewal
of 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 false
and heretical. Moreover, he argued: "If it is correct to say:
Sanctification, or renewal by the Holy Spirit, is necessary to
salvation, then it cannot be false to say: Good works are necessary to
salvation, since it is certain and cannot be gainsaid that
sanctification and renewal do not and cannot exist without good works."
(386.) Indeed, he himself maintained that "good works are necessary to
salvation in order that we may not lose it again." (387. 391.) At the
same time Menius, as stated above, claimed that he had never employed
Major's proposition, and counseled others to abstain from its use in
order to avoid misinterpretation. The same advice he gave with respect
to his own formula that new obedience is necessary to salvation. (Frank
2, 165. 223.)

Menius also confounded justification and sanctification. He wrote: "By
faith in Christ alone we become just before God and are saved. Why?
Because by faith one receives first, forgiveness of sins and the
righteousness or obedience of Christ, with which He fulfilled the Law
for us; thereupon, one also receives the Holy Spirit, who effects and
fulfils in us the righteousness required by the Law, here in this life
imperfectly and perfectly in the life to come." (Preger 1, 387.) At the
synod of Eisenach, 1556, the theologians accordingly declared: "Although
it is true that grace and the gift through grace cannot be separated,
but are always together, nevertheless the gift of the Holy Spirit is not
a 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 koennen
getrennt werden, sondern allezeit beieinander sind, so ist doch die Gabe
des Heiligen Geistes nicht ein Stueck oder Teil, viel weniger eine
Mitursache 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 theologians
everywhere. Even when he was still their superintendent, the ministers
of Mansfeld took issue with him; and after he was dismissed by Count
Albrecht, they drafted an _Opinion,_ in which they declared that Major's
proposition obscures the doctrine of God's grace and Christ's merit.
Also the clergy of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg united in
an _Opinion,_ in which they rejected Major's proposition. Chief among
the theologians who opposed him were, as stated, Amsdorf, Flacius,
Wigand, Gallus, Moerlin and Chemnitz. In their publications they
unanimously denounced the proposition that good works are necessary to
salvation, and its equivalents, as dangerous, godless, blasphemous, and
popish. Yet before the controversy they themselves had not all nor
always been consistent and correct in their terminology.

The _Formula of Concord_ says: "Before this controversy quite a few pure
teachers employed such and similar expressions [that faith is preserved
by good works, etc.] in the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in no
way, however, intending thereby to confirm the above-mentioned errors of
the <DW7>s." (949, 36.) Concerning the word "faith," 1549, Flacius, for
example had said that our effort to obey God might be called a "_causa
sine qua non,_ or something which serves salvation." His words are:
"Atque hinc apparet, quatenus nostrum studium obediendi Deo dici possit
causa sine qua non, seu huperetikon ti, id est, quiddam subserviens ad
salutem." But when his attention was called to this passage, he first
eliminated the _causa sine qua non_ and substituted _ad vitam aeternam_
for _ad salutem,_ and afterwards changed this phrase into _ad veram
pietatem._ (Frank 2, 218. 169.) However, as soon as the controversy
began, the Lutherans, notably Flacius, clearly saw the utter falsity of
Major'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 received
forgiveness of sins without good works; it is impossible for any one to
receive forgiveness of sins or to be saved without good works; good
works are necessary to forgiveness of sins." (Preger 1, 375.) Again:
"Young children and those who are converted in their last hour (who
certainly constitute the greater part), must confess that they neither
possess, nor will possess, any good works, for they die forthwith.
Indeed, St. Bernard also wrote when on his deathbed: _Perdite vixi_--I
have led a wicked life! And what is still more, all Christians, when in
their dying moments, they are striving with sins, must say: 'All our
good 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. Luther
explains it." (376.) Again: "We are concerned about this, that poor and
afflicted consciences may have a firm and certain consolation against
sin, death, devil, and hell, and thus be saved. For if a condition or
appendix concerning our good works and worthiness is required as
necessary to salvation, then, as Dr. Major frequently discusses this
matter very excellently, it is impossible to have a firm and solid
consolation." (376.)

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

For the same reason Flacius objected to the phrase that good works are
necessary as _causa sine qua non._ "Dear Dr. G." (Major), says he, "ask
the highly learned Greek philosophers for a little information as to
what they say _de causa sine qua non, hon ouk aneu._ Ask I say, the
learned 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 and
Menius correctly. Illustrating this point Flacius wrote: "Can one become
a carpenter without the house which he builds afterwards? Can one make a
wagon or ship without driving or sailing? I say, yes! Or, dear Doctor,
are we accustomed to say: Driving and sailing is necessary to the wagon
and ship respectively, and it is impossible for a wagon or ship to be
made without driving or sailing? I hear: No!" (375.) "Nobody says:
Fruits and leaves are necessary to the tree; wine and grapes are
necessary to the vineyard; or dwelling is necessary to a house; driving
and sailing, to a wagon and ship; riding is necessary to a horse; but
thus they speak: Wagons and horses are necessary to riding, a ship is
necessary to sailing." (391.)

The charge that Major's proposition robbed Christians of their assurance
of salvation was urged also by Nicholas Gallus. He says: It is giving
with one hand and taking again with the other when Major adds [to his
proposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation] that
our conscience is not to look upon our works, but on Christ alone.
(Frank 2, 224.) The same point was stressed in the _Opinion_ of the
ministers of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg, published by
Flacius and Gallus in 1553. (220.) The Hamburg theologians declared:
"This appendix [necessary to salvation, _ad salutem_] indicates a cause
and a merit." They added that in this sense also the phrase was
generally understood by the <DW7>s. (Planck, _Geschichte des prot.
Lehrbegriffes_ 5, 505. 497.) Gallus also explained that it was
papistical to infer: By sins we lose salvation, hence it is retained by
good works; or, Sins condemn, hence good works save. (Frank 2, 171.)
Hesshusius wrote to Wigand: "I regard Eber's assertion that good works
are necessary to justification _because they must be present,_ as false
and detrimental. For Paul expressly excludes good works from the
justification of a sinner before God, not only when considered a merit
cause, glory, dignity, price, object or trust, and medium of
application, etc., but also as to the necessity of their presence
(_verum etiam quoad necessitatem praesentiae_). If it is necessary that
good works be present with him who is to be justified, then Paul errs
when he declares that a man is justified without the works of the Law."
(172.)

Regarding this point, that good works are necessary to justification in
so far as they must be present, the Majorists appealed to Luther, who,
however, had merely stated that faith is never alone, though it alone
justifies. His axiom was: "Faith alone justifies, but it is not alone--
_Fides sola iustificat, sed non est sola._" According to Luther good
works, wherever they are found, are present in virtue of faith; where
they are not present, they are absent because faith is lacking; nor can
they preserve the faith by which alone they are produced. At the
Altenburg Colloquy (1568 to 1569) the theologians of Electoral Saxony
insisted that, since true faith does not and cannot exist in those who
persevere in sins against their conscience, good works must not be
altogether and absolutely excluded from justification, at least their
necessity and presence must not be regarded as unnecessary. (189.) The
theologians of Ducal Saxony, however, denied "that in the article and
act of justification our good works are necessary by necessity of
presence. _Sed impugnamus istam propositionem, in articulo et actu
iustificationis bona nostra opera necessaria esse necessitate
praesentiae._" "On the other hand, however, they, too, were solicitous
to affirm the impossibility of faith's coexisting with an evil purpose
to 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_ the
Lutheran theologians declared: "The proposition (Justification of faith
requires the presence of good works) was rejected [in the _Formula of
Concord_] because it cannot be understood otherwise than of the cause of
justification. For whatever is present in justification as necessary in
such a manner that without its presence justification can neither be nor
occur, that must indeed be understood as being a cause of justification
itself." (238)

148. Major's Concessions Not Satisfactory.

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

Nor did Major later on ever admit that he had erred in the matter. In an
oration delivered 1567 he boasted of his intimate relation and doctrinal
agreement with Luther and Melanchthon, adding: "Neither did I ever
deviate, nor, God assisting me, shall I ever deviate, from the truth
once acknowledged. _Nec discessi umquam nec Deo iuvante discedam ab
agnita semel veritate._" He had never thought or taught, said he, that
good works are a cause of justification. And concerning the proposition,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," he had expressly declared that
he intended to abstain from its use "because it had offended some on
account of its ambiguity, _cum propter ambiguitatem offenderit
aliquos._" He continued: "The facts show that we [the professors of
Wittenberg University] are and have remained guardians of that doctrine
which Luther and Melanchthon ... delivered to us, in whose writings from
the time of the [Augsburg] Confession there is neither a dissonance nor
a discrepancy, either among themselves or from the foundation, nor
anything 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 or
taught any false views concerning justification, salvation, and good
works. Of his own accord he had also abandoned the phrases: "Good works
are necessary to salvation; it is impossible to be saved without good
works; no one has ever been saved without good works--_Bona opera sunt
necessaria ad salutem; impossibile est, sine bonis operibus salvum
fieri; nemo umquam sine bonis operibus salvatus est._" He had done this
in order to obviate the misapprehension as though he taught that good
works are a cause of salvation which contribute to merit and effect
salvation. According to this _Testament,_ he desired his doctrines and
writings to be judged. In future he would not dispute with anybody about
these phrases. (168.) Thus in his _Testament,_ too, Major withdrew his
statements not because they were simply false, but only because they
had been interpreted to mean that good works are the efficient cause of
justification and salvation. And while Major in later writings did
eliminate the appendix "_ad salutem,_ to salvation," or "_ad vitam
aeternam,_ to eternal life," he retained, and continued to teach,
essentially the same error in another garb, namely, that good works are
necessary in order to retain faith. Enumerating, in his _Explanation of
the Letter to the Galatians,_ of 1560, the purposes on account of which
good works ought to be rendered, he mentions as the "first, in order to
retain faith, the Holy Spirit, the grace bestowed, and a good
conscience." (218.)

Thus Major was willing to abandon as dangerous and ambiguous, and to
abstain from the use of the formula, "Good works are necessary to
salvation," but refused to reject it as false and to make a public
admission and confession of his error. This, however, was precisely what
his opponents demanded; for they were convinced that they could be
satisfied with nothing less. As a result the controversy continued till
Major's death, in 1574. The Jena professors, notably Flacius, have been
charged with prolonging the controversy from motives of personal
revenge. (Schaff, 276.) No doubt, the Wittenbergers had gone to the very
limit 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 cunning
and sly adventurer; as a tyrant, who, after having suppressed the
Wittenbergers, would, as a pope, lord it over all Germany; as an
Antinomian and a despiser of all good works, etc. (Preger 1, 397.) In
the address of October 18, 1567 already referred to, Major said: "There
was 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 its
principal Doctors, against the churches of these regions, against the
princes themselves, the poison which he had brewed and imbibed some time
ago, and, having gnawed and consumed with the bite of a serpent the womb
of his mother, to destroy the harmony of these churches, at first by
spreading his dreams, fables, and gossip but now also by calumnies and
manifest lies." (Frank 2, 217.) Melanchthon, too, had repeatedly written
in 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 am
well satisfied; for I do not desire to associate with them, because I
well know that the said Illyricus with his adherents does not seek the
honor of God, but publicly opposes the truth, and as yet has never
declared himself concerning the entire sum of Christian doctrine." (_C.
R._ 9, 463. 476. 311.) In an _Opinion_ of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon
even insinuated that Flacius denied the Trinity. (763.) Before this,
August, 1549, he had written to Fabricius: "The Slavic runagate (Slavus
drapetes) received many benefits from our Academy and from me. But we
have nursed a serpent in our bosom. He deserves to be branded on his
forehead as the Macedonian king did with a soldier: 'Ungrateful
stranger, xevnos acharistos.' Nor do I believe that the source of his
hatred is any other than that the place of Cruciger was not given to
him. But I omit these disagreeable narrations." (7, 449. 478 ff.) This
personal abuse, however, was not the reason why Flacius persisted in his
opposition despite the concessions made by Major and Menius,--
concessions with which even such moderate men as Martin Chemnitz were
not satisfied.

Flacius continued his opposition because he could not do otherwise
without sacrificing his own principles, compromising the truth, and
jeopardizing the doctrine of justification. He did not yield because he
was satisfied with nothing less than a complete victory of the divine
truth and an unqualified retraction of error. The truly objective manner
in which he dealt with this matter appears from his _Strictures on the
Testament of Dr. Major (Censura de Testamento D. Majoris)_. Here we
read, in substance: In his _Testament_ Major covers his error with the
same sophism which he employed in his former writings. For he says that
he ascribes the entire efficient cause, merit, and price of our
justification and salvation to Christ alone, and therefore excludes and
removes all our works and virtues. This he has set forth more fully and
more clearly in his previous writings, saying that the proposition,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," can be understood in a double
sense; _viz._, that they are necessary to salvation as a certain merit,
price, or efficient cause of justification or salvation (as the <DW7>s
understand and teach it), or that they are necessary to salvation as a
certain debt or an indispensable cause (_causa sine qua non_), or a
cause without which it is impossible for the effect of salvation to
follow or for any one to obtain it. He now confesses this same opinion.
He does not expressly eliminate "the indispensable cause, or the
obligation without the fulfilment of which it is impossible for any one
to be preserved, as he asserted repeatedly before this, from which it
appears that he adheres to his old error. _Et non diserte tollit causam
sine qua non seu debitum, sine cuius persolutione sit impossibile
quemquam servari, quod toties antea asseruit; facile patet, eum
pristinum illum suum errorem retinere._" (Schlb. 7, 266; Preger 1, 398.)
Flacius demanded an unqualified rejection of the statement, "Good works
are necessary to salvation"--a demand with which Major as well as
Melanchthon 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, and
fully restored Luther's doctrine. Luther's words concerning "good works"
are quoted as follows: "We concede indeed that instruction should be
given also concerning love and good works, yet in such a way that this
be done when and where it is necessary, namely, when otherwise and
outside of this matter of justification we have to do with works. But
here the chief matter dealt with is the question not whether we should
also do good works and exercise love, but by what means we can be
justified before God and saved. And here we answer with St. Paul: that
we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by the deeds of the
Law or by love. Not that we hereby entirely reject works and love, as
the adversaries falsely slander and accuse us, but that we do not allow
ourselves to be led away, as Satan desires, from the chief matter, with
which we have to do here, to another and foreign affair, which does not
at all belong to this matter. Therefore, whereas and as long as we are
occupied with this article of justification, we reject and condemn
works, since this article is so constituted that it can admit of no
disputation or treatment whatever regard ing works. Therefore in this
matter we cut short all Law and works of the Law." (925, 29.)

The _Formula of Concord_ rejects the Majoristic formula, not because it
is ambiguous, but because it is false. Concerning ambiguous phrases it
declares: "To avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum,
i.e._, words and expressions which are applied and used in various
meanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained." (874, 51.) An
ambiguous phrase or statement need not be condemned, because it may be
made immune from error and misapprehension by a careful explanation. The
statement, "Good works are necessary to salvation," however, does not
admit of such treatment. It is inherently false and cannot be cured by
any amount of explanation or interpretation. Because of this inherent
falsity it must be rejected as such. Logically and grammatically the
phrase, "Good works are necessary to salvation," reverses the correct
theological order, by placing works before faith and sanctification
before justification. It turns things topsy-turvy. It makes the effect
the cause; the consequent, the antecedent, and vice versa.

Not personal animosity, but this fundamental falsity of the Majoristic
formula was, in the last analysis, the reason why the explanations and
concessions made by Major and Menius did not and could not satisfy their
opponents. 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 the
proposition, "Good works are necessary to salvation," say, "Good works
must follow faith and justification." "According to the usage of every
language," says he, "a phrase saying that one thing is necessary to
another designates a causal connection. Whoever dreamt of asserting that
heat is necessary to make it day, because it is a necessary effect of
the rays of the sun, by the spreading of which it becomes day." (4, 542.
485.) Without compromising the truth and jeopardizing the doctrine of
justification, therefore, the Lutherans were able to regard as
satisfactory only a clear and unequivocal rejection of Majorism as it is
found in the _Formula of Concord._

149. Absurd Proposition of Amsdorf.

Nicholas Amsdorf, the intimate and trusted friend of Luther, was among
the most zealous of the opponents of Majorism. He was born December 3,
1483; professor in Wittenberg; 1521 in Worms with Luther; superintendent
in Magdeburg; 1542 bishop at Naumburg; banished by Maurice in 1547, he
removed to Magdeburg; soon after professor and superintendent in Jena;
opposed the Interimists, Adiaphorists, Osiandrists, Majorists,
Synergists, Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldians; died at
Eisenach May 14, 1565. Regarding the bold statements of Major as a blow
at the very heart of true Lutheranism, Amsdorf antagonized his teaching
as a "most pernicious error," and denounced Major as a Pelagian and a
double <DW7>. But, alas, the momentum of his uncontrolled zeal carried
him a step too far--over the precipice. He declared that good works are
detrimental and injurious to salvation, _bona opera perniciosa_ (noxia)
_esse ad salutem._ He defended his paradoxical statement in a
publication of 1559 against Menius, with whose subscription to the
Eisenach propositions, referred to above, he was not satisfied; chiefly
because Menius said there that he had taught and defended them also in
the past. The flagrant blunder of Amsdorf was all the more offensive
because 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 heiligen
Paulum und Lutherum gelehrt und gepredigt. Niclas von Amsdorf, 1559.
That this proposition, 'Good works are injurious to salvation,' is a
correct, true, Christian proposition taught and preached by Sts. Paul
and Luther." (Frank 2, 228.)

Luther, to whose writings Amsdorf appealed, had spoken very guardedly
and correctly in this matter. He had declared: Good works are
detrimental to the righteousness of faith, "if one presumes to be
justified by them, _si quis per ea praesumat iustificari._" Wherever
Luther speaks of the injuriousness of good works, it is always _sub
specie iustificationis,_ that is to say, viewing good works as entering
the article of justification, or the forgiveness of sins. (Weimar 7, 59;
10, 3, 373. 374. 387; E. 16, 465. 484; Tschackert, 516.) What vitiated
the proposition as found in Amsdorf's tract was the fact that he had
omitted the modification added by Luther. Amsdorf made a flat statement
of what Luther had asserted, not flatly, _nude et simpliciter,_ but with
a limitation, _secundum quid._

Self-evidently the venerable Amsdorf, too, who from the very beginning
of the Reformation had set an example in preaching as well as in living
a truly Christian life, did not in the least intend to minimize, or
discourage the doing of, good works by his offensive phrase, but merely
to eliminate good works from the article of justification. As a matter
of fact, his extravagant statement, when taken as it reads, flatly
contradicted his own clear teaching. In 1552 he had declared against
Major, as recorded above: "Who has ever taught or said that one should
or need not do good works?" "For we all say and confess that after his
renewal and new birth a Christian should love and fear God and do all
manner of good works," etc. What Amsdorf wished to emphasize was not
that good works are dangerous in themselves and as such, but in the
article of salvation. For this reason he added: "_ad salutem,_ to
salvation." By this appendix he meant to emphasize that good works are
dangerous when introduced as a factor in justification and trusted in
for 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 their
like must avoid the filthy speech, 'Good works are detrimental to
salvation.'" (_C. R._ 9, 405 ff.) Though unanimously rejecting his
blundering proposition, Amsdorf's colleagues treated the venerable
veteran of Lutheranism with consideration and moderation. No one, says
Frank, disputed the statement in the sense in which Amsdorf took it, and
its form was so apparently false that it could but be generally
disapproved. (2, 176.) The result was that the paradox assertion
remained without any special historical consequences.

True, Major endeavored to foist Amsdorf's teaching also on Flacius. He
wrote: Flacius "endeavors with all his powers to subvert this
proposition, that good works are necessary to those who are to be saved;
and tries to establish the opposite blasphemy, that good works are
dangerous to those who are to be saved, and that they area hindrance to
eternal salvation--_evertere summis viribus hanc propositionem conatur:
bona opera salvandis esse necessaria. Ac contra stabilire oppositam
blasphemiam studet: Bona opera salvandis periculosa sunt et aeternae
saluti officiunt._" Major continues: "Let pious minds permit Flacius and
his compeers, at their own risk, to prostitute their eternal salvation
to the devils, and by their execrations and anathemas to sacrifice
themselves to the devil and his angels." (Frank 2, 221.) This, however,
was slander pure and simple, for Flacius was among the first publicly to
disown 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) "as
offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline." And justly so; for
the question was not what Amsdorf meant to say: but what he really did
say. The _Formula_ adds: "For especially in these last times it is no
less, needful to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works,
and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in
good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than
that works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men
may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by
papistic 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 are
necessary, and, Christians are obliged or in duty bound to do good works
(_bona opera sunt necessaria et debita_)? This question, too, was a
point of dispute in the Majoristic controversy. Originally the
controversy concerning these terms and phrases was a mere logomachy,
which, however, later on (when, after the error lurking in the absolute
rejection of them had been pointed out, the phrases were still flatly
condemned), developed into a violent controversy. The _Formula of
Concord_ explains: "It has also been argued by some that good works are
not _necessary (noetig)_, but are _voluntary (freiwillig)_, because they
are not extorted by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be done
from a voluntary spirit and a joyful heart. Over against this the other
side contended that good works are _necessary_. This controversy was
originally occasioned by the words _necessitas_ and _libertas_
["_notwendig_" und "_frei_"], that is, necessary and free, because
especially the word _necessitas,_ necessary, signifies not only the
eternal, immutable order according to which all men are obliged and in
duty bound to obey God, but sometimes also a coercion, by which the Law
forces men to good works. But afterwards there was a disputation not
only concerning the words, but the doctrine itself was attacked in the
most violent manner, and it was contended that the new obedience in the
regenerate is not necessary because of the above-mentioned divine
order." (939, 4f.)

From the very beginning of the Reformation the Romanists had slandered
Luther also by maintaining that he condemned good works and simply
denied their necessity. A similar charge was made by the Majorists
against their opponents generally. And Melanchthon's writings, too,
frequently create the same impression. But it was an inference of their
own. They argued: If good works are not necessary to salvation, they
cannot be necessary at all. Wigand wrote: "It is a most malicious and
insidious trait in the new teachers [the Majorists] that they, in order
to gloss over their case, cry out with the <DW7>s that the controversy
is whether good works are necessary. But this is not in dispute, for no
Christian ever denied it. Good works are necessary; that is certainly
true. But the conflict arises from the appendix attached to it, and the
patch pasted to it, _viz._, 'to salvation.' And here all God-fearing
men say that it is a detrimental, offensive, damnable, papistic
appendix." (Planck 4, 498. 544.)

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more
extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents
of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement, "Good works are
necessary." Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily
implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion,
they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word "must" is
here not in place, they protested. Agricola, as well as the later
Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions "_necessarium,_
necessary" and "duty, _debitum,_" when employed in connection with good
works. January 13, 1555, Melanchthon wrote: "Some object to the words,
'Good works are _necessary,_' or, 'One _must_ do good works.' They
object to the two words _necessitas_ and _debitum._ And the
Court-preacher [Agricola] at that time juggled with the word _must: 'das
Muss ist versalzen._' He understood _necessarium_ and _debitum_ as
meaning, coerced by fear of punishment, _extortum coactione_ (extorted
by coercion), and spoke high-sounding words, such as, how good works
came without the Law. Yet the first meaning of _necessarium_ and
_debitum_ is not _extortum coactione,_ but the eternal and immutable
order of divine wisdom; and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves employ
these words _necessarium_ and _debitum._" In December, 1557, he wrote:
"They [the Antinomians] object to the proposition: 'New obedience is
necessary;' again: 'New obedience is a debt (_debitum_).' And now
Amsdorf writes: 'Good works are detrimental to salvation,'and it was
Eisleben's [Agricola's] slogan: 'Das Muss ist versalzen.' In Nordhausen
some one has publicly announced a disputation which contains the
proposition: '_Summa ars Chriatianorum est nescire legem._--The highest
art of a Christian is not to know the Law.'" March 4, 1558: "Some, for
instance, 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 have
said in a sermon, 1558: "They are all the devil's own who teach: 'New
obedience is necessary (_nova obedientia est necessaria_)'; the word
'must (necessary)' does not belong here. 'Good works are necessary to
salvation,' and, 'Good works are necessary, but not to salvation'--these
are 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 good
works are necessary. In the _Opinion_ of November 13, 1559, referred to
above, Melanchthon, after stating that he does not employ the phrase,
"Good works are necessary to salvation," continues as follows: "But I do
affirm that these propositions are true, and that one may properly and
without sophistry say, 'The new obedience or good works are necessary,'
because obedience is due to God and because it is necessary that, after
the Holy Spirit has been received, regeneration or conversion be
followed 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 by
fear." (_C. R._ 9, 969.) The Frankfurt _Rezess_ of 1558 [Rezess,
Rueckzug, Vergleich = Agreement], written by Melanchthon and signed by
the Lutheran princes, declared: "These propositions, '_Nova obedientia
est necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum,_ New obedience is
necessary, is a debt,' shall not be rejected." The _Rezess_ explained:
"It is certainly a divine, immovable truth that new obedience is
necessary in those who are justified; and these words are to be retained
in their true meaning. 'Necessary' signifies divine order. New obedience
is necessary and is a debt for the very reason that it is an immutable
divine order that the rational creature obeys God." (_C. R._ 9, 496.
498.)

In a similar way this matter was explained by Flacius and other
theologians. They all maintained that it is correct to say, Good works
are necessary. Even Amsdorf wrote 1552 in his _Brief Instruction_
against Major: "For we all say and confess that a Christian after his
renewal and new birth _should_ and _must_ (_soll und muss_) love and
fear God and do all manner of good works, but not in order to be saved
thereby, for he is saved already by faith." (Schlb. 7, 210.) This view,
which was also plainly taught in the _Augsburg Confession,_ prevailed
and received the sanction of our Church in Article IV of the _Formula of
Concord._ When a Christian spontaneously and by the free impulse of his
own 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, he
is obliged and in duty bound to do--such works, and such only, are,
according to the _Formula of Concord,_ truly good works, works pleasing
to 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 your
good works, but you] must have heaven and already be saved before you do
good 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, lieber
Mensch, du musst den Himmel haben und schon selig sein, ehe du gute
Werke tust. Die Werke verdienen nicht den Himmel, sondern wiederum
[umgekehrt], der Himmel, aus lauter Gnaden gegeben, tut die guten Werke
dahin, ohne Gesuch des Verdienstes, nur dem Naechsten zu Nutz und Gott
zu Ehren._" (E. 7, 174.) Again, in _De Servio Arbitrio_ of 1525: "The
children of God do good entirely voluntarily, seeking no reward, but
only the glory and will of God, ready to do the good even if, assuming
the impossible, there were neither heaven nor hell. _Filii autem Dei
gratuita voluntate faciunt bonum, nullum praemium quaerentes, sed solam
gloriam et voluntatem Dei, parati bonum facere, si per impossibile neque
regnum 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 closer
than is generally realized. Both maintain that, in part, or in a certain
respect, salvation depends not on grace alone, but also on man and his
efforts. The Majorists declared good works to be necessary to salvation,
or at least to the preservation of faith and of salvation. Thus
salvation would, in a way, depend on the right conduct of a Christian
after his conversion. The Synergists asserted: Man, too, must do his bit
and cooperate with the Holy Spirit if he desires to be saved. Conversion
and salvation, therefore, would depend, at least in part, on man's
conduct 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 work
of his own. The burden of both, Majorism and synergism, was the denial
of the _sola gratia._ Both coordinated man and God as the causes of our
salvation. Indeed, consistently carried out, both destroyed the central
Christian truth of justification by grace alone and, with it, the
assurance of a gracious God and of eternal salvation--the supreme
religious concern of Luther and the entire Lutheran theology.

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

However, while Majorism as well as synergism, as stated, represented
essentially the same error and argued against the doctrine of grace in
the same unscriptural manner, the more subtle, veiled, and hence the
more dangerous of the two, no doubt, was synergism, which reduced man's
cooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and, especially in the
beginning, endeavored to clothe itself in ambiguous phrases and
apparently pious and plausible formulas. Perhaps this accounts also for
the fact that, though Melanchthon and the Majorists felt constrained to
abandon as described in the preceding chapter, the coarser and more
offensive Majoristic propositions, they had at the same time no
compunctions about retaining and defending essentially the same error in
their doctrine of conversion; and that, on the other hand, their
opponents, who by that time fully realized also the viciousness of
synergism, were not satisfied with Major's concessions in the
controversy on good works, because he and his colleagues in Wittenberg
were known to identify themselves with the Synergists. For the same
reason the dangerous error lurking in the synergistic phrases does not
seem from the first to have been recognized by the Lutherans in the same
degree as was the error contained in the Majoristic propositions, which
indeed had even during Luther's life to some extent become a subject of
dispute. Yet it seems hardly possible that for years they should not
have detected the synergistic deviations in Wittenberg from Luther's
doctrine of free will. Perhaps the fact that at the time when
Melanchthon came out boldly with his synergism, 1548, the Lutherans were
engrossed with the Adiaphoristic and Majoristic controversies may help
to explain, at least to some extent, why the synergistic error caused
small concern, and was given but little consideration in the beginning.
As a matter of fact, although a considerable amount of synergistic
material had been published by 1548, the controversy did not begin till
1556, while the error that good works are necessary to salvation was
publicly opposed soon after its reappearance in the Leipzig Interim. At
the Weimar Disputation, 1560, Strigel referred to this silence, saying:
"I am astonished that I am pressed so much in this matter [concerning
synergism], since three years ago at Worms no mention whatever [?] was
made of this controversy, while many severe commands were given
regarding others." (Richard, _Conf. Prin.,_ 349.) The matter was
mentioned at Worms, but Melanchthon is reported to have satisfied Brenz
and others by declaring that in the passages of his _Loci_ suspected of
synergism he meant "the regenerated will."

152. Luther's Monergism.

According to Lutheran theology, the true opposite of synergism is not
Calvinism with its double election, irresistible grace, denial of
universal redemption, etc., but the monergism of grace, embracing
particularly the tenets that in consequence of Adam's fall man is
spiritually dead and utterly unable to contribute in any degree or
manner toward his own justification and conversion; moreover, that,
being an enemy of God, man, of his own natural powers, is active only in
resisting the saving efforts of God, as well as able and prone only to
do so; that God alone and in every respect is the Author of man's
conversion, perseverance, and final salvation; and that, since the grace
of God is universal and earnestly proffered, man alone is responsible
for, and the cause of, his own damnation.

_"Sola fides iustificat,_ Faith alone justifies"--that was the great
slogan of the Reformation sounded forth by Luther and his followers with
ever increasing boldness, force and volume. And the distinct meaning of
this 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 this
wonderful truth, taught by St. Paul, made Luther the Reformer of the
Church. This truth alone, as Luther had experienced, is able to impart
solid comfort to a terror-stricken conscience, engender divine assurance
of God's pardon and acceptance, and thus translate a poor miserable
sinner from the terrors of hell into paradise.

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

In his explanation of Ps. 109 (110), 1518, Luther says: "He calls these
children [conceived from spiritual seed, the Word of God] dew, since no
soul is converted and transformed from Adam's sinful childhood to the
gracious childhood of Christ by human work, but only by God, who works
from heaven like the dew, as Micah writes: 'The children of Israel will
be 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 works
before we pray for grace or cooperate. The Doctors call this _gratiam
primam et praevenientem,_ that is, the first and prevenient grace.
Augustine: _Gratia Dei praevenit, ut velimus, ne frustra velimus._ God's
grace prevenes that we will, lest we will in vain." (710.)

In his 40 theses for the Heidelberg disputation, also of 1518, Luther
says of man's powers in spiritual matters: "13. Free will after sin [the
Fall] is a mere titular affair [an empty title only], and sins mortally
when it does what it is able to do. _Liberum arbitrium post peccatum res
est 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 do
adds sin to sin, becoming doubly guilty. _Homo putans, se ad gratiam
velle pervenire faciendo, quod est in se, peccatum addit peccato, ut
duplo reus fiat._" "18. It is certain that a man must utterly despair of
himself in order to become apt to acquire the grace of Christ. _Certum
est, hominem de se penitus oportere desperare, ut aptus fiat ad
consequendam gratiam Christi._" (W. 1, 354.) By way of explanation
Luther added to thesis 13: "The first part [of this thesis, that free
will is a mere empty title] is apparent, because the will is a captive
and a servant to sin, not that it is nothing, but that it is free only
to [do] evil--_non quod sit nihil, sed quod non sit liberum nisi ad
malum._ 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 without
grace can only sin--_non nisi ad peccandum valet._ And in his second
book against Julianus: You call that a free will which in truth is
captive, etc." To thesis 16 Luther added: "When man does what he is able
to do (_dum facit, quod est in se_), he sins, seeking altogether his
own. And if he is minded to become worthy of, and apt for, grace by a
sin, he adds proud presumption."

In his sermon of 1519 on Genesis 4, Luther remarked: "This passage ['The
Lord had respect unto Abel'] subverts the entire liberty of our human
will. _Hic locus semel invertit universam libertatem voluntatis
nostrae._" (Weimar 9, 337.) In a sermon of September 8, 1520, we read:
"By nature we are born accursed;... through Christ we are born again
children of life. Thus we are born not by free will, not by works, not
by our efforts. As a child in the womb is not born by its own works, but
suffers itself to be carried and to be given birth, so we are justified
by suffering, not by doing." (474.) "Where, then," Luther exclaimed
about the same time in his _Operationes in Psalmos,_ "will free will
remain? where the doing what one can? _Ubi ergo manebit liberum
arbitrium, ubi facere quod in se?_" (5, 544. 74.) In a sermon of
February 2, 1521, he said: "Whatever grace is in us comes from God
alone. Here free will is entirely dead. All that we attempt to establish
with our powers is lost unless He prevenes and makes us alive through
His grace. Grace is His own work, which we receive in our hearts by
faith. This grace the soul did not possess before, for it is the new
man.... The great proud saints will not do this [ascribe everything to
God and His mercy]. They, too, would have a share in it, saying to our
Lord: '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 the
doctrine of justification, conversion, and salvation by grace alone.
Most emphatically he denied that man though free to a certain extent in
human and temporal affairs, is able to cooperate with the powers of his
natural, unregenerate will in matters spiritual and pertaining to God.
This was also the position which Luther victoriously defended against
Erasmus in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ of 1525. Goaded on by the Romanists
to come out publicly against the German heretic, the great Humanist, in
his _Diatribe_ of 1524, had shrewdly planned to attack his opponent at
the most vulnerable point. As such he regarded Luther's monergistic
doctrine, 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 of
Luther's fortress. For the source of the wonderful power which Luther
displayed throughout the Reformation was none other than the divine
conviction born of the Word of God that in every respect grace alone is
the cause of our justification and salvation. And if ever this blessed
doctrine was firmly established, successfully defended, and greatly
glorified, 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 a
gracious gift of God alone--that was the teaching also to which Luther
faithfully, most determinedly, and without any wavering adhered
throughout his life. In his _Large Confession_ of 1528, for example, we
read: "Herewith I reject and condemn as nothing but error all dogmas
which extol our free will, as they directly conflict with this help and
grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since outside of Christ death and
sin are our lords, and the devil our god and prince, there can be no
power or might, no wisdom or understanding, whereby we can qualify
ourselves for, or strive after, righteousness and life; but we must be
blinded people and prisoners of sin and the devil's own, to do and to
think 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 by
grace alone was also the determination of the loyal Lutherans in their
opposition to the Synergists. Planck correctly remarks that the doctrine
which Flacius and the Anti-Synergists defended was the very doctrine
which "Luther advocated in his conflict with Erasmus." (_Prot.
Lehrbegriff_ 4, 667.) This was substantially conceded even by the
opponents. When, for example, at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, the
Romanists demanded that Flacius's doctrine of free will be condemned by
the Lutherans, Melanchthon declared that herein one ought not to submit
to the <DW7>s, who slyly, under the name of Illyricus [Flacius],
demanded the condemnation of Luther, whose opinion in the doctrine of
free 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 of
Dr. Luther, the Elias of these latter days of the world, as it is most
luminously and skilfully set forth in the book _De Servo Arbitrio,_
against Erasmus, in the _Commentary on Genesis,_ and in other books; and
we hold that this teaching of Luther agrees with the eternal Word of
God." (Schluesselburg, _Catalogus_ 5, 133.)

Luther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine was embodied also in the _Formula of
Concord,_ and this with a special endorsement of his book _De Servo
Arbitrio._ For here we read: "Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter
[the doctrine that our free will has no power whatever to qualify itself
for righteousness, etc.] also in his book _De Servo Arbitrio; i.e._, Of
the Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and
supported this position well and thoroughly [_egregie et solide_]; and
afterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the
book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26. There likewise his meaning
and understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced
incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been
secured by him in the best and most careful way against all
misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and
refer others." (897, 44; 981, 28.) In the passage of his _Commentary on
Genesis_ referred to by the _Formula,_ Luther does not, as has been
claimed, retract or modify his former statements concerning the
inability of the human will and the monergism of grace, but emphasizes
that, in reading _De Servo Arbitrio,_ one must heed and not overlook his
frequent admonitions to concern oneself with God as He has revealed
Himself in the Gospel, and not speculate concerning God in His
transcendence, absoluteness, and majesty, as the One in whom we live and
move and have our being, and without whom nothing can either exist or
occur, and whose wonderful ways are past finding out. (CONC. TRIGL.,
898.) And the fact that the Lutheran theologians, living at the time and
immediately after the framing of the _Formula of Concord,_ objected
neither to the book _De Servo Arbitrio_ itself nor to its public
endorsement by the _Formula of Concord,_ is an additional proof of the
fact that they were in complete agreement with Luther's teaching of
conversion 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, the
target at which Erasmus directed his shafts. In his _Diatribe_ he
defined the power of free will to be the faculty of applying oneself to
grace (_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_), and declared that those are
the best theologians who, while ascribing as much as possible to the
grace 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 to
turn himself to what leads to eternal salvation or to turn away from
it." (St.L. 18, 1612.) Again: "Those, therefore, who are farthest apart
from the views of Pelagius ascribe to grace the most, but to free will
almost nothing; yet they do not abolish it entirely. They say that man
cannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything
good, cannot continue in it, cannot complete anything without the chief
thing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems to be
pretty probable because it leaves to man a striving and an effort, and
yet does not admit that he is to ascribe even the least to his own
powers." (1619.) One must avoid extremes, and seek the middle of the
road, said Erasmus. Pelagius had fallen into Scylla, and Luther into
Charybdis. "I am pleased with the opinion of those who ascribe to free
will 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 their
theory of conversion also involved, as Schaff and Schmauk put it, "the
idea of a partnership between God and man, and a corresponding division
of work and merit." (_Conf. Principle,_ 600.)

However, these attempts to revamp the Semi-Pelagian teaching resulted in
a controversy which more and longer than any other endangered and
disquieted the Lutheran Church, before as well as after the adoption of
the _Formula of Concord._ Whether the unregenerate man, when the Word of
God is preached, and the grace of God is offered him, is able to prepare
himself for grace, accept it, and assent thereto, was, according to the
_Formula of Concord,_ "the question upon which, _for quite a number of
years now,_ there has been a controversy among some theologians in the
churches of the Augsburg Confession." (881, 2.) And of all the
controversies after Luther's death the synergistic controversy was most
momentous and consequential. For the doctrine of grace with which it
dealt is the vital breath of every Christian. Without it neither faith
nor the Christian religion can live and remain. "If we believe," says
Luther in _De Servo Arbitrio,_ "that Christ has redeemed men by His
blood, then we must confess that the entire man was lost; otherwise we
make Christ superfluous or the Redeemer of but the meanest part of us,
which is blasphemous and sacrilegious." Reading the book of Erasmus, in
which he bent every effort toward exploding the doctrine of grace,
Luther felt the hand of his opponent clutching his throat. In the
closing paragraph of _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther wrote: "I highly laud
and extol you for this thing also, that of all others you alone have
gone to the heart of the subject.... You alone have discerned the core
of the matter and have aimed at the throat, for which I thank you
heartily.--_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti, et ipsum iugulum
petisti, pro quo ex animo tibi gratias ago, in hac enim causa libentius
versor, quantum favet tempus et otium._" (E. v. a. 7, 367. 137; St. L.
18, 1967; Pieper, _Dogm._ 2, 543.) And so the Synergists, who renewed
the doctrine of Erasmus, also flew at the throat of Christianity.
Genuine Lutheranism would have been strangled if synergism had emerged
victorious from this great controversy of grace versus free will.

154. The Father of Synergism.

During the first period of his activity in Wittenberg, Melanchthon was
in perfect agreement with Luther also on the question of man's inability
in spiritual matters and the sole activity, or monergism, of grace in
the work of his salvation. As late as 1530 he incorporated these views
in the _Augsburg Confession,_ as appears, in particular, from Articles
II, V, XVIII, and XIX. His later doctrine concerning the three
concurring causes of conversion (the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the
consenting will of man), as well as his theory explaining
synergistically, from an alleged dissimilar action in man, the
difference why some are saved while others are lost, is not so much as
hinted at in the Confession. But even at this early date (1530) or soon
after, Melanchthon also does not seem any longer to have agreed
whole-heartedly with Luther in the doctrine of grace and free will. And
in the course of time his theology drifted farther and farther from its
original monergistic moorings. Nor was Luther wholly unaware of the
secret trend of his colleague and friend toward--Erasmus. In 1536, when
the deviations of Melanchthon and Cruciger, dealt with in our previous
chapter, were brought to his notice, Luther exclaimed: "_Haec est
ipsissima 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 his
letter of June 22, 1537, to Veit Dietrich, in which he said that he
desired a more thorough exposition also of the doctrines of
predestination and of the _consent of the will._ (_C. R._ 3, 383.)
Before this, in his _Commentary on Romans_ of 1532, he had written that
there is some cause of election also in man; _viz._, in as far as he
does not repudiate the grace offered--"_tamen eatenus aliquam causam in
accipiente esse quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat_." (Seeberg 4,
442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ of 1533 he also spoke of a cause of
justification and election residing in man. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the
revised editions of 1535 and 1543 he plainly began to prepare the way
for his later bold and unmistakable deviations. For even though unable
to point out a clean-cut and unequivocal synergistic statement, one
cannot read these editions without scenting a Semi-Pelagian and Erasmian
atmosphere. What Melanchthon began to teach was the doctrine that man,
when approached by the Word of God, is able to assume either an attitude
of _pro_ or _con_, _i.e._, for or against the grace of God. The same
applies to the _Variata_ of 1540 in which the frequent "_adiuvari_"
there employed, though not incorrect as such, was not without a
synergistic flavor.

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

However, during the life of Luther, Melanchthon made no further
measurable progress towards synergism. Perhaps the unpleasant
experiences following upon his innovations in the doctrine of good works
acted as a check also on the public development of his synergistic
tendencies. During Luther's life Melanchthon, as he himself admitted to
Carlowitz (106), dissimulated, keeping his deviating views to himself
and his intimate friends. After Luther's death, however, he came out
unmistakably and publicly, also in favor of synergism, endorsing even
the Erasmian definition of free will as "the power in man to apply
himself to grace." He plainly taught that, when drawn by the Holy
Spirit, the will is able to decide _pro_ or _con,_ to obey or to resist.
Especially in his lectures, Melanchthon--not indeed directly, but
mentioning the name of Flacius--continually lashed such phrases of
Luther as "purely passive," "block," "resistance,"--a fact to which
Schluesselburg, who had studied in Wittenberg, refers in support of his
assertion that Melanchthon had departed from Luther's teaching on free
will. (_Catalogus_ 5, 32.) While Melanchthon formerly (in his _Loci_ of
1543) had spoken of three causes of a good action (_bonae actionis_) he
now publicly advocated the doctrine of three concurring causes of
_conversion._ Now he boldly maintained that, since the grace of God is
universal, one must assume, and also teach, that there are different
actions in different men, which accounts for the fact that some are
converted and saved while others are lost. According to the later
Melanchthon, therefore, man's eternal salvation evidently does not
depend 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, no
doubt, forgot and disavowed his own teaching, and believed and practised
Luther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine. But it cannot be denied that, in his
endeavors to harmonize universal grace with the fact that not all, but
some only, are saved, Melanchthon repudiated the monergism of Luther,
espoused and defended the powers of free will in spiritual matters, and
thought, argued, spoke, and wrote in terms of synergism. Indeed,
Melanchthon must be regarded as the father of both synergism and the
rationalistic methods employed in its defense, and as the true father
also of the modern rationalistico-synergistic theology represented by
such 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 of
Melanchthon: In the _Loci_ of 1535 the so-called human cause of
conversion which must be added to the Word and Spirit is described as
endeavoring, striving, and wishing to obey and believe. We read: "We do
not say this to ensnare the consciences, or to deter men from the
endeavor 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 the
Word of God, but strive to obey it.... We see that these causes are
united: the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, which is certainly not
idle, but strives against its infirmity. In this manner ecclesiastical
writers are accustomed to join these causes. Basil says: 'Only will, and
God will precede,' God precedes, calls, moves, assists us, but let us
beware lest we resist.... Chrysostom says: He who draws, draws him who
is 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 is
also the impression received from Melanchthon's statements in the third
elaboration of his _Loci,_ 1543. We read: "Here three causes of a good
action concur (_hic concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis_): the Word
of God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will assenting to and not
resisting the Word of God (_humana voluntas assentiens, nec repugnans
Verbo Dei_). For it could expel [the Spirit], as Saul expelled [Him] of
his own free will. But when the mind hearing and sustaining itself does
not resist, does not give way to diffidence, but, the Holy Spirit
assisting, endeavors to assent,--in such a struggle the will is not
inactive (_in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa_). The ancients have
said 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 for
us, 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 the
day of Jesus Christ,' _i.e._, we are assisted by God (_adiuvamur a
Deo_), 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, not
resist. _Deus trahit mentes, ut velint, sed assentiri nos, non repugnare
oportet._" (917.) Here we also meet the remark: "But the will, when
assisted by the Holy Spirit, becomes more free. _Fit autem voluntas
adiuvata Spiritu Sancto magis libera._" (663.) Frank comments
pertinently that the _magis_ presupposes a certain degree of liberty of
the will before the assistance of the Holy Spirit. (1, 198.)

The boldest synergistic statements are found in the _Loci_ of 1548. It
was the year of the Leipzig Interim, in which the same error was
embodied as follows: "The merciful God does not deal with man as with a
block, 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 certain
paragraphs inserted by the author in the article on Free Will. For these
additions contain the Erasmian definition of free will (that it is the
faculty of applying oneself to grace), on account of which Melanchthon
was charged with synergism by the Flacians.... For this reason the
edition is called by J. T. Mayer 'the worst of all (_omnium pessima_).'"
At the Weimar colloquy, 1560, even Strigel was not willing to identify
himself openly with the Erasmian definition of free will (_facultas
applicandi se ad gratiam_) as found in one of these sections. When
Flacius quoted the passage, Strigel retorted excitedly: "I do not
defend that definition which you have quoted from the recent edition
[1548]. When did you hear it from me? When have I undertaken to defend
it?" (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 four
paragraphs 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 is
rejected, a David received.'" (Pieper 2, 587.)

From these additions of 1548 we cite: "Nor does conversion occur in
David in such a manner as when a stone is turned into a fig: but free
will does something in David; for when he hears the rebuke and the
promise, he willingly and freely confesses his fault. And his will does
something when he sustains himself with this word: The Lord hath taken
away 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: "I
therefore answer those who excuse their idleness because they think that
free will does nothing, as follows: It certainly is the eternal and
immovable will of God that you obey the voice of the Gospel, that you
hear the Son of God, that you acknowledge the Mediator. How black is
that sin which refuses to behold the Mediator, the Son of God, presented
to 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 voice
of the Gospel, then pray that God would assist you, and know that the
Holy Spirit is efficacious in such consolation. Know that just in this
manner God intends to convert us, when we, roused by the promise wrestle
with ourselves, pray and resist our diffidence and other vicious
affections. For this reason some of the ancient Fathers have said that
free will in man is the faculty to apply himself to grace (_liberum
arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam_); _i.e._,
he hears the promise, endeavors to assent, and abandons sins against
conscience. Such things do not occur in devils. The difference therefore
between the devils and the human race ought to be considered. These
matters however, become still clearer when the promise is considered.
For since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictory
wills in God, there must of necessity be in us some cause of difference
why Saul is rejected and David is received; _i.e._, there must of
necessity be some dissimilar action in these two. _Cum promissio sit
universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est in
nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abiiciatur. David
recipiatur, id est, necesse est aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his
duobus._ Properly understood, this is true, and the use [_usus_] in the
exercises of faith and in true consolation (when our minds acquiesce in
the Son of God, shown in the promise) will illustrate this copulation of
causes: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the will." (_C. R._ 21,
659f.)

At the colloquy of Worms, 1557, Melanchthon, interpellated by Brenz, is
reported to have said that the passage in his _Loci_ of 1548 defining
free will as the faculty of applying oneself to grace referred to the
regenerated will (_voluntas renata_), as, he said, appeared from the
context. (Gieseler 3, 2, 225; Frank 1, 198.) As a matter of fact,
however, the context clearly excludes this interpretation. In the
passage quoted, Melanchthon, moreover, plainly teaches: 1. that in
conversion man, too, can do, and really does, something by willingly
confessing his fault, by sustaining himself with the Word, by praying
that God would assist him, by wrestling with himself, by striving
against diffidence, etc.; 2. that the nature of fallen man differs from
that of the devils in this, that his free will is still able to apply
itself to grace, endeavor to assent to it, etc.; 3. that the dissimilar
actions resulting from the different use of this natural ability
accounts for the fact that some are saved while others are lost. Such
was the plain teaching of Melanchthon from which he never receded, but
which he, apart from other publications, reaffirmed in every new
edition of his _Loci._ For all, including the last one to appear during
his life (1559), contain the additions of 1548. "The passage added by
the author [Melanchthon, 1548] after Luther's death is repeated in all
subsequent editions," says Bindseil. (_C. R._ 21, 570.)

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

Other publications contain the same doctrine. While in his _Loci_ of
1543 he had spoken only of three causes of a good action (_bonae
actionis_), Melanchthon, in his _Enarratio Symboli Nicaeni_ of 1550,
substituted "conversion" for "good action." We read: In conversion these
causes concur: the Holy Spirit, the voice of the Gospel, "and the will
of man, which does not resist the divine voice, but somehow, with
trepidation, assents. _Concurrunt in conversione hae causae: Spiritus
Sanctus ... vox Evangelii ... et voluntas hominis, quae non repugnat
voci divinae, sed inter trepidationem utcumque assentitur_." Again: "And
concerning this copulation of causes it is said: The Spirit comes to the
assistance of our infirmity. And Chrysostom truly says: God draws, but
he draws him who is willing." Again: God's promise is universal, and
there are no contradictory wills in God; hence, though Paul is drawn in
a different manner than Zacchaeus, "nevertheless there is some assent of
the will (_tamen aliqua est voluntatis assensio_)." "God therefore
begins and draws by the voice of the Gospel but He draws him who is
willing, and assists him who assents." "Nor is anything detracted from
the glory of God, but it is truly affirmed that the assistance of God
always concurs in the beginning and afterwards (_auxilium Dei semper
initio et deinceps concurrere_)." (23, 280 ff.) Accordingly, God merely
concurs as one of three causes, among which the will of man is the
third. In his _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, Melanchthon again replaced
the term "good action" by "conversion." He says: "In conversion these
causes concur: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father and Son
send to kindle our hearts, and our will, assenting and not resisting the
Word of God (_et nostra voluntas assentiens et non repugnans Verbo
Dei_). And lest we yield to diffidence, we must consider that both
preachings are universal, the preaching of repentance as well as the
promise of grace.... Let us therefore not resist but assent to the
promise, and constantly repeat this prayer: I believe, O Lord, but come
to the help of my weakness." (23, 15.) Finally in his _Opinion on the
Weimar Book of Confutation,_ March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks: "Again,
if the will is able to turn from the consolation, it must be inferred
that it works something and follows the Holy Spirit when it accepts the
consolation. _Item, so sich der Wille vom Trost abwenden mag, so ist
dagegen zu verstehen, dass er etwas wirket und folget dem Heiligen
Geist, 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 is
preached to him]: he is able not to resist; he is able to take pains
with respect to obedience; he is able to comfort himself with the
Word.... This [according to Melanchthon] is a germ of the positive good
will still found in natural man which prevenient grace arouses."
(_Flacius Illyricus_ 2, 189 f.) Schmauk writes: Melanchthon found "the
cause for the actual variation in the working of God's grace in man, its
object. This subtle synergistic spirit attacks the very foundation of
Lutheranism, flows out into almost every doctrine, and weakens the
Church at every point. And it was particularly this weakness which the
great multitude of Melanchthon's scholars, who became the leaders of the
generation of which we are speaking, absorbed, and which rendered it
difficult to return, finally, after years of struggle, to the solid
ground, once more recovered in the _Formula of Concord._" (_Conf.
Principle,_ 601.)

R. Seeberg characterizes Melanchthon's doctrine as follows: "A
synergistic trait therefore appears in his doctrine. In the last
analysis, God merely grants the outer and inner possibility of obtaining
salvation. Without man's cooperation this possibility would not become
reality; and he is able to refuse this cooperation. It is, therefore, in
conversion equally a cause with the others. _Sie [die Mitwirkung des
Menschen] ist also freilich eine den andern Ursachen gleichberechtigte
Ursache in der Bekehrung._" God makes conversion possible, but only the
decision of man's free will makes it actual,--such, according to
Seeberg, was the "synergism" of Melanchthon. (Seeberg, _Dogg.,_ 4, 444.
446.)

Frank says of Melanchthon's way of solving the question why some are
converted and saved while others are lost: "The road chosen by
Melanchthon has indeed led to the goal. The contradictions are solved.
But let us look where we have landed. We are standing--in the Roman
camp!" After quoting a passage from the _Tridentinum,_ which speaks of
conversion in terms similar to those employed by Melanchthon, Frank
continues: "The foundation stone of Luther's original Reformation
doctrine of salvation by grace alone; _viz._, that nothing in us, not
even our will moved and assisted by God, is the _causa meritoria_ of
salvation, is subverted by these propositions; and it is immaterial to
the contrite heart whether much or little is demanded from free will as
the faculty of applying oneself to grace." Frank adds: "What the
Philippists, synchronously [with Melanchthon] and later, propounded
regarding this matter [of free will] are but variations of the theme
struck by Melanchthon. Everywhere the sequence of thought is the same,
with but this difference, that here the faults of the Melanchthonian
theory together with its consequences come out more clearly." (1, 134f.)
The same is true of modern synergistic theories. Without exception they
are but variations of notes struck by Melanchthon,--the father of all
the 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 and
Leipzig theologians are met with but occasionally. (Planck 4, 568.) The
unmistakably synergistic doctrine embodied in the _Loci_ of 1548, as
well as in the Leipzig Interim, did not cause alarm and attract
attention immediately. But when, in 1555, John Pfeffinger [born 1493;
1539 superintendent, and 1543 professor in Leipzig; assisted 1548 in
framing the Leipzig Interim; died January 1, 1573] published his "Five
Questions Concerning the Liberty of the Human Will--_De Libertate
Voluntatis Humanae Quaestiones Quinque._ D. Johannes Pfeffinger Lipsiae
Editae in Officina Georgii Hantschi 1555," the controversy flared up
instantly. It was a little booklet containing besides a brief
introduction, only 41 paragraphs, or theses. In these Pfeffinger
discussed and defended the synergistic doctrine of Melanchthon,
maintaining that in conversion man, too, must contribute his share
though it be ever so little.

Early in the next year Pfeffinger was already opposed by the theologians
of Thuringia, the stanch opponents of the Philippists, John Stolz,
court-preacher at Weimar composing 110 theses for this purpose. In 1558
Amsdorf published his _Public Confession of the True Doctrine of the
Gospel and Confutation of the Fanatics of the Present Time,_ in which
he, quoting from memory, charged Pfeffinger with teaching that man is
able to prepare himself for grace by the natural powers of his free
will, just as the godless sophists, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, and their
disciples, had held. (Planck 4, 573. 568.) About the same time Stolz
published 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's
Propositions on Free Will_ and _Jena Disputation on Free Will._ In the
same year, 1558, Pfeffinger, in turn published his _Answer to the Public
Confession of Amsdorf,_ charging the latter with falsification, and
denouncing Flacius as the "originator and father of all the lies which
have troubled the Lutheran Church during the last ten years." But at the
same time Pfeffinger showed unmistakably that the charges of his
opponents were but too well founded. Says Planck: "Whatever may have
moved Pfeffinger to do so, he could not (even if Flacius himself had
said it for him) have confessed synergism more clearly and more
definitely than he did spontaneously and unasked in this treatise." (4,
574.) Frank: "Pfeffinger goes beyond Melanchthon and Strigel; for the
action here demanded of, and ascribed to, the natural will is, according
to him, not even in need of liberation by prevenient grace.... His
doctrine may without more ado be designated as Semi-Pelagianism." (1,
137.)

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

157. Statements of Pfeffinger.

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

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

Par. 34 reads: "Some persons, however, shout that the assistance of the
Holy Spirit is extenuated and diminished if even the least particle be
attributed to the human will. Though this argument may appear specious
and plausible, yet pious minds understand that by our doctrine--
according to which we ascribe some cooperation to our will; _viz._, some
assent and apprehension (_qua tribuimus aliquam SYNERGIAM voluntati
nostrae, videlicet qualemcumque assensionem et apprehensionem_)--
absolutely nothing is taken away from the assistance rendered by the
Holy Spirit. For we affirm that the first acts (_primas partes_) must be
assigned and attributed to Him who first and primarily, through the Word
or the voice of the Gospel, moves our hearts to believe, to which
thereupon we, too, ought to assent as much as we are able (_cui deinde
et NOS, QUANTUM IN NOBIS EST, ASSENTIRI oportet_), and not resist the
Holy Spirit, but submit to the Word, ponder, learn, and hear it, as
Christ says: 'Whosoever hath heard of the Father and learned, cometh to
Me.'" Par. 36: "And although original sin has brought upon our nature a
ruin so sad and horrible that we can hardly imagine it, yet we must not
think that absolutely all the knowledge (_notitiae_) which was found in
the minds of our first parents before the Fall has on that account been
destroyed and extinguished after the Fall, or that the human will does
not in any way differ from a stone or a block; for we are, as St. Paul
has said most seriously, coworkers with God, which coworking, indeed, is
assisted and strengthened by the Holy Spirit--_sumus synergi Dei, quae
quidem synergia adiuvatur a Spiritu Sancto et confirmatur._" Evidently
no comment is necessary to show that the passages cited from Pfeffinger
are 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 damned
than this one alone, that some, when incited by the Holy Spirit, do not
resist, but obey Him and accept the grace and salvation offered, while
others will not accept it, but resist the Holy Spirit, and despise the
grace." (4, 578.) Again: "Although the will cannot awaken or incite
itself to spiritually good works, but must be awakened and incited
thereto by the Holy Ghost, yet man is not altogether excluded from such
works of the Holy Ghost, as if he were not engaged in it and were not to
contribute his share to it--_dass er nicht auch dabei sein und das Seine
nicht auch dabei tun muesse._" (576.) Again: In the hands of the Holy
Spirit 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 with
them, nor in the least further or hinder what the artist endeavors to
make 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 great
weakness, and, on the other hand, how powerfully sin in his flesh
opposes, he must nevertheless not desist, but ask and pray God for grace
and assistance against sin and flesh." (577.) Planck remarks: According
to Pfeffinger, the powers for all this are still found in natural man,
and the only thing required is, not to recreate them, but merely to
incite them to action. (579.)

In 1558, in an appendix to his disputation of 1555, Pfeffinger explained
and illustrated his position, in substance, as follows: I was to prove
nothing else than that some use of the will [in spiritual matters] was
left, and that our nature is not annihilated or extinguished, but
corrupted and marvelously depraved after the Fall. Now, to be sure, free
will cannot by its own natural powers regain its integrity nor rise
after being ruined, yet as the doctrine [the Gospel] can be understood
by paying attention to it, so it can also in a manner (_aliquo modo_) be
obeyed by assenting to it. But it is necessary for all who would dwell
in the splendor of the eternal light and in the sight of God to look up
to and not turn away from, the light. Schluesselburg adds: "_Haec certe
est synergia_--This is certainly synergism." (_Catalogus_ 5, 161.)

Tschackert summarizes Pfeffinger's doctrine as follows: "When the Holy
Spirit, through the Word of God, influences a man, then the assenting
will becomes operative as a factor of conversion. The reason why some
assent while others do not must be in themselves.... Evidently
Pfeffinger's opinion was that not only the regenerate, but even the
natural will of man possesses the ability either to obey the divine
Spirit or to resist Him." (521.) According to W. Preger, Pfeffinger
taught "that the Holy Spirit must awaken and incite our nature that it
may 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 of
the Spirit. (2, 192. 195.)

No doubt, Pfeffinger advocated, and was a candid exponent and champion
of, nothing but the three-concurring-causes doctrine of Melanchthon,
according to which God never fails to do His share in conversion, while
we must beware (_sed nos viderimus, C. R._ 21, 658) lest we fail to do
our share. Pfeffinger himself made it a special point to cite
Melanchthon as his authority in this matter. The last (41st) paragraph
in his _Five Questions_ begins as follows: "We have briefly set forth
the doctrine concerning the liberty of the human will, agreeing with the
testimonies of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, a fuller
explanation of which students may find in the writings of our preceptor,
Mr. Philip (_prolisciorem explicationem requirant studiosi in scriptis
D. Philippi, praeceptoris nostri_)." And when, in the subsequent
controversy Pfeffinger was publicly assailed by Amsdorf, Flacius, and
others, 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 the
synergism of the Philippists is extensively treated, he said: "As to
free 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, in
1559, Victorin Strigel and Huegel (Hugelius), respectively professor and
pastor at Jena, the stronghold of the opponents of the Wittenberg
Philippists, opposed Flacius, espoused the cause of Pfeffinger,
championed the doctrine of Melanchthon, and refused to endorse the so
called _Book of Confutation_ which Flacius had caused to be drafted
particularly against the Wittenberg Philippists and Synergists, and to
be introduced. The situation thus created was all the more sensational
because, in the preceding controversies, Strigel had, at least
apparently, always sided with the opponents of the Philippists.

The "_Konfutationsbuch_--Book of Confutation and Condemnations of the
Chief Corruptions, Sects, and Errors Breaking in and Spreading at this
Time" was published in 1559 by Duke John Frederick II as a doctrinal
norm of his duchy. In nine chapters this Book, a sort of forerunner of
the _Formula of Concord,_ dealt with the errors 1. of Servetus, 2. of
Schwenckfeld, 3. of the Antinomians, 4. of the Anabaptists, 5. of the
Zwinglians, 6. of the Synergists, 7. of Osiander and Stancarus, 8. of
the Majorists, 9. of the Adiaphorists. Its chief object, as expressly
stated in the Preface, was to warn against the errors introduced by the
Philippists, whose doctrines, as also Planck admits, were not in any
way misrepresented in this document. (4, 597. 595.) The sixth part,
directed against synergism bore the title: "_Confutatio Corruptelarum
in Articulo de Libero Arbitrio sive de Viribus Humanis_--Confutation of
the Corruptions in the Article Concerning Free Will or Concerning the
Human Powers." The _Confutation_ was framed by the Jena theologians,
Strigel and Huegel also participating in its composition. However, some
of the references to the corruptions of the Philippists must have been
rather vague and ambiguous in the first draft of the book; for when it
was revised at the convention in Weimar, Flacius secured the adoption of
additions and changes dealing particularly with the synergism of the
Wittenbergers, which were energetically opposed by Strigel.

Even before the adoption of the _Book of Confutation,_ Strigel had been
polemicizing against Flacius. But now (as Flacius reports) he began to
denounce him at every occasion as the "architect of a new theology" and
an "enemy of the _Augsburg Confession._" At the same time he also
endeavored to incite the students in Jena against him. Flacius, in turn,
charged Strigel with scheming to establish a Philippistic party in Ducal
Saxony. The public breach came when the _Book of Confutation_ was
submitted for adoption and publication in the churches and schools.
Pastor Huegel refused to read and explain it from the pulpit, and
Strigel presented his objections to the Duke, and asked that his
conscience be spared. But when Strigel failed to maintain silence in the
matter, he as well as Pastor Huegel were summarily dealt with by the
Duke. On March 27, 1559, at two o'clock in the morning, both were
suddenly arrested and imprisoned. Flacius who was generally regarded as
the secret instigator of this act of violence, declared publicly that
the arrest had been made without his counsel and knowledge. About six
months later (September 5, 1569) Strigel and Huegel after making some
doctrinal concessions and promising not to enter into any disputation on
the 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 public
disputation, which John Frederick, too was all the more willing to
arrange because dissatisfaction with his drastic procedure against
Strigel and Huegel was openly displayed everywhere outside of Ducal
Saxony. The disputation was held at Weimar, August 2 to 8, 1560. It was
attended by the Saxon Dukes and their entire courts, as well as by a
large number of other spectators, not only from Jena, but also from
Erfurt, Wittenberg and Leipzig. The subjects of discussion, for which
both parties had submitted theses were: Free Will, Gospel, Majorism,
Adiaphorism, and Indifferentism (_academica epoche,_ toleration of
error). The disputing parties (Flacius and Strigel) agreed that "the
only rule should be the Word of God, and that a clear, plain text of the
Holy Scriptures was to weigh more than all the inferences and
authorities of interpreters" (Planck 4, 606.)

According to the proceedings of the Weimar Disputation, written by
Wigand and published by Simon Musaeus 1562 and 1563 under the title:
"_Disputatio de Originali Peccato et Libero Arbitrio_ inter M. Flacium
Illyr. et Vict. Strigelium Publice Vinariae Anno 1560 Habita," the only
questions discussed were free will and, incidentally, original sin.
Strigel defended the Melanchthonian doctrine, according to which the
causes of conversion are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the will
of man feebly assenting to the Gospel and, at the same time, seeking
strength from God. He repeated the formula: "Concurrunt in conversione
haec 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 converted
and endowed with faith, does not in any way cooperate with the Holy
Spirit but merely suffers and experiences His operations. At the same
time, however, he seriously damaged and discredited himself as well as
the sacred cause of divine truth by maintaining that original sin is not
a mere accident, such as Strigel maintained, but the very substance of
man. The discussions were discontinued after the thirteenth session. The
Duke announced that the disputation would be reopened later, charging
both parties in the mean time to maintain silence in public,--a
compromise to which Flacius and his adherents were loath to consent.

John Wigand and Matthias Judex however continued to enforce the _Book of
Confutation_ demanding an unqualified adoption in every point, _per
omnia._ When the jurist Matthew Wesenbecius declined to accept the book
in this categorical way, he was not permitted to serve as sponsor at a
baptism. John Frederick was dissatisfied with this procedure and action
of the ministers; and when they persisted in their demands, the
autocratic Duke deprived them of the right to excommunicate, vesting
this power in a consistory established at Weimar. Flacius and his
adherents protested against this measure as tyranny exercised over the
Church 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 the
university were filled by Freihub, Salmuth, and Selneccer, who had been
recommended 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 theologians
denounced Strigel's declaration as insincere and in conflict with
Luther's book _De Servo Arbitrio,_ and demanded a public retraction of
his synergistic statements. When the ministers of Ducal Saxony also
declined to acknowledge Strigel's orthodoxy, a more definite
"Superdeclaration," framed by Moerlin and Stoessel (but not signed by
Strigel), was added as an interpretation of Strigel's declaration. But
even now a minority refused to submit to the demands of the Duke,
because they felt that they were being deceived by ambiguous terms, such
as "capacity" and "aptitude," which the wily Strigel and the Synergists
used in the active or positive, and not in the passive sense. These
conscientious Lutherans whom the rationalist Planck brands as "almost
insane, _beinahe verrueckt,_" were also deposed and banished, 1562.
Strigel's declaration of March, 1562 however, maintaining that "the will
is passive in so far as God alone works all good, but active in so far
as it must be present in its conversion, must consent, and not resist,
but accept," showed that he had not abandoned his synergism. In the same
year he applied for, and accepted, a professorship in Leipzig. Later on
he occupied a chair at the Reformed university in Heidelberg, where he
died 1569, at the age of only forty-five years.

In 1567, when John William became ruler of Ducal Saxony, the Philippists
were dismissed, and the banished Lutheran pastors and professors (with
the exception of Flacius) were recalled and reinstated. While this
rehabilitation of the loyal Lutherans formally ended the synergistic
controversy in Ducal Saxony, occasional echoes of it still lingered, due
especially to the fact that some ministers had considered Strigel's
ambiguous declaration a satisfactory presentation of the Lutheran truth
with regard to the questions involved. That the synergistic teaching of
Melanchthon 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 to
decide all questions by clear Scripture-passages alone, Strigel's
guiding principle was in reality not the Bible but philosophy and
reason. His real concern was not, What does Scripture teach concerning
the causes of conversion? but, How may we harmonize the universal grace
of God with the fact that only some are converted and saved?
Self-evidently Strigel, too, quoted Bible-passages. Among others, he
appealed 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 and
sophistical rather than exegetical and Scriptural. Preger remarks: In
his disputation Strigel was not able to advance a single decisive
passage of Scripture for the presence and cooperation of a good will at
the moment when it is approached and influenced (_ergriffen_) by grace.
(2, 211.) And the clear, irrefutable Bible-texts on which Flacius
founded his doctrine of the inability of natural will to cooperate in
conversion, 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 the
Duke soon after the disputation, Strigel argued: Whoever denies that
man, in a way and measure, is able to cooperate in his own conversion
is logically compelled also to deny that the rejection of grace may be
imputed to man, compelled to make God responsible for man's damnation;
to surrender the universality of God's grace and call; to admit
contradictory wills in God, and to take recourse to an absolute decree
of election and reprobation in order to account for the fact that some
reject the grace of God and are lost while others are converted and
saved. At Weimar Strigel declared: "I do not say that the will is able
to assent to the Word without the Holy Spirit, but that, being moved and
assisted by the Spirit, it assents with trepidation. If we were unable
to do this, we would not be responsible for not having received the
Word. _Si hoc [utcumque assentiri inter trepidationes] non possemus, non
essemus rei propter Verbum non receptum._" Again, also at Weimar: "If
the will is not able to assent in some way, even when assisted, then we
cannot be responsible for rejecting the Word, but the blame must be
transferred to another, and others may judge how religious that is. _Si
voluntas ne quidem adiuta potest aliquo modo annuere, non possumus esse
rei propter Verbum reiectum, sed culpa est in alium transferenda quod
quam sit religio sum, alii iudicent._" (Planck 4, 689. 719; Luthardt,
_Lehre vom freien Willen,_ 222.)

Over against this rationalistic method of Strigel and the Synergists
generally, the Lutherans adhered to the principle that nothing but a
clear passage of the Bible can decide a theological question. They
rejected as false philosophy and rationalism every argument directed
against the clear sense of a clear Word of God. They emphatically
objected to the employment of reason for establishing a Christian
doctrine or subverting a statement of the Bible. At Weimar, Flacius
protested again and again that human reason is not an authority in
theological matters. "Let us hear the Scriptures! _Audiamus
Scripturam!_" "Let the woman be silent in the Church! _Mulier taceat in
ecclesia!_" With such slogans he brushed aside the alleged necessary
logical inferences and deductions of Strigel. "You take your arguments
from philosophy," he said in the second session, "which ought not to be
given a place in matters of religion. _Disputas ex philosophia, cui
locus in rebus religionis esse non debet._" Again, at Weimar: "It is
against the nature of inquiring truth to insist on arguing from blind
philosophy. What else corrupted such ancient theologians as Clement,
Origen, Chrysostom, and afterwards also the Sophists [scholastic
theologians] but that they endeavored to decide spiritual things by
philosophy, which does not understand the secret and hidden mysteries of
God. _Est contra naturam inquirendae veritatis, si velimus ex caeca
philosophia loqui. Quid aliud corrupit theologos veteres, ut Clementem,
Originem, Chrysosthomum et postea etiam Sophistas, nisi quod de rebus
divinis ex philosophia voluerunt statuere, quae non intelligit
abstrusissima et occultissima mysteria Dei._" "May we therefore observe
the rule of Luther: Let the woman be silent in the Church! For what a
miserable thing would it be if we had to judge ecclesiastical matters
from logic! _Itaque observemus legem Lutheri: Taceat mulier in ecclesia!
Quae enim miseria, si ex dialectica diiudicandae nobis essent res
ecclesiae!_" (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 derives
the _Nosce teipsum,_ Know thyself, from the wisdom of God. But since
poor men are blind, they love their darkness more than the light, as
Christ says John 3, and insist on criticizing and falsifying God's
truth by means of blind philosophy, which, forsooth, is a shame and a
palpable sin, if we but had eyes to see and know.... Whatsoever blind
reason produces in such articles of faith against the Word of God is
false and wrong. For it is said: _Mulier in ecclesia taceat!_ Let
philosophy and human wisdom be silent in the Church." (_Catalogus_ 5,
665f.) Here, too, the sophistical objections of the Synergists are
disposed of with such remarks as: "In the first place, this is but spun
from reason, which thus acts wise in these matters. _Denn fuers erste
ist solches nur aus der Vernunft gesponnen, die weiss also hierin zu
kluegeln._" (668.) "This is all spun from reason; but God's Word teaches
us better. _Dies ist alles aus der Vernunft spintisiert; Gottes Wort
aber lehrt es besser._" (670.)

Evidently Strigel's rationalistic method was identical with that
employed by Melanchthon in his _Loci,_ by Pfeffinger, and the Synergists
generally. Accordingly, his synergism also could not differ essentially
from Melanchthon's. Planck pertinently remarks: "It is apparent from
this [argument of Strigel that natural man must have power to cooperate
in his conversion because otherwise God would be responsible for his
resistance and damnation] that his synergism was none other than that of
the Wittenberg school; for was not this the identical foundation upon
which Melanchthon had reared his [synergism]?" (4, 690.) Like methods
lead to the same results, and _vice versa._ Besides, Strigel had always
appealed to the Wittenbergers; and in his _Opinion on the Weimar
Confutation_ 1559, Melanchthon, in turn, identified himself with
Strigel's arguments. (_C. R._ 9, 766.) The "Confession and Opinion of
the Wittenbergers Concerning Free Will--_Confessio et Sententia
Wittebergensium de Libero Arbitrio_" of 1561 also maintained the same
attitude.

161. Strigel's Theory.

Strigel's views concerning the freedom of man's will in spiritual
matters may be summarized as follows: Man, having a will, is a free
agent, 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 in
possession of a will. Even in matters pertaining to grace this freedom
was not entirely lost in the Fall. It was impeded and weakened by
original sin, but not annihilated. To be converted, man therefore
requires that these residual or remaining powers be excited and
strengthened rather than that new spiritual powers be imparted or a new
will be created. Accordingly, persuasion through the Word is the method
of conversion employed by the Holy Spirit. When the will is approached
by the Word, incited and assisted by the Spirit, it is able to admit the
operations of the Spirit and assent to the Word, though but feebly.
Hence, no matter how much of the work of conversion must be ascribed to
the Holy Spirit and the Word the will itself, in the last analysis,
decides for or against grace. Man is, therefore, not purely passive in
his conversion, but cooperates with the Holy Spirit and the Word, not
merely after, but also in his conversion, before he has received the
gift of faith.

"God who, outside of His essence in external actions, is the freest
agent," said Strigel "created two kinds of natures, the one free, the
other acting naturally (_naturaliter agentes_). The free natures are the
angels and men. Those acting naturally embrace all the rest of the
creatures. A natural agent is one that cannot do anything else [than it
does], nor suspend its action _e.g._, fire. Men and angels were created
differently, after the image of God, that they might be free agents.
_Homines et angeli aliter conditi sunt ad imaginem Dei, ut sint liberum
agens._" (Planck 4, 669.) This freedom, which distinguishes man
essentially from all other creatures, according to Strigel, always
implies the power to will or not to will with respect to any object. He
says: The act of willing, be it good or evil, always belongs to the
will, because the will is so created that it can will or not, without
coercion. "_Ipsum velle, seu bonum seu malum, quod ad substantiam
attinet, semper est voluntatis; quia voluntas sic est condita, UT POSSIT
VELLE AUT NON; sed etiam hoc habet voluntas ex opere creationis quod
adhuc reliquum, et non prorsus abolitum et extinctum est, UT POSSIT
VELLE AUT NON SINE COACTIONE_." (674.) According to Strigel, the very
essence of the will consists in being able, in every instance, to decide
in either direction, for or against. Hence the very idea of will
involves also a certain ability to cooperate in conversion. (689.)

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

What Strigel means is that man, being a free agent, must, also in
conversion, 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 was
employed by Strigel admitted of no other interpretation. Strigel added:
This mode of action marks the difference between the will of man and the
will of Satan, for the devil neither endeavors to assent, nor prays to
God for assistance, while man does. (Luthardt, 220.) Natural man is by
Strigel credited with the power of "endeavoring to assent, _conari
assentiri,_" because he is endowed with a will. But shrewd as Strigel
was, it did not occur to him that, logically, his argument compelled him
to 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 idea
and essence of will. Yet this palpable truth, which overthrew his entire
theory, failed to open the eyes of Strigel.

If, as Strigel maintained, the human will, by virtue of its nature as a
free agent, is, in a way, _able_ to cooperate in conversion, then the
only question is how to elevate this ability to an actuality, in other
words, how to influence the will and rouse its powers to move in the
right 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._, by
pointing out something good or evil, that the will is moved to obey and
to submit to the Gospel, not coerced, _but somehow willing. Voluntas non
potest cogi, ergo voluntas persuadendo, id est ostensione alicuius boni
vel mali flectitur ad obediendum et obtemperandum evangelio, non coacta,
sed ALIQUO MODO VOLENS._" (Seeberg 4, 491.) Again: "Although God is
efficacious through the Word, drawing and leading us efficaciously, yet
He does not make assenting necessary for such a nature as the will,--a
nature so created that it is able not to assent, if it so wills, and to
expel Him who dwells in us. This assent therefore is the work of God and
the Holy Spirit, but in so far as it is a free assent, not coerced and
pressed out by force, _it is also the work of the will. Etiam si Deus
est efficax per Verbum et efficaciter nos trahit et ducit, tamen non
affert necessitatem assentiendi tali naturae, qualis est voluntas, id
est, quae sic est condita, ut possit non assentiri, si velit, et
excutere sessorem. Est igitur hic assensus opus Dei et Spiritus Sancti,
sed quatenus est liber assensus, non coactus, expressus vi, EST ETIAM
VOLUNTATIS._" (491.) Strigel evidently means: The fact that man is able
not to assent to grace of necessity involves that somehow (_aliquo
modo_) he is able also to assent, according to man's peculiar mode of
action (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 of
the will engendered and created solely by God, rather than an act
effected and produced by the powers of the will when incited and
assisted by the Spirit. Man is converted by persuasion only, because God
does not create assent and faith in him but merely elicits these acts
from man by liberating and appealing to the powers of his will to effect
and produce them.

In defending this freedom of the will, Strigel appealed also to the
statement of Luther: "The will cannot be coerced;... if the will could
be coerced, it would not be volition, but rather nolition. _Voluntas non
potest cogi;... si posset cogi voluntas, non esset voluntas sed potius
voluntas._" However, what Luther said of the form or nature of the will,
according to which it always really wills what it wills, and is
therefore never coerced, was by Strigel transferred to the spiritual
matters and objects of the will. According to Strigel's theory, says
Seeberg, "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 the
natural formal liberty into an ethical material liberty--_"indem die
natuerliche formale Freiheit sich ihm unter der Hand [?] verwandelte in
die ethische materiale Freiheit._" (524.)

162. Strigel's Semi-Pelagianism.

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

Strigel plainly denied that natural man is truly spiritually dead. He
declared: "The will is so created that it can expel the Holy Spirit and
the Word, or, when assisted by the Holy Spirit, can in some manner will
and obey--to receive is the act of the will; in this I cannot concede
that man is simply _dead--accipere est hominis; in hoc non possum
concedere simpliciter mortuum esse hominem._" (Frank 1, 199.) Natural
man, Strigel explained, is indeed not able to grasp the helping hand of
God with his own hand; yet the latter is not dead, but still retains a
minimum of power. (678.) Again: Man is like a new-born child, whose
powers must first be strengthened with nourishment given it by its
mother, and which, _though able to draw this nourishment out of its
mother's breast,_ is yet unable to lift itself up to it, or to take hold
of 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 and
receive the food, _i.e._, the benefits of God. Forsooth, you thereby
attribute to corrupt man a very great power with respect to spiritual
things. Now, then, deny that this opinion is Pelagian." (209.) "Your
statements agree with those of Pelagius, yet I do not simply say that
you are a Pelagian; for a good man may fall into an error which he does
not see." Pelagius held that man, by his natural powers, is able to
begin and complete his own conversion; Cassianus, the Semi-Pelagian
taught that man is able merely to begin this work; Strigel maintained
that man can admit the liberating operation of the Holy Spirit, and that
after such operation of the Spirit he is able to cooperate with his
natural powers. Evidently, then, the verdict of Flacius was not much
beside the mark. Planck though unwilling to relegate Strigel to the
Pelagians, does not hesitate to put him down as a thoroughgoing
Synergist. (Planck 4, 683f.) Synergism, however, always includes at
least an element of Pelagianism.

Strigel illustrated his idea by the following analogy. When garlic-juice
is applied to a magnet, it loses its power of attraction, but remains a
true magnet, and, when goat's blood is applied, immediately regains its
efficaciousness. So the will of man is hindered by original sin from
beginning that which is good; but when the impediment has been removed
through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the native powers of the will
again become efficacious and active. (Tschackert, 524; Planck 4, 672;
Preger 2, 198; Luthardt, 211.) Frank remarks: "The example of the
temporarily impeded power of the magnet, which was repeated also at this
juncture [in the disputation at Weimar], immediately points to the
related papal doctrine, for the Catholic Andradius explains the dogma of
the _Tridentinum_ to this effect: The free will of natural man may be
compared to a chained prisoner who, though still in possession of his
locomotive 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 a
despoliation or deficiency but only an external impediment to these
spiritual good powers, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice,
whereby its natural power is not removed, but only hindered or that this
stain can be easily washed away as a spot from the face or a pigment
from the wall." (865, 22.)

163. Strigel's "Cooperation."

When the impediment caused by original sin has been removed, and the
will liberated and aroused to activity, man, according to Strigel, is
able also to cooperate in his conversion. At Weimar he formulated the
point at issue as follows: "The question is whether [in conversion] the
will is present idle, as an inactive, indolent subject, or, as the
common saying is, in a purely passive way; or whether, when grace
precedes, the will follows the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and in some
manner assents--_an vero praeeunte gratia voluntas comitetur
efficaciam Spiritus Sancti et aliquo modo annuat_." (Luthardt, 222.)
Following are some of his answers to this question: When incited by the
Spirit, 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, "but
they are given to those only who hear and contemplate God's Word,
embrace it by assenting to it, strive against their doubts and in this
conflict pray for the help of God." (230.) The Holy Ghost converts
those "who hear the Word of God and do not resist stubbornly, but
consent," and God assists such only "as follow His call and pray for
assistance." (229.) "The will and heart do not resist altogether, but
desire divine consolation, when, indeed, they are assisted by the Holy
Ghost." "The will is neither idle nor contumacious; but, in a manner,
desires to obey." (Planck 4, 682.) "Man is dead [spiritually] in as far
as he is not able to heal his wounds with his own powers; but when the
remedy is offered him by the Holy Spirit and the Word, then he, at
least in receiving the benefit, is not altogether dead; for otherwise a
conversion could not occur. For I cannot conceive a conversion where
the process is that of the flame consuming straw (_denn ich kann mir
keine Bekehrung vorstellen, bei der es zugeht, wie wenn die Flamme das
Stroh ergreift_). The nature of the will is such that it can reject the
Holy Spirit and the Word; or, being supported by the Holy Spirit, can
in a manner will and obey. The remedy is heavenly and divine, but the
will--not the will alone, but the will supported by the Holy Spirit--is
able 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 a
betrothal of Christ to the Church and its individual members; hence
consent is required," which the will is able to give when assisted by
the Holy Spirit. (Luthardt, 224.)

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

Flacius declared with respect to the issue formulated by Strigel: "I
explain my entire view as follows: Man is purely passive (_homo se habet
pure passive_). If you consider the native faculty of the will, its
willing and its powers, then he is purely passive when he receives (_in
accipiendo_). But if that divinely bestowed willing or spark of faith
kindled by the Spirit is considered, then this imparted willing and this
spark is not purely passive. But the Adamic will does not only not
operate or cooperate, but, according to the inborn malice of the heart,
even operates contrarily (_verum etiam pro nativa malitia cordis sui
contra operatur_)." (Planck 4, 697.) Thus Flacius clearly distinguished
between cooperation _before_ conversion (which he rejected absolutely)
and cooperation _after_ conversion (which he allowed). And pressing this
point, he said to Strigel: "I ask whether you say that the will
cooperates _before_ the gift of faith or _after_ faith has been received
whether you say that the will cooperates from natural powers, or in so
far as the good volition has been bestowed by the renovation of the Holy
Spirit. _Quaero, an dicas, voluntatem cooperari ante donum fidei aut
post acceptam fidem; an dicas, cooperari ex naturalibus viribus aut
quatenus ex renovatione Spiritus Sancti datum est bene velle._" (Seeberg
4, 492.) Again: I shall withdraw the charge of Pelagianism if you will
declare 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 man
cooperates from faith and the good will bestowed by God, not from the
will he brings with him from his natural Adam--_quod <DW25> cooperetur ex
fide et bono velle divinitus donato, non ex eo, quod attulit ex suo
naturali 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 to
catch as Proteus of old, did not reply with a definite yes or no, but
repeated that it was only a weak assent (_qualiscumque assensio languida
trepida et imbecilla_) which man was able to render when his will was
incited 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 as
one of the causes of conversion; for without man's will and intellect no
conversion is possible. Flacius replied: The will, indeed, is present in
conversion, for it is the will that is converted and experiences
conversion; but the inborn power of the natural will contributes nothing
to conversion, and therefore the will "is purely passive in the
reception of grace." (Preger 2, 217.) "We are pressed hard with the
sophistical objection that man is not converted without his knowledge
and will. But who doubts this? The entire question is: Whence does that
good knowledge originate? Whence does that good volition originate?"
(216.) "We certainly admit that in conversion there are many motions of
the intellect and will, good and bad. But the dispute among us is not
whether in conversion the intellect understands and the will wills; but
whence is the capability to think right, and whence is that good willing
of the will? Is it of us, as of ourselves, or is this sufficiency of
willing and thinking of God alone?" (Planck 4, 711.) The fact that God
alone converts man, said Flacius, "does not exclude the presence of the
will; but it does exclude all efficaciousness and operation of the
natural will in conversion (_non excludit voluntatem, ne adsit, sed
excludit omnem efficaciam et operationem naturalise voluntatis in
conversione_)." (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 of
ourselves; for no willing and performing takes place unless we will.
_Utrumque [velle et perficere] aliquo modo Dei et nostrum est non fit
velle aut perficere nisi nobis volentibus._" Charging Strigel with
ambiguity, Flacius replied: "You speak of one kind of synergism and we
of another. You cannot affirm with a good conscience that these
questions are unknown to you." Strigel, protesting that he was unable to
see the difference, answered: "For God's sake, have a little forbearance
with me, I cannot see the difference. If that is to my discredit, let it
be to my discredit.--_Bitte um Gottes willen, man wolle mir's zugut
halten; ich kann's nicht ausmessen. Ist mir's eine Schand', so sei mir's
eine Schand'_." (Frank 1, 136.) Strigel, however, evidently meant that
man, too, has a share in _producing_ the good volition, while Flacius
understood the phraseology as Luther and Augustine explained it, the
latter, _e.g._, writing in _De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio:_ "It is
certain that we will when we will; but He who makes us will is He of
whom it is written: It is God who worketh in us to will. _Certum est nos
velle cum volumus; sed ille facit, ut velimus, de quo dictum est: Deus
est, qui operatur in nobis velle._" (Frank 1, 238.)

In his objections to the doctrine that man is purely passive in his
conversion, Strigel protested again and again that man is not like a
block or stone when he is converted. "That is true," said Flacius, "for
a 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 one
whose will and heart is altogether against Him. But here [in the denial
that man is purely passive in conversion] is buried a popish _meritum de
congruo_ and a particle of free will." (Preger 2, 191.) Flacius
furthermore explained that in his conversion man is able to cooperate
just as little as a stone can contribute to its transformation into a
statue. Indeed, man's condition is even more miserable than that of a
stone or block (_miserior trunco_), because by his natural powers he
resists, and cannot but resist, the operations of the Spirit. (Planck 4,
696f.)

Strigel reasoned: If man is converted without his consent, and if he
cannot but resist the operations of the Holy Spirit, conversion is an
impossibility, a contradiction. He said: "If the will, even when
assisted by the Holy Spirit, is unable to assent, it must of necessity
resist Him perpetually, drive out, reject, and repudiate the Word and
Holy Spirit; for it is impossible that motions extremely conflicting and
contradictory, the one embracing, the other repudiating and persistently
rejecting, should be in the same will. _Si voluntas etiam adiuta a
Spiritu Sancto non potest assentiri, necesse est, ut perpetuo ei
repugnet, ut excutiat, reiiciat et repudiet Verbum et Spiritum Sanctum.
Nam impossibile est in eadem voluntate esse motus extreme pugnantes et
contradictorios, quorum alter est amplecti, alter repudiare et quidem
perstare in reiectione._" Flacius replied: You need but distinguish
between the sinful natural will inherited from Adam, which always
resists, and the new consenting will implanted by God in conversion.
"Man consents with the faith given by God, but he resists with the
inborn wickedness of his Old Adam." Your error is that you acknowledge
only an inciting grace, which mere incitation presupposes powers of
one's own to do and to perform (_talis incitatio includit proprias vires
ad perficiendum_). "I plead," said Flacius, "that by original sin man is
not only wounded, but, as the Scriptures affirm, entirely dead, and his
faculties to do that which is good have been destroyed; on the other
hand, however, he is alive and vigorous toward evil (_hominem ...
penitus esse mortuum, extinctum et interfectum ad bonum et contra
insuper vivum et vigentem ad malum_)." "The will is free with respect to
things beneath itself, but not with respect to things above itself. In
spiritual matters it is a servant of Satan." Hence, said Flacius, in
order to cooperate, new spiritual life must first be imparted to, and
created 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 of
God, he cannot be held accountable for his actions. But Flacius replied:
"Also the non-regenerate are justly accused [made responsible for their
actions] for with the remnant of the carnal liberty they are able at
least to observe external decency (_Zucht_), which God earnestly demands
of us, for example, to hear God's Word, to go to church more frequently
than into the tavern." "Furthermore, there are many carnal
transgressions in which natural man could have done something which he
has not done." "God may justly hold us responsible also with respect to
things which we are unable to do because He has bestowed uninjured
powers upon the human race, which, though forewarned, man has shamefully
lost through his own fault." (Preger 2, 214f.)

Time and again Strigel told Flacius that according to his doctrine man
is coerced to sin and compelled to resist the grace of God. But the
latter replied: As far as his own powers are concerned, the natural will
of man indeed sins and resists inevitably and of necessity (_voluntas
repugnat necessario et inevitabiliter_), but not by coercion or
compulsion. Necessity to resist (_necessitas repugnandi_), Flacius
explained, does not involve coercion to resist (_coactio repugnandi_),
since there is such a thing as a necessity of immutability (_necessitas
immutabilitatis_), that is to say, man may be unable to act otherwise and
yet act willingly. The impossibility of being able to will otherwise
than one really wills, does, according to Flacius, not at all involve
coercion or compulsion. The holy angels are free from compulsion,
although they cannot sin or fall any more. It is the highest degree of
freedom and Christian perfection when, in the life to come, our will to
remain in union with God is elevated to immutability of so willing.
Again, though Satan cannot but sin, yet he is not coerced to sin. Thus
too, of his own powers, natural man is able only to resist grace, yet
there is no compulsion involved. The fact, therefore, that natural man
cannot but sin and resist grace does not warrant the inference that he
is compelled to sin; nor does the fact that natural man is not coerced
to resist prove that he is able also to assent to grace. The fact, said
Flacius, that the wicked _willingly_ will, think, and do only what
pleases Satan does not prove an ability to will in the opposite
spiritual direction, but merely reveals the terrible extent of Satan's
tyrannical power over natural man. (Luthardt 224. 231.) According to
Flacius the will always wills willingly when it wills and what it wills.
In brief: The categories "coercion" and "compulsion" cannot be applied
to the will. This, however, does not imply that God is not able to
create or restore a good will without coercion or compulsion. There was
no coercion or compulsion involved when God, creating Adam, Eve, and the
angels, endowed them with a good will. Nor is there any such thing as
coercion or compulsion when God, in conversion, bestows faith and a good
will upon man.

In his statements on the freedom of the will, Flacius merely repeated
what Luther had written before him, in _De Servo Arbitrio:_ "For if it
is not we, but God alone, who works salvation in us, then nothing that
we do previous to His work, whether we will or not, is salutary. But
when I say, 'by necessity,' I do not mean by coercion, but, as they say
by the necessity of immutability, not by necessity of coercion, _i.e._,
man, destitute of the Spirit of God, does not sin perforce, as though
seized by the neck [stretched upon the rack] nor unwillingly, as a thief
or robber is led to his punishment but spontaneously and willingly. And
by his own strength he cannot omit, restrain, or change this desire or
willingness 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 who
compels or resists it. For if it were changed and willingly yielded to
force, it would not be angry. And this we call the necessity of
immutability, _i.e._, the will cannot change itself and turn to
something else, but is rather provoked to will more intensely by being
resisted, as is proved by its indignation. _Si enim non nos, sed solus
Deus 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 <DW25> cum vacat
Spiritu Dei, NON QUIDEM VIOLENTIA, velut raptus obtorto collo, NOLENS
facit peccatum, quemadmodum fur aut latro nolens ad poenam ducitur, sed
sponte et libenti voluntate facit. Verum hanc libentiam seu voluntatem
faciendi non potest suis viribus omittere, coercere aut mutare, sed
pergit volendo et lubendo; etiamsi ad extra cogatur aliud facere per
vim, tamen voluntas intus manet aversa et indignatur cogenti aut
resistenti. Non enim indignaretur, si mutaretur ac volens vim
sequeretur. Hoc vocamus modo necessitatem immutabilitatis, id est, quod
voluntas sese mutare et vertere alio non possit, sed potius irritetur
magis 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 Opinion
Concerning Free Will,_ of 1561, the Wittenberg theologians repeated the
assertion that Flacius taught "_converti hominem ... repugnantem et
hostiliter Deo convertenti adversantem._" (Planck 4, 688.) But Flacius
protested: "I do not simply say that man is converted resisting
(_hominem repugnantem converti_). But I say that he resists with respect
to his natural and carnal free will." "It is not denied that God
converts us as willing and understanding (_quin Deus nos convertat
volentes et intelligentes_), but willing and understanding not from the
Old Adam but from the light given by God and from the good volition
bestowed through the Word and the Holy Spirit." (692.) "Man is converted
or 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 by
the power of the Holy Spirit." (Preger 2, 218.) It is the very essence
of 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 his
conversion Strigel appealed to Rom. 8, 26: "Likewise the Spirit also
helpeth our infirmities," etc.; and appealing to the _Augustana_ for the
correctness of his interpretation, he declared that this passage proves
that one may speak of a languid and weak assent in man even before he is
endowed with faith. Flacius replied that this Bible-passage referred to
such only as are already converted, and that Strigel's interpretation
was found not in the original _Augustana,_ but in the _Variata._--From
the admonition 2 Cor. 5, 20: "Be ye reconciled to God," Strigel inferred
that free will must to a certain extent be capable of accepting the
grace offered by God. Flacius answered that it was a logical fallacy,
conflicting also with the clear Word of God, to conclude that man by his
own powers is able to perform something because God demands it and
admonishes 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 will
is able to consent to the Holy Spirit. But Flacius rejoined that this
passage refers to special gifts bestowed upon such as are already
converted.--In support of his synergism, Strigel also appealed to the
Parable of the Prodigal Son, who himself repented and returned to his
father. But Flacius answered: If every detail of this parable taken from
every-day life were to be interpreted in such a manner, Strigel would
have to abandon his own teaching concerning prevenient grace, since
according to the parable the repentance and return of the son precedes
the grace bestowed by the father. (Preger 2, 210f.)

165. Teaching of the Anti-Synergists.

While the Philippists, also in the Synergistic Controversy, endeavored
to 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), stood
four-square on Luther's teaching of the _sola gratia,_ which, they were
fully convinced, was nothing but the pure truth of the Gospel itself.
They maintained that, as a result of the Fall, man has lost his original
holiness and righteousness or the image of God; that both as to his
intellect and will he is totally corrupt spiritually; that of his own
powers he is utterly unable to think or will anything that is truly
good; that not a spark of spiritual life is found in natural man by
virtue of which he might assent to the Gospel or cooperate with the Holy
Spirit 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 the
Holy Spirit, nor is he able to do otherwise; that such resistance
continues until he is converted and a new will and heart have been
created in him; that conversion consists in this, that men who by nature
are unwilling and resist God's grace become such as willingly consent
and obey the Gospel and the Holy Spirit; that this is done solely by
God's grace, through Word and Sacrament; that man is purely passive in
his conversion, inasmuch as he contributes nothing towards it, and
merely suffers and experiences the work of the Holy Spirit; that only
after his conversion man is able to cooperate with the Holy Spirit; that
such cooperation, however, flows not from innate powers of the natural
will, but from the new powers imparted in conversion; that also in the
converted the natural sinful will continues to oppose whatever is truly
good, thus causing a conflict between the flesh and the spirit which
lasts till death; in brief, that man's conversion and salvation are due
to grace alone and in no respect whatever to man and his natural powers.

The _Book of Confutation,_ of 1559, drafted, as stated above, by the
theologians of Jena, designates the synergistic dogma as a "rejection of
grace." Here we also meet with statements such as the following: Human
nature "is altogether turned aside from God, and is hostile toward Him
and subject to the tyranny of sin and Satan (_naturam humanam prorsus a
Deo aversam eique inimicam et tyrannidi peccati ac Satanae subiectam
esse_)." It is impossible for the unregenerate man "to understand or to
apprehend the will of God revealed in the Word, or by his own power to
convert himself to God and to will or perform anything good (_homini non
renato impossibile esse intelligere aut apprehendere voluntatem Dei in
Verbo patefactam aut sua ipsius voluntate ad Deum se convertere, boni
aliquid velle aut perficere_)." "Our will to obey God or to choose the
good is utterly extinguished and corrupted. _Voluntas nostra ad Dei
obedientiam 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 for
the Disputation at Weimar, 1560, reads: "Corrupt man cannot operate or
cooperate toward anything good by true motions, and such as proceed from
the heart; for his heart is altogether dead spiritually, and has utterly
lost the image of God, or all powers and inclinations toward that which
is good. _Homo corruptus nihil boni potest veris ac ex corde
proficiscentibus motibus operari aut cooperari, nom plane est
spiritualiter mortuus et Dei imaginem seu omnes bonas vires et
inclinationes prorsus amisit._" The third: Not only "has he lost
entirely all good powers, but, in addition, he has also acquired
contrary 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 verae
pietati semper et vehementer adversetur._" The fourth thesis states that
God alone, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, converts, draws, and
illumines man, kindles faith, justifies, renews, and creates him unto
good works, while natural or Adamic free will is of itself not only
inactive, but resists (_non solum non cooperante ex se naturali aut
Adamico libero arbitrio, sed etiam contra furente ac fremente_). (Planck
4, 692; Gieseler 3, 2, 245.)

The same position was occupied by the Mansfeld ministers in a statement
of August 20, 1562, and by Hesshusius in his _Confutation of the
Arguments by which the Synergists Endeavor to Defend Their Error
Concerning the Powers of the Dead Free Will_. They held that in his
conversion man is purely passive and has no mode of action whatever;
that he is but the passive subject who is to be converted (_subiectam
patiens, subiectum convertendum_); that he contributes no more to his
conversion than an infant to its own formation in the womb of its
mother; that he is passive, like a block, inasmuch as he does not in any
way cooperate, but at the same time differs from, and is worse than, a
block, because he is active in resisting the Holy Spirit until he has
been converted. The _Confession_ presented by the theologians of Ducal
Saxony (Wigand, Coelestinus, Irenaeus, Rosinus, Kirchner, etc.) at the
Altenburg Colloquy March, 1569, occupies the same doctrinal position. As
stated before, these theologians made it a special point also to declare
their agreement with Luther's book _De Servo Arbitrio_. (Schluesselburg
5, 316. 133.)

166. Attitude of Formula of Concord.

The second article of the _Formula of Concord_, which decided the
questions involved in the Synergistic Controversy, takes a clear,
determined, and consistent stand against all forms and formulas of
synergism. At the same time it avoids all extravagant, improper,
offensive, and inadequate terms and phrases, as well as the numerous
pitfalls lurking everywhere in the questions concerning free will,
against which also some of the opponents of the Synergists had not
always sufficiently been on their guard. Article II teaches "that
original sin is an unspeakable evil and such an entire corruption of
human nature that in it and all its internal and external powers nothing
pure or good remains, but everything is entirely corrupt, so that on
account 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 durch
die Erbsuende wahrhaftig vor Gott geistlich tot und zum Guten mit allen
seinen Kraeften erstorben sei_)" (CONC. TRIGL. 879, 60); "that in
spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the
unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to
understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, work, or concur
in working, anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and
corrupt, 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 accept
the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or
accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as
of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his
conversion either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most
inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John
8, 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 perverted
disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is
displeasing and contrary to God" (883, 7; 887, 17); that "before man is
enlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed and drawn by the Holy
Spirit he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin work, or
concur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion or
regeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay." (891, 24);
that, moreover, "in this respect" [inasmuch as man resists the Holy
Spirit] "it may well be said that man is not a stone or block, for a
stone or block does not resist the person who moves it, nor does it
understand and is sensible of what is being done with it, as man with
his will so long resists God the Lord until he is converted (_donec ad
Deum conversus fuerit_)" (905, 59); that "the Holy Scriptures ascribe
conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongs
to their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers
of the natural free will, neither entirely, nor half nor in any, even
the 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 of
the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work
efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to
will and to do" (901, 52); that "as soon as the Holy Ghost ... has begun
in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that
through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate
(_mitwirken_), although still in great weakness" (907, 65); that this
cooperation, however, "does not occur from our carnal natural powers,
but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us
in conversion," and "is to be understood in no other way than that the
converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy
Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would
withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere
in obedience to God," and that hence it is not a power independent from,
and coordinated with, the Holy Spirit, as though "the converted man
cooperated with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together
draw a wagon" (907, 66); and finally, that as to the
three-concurring-causes doctrine it is "manifest, from the explanations
presented 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 uses
the preaching and hearing of His holy Word as His ordinary means and
instrument. But the intellect and will of the unregenerate man are
nothing else than _subiectum convertendum_, that is, that which is to be
converted, it being the intellect and will of a spiritually dead man, in
whom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal, towards which work
man's will that is to be converted does nothing, but suffers God alone
to work in him until he is regenerated and then he [cooperates] works
also with the Holy Ghost that which is pleasing to God in other good
works 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 its
Torgau draft (_Das Torgausche Buch, i.e._, the draft preceding the
Bergic Book=_Formula of Concord_) contained the three-concurring-causes
doctrine 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 doctrine
entirely in agreement with the _Formula of Concord_, which, as shown,
plainly teaches that after conversion the will of man also cooperates
with the Holy Spirit. In the Torgau Book the passage in question reads:
"Thus also three causes concur to effect this internal new obedience in
the converted. The first and chief cause is God Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.... The second is God's Word.... The third is man's intellect,
enlightened by the Holy Spirit, which ponders and understands God's
command [threat and promise], and our new and regenerate will, which is
governed by the Holy Spirit, and now desires with a glad and willing
heart (_herzlich gern und willig_), though in great weakness, to submit
to, and obey, the Word and will of God." In the same sense, at the
colloquy in AItenburg, 1568 to 1569, the Jena theologians also mentioned
as 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 (_des
Menschen Gemuet, so wiedergeboren und erneuert ist und dem Heiligen
Geiste 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 capable
theologians of his day and the most faithful, devoted, staunch, zealous,
and able exponent and defender of genuine Lutheranism, was the author of
the malignant controversy which bears his name. Flacius was born March
3, 1520, in Illyria hence called Illyricus. He studied in Basel,
Tuebingen, and Wittenberg. At Wittenberg he was convinced that the
doctrine of the Lutheran Church is in complete agreement with the Word
of God. Here, too, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew in 1544. In
April, 1549, he left the city on account of the Interim. He removed to
Magdeburg where he became the energetic and successful leader of the
opponents of the Interimists and Adiaphorists. He was appointed
professor at the University of Jena, founded 1547, partly in opposition
to Philippism. In December 1561, he and his adherents were banished from
Jena. When the latter returned in 1567, he was not recalled. Persecuted
by his enemies (especially Elector August of Saxony) and forsaken by his
friends, he now moved from one place to another: from Jena to
Regensburg, thence to Antwerp, to Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Strassburg
(from where he was expelled in the spring of 1573), and again to
Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he found a last asylum for himself and his
family (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 the
Lutherans to die rather than deny and surrender the truth. And when in
the controversy about original sin all shunned him and turned against
him he gave ample proof of the fact that he himself was imbued with the
spirit he had endeavored to kindle in others, being willing to suffer
and to be banished and persecuted rather than sacrifice what he believed
to be the truth.--The most important of his numerous books are:
_Catalogus Testium Veritatis_, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt
Papae, 1556; _Ecclesiastica Historia_, or the so-called Magdeburg
Centuries (_Centuriones_), comprising the history of the first thirteen
centuries, and published 1559-1574; _Clavis Scripturae_, of 1567; and
_Glossa Novi Testamenti_. Walther remarks: "It was a great pity that
Flacius, who had hitherto been such a faithful champion of the pure
doctrine, exposed himself to the enemies in such a manner. Henceforth
the errorists were accustomed to brand all those as Flacianists who were
zealous in defending the pure doctrine of Luther." (_Kern und Stern_,
34.)

The Flacian Controversy sprang from, and must be regarded as an episode
of, the Synergistic Controversy, in which also some champions of
Luther's theology (Amsdorf, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others) had
occasionally employed unguarded, extreme, and inadequate expressions.
Following are some of the immoderate and extravagant statements made by
Flacius: God alone converts man, the Adamic free will not only not
cooperating, "but also raging and roaring against it (_sed etiam contra
furente ac fremente_)." (Preger 2, 212.) The malice of our free will is
a "diabolical malice (_nostra diabolica malitia carnis aut liberi
arbitrii_)." By original sin man is "transformed into the image of Satan
(_ad imaginem Satanae transformatus, eiusque charactere [foeda Satanae
imagine] signatus_)." (Gieseler 3, 2, 245.) By original sin "the
substance of man is destroyed (_substantiam hominis ablatam esse_);"
after the Fall original sin is the substance of man; man's nature is
identical with sin; in conversion a new substance is created by God. In
particular, the assertions concerning the substantiality of original sin
gave rise to the so-called Flacian Controversy. After Strigel, at the
second session of the disputation in Weimar, had dilated on the
philosophical definitions of the terms "substance" and "accident"
("_accidens, quod adest vel abest praeter subiecti corruptionem_"), and
had declared that original sin was an accident which merely impeded free
will in its activity, Flacius, in the heat of the controversy,
exclaimed: "_Originale peccatum non est accidens_. Original sin is not
an accident, for the Scriptures call it flesh, the evil heart," etc.
Thus he fell into the pitfall which the wily Strigel had adroitly laid
for him. Though Flacius seemed to be loath to enter upon the matter any
further, and protested against the use of philosophical definitions in
theology, Strigel now was eager to entangle him still further, plying
him with the question: "_An negas peccatum originis esse accidens?_ Do
you deny that original sin is an accident?" Flacius answered: "_Lutherus
diserte negat esse accidens_. Luther expressly denies that it is an
accident." Strigel: "_Visne negare peccatum esse accidens?_ Do you mean
to deny that sin is an accident?" Flacius: "_Quod sit substantia, dixi
Scripturam et Lutherum affirmare._ I have said that Scripture and Luther
affirm 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 to
later reports of theirs) his statement as "this new, perilous, and
blasphemous 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, in
the interest of truth, and against Pelagian enthusiasm, he had taken
this expression [concerning the substantiality of original sin] from
Luther's doctrine and books." (Preger 2, 324.) In the following (third)
session, however, he repeated his error, declaring: I must stand by my
statement that original sin is not an accident, but a substance,
"because the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures which employ terms
denoting substance (_quae verbis substantialibus utuntur_) are so
numerous." (Planck 4, 610; Luthardt, 216.) Also later on Flacius always
maintained that his doctrine was nothing but the teaching of the Bible
and of Luther. As to Scripture-proofs, he referred to passages in which
the Scriptures designate sin as "flesh," "stony heart," etc. Regarding
the teaching of Luther, he quoted statements in which he describes
original sin as "man's nature," "essence," "substantial sin," "all that
is born of father and mother," etc. (Preger 2, 318.)

However, the palpable mistake of Flacius was that he took the
substantial terms on which he based his theory in their original and
proper sense, while the Bible and Luther employ them in a figurative
meaning, as the _Formula of Concord_ carefully explains in its first
article, which decided and settled this controversy. (874, 50.) Here we
read: "Also to avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum_,
that is, words and expressions which are applied and used in various
meanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained, as when it is
said: God creates the nature of men, there by the term _nature_ the
essence, body, and soul of men are understood. But often the disposition
or 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 says
that sin and sinning are the disposition and nature of corrupt man.
Therefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our
nature as it is described in the _Smalcald Articles_. But sometimes the
concrete person or the subject that is, man himself with body and soul
in which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for the
reason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luther
says: '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 man
are 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 spiritual
powers ascribed to natural man by Strigel, and to emphasize the doctrine
of total corruption, which Strigel denied. His fatal blunder was that he
did so in terms which were universally regarded as savoring of
Manicheism. As was fully explained in the chapter of the Synergistic
Controversy Strigel taught that free will, which belongs to the
substance and essence of man, and hence cannot be lost without the
annihilation of man himself, always includes the capacity to choose in
both directions, that also with respect to divine grace and the
operations of the Holy Spirit man is and always remains a _liberum
agens_ in the sense that he is able to decide _in utramque partem;_ that
this ability, constituting the very essence of free will, may be
weakened and impeded in its activity, but never lost entirely. If it
were lost, Strigel argued, the very substance of man and free will as
such would have to be regarded as annihilated. But now man, also after
the Fall, is still a real man, possessed of intellect and will. Hence
original sin cannot have despoiled him of this liberty of choosing _pro_
or _con_ also in matters spiritual. The loss of original righteousness
does not, according to Strigel, involve the total spiritual disability
of the will and its sole tendency and activity toward what is
spiritually evil. Moreover, despite original corruption, it is and
remains an indestructible property of man to be able, at least in a
measure, 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 Flacius
declared original sin to be not a mere accident, but the substance of
man. Entering upon the train of thought and the phraseology suggested by
his opponent, he called substance what in reality was an accident,
though not an accident such as Strigel contended. From his own
standpoint it was therefore a shrewd move to hide his own synergism and
to entrap his opponent, when Strigel plied Flacius with the question
whether he denied that original sin was an accident. For in the context
and the sense in which it was proposed the question involved a vicious
dilemma. Answering with yes or no, Flacius was compelled either to
affirm Strigel's synergism or to expose himself to the charge of
Manicheism. Instead of replying as he did, Flacius should have cleared
the sophistical atmosphere by explaining: "If I say, 'Original sin is an
accident,' you [Strigel] will infer what I reject, _viz._, that the
corrupt will of man retains the power to decide also in favor of the
operations of the Holy Spirit. And if I answer that original sin is not
an accident (such as you have in mind), you will again infer what I
disavow, _viz._, that man, who by the Fall has lost the ability to will
in the spiritual direction, has _eo ipso_ lost the will and its freedom
entirely and as such." As it was, however, Flacius instead of adhering
strictly to the real issue--the question concerning man's cooperation in
conversion--and exposing the sophistry implied in the question put by
Strigel, most unfortunately suffered himself to be caught on the horns
of the dilemma. He blindly walked into the trap set for him by Strigel,
from which also later on he never succeeded in fully extricating
himself.

With all his soul Flacius rejected the synergism involved in Strigel's
question. His blunder was, as stated, that he did so in terms
universally regarded as Manichean. He was right when he maintained that
original sin is the inherited tendency and motion of the human mind,
will, and heart, not toward, but against God,--a direction, too, which
man is utterly unable to change. But he erred fatally by identifying
this inborn evil tendency with the substance of fallen man and the
essence of his will as such. It will always be regarded as a redeeming
feature that it was in antagonizing synergism and championing the
Lutheran _sola gratia_ that Flacius coined his unhappy proposition. And
in properly estimating his error, it must not be overlooked that he, as
will be shown in the following, employed the terms "substance" and
"accident" not in their generally accepted meaning but in a sense, and
according 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 revera
proprium esse habet, nec est in alio, ut habens esse a subiecto._
Substance is something which in reality has a being of its own and is
not in another as having its being from the subject." (_C. R._ 13,
528.) "_Accidens est quod non per sese subsistit, nec est pars
substantiae, sed in alio est mutabiliter._ Accident is something which
does not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeable
in something else." (522.) Melanchthon continues: "Accidentium alia sunt
separabilia ut frigus ab aqua, notitia a mente, laetitia, tristitia a
corde. Alia accidentia sunt inseparabilia, ut quantitas seu magnitudo a
substantia corporea, calor ab igni, humiditas ab aqua, non separantur...
Et quia separabilia accidentia magis conspicua sunt, ideo inde sumpta
est puerilis descriptio: Accidens est, quod adest et abest praeter
subiecti corruptionem. Whatever is present or absent without the
corruption 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, is
ambiguous, inasmuch as the word "corruption" may signify an
annihilation, or merely a perversion, or a corruption in the ordinary
meaning of the word. In the latter sense the term applied to original
sin 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 or
absent without _corruption_ of the subject, he employed the term in the
sense of destruction or annihilation. In the same year Hesshusius stated
that by original sin "the whole nature body and soul, substance as well
as accidents, are defiled, corrupted, and dead," of course, spiritually.
And what he understood by substance appears from his assertion: "The
being itself, the substance and nature itself, in as far as it is
nature, is not an evil conflicting with the Law of God.... Not even in
the devil the substance itself, in as far as it is substance, is a bad
thing, _i.e._, a thing conflicting with the Law." (Preger 2, 397.)

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

Flacius, however, took the words "substance" and "accident" in a
different sense. He distinguished between the material and formal
substance, and the latter he regarded as man's true original essence.
This essence he explained, consisted in the original righteousness and
holiness of man, in the image of God or the will as truly free and in
proper relation toward God. He said: "Ipsum hominem _essentialiter_ sic
esse formatum, ut recta voluntas esset imago Dei, non tantum eius
accidens." (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 and
substance of fallen man. He argued: The image of God is the formal
essence of man, or the soul itself according to its best part, by
original sin this image is changed into its opposite: hence the change
wrought by original sin is not accidental, but substantial,--just as
substantial and essential as when wine is changed into vinegar or fire
into frost. What man has lost, said Flacius, is not indeed his material
substance (_substantia materialis_), but his true formal substance or
substantial form (_substantia formalis_ or _forma substantialis_). Hence
also original sin, or the corruption resulting from the Fall, in reality
is, and must be designated, the formal substance or substantial form of
natural man. Not all gifts of creation were lost to man by his Fall; the
most essential boon, however, the image of God, was destroyed and
changed into the image of Satan. "In homine," said Flacius, "et mansit
aliquid, et tamen quod optimum in ratione et essentia fuit, nempe imago
Dei, non tantum evanuit, sed etiam in contrarium, nempe in imaginem
diaboli, commutatum est." The devil, Flacius continued, has robbed man
of his original form (_forma_), the image of God, and stamped him with
his 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 formal
substance appears from the tract on original sin (_De Peccati Originalis
aut Veteris Adami Appellationibus et Essentia_), which he appended to
his _Clavis Scripturae_ of 1567. There we read: "In this disputation
concerning the corruption of man I do not deny that this meaner matter
(_illam viliorem materiam_) or mass of man created in the beginning has
indeed remained until now, although it is exceedingly vitiated, as when
in wine or aromas the spirituous (_airy_) or fiery substance escapes,
and nothing remains but the earthy and watery substance; but I hold that
the substantial form or the formal substance (_formam substantialem aut
substantiam formalem_) has been lost, yea, changed into its opposite.
But I do not speak of that external and coarse form (although it too, is
corrupted and weakened very much) which a girl admires in a youth, or
philosophy also in the entire man, according to which he consists of
body and soul, has an erect stature two feet, hands, eyes, ears, and the
like, is an animal laughing, counting, reasoning, etc.; but I speak of
that most noble substantial form (_nobilissima substantialis forma_)
according to which especially the heart itself or rather the rational
soul, was formed in such a manner that his very essence might be the
image of God and represent Him, and that his substantial powers,
intellect and will, and his affections might be conformed to the
properties of God, represent, truly acknowledge, and most willingly
embrace Him." (Preger 2, 314; Gieseler 3, 2, 254.)

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

Dilating on the substantiality of original sin, Flacius furthermore
declared: "Original malice in man is not something different from the
evil mind or stony heart itself, not something that destroys him
spiritually as a disease consumes him bodily, but it is ruined and
destroyed nature itself (_sed est tantum ipsa perditissima et iam
destructissima natura_). Original malice was not, as many now think
infused from without into Adam in such a way as when poison or some
other bad substance is thrown or poured into good liquor, so that by
reason of the added bad substance also the rest becomes noxious, but in
such a way as when good liquor or bread itself is perverted so that now
it is bad as such and poisonous or rather poison (_ut illud per se iam
malum ac venenatum aut potius venenum sit_)." (Preger 2, 313.)

Also concerning the body and soul of fallen man Flacius does not
hesitate to affirm that, since they are permeated and corrupted by
original sin, "these parts themselves are sin, _eas ipsas [partes,
corpus et animam] esse illud nativum malum, quod cum Deo pugnat._" "Some
object," says Flacius, "that the creature of God must be distinguished
from 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 be
separated from itself! We therefore can not distinguish them in any
other way than by stating that with respect to his first creation and
also his present preservation man, even as the devil himself, is of God,
but that with respect to this horrible transformation (_ratione istius
horrendae metamorphoseos_) he is of the devil, who, by the force of the
efficacious sentence and punishment of angry God: 'Thou shalt die,' not
only captured us to be his vilest slaves, but also recast, rebaked, and
changed, or, so to speak, metamorphosed us into another man, as the
Scripture says, even as he [the devil] himself is inverted." All parts,
talents, and abilities of man, Flacius contends, are "evil and mere
sins," because they all oppose God. "What else are they than armed
unrighteousness!" he exclaims. Even the natural knowledge of God "is
nothing 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 apart
from Manicheism than some of his radical phrases imply, appears from his
"_Gnowthi seauton, De Essentia Originalis Institutiae,_" of 1568. After
admitting that Augustine, Luther, and the _Apology of the Augsburg
Confession_ are correct when they define original sin as an inordinate
disposition, a disorder (_ataxia_), perversion, and confusion of the
parts of man, Flacius proceeds: "The substantial form of a certain thing
for the most part, consists in the right position and disposition of the
parts; 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 the
head, no one would say that it was properly a man, but rather a monster.
... It appears, therefore, that the inordinate disposition of the parts
produces an altogether new body or thing. Thus, forsooth, the horrible
perturbation of the soul has also produced, as it were a new kind of
monster fighting against God." (Preger 2, 409.) Accordingly, it was not
man's body and soul as such, but the alteration of the relation of his
powers toward one another and the consequent corruption of these powers,
that Flacius had in mind when he designated original sin as the new
substantial form, or substance, of sinful man.

Flacius expressly denied that the fall of man or his conversion involved
a physical change. "I do not teach a physical regeneration," he
declared, "nor do I say that two hearts are created, but I say that this
most excellent part of the soul or of man is once more established, or
that the image of God is recast and transformed out of the image of
Satan, even as before the image of God was transformed into the image of
Satan. _Physicam renascentiam non assero nec dico duo corda creari, sed
dico istam praestantissimam animae aut hominis partem denuo condi aut ex
imagine Satanae refundi aut transformari imaginem Dei, sicut antea imago
Dei fuit transformata in imaginem Satanae._" (Seeberg 4, 495.) Gieseler
pertinently remarks: "It is apparent that Flacius did not deviate from
the common concept of original sin, but from the concepts of substance
and accident, but that here, too, he was uncertain, inasmuch as he
employed the terms _substantia, forma substantialis,_ and _substantia
formalis_ promiscuously." (3, 2, 255.)

If not necessarily involved in, it was at least in keeping with his
extreme position and extravagant phraseology concerning original sin
when Flacius, in his _De Primo et Secundo Capite ad Romanos, quatenus
Libero Arbitrio Patrocinari Videntur,_ rejected the doctrine of an
inborn idea of God and of His Law inscribed in the heart of natural
man. On Rom. 1, 19 he comments: It is only from the effects in the world
that man infers the existence of a supreme cause. And with respect to
Rom. 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 the
heathen had derived by inference, from experience, or from tradition of
the fathers. On this point Strigel, no doubt was correct when he
objected: If the knowledge of God's existence were really extinguished
from the heart, there could be no discipline among men; and if man had
no inborn knowledge of the Law, then there could be no such thing as
conscience which condemns him when he sins. The fact that man fears
punishments even when there is no government to fear, as was the case
with Alexander when he had murdered Clitus, proves that in the heart
there is a certain knowledge both of God and of His Law. (Preger 2,
213.) However, Flacius did not, as Strigel seems to insinuate, deny that
natural man has an obscure knowledge of God's existence and Law, but
merely maintained that this knowledge was not inborn or inherited, but
acquired from without.

171. Controversy Precipitated by Flacius.

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

The same was the case in 1572, when Flacius, opposed and sorely pressed
by the ministerium of Strassburg (whence he was banished the following
year), offered to substitute for the word "substance" the phrase
"essential powers." (Preger 2, 371.) Two years later, at the public
disputation in Langenau, Silesia, where Flacius defended his doctrine
with 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 and
Flacius; 1575 professor in Frankfort; afterwards active first as
Praepositus in Berlin and later on as Superintendent in Mecklenburg,
published _Disputatio De Libero Arbitrio;_ died March 7, 1612], he
declared that he did not insist on his phrase as long as the doctrine
itself was adopted and original sin was not declared to be a mere
accident. But this, too, was no real retraction of his error. (Preger 2,
387.) In a similar way Flacius repeatedly declared himself willing to
abstain from the use of the word "substance" in connection with his
doctrine concerning original sin, but with conditions and limitations
which made his concessions illusory, and neither did nor could satisfy
his opponents.

At the disputation in Weimar, 1560, Wigand and Musaeus, as stated,
warned Flacius immediately after the session in which he had made his
statement. Schluesselburg relates: "Immediately during the disputation,
as I frequently heard from their own lips, Dr. Wigand, Dr. Simon
Musaeus, and other colleagues of his who attended the disputation ...
admonished Illyricus in a brotherly and faithful manner to abstain from
this new, perilous and blasphemous proposition of the ancient
Manicheans, which would cause great turmoil in the Church of God, and to
refute the error of Victorin [Strigel] concerning free will not by means
of a false proposition, but with the Word of God. However, intoxicated
with ambition, and relying, in the heat of the conflict, too much on the
acumen and sagacity of his own mind, Illyricus haughtily spurned the
brotherly 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 from
the Manichean phrase] that he had been drawn into this discussion by his
opponent against his own will. But what happened? Contrary to the
expectations of his colleagues, Illyricus in the following session
continued, as he had begun, to defend this insanity." (Preger 2, 324;
Planck 4, 611.) However, it does not appear that after the disputation
his friends pressed the matter any further, or that they made any
efforts publicly to disavow the Flacian proposition.

In 1567 Flacius published his tract _De Peccati Originalis aut Veteris
Adami Appellationibus et Essentia,_ "On the Appellations and Essence of
Original Sin or the Old Adam," appending it to his famous _Clavis
Scripturae_ of the same year. He had written this tract probably even
before 1564. In 1566 he sent it to Simon Musaeus, requesting his opinion
and the opinion of Hesshusius, who at that time was celebrating his
marriage with the daughter of Musaeus. In his answer, Musaeus approved
the tract, but desired that the term "substance" be explained as meaning
not the matter, but the form of the substance to which Hesshusius also
agreed. After the tract had appeared, Musaeus again wrote to Flacius,
June 21, 1568, saying that he agreed with his presentation of original
sin. At the same time, however, he expressed the fear that the bold
statement which Flacius had retained, "Sin is substance," would be
dangerously misinterpreted. (Preger 2, 327.) And before long a storm was
brewing, in which animosity registered its highest point, and a
veritable flood of controversial literature (one publication following
the other in rapid succession) was poured out upon the Church, which was
already distracted and divided by numerous and serious theological
conflicts.

By the publication of this treatise Flacius, who before long also was
harassed and ostracized everywhere, had himself made a public
controversy unavoidable. In the conflict which it precipitated, he was
opposed 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 former
comrade and leader. Flacius himself had made it impossible for his
friends to spare him any longer. Nor did he deceive himself as to the
real situation. In a letter written to Wigand he reveals his fear that
the Lutherans and Philippists, then assembled at the Colloquium in
Altenburg (held from October 21, 1568, to March, 1569, between the
theologians of Thuringia and those of Electoral Saxony), would unite in
a public declaration against his teaching. Wigand whose warning Flacius
had disregarded at Weimar, wrote to Gallus: Flacius has forfeited the
right to request that nothing be published against him, because he
himself has already spread his views in print. And before long Wigand
began to denounce publicly the Flacian doctrine as "new and prolific
monsters, _monstra nova et fecunda._"

172. Publications Pro and Con.

According to Preger the first decided opposition to the Flacian teaching
came from Moerlin and Chemnitz, in Brunswick, to whom Flacius had also
submitted his tract for approval. Chemnitz closed his criticism by
saying: It is enough if we are able to retain what Luther has won
(_parta tueri_), let us abandon all desires to go beyond (_ulterius
quaerere_) and to improve upon him. (Preger 2, 328.) Moerlin
characterized Flacius as a vain man, and dangerous in many respects.
Flacius answered in an objective manner, betraying no irritation
whatever. (332.) In a letter of August 10, 1568, Hesshusius, who now had
read the tract more carefully charged Flacius with teaching that Satan
was a creator of substance, and before long refused to treat with him
any further. In September of the same year Flacius published his _Gnothi
seauton_ against the attacks of the Synergists and Philippists, notably
Christopher Lasius [who studied at Strassburg and Wittenberg, was active
in Goerlitz, Greussen, Spandau, Kuestrin, Cottbus, and Senftenberg,
wrote _Praelibationes Dogmatis Flaciani de Prodigiosa Hominis
Conversione;_ 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 the
Essence of the Image of God and the Devil,_ in which he attacked his
opponents, but without mentioning their names. His request for a private
discussion was bluntly rejected by the Jena theologians. Wigand, in his
_Propositions on Sin_ of May 5, 1570, was the first publicly to attack
Flacius by name. About the same time Moerlin's _Themata de Imagine Dei_
and Chemnitz's _Resolutio_ appeared. The former was directed "against
the 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 also
published his _Letter to M. Flacius Illyricus in the Controversy whether
Original Sin is a Substance._ Flacius answered in his _Defense of the
Sound Doctrine Concerning Original Righteousness and Unrighteousness, or
Sin,_ of September 1, 1570. Hesshusius published his _Analysis,_ in
which he repeated the charge that Flacius made the devil a creator of
substance.

In his _Brief Confession,_ of September 28 1570, Flacius now offered to
abstain from the use of the term "substance" in the manner indicated
above. A colloquium, however, requested by Flacius and his friends on
the 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 repeated
his accusation that Flacius made the devil a creator of substance. He
summarized his arguments as follows: "I have therefore proved from one
book [Flacius's tract of 1567] more than six times that Illyricus says:
_Satan condidit, fabricavit, transformavit veterem hominem, Satan est
figulus,_ that is: The devil created and made man, the devil is man's
potter." The idea of a creation out of nothing, however, was not taught
in 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 a
peaceful settlement, caused Flacius to write his _Orthodox Confession
Concerning Original Sin._ In this comprehensive answer, which appeared
August 1, 1571, he declares "that either image, the image of God as well
as of Satan, is an essence, and that the opposite opinion diminishes the
merit of Christ." At the same time he complained that his statements
were garbled and misinterpreted by his opponents, that his was the
position of the man who asked concerning garlic and received an answer
concerning onions, that his opponents were but disputing with
imaginations of their own. (349f.)

In the same year, 1571, Wigand published a voluminous book, _On Original
Sin,_ in which he charged Flacius with teaching that original sin is the
entire carnal substance of man according to both his body and soul. In
his description of the Flacian doctrine we read: "Original sin is a
substance, as they teach. Accordingly, original sin is an animal, and
that, 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, where
such men end!" Flacius replied in his _Christian and Reliable Answer to
All manner of Sophistries of the Pelagian Accident,_ 1572, protesting
that the doctrine ascribed to him was a misrepresentation of his
teaching. In the same year Wigand published _Reasons Why This
Proposition, in Controversy with the Manicheans: "Original Sin Is the
Corrupt Nature," Cannot Stand._ Here Wigand truly says: "Evil of the
substance and evil substance are not identical. _Malum substantiae et
mala substantia non sunt idem._" (Preger 2, 353. 410.)

In several publications of the same year Hesshusius asserted (quoting
testimonies to this effect from Augustine), that the Flacian doctrine
was identical with the tenets of the Manicheans, in substance as well as
terms. Flacius answered in _De Augustini et Manichaeorum Sententia, in
Controversia Peccati,_ 1572, in which he declared: "I most solemnly
condemn the Manichean insanity concerning two creators. I have always
denied that original sin is something, or has ever been something
outside of man; I have never ascribed to this sin any materiality of its
own." (355.) This book was followed by another attack by Hesshusius and
an answer, in turn, by Flacius.

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

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

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

173. Adherents of Flacius.

The chief supporters of Flacius were the Mansfeldians, Count Vollrath
and Cyriacus Spangenberg [born 1528; studied in Wittenberg; served in
Eisleben, then in Mansfeld; died in Strassburg February 10, 1604]. In
the serious dissensions which arose in Mansfeld in consequence of the
controversy on original sin, the Count and Spangenberg were opposed by
the Jena theologians and Superintendent Menzel [Jerome Menzel, born
1517; studied in Wittenberg; wrote against Spangenberg; died 1590]. As
stated above, it was Spangenberg who endeavored to bring about an
understanding between the contending parties on the principle: "_Teneat
Illyricus mentem, mutet linguam._" A colloquy was held 1572 at Castle
Mansfeld, in which Flacius and his adherents were pitted against Menzel,
Rhode, Fabricius, and others. When Fabricius declared in the
discussions: "Only in so far as our nature is not in conformity with the
Law of God is it corrupt," Flacius exclaimed: "_Non quantum_, not in as
far; but I say it is not in conformity because it is corrupt, _quia
corrupta est_." (Preger 2, 375.) Count Vollrath and his adviser, Caspar
Pflug gave Flacius a written testimony that at the colloquy he had not
been convinced, but found to be correct in the controversy on original
sin. The publication of this testimony by Flacius as also of the minutes
of the Colloquy by Count Vollrath, in 1573, resulted in a number of
further publications by Flacius and his friends as well as his
opponents. At Mansfeld the animosity against the Flacians did not
subside even after the death of Flacius in 1575. They were punished with
excommunication, incarceration, and the refusal of a Christian burial.
Count Vollrath left 1577, and died at Strassburg 1578. Spangenberg, who
also had secretly fled from Mansfeld, defended the doctrine of Flacius
in a tract, _De Peccato Originali, Concerning Original Sin_, which he
published 1586 under a pseudonym. He died without retracting or changing
his views.

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

In Regensburg four adherents of Flacius were dismissed in 1574, among
them Joshua Opitz [born 1543; died 1585]. These and others emigrated to
the Archduchy of Austria, where the Lutherans were numerous and
influential, Opitz frequently preaching to an audience of 7,000. No less
than 40 of the Lutheran ministers of Austria are said to have shared the
views of Flacius. (Preger 2, 393.) Only a few of them revealed symptoms
of fanaticism, which resulted in their dismissal. Among the latter was
Joachim Magdeburgius, then an exile at Efferding. He taught "that the
bodies of believing Christians after their death were still essential
original sin, and that God's wrath remained over them till the Day of
Judgment." (Joecher, _Lexicon_ 3, 32.) At the same time he branded as
errorists 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 with
Luther's doctrine on original sin. As late as 1604 there were numerous
Flacianists in German Austria.

174. Decision of Formula of Concord.

Seeberg remarks: "Flacius was not a heretic, but in the wrangle of his
day 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 be
disputed that the unfortunate phrases of Flacius produced, and were
bound to produce, most serious religious offense, as well as theological
strife, and hopeless doctrinal confusion. Even when viewed in the light
of his distinction between formal substance (man as endowed with the
image of God) and material substance (man as possessed of body and soul,
together with will and intellect), the odiousness of his terminology is
not entirely removed. It was and remained a form of doctrine and trope
or mode of teaching which the Lutherans were no more minded to tolerate
than the error of Strigel.

Accordingly, the first article of the _Formula of Concord_ rejects both
the synergistic as well as the Manichean aberrations in the doctrine of
original sin. In its Thorough Declaration we read: "Now this doctrine
[of original sin] must be so maintained and guarded that it may not
deflect either to the Pelagian or the Manichean side. For this reason
the contrary doctrine ... should also be briefly stated." (865, 16.)
Accordingly, in a series of arguments, the Flacian error is thoroughly
refuted and decidedly rejected. At the same time the _Formula of
Concord_ points out the offensiveness of the Flacian phraseology. It
refers to the controversy regarding this question as "scandalous and
very mischievous," and declares: "Therefore it is unchristian and
horrible to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy
Trinity, sanctified, and saved, and other similar expressions found in
the writings of the recent Manicheans, with which we will not offend
simple-minded people." (873, 45. 59.)

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

Accordingly, the _Formula of Concord_ rejects the errors of Strigel and
the 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 and
retains its integrity and power even in spiritual things. Or that
original sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an external
impediment to these spiritual good powers.... They are rebuked and
rejected likewise who teach that the nature has indeed been greatly
weakened and corrupted through the Fall, but that nevertheless it has
not entirely lost all good with respect to divine, spiritual things,
and that what is sung in our churches, '_Through Adam's fall is all
corrupt, nature and essence human,_' is not true, but from natural
birth it still has something good, small, little, and inconsiderable
though it be, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability to begin, to
effect, or to help effect something in spiritual things." (865, 21ff.)

While the _Formula of Concord_ does not deny the capacity of fallen man
for salvation, it is careful in defining that this is not an active, but
a passive capacity. That is to say: Man is utterly incapable of
qualifying himself for, or of contributing in the least toward, his own
spiritual restoration; but what is impossible for man is not impossible
with God who, indeed, is able to convert man, endow him with new
spiritual powers, and lead him to eternal salvation,--a goal for the
attainment of which, in contradistinction from inanimate and other
creatures, man, being a rational creature, endowed with intellect and
will, was created by God and redeemed by Christ. In the _Formula of
Concord_ we read: "And although God, according to His just, strict
sentence, has utterly cast away the fallen evil spirits forever, He has
nevertheless, out of special, pure mercy, willed that poor fallen human
nature might again become and be capable and participant of conversion,
the grace of God, and eternal life; not from its own natural, active [or
effective] skill, aptness, or capacity (for the nature of man is
obstinate enmity against God), but from pure grace, through the gracious
efficacious 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 eius
praedicant, quod scilicet verti potest ad bonum per gratiam Dei et fieri
revera liberum, ad quod creatum est_. That is: When the Fathers defend
the free will, they are speaking of this, that it is capable of freedom
in this sense, that by God's grace it can be converted to good, and
become truly free, for which it was created in the beginning." (889,
20.)

This accords with Luther's words in _De Servo Arbitrio_: "It would be
correct if we should designate as the power of free will that [power] by
which man, who is created for life or eternal death, is apt to be moved
by the Spirit and imbued with the grace of God. For we, too, confess
this power, _i.e._, aptitude or, as the Sophists [Scholastic
theologians] say, disposition and passive aptitude. And who does not
know that trees and animals are not endowed with it? For, as the saying
goes, heaven is not created for geese. _Hanc enim vim, hoc est,
aptitudinem, seu, ut Sophistae loquuntur, dispositivam qualitatem et
passivam aptitudinem, et nos confitemur; quam non arboribus neque
bestiis 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 future
corruption of the doctrine of justification, concerning which he
declared in the _Smalcald Articles_: "Of this article nothing can be
yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever will
not abide, should sink to ruin.... And upon this article all things
depend which we teach and practise in opposition to the Pope, the devil,
and the world. Therefore we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and
not doubt, for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all
things gain the victory and suit over us." (461, 5.) Martin Chemnitz
remarks: "I frequently shudder, because Luther--I do not know by what
kind of presentiment--in his commentaries on the Letter to the Galatians
and on the First Book of Moses so often repeats the statement: 'This
doctrine [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 he
began publicly to propound a doctrine in which he abandoned the forensic
conception of justification by imputation of the merits of Christ, and
returned to the Roman view of justification by infusion _i.e._, by
infusion of the eternal essential righteousness of the divine nature of
Christ. According to his own statement, he had harbored these views ever
since about 1522. He is said also to have presented them in a sermon
delivered at the convention in Smalcald, 1537. (Planck 4, 257.) Yet he
made no special effort to develop and publicly to disseminate his ideas
during the life of Luther. After the death of the Reformer, however,
Osiander is reported to have said: "Now that the lion is dead, I shall
easily dispose of the foxes and hares"--_i.e._, Melanchthon and the
other Lutheran theologians. (257.) Osiander was the originator of the
controversy "Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God," which
was 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 also
buried with high honors in the Old City Church. In 1522 he was appointed
priest at St. Lawrence's Church in the Free City of Nuernberg. Here he
immediately acted the part of a determined champion of the Reformation.
Subsequently he also participated in some of the most important
transactions 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; at
Smalcald, 1537; at Hagenau and Worms, 1540. Nor were his interests
confined to theological questions. When, at Nuernberg, 1543, the work of
Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium_, "Concerning the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies," was published for the first time,
Osiander read the proof-sheets and wrote the Preface, in which he
designated the new theory as "hypotheses," thus facilitating its
circulation also among the Catholics, until in the 17th century the book
was placed on the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, where it remained till
the 18th century.

When the Augsburg Interim was introduced in Nuernberg, Osiander
resigned, and with words of deep emotion (in a letter of November 22,
1548, addressed to the city council) he left the place where he had
labored more than a quarter of a century. January 27 1549, he arrived in
Koenigsberg. Here he was joyously received by Count Albrecht of Prussia,
whom he had gained for the Reformation in 1523. Moved by gratitude
toward Osiander, whom he honored as his "spiritual father," Count
Albrecht appointed him pastor of the Old City Church and, soon after,
first professor of theology at the University of Koenigsberg, with a
double salary, though Osiander had never received an academic degree.
The dissatisfaction which this unusual preferment caused among his
colleagues, Briessman, Hegemon, Isinder, and Moerlin, soon developed
into decided antipathy against Osiander, especially because of his
overbearing, domineering ways as well as his intriguing methods. No
doubt, this personal element added largely to the animosity and violence
of the controversy that was soon to follow, and during which the
professors in Koenigsberg are said to have carried firearms into their
academic sessions. (Schaff, _Creeds_ 1, 273.) Yet it cannot be regarded
as the real cause or even as the immediate occasion, of the conflict,
which was really brought about by the unsound, speculative, and mystical
views of Osiander on the image of God and, particularly, on
justification and the righteousness of faith,--doctrinal points on which
he deviated from the Lutheran teaching to such an extent that a
controversy was unavoidable. Evidently, his was either a case of relapse
into Romanism, or, what seems to be the more probable alternative,
Osiander never attained to a clear apprehension of the Lutheran truth
nor ever fully freed himself from the Roman doctrine, especially in its
finer and more veiled form of mysticism.

176. Opposed by Moerlin and Lutherans Generally.

Osiander, as stated, had conceived the fundamental thoughts of his
system long before he reached Koenigsberg. In 1524, when only twenty-six
years of age, he laid down the outlines of his theory in a publication
entitled: "_A Good Instruction (Ein gut Unterricht) and Faithful Advice
from the Holy Divine Scriptures What Attitude to Take in These
Dissensions Concerning Our Holy Faith and Christian Doctrine_, dealing
especially with the questions what is God's Word and what human
doctrine, what Christ and what Antichrist." Here he says: "Whoever
hears, retains, and believes the Word, receives God Himself, for God is
the Word. If, therefore, the Word of God, Christ, our Lord, dwells in us
by faith and we are one with Him, we may say with Paul: 'I live, though
not 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 ihren
Praedikanten)_: "The one and only righteousness availing before God is
God Himself. But Christ is the Word which we apprehend by faith, and
thus Christ in us, God Himself, is our Righteousness which avails before
God." "The Gospel has two parts; the first, that Christ has satisfied
the justice of God; the other, that He has cleansed us from sin, and
justifies us by dwelling in us (_und uns rechtfertigt, so er in uns
wohnet_)." (271.) The embryonic ideas of these early publications
concerning the image of God and justification were fully developed by
Osiander in his book of 1550, _Whether the Son of God would have had to
be Incarnated (An Filius Dei fuerit Incarnandus), if Sin had Not Entered
the World;_ and especially in his confession of September, 1551,
_Concerning the Only Mediator Jesus Christ (Von dem einigen Mittler Jesu
Christo) and Justification of Faith_ which appeared also in Latin under
the title _De Unico Mediatore_, in October of the same year.

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

Moerlin (Moehrlein) was born at Wittenberg April 6, 1514, he studied
under Luther and was made Master in 1537 and Doctor in 1540; till 1543
he was superintendent in Arnstadt, Thuringia, and superintendent in
Goettingen till 1549, when he was compelled to leave because of his
opposition to the Augsburg Interim. Recommended by Elizabeth Duchess of
Braunschweig-Lueneburg, the mother-in-law of Duke Albrecht, he was
appointed preacher at the Dome of Koenigsberg in 1550. Clearly
understanding that solid comfort in life and death is possible only as
long as our faith rests solely on the _aliena iustitia_, on the
objective righteousness of Christ, which is without us, and is offered
in the Gospel and received by faith; and fully realizing also that
Christian assurance is incompatible with such a doctrine as Osiander
taught, according to which our faith is to rely on a righteous condition
within ourselves, Moerlin publicly attacked Osiander from his pulpit,
and in every way emphasized the fact that his teaching could never be
tolerated in the Lutheran Church. Osiander replied in his lectures. The
situation thus created was most intolerable. At the command of the Duke
discussions were held between Moerlin and Osiander, but without result.

In order to settle the dispute, Duke Albrecht, accordingly, on October
5, 1551, placed the entire matter before the evangelical princes and
cities with the request that the points involved be discussed at the
various synods and their verdicts forwarded to Koenigsberg. This aroused
the general interest and the deepest concern of the entire Lutheran
Church in Germany. Numerous opinions of the various synods and
theologians arrived during the winter of 1551 to 1552. With the
exception of the Wuerttemberg _Response (Responsum)_, written by John
Brenz, and the _Opinion_ of Matthew Vogel, both of whom regarded
Osiander's teaching as differing from the doctrine received by the
Lutheran Church in terms and phrases rather than in substance, they were
unfavorable to Osiander. At the same time all, including the opinions of
Brenz and Vogel, revealed the fact that the Lutherans, the theologians
of Wittenberg as well as those of Jena, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Hamburg,
etc., were firmly united in maintaining Luther's doctrine, _viz._, that
the righteousness of faith is not the essential righteousness of the Son
of God, as Osiander held but the obedience of Christ the God-man imputed
by grace to all true believers as their sole righteousness before God.

Feeling safe under the protection of Duke Albrecht, and apparently not
in the least impressed by the general opposition which his innovations
met with at the hands of the Lutherans, Osiander continued the
controversy by publishing his _Proof (Beweisung) that for Thirty Years I
have Always Taught the Same Doctrine_. And irritated by an opinion of
Melanchthon (whom Osiander denounced as a pestilential heretic),
published with offensive explanations added by the Wittenbergers, he in
the same year (April, 1552) wrote his _Refutation (Widerlegung) of the
Unfounded, Unprofitable Answer of Philip Melanchthon_. In this
immoderate 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 1552
and 1553 Flacius issued no less than twelve publications against
Osiander, one of them bearing the title: _Zwo fuernehmliche Gruende
Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier_; another: _Antidotum auf
Osiandri 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 in
Brunswick, where he zealously continued his opposition to Osiandrism as
well as to other corruptions of genuine Lutheranism. At Koenigsberg the
Osiandrists continued to enjoy the protection and favor of Duke Albrecht
and gradually developed into a quasi-political party. The leader of the
small band was John Funck, the son-in-law of Osiander and the chaplain
of the Duke. In 1566, however, the king of Poland intervened, and Funck
was executed as a disturber of the public peace. Moerlin was recalled
and served as bishop of Samland at Koenigsberg from 1567 till his death
in 1571. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum_, or _Borussicum_, framed by
Moerlin and Chemnitz and adopted 1567 at Koenigsberg, rejected the
doctrines of Osiander. Moerlin also wrote a history of Osiandrism
entitled: _Historia, welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische Schwaermerei
im Lande zu Preussen erhaben_.

177. Corruptions Involved in Osiander's Teaching.

Osiander's theory of justification according to which the righteousness
of faith is the eternal, essential holiness of the divine nature of
Christ inhering and dwelling in man, consistently compelled him to
maintain that justification is not an act by which God declares a man
just, but an act by which He actually makes him inherently just and
righteous; that it is not an imputation of a righteousness existing
outside of man, but an actual infusion of a righteousness dwelling in
man; that it is not a mere acquittal from sin and guilt, but
regeneration, renewal, sanctification and internal, physical cleansing
from sin that it is not a forensic or judicial act outside of man or a
declaration concerning man's standing before God and his relation to
Him but a sort of medicinal process within man, that the righteousness
of faith is not the alien (strange, foreign) righteousness, _aliena
iustitia_ (a term employed also by Luther), consisting in the obedience
of Christ, but a quality, condition, or change effected in believers by
the essential righteousness of the divine nature dwelling in them
through faith in Christ; that faith does not justify on account of the
thing outside of man in which it trusts and upon which it relies, but
by reason of the thing which it introduces and produces in man; that,
accordingly, justification is never instantaneous and complete, but
gradual and progressive.

Osiander plainly teaches that the righteousness of faith (our
righteousness before God) is not the obedience rendered by Christ to the
divine Law, but the indwelling righteousness of God (_iustitia Dei
inhabitans_),--essentially the same original righteousness or image that
inhered in Adam and Eve before the Fall. It consists, not indeed in good
works or in "doing and suffering," but in a quality (_Art_) which
renders him who receives it just, and moves him to do and to suffer what
is right. It is the holiness (_Frommigkeit_) which consists in the
renewal of man, in the gifts of grace, in the new spiritual life, in the
regenerated nature of man. By His suffering and death, said Osiander,
Christ made satisfaction and acquired forgiveness for us, but He did not
thereby effect our justification. His obedience as such does not
constitute our righteousness before God, but merely serves to restore
it. It was necessary that God might be able to dwell in us, and so
become our life and righteousness. Faith justifies, not inasmuch as it
apprehends the merits of Christ, but inasmuch as it unites us with the
divine nature, the infinite essential righteousness of God, in which our
sins are diluted, as it were, and lost, as an impure drop disappears
when poured into an ocean of liquid purity.

According to the teaching of Osiander therefore, also the assurance that
we are justified and accepted by God does not rest exclusively on the
merits of Christ and the pardon offered in the Gospel, but must be based
on the righteous quality inhering in us. Our assurance is conditioned
not alone upon what Christ has done outside of us and for us but rather
upon what He is in us and produces in us. The satisfaction rendered by
Christ many centuries ago is neither the only ground on which God
regards us as just, nor a sufficient basis of our certainty that we are
accepted by God. Not the Christ for us, but rather the Christ in us, is
the basis both of our justification and assurance. Accordingly in order
to satisfy an alarmed sinner, it is not sufficient to proclaim the
Gospel-promise of divine absolution. In addition, an investigation is
required whether the righteousness and holiness of God is also really
found dwelling in him. While Luther had urged alarmed consciences to
trust in the merits of Christ alone for their justification and
salvation, Osiander led them to rely on the new life of divine wisdom,
holiness, and righteousness dwelling in their own hearts. From the very
beginning of the controversy, Moerlin, Melanchthon, and the Lutherans
generally were solicitous to point out that Osiander's doctrine robs
Christians of this glorious and only solid comfort that it is not a
subjective quality in their own hearts, but solely and only the
objective and absolutely perfect obedience rendered by Christ many
hundred years ago, which God regards when He justifies the wicked, and
upon which man must rely for the assurance of his acceptance and
salvation.

Consistently developed, therefore, the innovation of Osiander was bound
to vitiate in every particular the doctrine of justification restored
once more by Luther. In fact, his theory was but a revamping of just
such teaching as had driven the Lutherans out of the Church of Rome.
True, Osiander denied that by our own works we merit justification; that
our righteousness consists in our good works; that our good works are
imputed to us as righteousness. But the fact that he held a subjective
condition to be our righteousness before God gives to his doctrine an
essentially Roman stamp, no matter how widely it may differ from it in
other respects. Moehler, the renowned Catholic apologist, declared that
properly interpreted and illucidated, Osiander's doctrine was "identical
with the Roman Catholic doctrine." (Frank 2, 5. 91.) As stated before,
his teaching was Romanism in its finer and more veiled form of
mysticism.

178. Excerpts from Osiander's Writings.

In his publication of January 10, 1552 _Wider den lichtfluechtigen
Nachtraben_, Osiander endeavors to prove that he is in complete
doctrinal agreement with Luther. In it he gives the following summary,
but guarded, presentation of his views. "I understand it this way," says
he. "1. It flowed from His pure grace and mercy that God sacrificed His
only Son for us. 2. The Son became man and was made under the Law, and
He has redeemed us from the Law and from the curse of the Law. 3. He
took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, for which He suffered,
died, shed His blood, descended into hell, rose again, and thus overcame
sin, death, and hell, and merited for us forgiveness of sin,
reconciliation with God, the grace and gift of justification, and
eternal life. 4. This is to be preached in all the world. 5. Whoever
believes this and is baptized, is justified and blessed (_selig_) by
virtue of such faith. 6. Faith apprehends Christ so that He dwells in
our hearts through faith, Eph. 3, 17. 7. Christ, living in us through
faith, is our Wisdom, Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1,
30, Jer. 23, 6; 33, 16. 8. Christ, true God and man, dwelling in us
through faith, is our Righteousness according to His divine nature, as
Dr. Luther says: 'I rely on the righteousness which is God Himself; this
He cannot reject. Such is, says Luther, the simple, correct
understanding; do not suffer yourself to be led away from it.'" (Frank
2, 7f.) Seeberg cites the following passage: "But if the question be
asked what is righteousness, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us by
faith is our Righteousness according to His divinity; and the
forgiveness of sins, which is not Christ Himself, but merited by Christ,
is a preparation and cause that God offers us His righteousness, which
He is Himself." (_Dogg_. 4, 498.) Incidentally Osiander's appeal to
Luther is unwarranted. For according to him Christ is our Righteousness
because His obedience is God's obedience, the work not only of His human
nature, but, at the same time, also of His divine nature, while
according to Osiander everything that Christ did for us merely serves to
bring about the indwelling of the divine nature of Christ, whose
essential holiness is our righteousness before God. That Osiander was
not in agreement with Luther, as he claimed, appears also from his
assertion that such statements of Luther as: Christ's death is our life,
forgiveness of sins is our righteousness, etc., must be explained
figuratively, as words flowing from a joyous heart. (2, 23.)

The manner in which Osiander maintained that Christ is our Righteousness
only according to His divine nature appears from the following excerpts:
"If the question be asked according to what nature Christ, His whole
undivided person, is our Righteousness, then just as when one asks
according to what nature He is the Creator of heaven and earth, the
clear, correct, and plain answer is that He is our Righteousness
according to His divine, and not according to His human nature, although
we are unable to find, obtain or apprehend such divine righteousness
apart from His humanity." (Frank 2, 12.) Again: "When we say: Christ is
our Righteousness, we must understand His deity, which enters us through
His humanity. When Christ says: I am the Bread of Life, we must
understand His deity which comes into us through His humanity and is our
life. When He says: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink
indeed, we must take it to mean His deity which is in the flesh and
blood 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 the
deity of Christ which is in the blood; for John does not speak of the
blood of Christ as it was shed on the cross, but as it, united with the
flesh of Christ, is our heavenly meat and drink by faith." (23.)
Osiander, therefore, is but consistent when he reiterates that the Son
of God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are our Righteousness, because
their divine essence which by faith dwells in Christians, is one and the
same.

Osiander emphasizes that the essential righteousness of the divine
nature of Christ alone is able to save us. He says: "For of what help
would it be to you if you had all the righteousness which men and angels
can imagine, but lacked this eternal righteousness which is itself the
Son of God, according to His divine nature, with the Father and the Holy
Ghost? For no other righteousness can lift you up to heaven and bring
you to the Father. But when you apprehend this righteousness through
faith, and Christ is in you, what can you then be lacking which you do
not possess richly, superabundantly, and infinitely in His deity?"
Again: "Since Christ is ours and is in us, God Himself and all His
angels behold nothing in us but righteousness on account of the highest,
eternal, and infinite righteousness of Christ, which is His deity itself
dwelling in us. And although sin still remains in, and clings to, our
flesh, it is like an impure little drop compared with a great pure
ocean, and on account of the righteousness of Christ which is in us God
does not want to see it." (Frank 2, 100. 102.)

To this peculiarity of Osiander, according to which he seems to have had
in mind a justification by a sort of mystico-physical dilution rather
than by imputation, the _Formula of Concord_ refers as follows: "For one
side has contended that the righteousness of faith, which the apostle
calls the righteousness of God, is God's essential righteousness, which
is Christ Himself as the true, natural, and essential Son of God, who
dwells in the elect by faith and impels them to do right, and thus is
their righteousness, compared with which righteousness the sins of all
men are as a drop of water compared with the great ocean." (917, 2; 790,
2.)

In his confession _Concerning the Only Mediator_, of 1551, Osiander
expatiates on justification, and defines it as an act by which
righteousness is "infused" into believers. We read: "It is apparent that
whatever part Christ, as the faithful Mediator, acted with regard to
God, His heavenly Father, for our sakes, by fulfilling the Law and by
His suffering and death, was accomplished more than 1,500 years ago,
when we were not in existence. For this reason it cannot, properly
speaking, have been, nor be called, our justification, but only our
redemption and the atonement for us and our sins. For whoever would be
justified must believe; but if he is to believe, he must already be born
and 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 the
fulfilment of the Law and by His suffering and death He merited and
earned from God, His heavenly Father, this great and superabounding
grace, namely, that He not only has forgiven our sin and taken from us
the unbearable burden of the Law, but that He also _wishes to justify us
by faith in Christ, to infuse justification or the righteousness
(sondern auch uns durch den Glauben an Christum will rechtfertigen, die
Gerechtmachung eingiessen)_, and, if only we obey, through the operation
of His Holy Spirit and through the death of Christ, in which we are
embodied by the baptism of Christ, _to mortify, purge out, and entirely
destroy sin_ which is already forgiven us, but nevertheless still dwells
in our flesh and adheres to us. Therefore the _other part_ of the office
of our dear faithful Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ is now to turn
toward us in order to deal also with us poor sinners as with the guilty
party, that we acknowledge such great grace and gratefully receive it by
faith, _in order that He by faith may make us alive and just from the
death of sin, and that sin, which is already forgiven, but nevertheless
still dwells and inheres in our flesh, may be altogether mortified and
destroyed in us. And this, first of all, is the act of our
justification._" (Tschackert, 492f.; Planck 4, 268.)

That Osiander practically identified justification with regeneration,
renewal, and gradual sanctification appears from the following
quotations. To justify, says he, means "to make a just man out of an
unjust one, that is to recall a dead man to life--_ex impio iustum
facere, 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 us
alive (_eben und in aller Masse, wie er uns auch lebendig macht_)."
(Frank 2, 18.) "And here you see again how terribly those err who
endeavor to prove by this passage of David and Paul that our
righteousness is nothing else than forgiveness of sin; for they have
overlooked the covering of sin with the [essential] righteousness of
Christ whom we put on in Baptism; _they have also removed from
justification the renewal of the inner man effected by regeneration._"
(102.)

Osiander was fanatical in denouncing those who identified justification
with the forgiveness of sins. In his Disputation of October 24, 1550, he
declared: "The entire fulness of the deity dwells in Christ bodily,
hence in those also in whom Christ dwells.... Therefore we are just by
His essential righteousness.... Whoever does not hold this manner of our
justification is certainly a Zwinglian at heart, no matter what he may
confess with his mouth.... They also teach things colder than ice [who
hold] that we are regarded as righteous only on account of the
forgiveness of sins, and not on account of the [essential] righteousness
of Christ who dwells in us through faith. _Glacie frigidiora docent nos
tantum propter remissionem peccatorum reputari iustos, et non etiam
propter iustitiam Christi per fidem in nobis inhabitantis. Non enim tam
iniquus Deus est, ut eum pro iusto habeat, in quo verae iustitiae
prorsus nil est._" (Frank 2, 97; Tschackert, 494; Seeberg 4, 497.) They
are errorists, Osiander declared, "who say, teach, and write that the
righteousness is outside of us." (Frank 2, 100.) "The [essential]
righteousness of Christ is indeed, imputed to us, but only when it is in
us." "For God is not so unrighteous, nor such a lover of unrighteousness
that He regards him as just in whom there is absolutely nothing of the
true righteousness; as it is written, Ps. 5, 4: 'For Thou art not a God
that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee,'"
(Planck 4, 273.) Evidently, Osiander rejected or had never fully grasped
Paul's clear statement and teaching concerning the God who justifies the
ungodly, Rom. 4, 5: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him
that 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, regarded
Osiander's doctrine as differing from the generally received view in
phraseology and mode of presentation rather than in substance, the
Lutherans everywhere were unanimous in rejecting Osiander's theory as a
recrudescence of the Romish justification not by imputation, but by
infusion. And as to Brenz, who put a milder construction on the
statements of Osiander, Melanchthon wrote October 1, 1557: "Concerning
the affair with Osiander, my writings are publicly known, which I hope
will be of benefit to many. Brenz also is agreed with us doctrinally. He
said he had advised peace, for he did not take Osiander's expressions to
be as dangerous as the opponents did, and for this reason could not as
yet condemn his person; but in doctrine he was agreed with us and would
unite in condemning Osiander if the charges made against him were
proved." Melanchthon himself fully realized the viciousness of
Osiander's error, although at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, he, too, was
opposed 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 essential
righteousness of Christ renewal is effected in us, but that we have
forgiveness of sins and are reputed to be righteous on account of the
merit of Christ whose blood and death appeased the wrath of God. In his
confutation of the Osiandric doctrine, written in September, 1555, we
read: "Osiander's definition of righteousness is: Righteousness is that
which makes us do what is righteous.... Hence man is righteous by doing
what is righteous.... Thereupon Osiander, in order to say something also
concerning forgiveness of sins, tears remission of sins from
righteousness. He expressly declares that the sins are forgiven to all
men; Nero however, is damned because he does not possess the essential
righteousness; and this, he says, is God Himself, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.... Osiander contends that man is just on account of the
indwelling of God, or on account of the indwelling God, not on account
of the obedience of the Mediator, not by the imputed righteousness of
the Mediator through grace. And he corrupts the proposition, 'By faith
we are justified,' into, By faith we are prepared that we may become
just by something else, _viz._, the inhabiting God. Thus he in reality
says what the <DW7>s say: 'We are righteous by our renewal,' except
that he mentions the cause where the <DW7>s mention the effect. _Ita re
ipsa dicit, quod Papistae dicunt, sumus iusti novitate, nisi quod
nominat causam, ubi nominant Papistae effectum_. We are just when God
renews us. He therefore detracts from the honor due to the Mediator,
obscures the greatness of sin, destroys the chief consolation of the
pious, and leads them into perpetual doubt. For faith cannot exist
unless it looks upon the promise of mercy concerning the Mediator. Nor
is there an inhabitation unless the consolation is received by this
faith. And it is a preposterous way of teaching that one is to believe
first the inhabitation, afterwards forgiveness of sins (_prius credere
inhabitationem, postea remissionem peccatorum_). Since therefore this
dogma of Osiander is both false and pernicious to consciences, it must
be shunned and damned." (_C. R._ 7, 781; 8, 579ff.)

In another essay, of September, 1556, signed also by Melanchthon, the
following propositions are rejected: 1. Man becomes righteous on
account of the essential righteousness. 2. Man becomes righteous on
account of the essential righteousness of God the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. 3. Man becomes righteous before God on account of the indwelling
of God. 4. Righteousness consists in the indwelling of Christ, on
account of which God imputes righteousness to us.... 5. Nor must one say
there are two or more parts of justification: faith, inhabitation, good
works, etc. For justification before God is to receive forgiveness of
sins and to become acceptable to God on account of Christ.... 6. This
proposition, too, is false: The regenerate after the Fall are righteous
in the same manner as Adam was before the Fall, namely, not by
imputation, but by inhabitation or original righteousness.... 8. It is
also false when some say we are righteous by faith, namely, in a
preparative way in order afterwards to be righteous by the essential
righteousness. At bottom this is Popish and destructive of faith.... 9.
The following propositions must be rejected altogether: The obedience of
Christ is called righteousness in a tropical sense; Christ justifies
accidentally (_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 closely
connected with his peculiar view concerning the image of God (the
central idea of his entire system), of which, however, he declared that
he did not consider it essential, and would not contend with anybody
about it. Nor were the questions involved disputed to any extent or
dealt with in the _Formula of Concord_. As to Osiander, however, the
train of his thoughts runs as follows:--

The Logos, the divine Word, is the image of God, into whom His entire
essence flows in a manner and process eternal. In a temporal and
historical way the same image is destined to be realized in the nature
of man. Divine essential righteousness indwelling and efficacious in
humanity--such was the eternal plan of God. For the realization of this
purpose the Logos, God's image, was to become man, even if the human
race should not have fallen. This was necessary because in finite man
there is absolutely no similarity with the infinite essence of the
non-incarnate Logos. Without the incarnation, therefore, this infinite
dissimilarity would have remained forever (_esset et maneret simpliciter
infinita dissimilitudo inter hominem et Verbum Dei_). And in order that
man might be capable of God and share His divine nature (_capax Dei et
divinae naturae consors_), God created him according to His image;
_i.e._, according to the idea of the incarnate Logos. "God formed the
body of man," said Osiander, "that it should be altogether like unto the
future body of Christ. Thereupon He breathed into it the breath of life,
_i.e._, a rational soul together with the human spirit, adorned with the
proper powers, in such a manner that it, too, should be like unto the
future 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 made
flesh, 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 the
congregation in order that the essential righteousness of God might flow
from Him into His body, the believers. Before the Fall the Son of God
dwelled in Adam, making him just by God's essential righteousness. By
the Fall this righteousness was lost. Hence the redemption and atonement
of Christ were required in order again to pave the way for the renewal
of the lost image or the indwelling of God's essential righteousness in
man. The real source of this righteousness and divine life in man,
however, is not the human, but the divine nature of Christ. In the
process of justification or of making man righteous, the human nature of
Christ merely serves as a medium, or as it were, a canal, through which
the eternal essential wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of Christ's
divine 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), and
through it enters the believing soul. For through Word, Sacrament, and
faith we are united with His humanity. In the Lord's Supper, for
instance, we become the flesh and blood of Christ, just as we draw the
nourishment out of natural food and transform it into our flesh and
blood. And since the humanity of Christ, with which we become one in the
manner described, is personally united with the deity, it imparts to us
also the divine essence, and, as a result, we, too, are the abode of the
essential righteousness of God. "We cannot receive the divine nature
from Christ," says Osiander, "if we are not embodied in Him by faith and
Baptism, thus becoming flesh and blood and bone of His flesh, blood, and
bone." As the branches could not partake of the nature of the vine if
they were not of the wood of the vine, even so we could not share the
divine nature of Christ if we had not, incorporated in Him by faith and
Baptism, become flesh, blood, and bone of His flesh, blood, and bone.
Accordingly, as Christ's humanity became righteous through the union
with God, the essential righteousness which moved Him to obedience
toward God, thus we also become righteous through our union with Christ
and in Him with God. (Frank 2, 104. 20ff.; Seeberg 4, 497f.)

In view of such speculative teaching, in which justification is
transformed into a sort of mystico-physical process, it is not
surprising that the charge of pantheism was also raised against
Osiander. The theologians of Brandenburg asserted that he inferred from
his doctrine that the believers in Christ are also divine persons,
because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost dwell in them essentially. But
Osiander protested: "Creatures we are and creatures we remain, no matter
how wonderfully we are renewed; but the seed of God and the entire
divine essence which is in us by grace in the same manner as it is in
Christ by nature and remains eternally in us (_das also aus Gnaden in
uns ist wie in Christo von Natur und bleibt ewiglich in uns_) is God
Himself, and no creature, and will not become a creature in us or on
account of us but will eternally remain in us true God." Frank says
concerning the doctrine of Osiander: It is not pantheism or a mixture of
the divine and human nature, "but it is a subjectivism by which the
objective foundation of salvation as taught by the Lutheran Church is
rent to the very bottom. It is a mysticism which transforms the Christ
_for us_ into the Christ _in us_, and, though unintentionally, makes the
consciousness of the _inhabitatio essentialis iustitiae_ (indwelling of
the essential righteousness) the basis of peace with God." (2, 19. 10.
13. 95. 103.) In his teaching concerning the image of God and
justification, Osiander replaced the comforting doctrine of the Bible
concerning the substitutionary and atoning work of Christ in His active
and passive obedience unto death with vain philosophical speculations
concerning divinity and humanity or the two natures of Christ. It was
not so very far beside the mark, therefore, when Justus Menius
characteized his theory as "a new alchmistic theology." (Planck 4, 257.)

181. Error of Stancarus.

The Stancarian dispute was incidental to the Osiandric conflict. Its
author was Francesco Stancaro (born in Mantua, 1501), an Italian
ex-priest, who had emigrated from Italy on account of his Protestant
views. Vain, opinionated, haughty, stubborn, and insolent as he was, he
roamed about, creating trouble wherever he appeared, first in Cracow as
professor of Hebrew, 1551 in Koenigsberg then in Frankfort-on-the-Oder,
next at various places in Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania. He died at
Stobnitz, Poland, November 12, 1574. Stancarus treated all of his
opponents as ignoramuses and spoke contemptuously of Luther and
Melanchthon, branding the latter as an antichrist. In Koenigsberg he
immediately felt called upon to interfere in the controversy which had
just flared up. He opposed Osiander in a fanatical manner, declaring
him to be the personal antichrist. The opponents of Osiander at
Koenigsberg however, were not elated over his comradeship, particularly
because he fell into an opposite error. They were glad when he resigned
and left for Frankfort the same year he had arrived at Koenigsberg. In
Frankfort, Stancarus continued the controversy, publishing, 1552, his
_Apology against Osiander--Apologia contra Osiandrum_. But he was
ignored rather than opposed by the Lutheran theologians. In 1553
Melanchthon wrote his _Answer (Responsio) Concerning Stancar's
Controversy_. Later on, 1561, when Stancarus was spreading his errors in
Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania, Calvin and the ministers of Zurich
also wrote against him. The chief publication in which Stancarus set
forth and defended his views appeared 1562, at Cracow, under the title:
_Concerning the Trinity (De Trinitate) and the Mediator, Our Lord Jesus
Christ_. As late as 1585 Wigand published his book _Concerning
Stancarism--De Stancarismo_.

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

Concerning Christ's obedience Peter Lombard taught: "_Christus Mediator
dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.... Mediator est
ergo, in quantum <DW25>, et non in quantum Deus_. Christ is called
Mediator according to His humanity, not according to His divinity.... He
is therefore Mediator inasmuch as He is man, and not inasmuch as He is
God." (Planck 4, 451; Seeberg 4, 507.) In accordance with this teaching,
Stancarus maintained, in pointed opposition to Osiander, that Christ is
our Righteousness only according to His human nature, and not according
to His divine nature. The divine nature of Christ, Stancarus declared
must be excluded from the office of Christ's mediation and priesthood;
for if God the Son were Mediator and would do something which the Father
and the Holy Spirit could not do, then He would have a will and an
operation and hence also a nature and essence different from that of the
Father 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 according
to His human nature, but not according to His divine nature; according
to His divine nature Christ was not under the Law, was not obedient unto
death, etc." (Frank 2, 111.) Stancarus argued: "Christ is one God with
the Father and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three personal properties
of '_paternitas, filiatio, and spiratio passiva_' the three divine
persons are absolutely identical in their being and operation. Their
work is the sending of the Mediator, whose divine nature itself, in an
active way, participates in this sending; hence only the human nature of
the God-man is sent, and only the human nature of the Mediator acts in a
reconciling way. Men are reconciled by Christ's death on the cross; but
the 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 of
Christ only, and not by His divine nature (_ergo per naturam humanam
Christi tantum sumus reconciliati et non per divinam_)." (Schluesselburg
9, 216ff.)

Consistently, the Stancarian doctrine destroys both the unity of the
person of Christ and the sufficiency of His atonement. It not only
corrupts the doctrine of the infinite and truly redeeming value of the
obedience of the God-man, but also denies the personal union of the
divine and human natures in Christ. For if the divine nature is excluded
from 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 human
nature that died for us, then the price of our redemption is altogether
inadequate, and we are not redeemed, as Luther so earnestly emphasized
against 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, but
from His office as Mediator." (Frank 2, 111.) However, just this was
Luther's contention, that Christ is our Mediator also according to His
divine nature, and that the denial of this truth both invalidates His
satisfaction and divides His person.

The Third Article of the _Formula of Concord_, therefore, rejects the
error of Stancarus as well as that of Osiander. Against the latter it
maintains that the active and passive obedience of Christ is our
righteousness before God: and over against the former, that this
obedience was the act of the entire person of Christ, and not of His
human nature alone. We read: "In opposition to both these parties
[Osiander and Stancarus] it has been unanimously taught by the other
teachers of the _Augsburg Confession_ that Christ is our Righteousness
not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human
nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed,
justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His
complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the
forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's
children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith
alone, out of pure grace is imputed for righteousness to all true
believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their
unrighteousness." (917, 4.)

182. Deviations of Parsimonious and Hamburg Ministers.

In 1563 a collateral controversy concerning the obedience of Christ was
raised by Parsimonius (George Karg). He was born 1512; studied under
Luther in Wittenberg; 1547 he became pastor in Schwabach, and 1556
superintendent in Ansbach; 1563 he was deposed because of erroneous
theses published in that year; he was opposed by Hesshusius and Ketzmann
in Ansbach; 1570, having discussed his difference with the theologians
in Wittenberg, Karg retracted and was restored to his office; he died
1576. In his theses on justification Parsimonius deviated from the
Lutheran doctrine by teaching that Christ redeemed us by His passive
obedience only, and by denying that His active obedience had any
vicarious merit, since as man He Himself owed such obedience to the Law
of God,--a view afterwards defended also by such Reformed divines as
John 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 the
believer out of pure grace is the obedience suffering, and resurrection
of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid
for our sins. For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one
undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (because He is the
Lord of the Law) as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is
concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering
and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made
under the Law and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for
righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience which He
rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living
and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and
eternally saves us." (919, 16.)--

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

In 1551 Melanchthon had written: "It must be admitted that God dwells in
our 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 and
efficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, but
God is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile."
(_C. R._ 7, 781.) This was the view of the Lutheran theologians
generally. Article III of the _Formula of Concord_, too, is emphatic in
disavowing a personal union of the deity and humanity in believers, as
well as in asserting that God Himself, not merely His gifts, dwell in
Christians. (935, 54; 937, 65.) In addition to the aberrations
enumerated, Article III rejects also some of the Roman and the
Romanizing errors concerning justification in the Leipzig Interim, and
some views entertained by Majorists which are extensively and _ex
professo_ 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 truly
evangelical reformer, taught: "In itself the Law is nothing else than a
Gospel; that is, a good, certain message from God by means of which He
instructs us concerning His will." (Frank 2, 312.) While Zwingli thus
practically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, held
that the difference between both is as great as that between life and
death or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no one
can be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly to
distinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling of
the Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrine
of justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must be
carefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in the
Church; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaningless
without it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, the
Gospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is assailed, even
if this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality,
hit harder than the former. The cocoon of antinomianism always bursts
into antigospelism.

Majorism, the mingling of sanctification and justification, and
synergism, the mingling of nature and grace, were but veiled efforts to
open once more the doors of the Lutheran Church to the Roman
work-righteousness, which Luther had expelled. The same is true of
antinomianism in all its forms. It amounts to nothing less than apostasy
from true Evangelicalism and a return to Romanism. When Luther opposed
Agricola, the father of the Antinomians in the days of the Reformation,
he did so with the clear knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ with
its doctrine of justification by grace and faith alone was at stake and
in need of defense. "By these spirits," said he, "the devil does not
intend 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 the
distinction between the Law and the Gospel be carefully preserved. The
opening paragraph of Article V, "Of the Law and the Gospel," reads: "As
the distinction between the Law and Gospel _is a special brilliant
light_ which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided,
and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly
explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order
that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a Law
be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and
troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise
have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity,
and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials
against the terrors of the Law." (951, 1.) The concluding paragraph of
this article declares that the proper distinction between the Law and
the Gospel must be preserved, "in order that both doctrines, that of the
Law and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one
another, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other,
_whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the
Gospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law_, as has occurred in
the Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which
they have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is
again opened in the Church of God to the Papacy." (961, 27.) The blessed
Gospel, our only comfort and consolation against the terrors of the Law,
will be corrupted wherever the Law and the Gospel are not properly
distinguished,--such, then, was the view also of the _Formula of
Concord_.

Articles V and VI of the _Formula_ treat and dispose of the issues
raised by the Antinomians. In both Luther's doctrine is maintained and
reaffirmed. Article V, "Of the Law and Gospel," teaches that, in the
proper sense of the term, everything is Law that reveals and rebukes
sin, the sin of unbelief in Christ and the Gospel included; that Gospel,
in the proper and narrow sense, is nothing but a proclamation and
preaching of grace and forgiveness of sin, that, accordingly, the Law as
well as the Gospel are needed and must be retained and preached in the
Church. This was precisely what Luther had taught. In one of his theses
against Agricola he says: "Whatever discloses sin, wrath, or death
exercises the office of the Law; Law and the disclosing of sin or the
revelation of wrath are convertible terms. _Quidquid ostendit peccatum,
iram seu mortem, id exercet officium legis; lex et ostensio peccati seu
revelatio irae sunt termini convertibiles_." Article VI "Of the Third
Use of the Law," teaches that although Christians, in as far as they are
regenerate, do the will of God spontaneously, the Law must nevertheless
be preached to them on account of their Old Adam, not only as a mirror
revealing their sins and as a check on the lusts of the flesh, but also
as a rule of their lives. This, too, is precisely what Luther had
maintained against Agricola: "The Law," said he, "must be retained [in
the 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: one
chiefly before the other after the death of Luther. The first of these
conflicts was originated by Agricola who spoke most contemptuously and
disparagingly of the Law of God, teaching, in particular, that true
knowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, but
by the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no use
whatever for the Law of God. After Luther's death similar antinomistic
errors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg,
who maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, but
by the Gospel. Poach, Otto, and others denied that, with respect to good
works, the Law was of any service whatever to Christians after their
conversion.

Barring Carlstadt and similar spirits, John Agricola (Schnitter,
Kornschneider, Magister Islebius--Luther called him Grickel) was the
first to strike a discordant note and breed trouble within the Lutheran
Church. Born April 20, 1492, at Eisleben, he studied at Leipzig, and
from 1515 to 1516 at Wittenberg. Here he became an enthusiastic
adherent and a close friend of Luther and also of Melanchthon, after the
latter's arrival in 1518. In 1539 Luther himself declared that Agricola
had been "one of his best and closest friends." (St. L. 20, 1612.) In
1519 he accompanied both to the great debate in Leipzig. In 1525 he
became teacher of the Latin school and though never ordained, pastor of
the church in Eisleben. Being a speaker of some renown he was frequently
engaged by the Elector of Saxony, especially on his journeys--to Speyer
1526 and 1529, to Augsburg 1530, to Vienna 1535. At Eisleben, Agricola
was active also in a literary way, publishing sermons, a catechism, and,
1526, a famous collection of 300 German proverbs (the Wittenberg edition
of 1592 contains 750 proverbs).

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

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

185. Agricola's Conflict with Melanchthon.

The antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the
Law, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law and
its preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as early
as 1525. In his _Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke_ of that year he
had 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. To
the gallows with Moses!" (Tschackert 481; _Herzog R._ 1, 688; E. 4,
423.) The public dispute began two years later when Agricola criticized
Melanchthon because in the latter's "Instructions to the Visitors of the
Churches of Saxony" (Articles of Visitation, _Articuli, de quibus
Egerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxionae_, 1527) the ministers were
urged first to preach the Law to their spiritually callous people in
order to produce repentance (contrition), and thus to prepare them for
saving 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 must
teach these to their churches. At present it is common to vociferate
concerning faith, and yet one cannot understand what faith is, unless
repentance is preached. Plainly they pour new wine into old bottles who
preach faith without repentance, without the doctrine of the fear of
God, without the doctrine of the Law, and accustom the people to a
certain carnal security, which is worse than all former errors under the
Pope have been." (_C. R._ 26, 9.) Agricola considered these and similar
exhortations of Melanchthon unfriendly and Romanizing, and published his
dissent in his _130 Questions for Young Children_, where he displayed a
shocking contempt for the Old Testament and the Law of God. In
particular, he stressed the doctrine that genuine repentance
(contrition) is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only. In
letters to his friends, Agricola at the same time charged Melanchthon
with corrupting the evangelical doctrine. (Frank 2, 252.)

At a meeting held at Torgau, November 26 to 28, 1527, the differences
were discussed by Agricola and Melanchthon in the presence of Luther and
Bugenhagen. The exact issue was: Does faith presuppose contrition?
Melanchthon affirmed the question, and Agricola denied it. Luther
finally effected an agreement by distinguishing between general and
justifying faith, and by explaining that repentance (contrition),
indeed, presupposes a general faith in God, but that justifying faith
presupposes the terrors of conscience (contrition) wrought by the Law.
His decision ran "that the term faith should be applied to justifying
faith which consoles us in these terrors [produced by the threats of the
Law] 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 der
Visitatoren_, published 1528 at Wittenberg, that, in the wider and more
general sense, the term "faith" embraces contrition and the Law, but
that in the interest of the common people the word "faith" should be
reserved for the special Christian or justifying faith in Christ. We
read: "Denn wiewohl etliche achten, man solle nichts lehren vor dem
Glauben, sondern die Busse aus und nach dem Glauben folgend lehren, auf
dass die Widersacher [Papisten] nicht sagen moegen, man widerrufe unsere
vorige Lehre, so ist aber doch anzusehen, weil [dass] die Busse und
Gesetz auch zu dem gemeinen Glauben gehoeren. Denn man muss ja zuvor
glauben, dass Gott sei, der da drohe, gebiete, schrecke usw. So sei es
fuer den gemeinen, groben Mann, dass man solche Stuecke des Glaubens
lasse bleiben unter dem Namen Busse, Gebot, Gesetz, Furcht usw., auf
dass sie desto unterschiedlicher den Glauben Christi verstehen, welchen
die Apostel _iustificantem fidem_, das ist, der da gerecht macht und
Suende vertilgt, nennen, welches der Glaube von dem Gebot und Busse
nicht tut und doch der gemeine Mann ueber dem Wort Glauben irre wird und
Fragen aufbringt ohne Nutzen." (_C. R._ 26, 51f.)

186. Luther's First Disputation against the Antinomians.

At Wittenberg, in 1537, Agricola renewed his antinomianism by secretly
and anonymously circulating a number of propositions (_Positiones inter
Fratres Sparsae_) directed against both Luther and Melanchthon, whom he
branded as "contortors of the words of Christ," urging all to resist
them in order to preserve the pure doctrine. Quotations from Luther and
Melanchthon were appended to the theses in order to show that their
teaching concerning the "mode of justification (_modus
iustificationis_)" was sometimes "pure," sometimes "impure." Agricola
wrote: "Impure [among the statements of Melanchthon and Luther] are: 1.
In the _Saxon Visitation:_ 'Since Christ commands that repentance and
remission of sins is to be preached in His name, hence the Decalog is
to be taught,' 2. Again ... 'As the Gospel therefore teaches that the
Law 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 says
that it is the office of the Law to torment and to terrify the
conscience, that it may know Christ more readily. Many similar passages
are found in this commentary, which we reject as false, in order to
maintain the purity of the doctrine." (E., v. a. 4, 422f.; St. L. 20,
1627.)

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

Following are some of the 39 theses discussed by Luther in his first
disputation against the Antinomians: "4. The first part of repentance,
contrition, is [wrought] by the Law alone. The other part, the good
purpose, cannot be [wrought] by the Law. 24. And they [the Antinomians]
teach perniciously that the Law of God is simply to be removed from the
church, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. 25. For the entire
Scripture teaches that repentance must begin from the Law, which also
the order of the matter itself as well as experience shows. 31.
Necessarily, then, sin and death cannot be revealed by the Word of Grace
and Solace, but by the Law. 32. Experience teaches that Adam is first
reproved as a transgressor of the Law and afterwards cheered by the
promised Seed of the woman. 33. Also David is first killed by the Law
through Nathan, saying: 'Thou art the man,' etc.--afterwards he is saved
by 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 the
Gospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand.' 36. Again: 'Repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name,' [Luke 24, 47.] 37.
Likewise the Spirit first reproves the world of sin, in order to teach
faith in Christ, _i.e._, forgiveness of sin. [John 16, 8.] 38. In the
Epistle to the Romans Paul observes this method, first to teach that all
are sinners, and thereupon, that they are to be justified solely through
Christ." (Drews, 253ff.; St. L. 20, 1628ff.)

187. Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians.

Since Agricola did not appear at the first public disputation against
the Antinomians, moreover secretly [_"im Winkel"_] continued his
opposition and intrigues, Luther insisted that his privilege of
lecturing at the university be withdrawn. Thus brought to terms
Agricola, through his wife, sued for reconciliation. Luther demanded a
retraction to be made at his next disputation, which was held January
12, 1538. (Drews, 248. 334f.; _C. R._ 25, 64; 3, 482f.) Here Luther
explained that, though not necessary to justification, the Law must not
be cast out of the church, its chief object being to reveal the guilt of
sin; moreover, that the Law must be taught to maintain outward
discipline, to reveal sin, and to show Christians what works are
pleasing to God. (Drews, 418.)

Following are some of the 48 theses discussed by Luther in his second
disputation: "3. When treating of justification, one cannot say too much
against the inability of the Law [to save] and against the most
pernicious trust in the Law. 4. For the Law was not given to justify or
vivify or help in any way toward righteousness. 5. But to reveal sin and
work 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 the
Law be separated from justification. 9. And nothing is to be taught,
said, or thought in the matter of justification but only the word of the
grace exhibited in Christ. 10. From this, however, it does not follow
that the Law is to be abolished and excluded from the preaching of [done
in] the church. 11. Indeed, just for the reason that not only is it not
necessary to justification, but also cannot effect it, it is the more
necessary to teach and urge it. 12. In order that man, who is proud and
trusts in his own powers, may be instructed that he cannot be justified
by the Law. 18. Whatever reveals sin, wrath, or death exercises the
office 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 the
Law or an effect and the peculiar power of the Law. 20. Law and
revelation of sin or of wrath are convertible terms. 24. So that it is
impossible for sin to be, or to be known, without the Law written or
inscribed [in the heart]. 27. And since the Law of God requires our
obedience toward God, these Antinomians (_nomomachi_) abolish also
obedience toward God. 28. From this it is manifest that Satan through
these his instruments teaches about sin, repentance, and Christ in words
only (_verbaliter tantum_). 29. But in reality he takes away Christ,
repentance, sin, and the entire Scripture, together with God, its
Author. 46. For the Law, as it was before Christ, did indeed accuse us;
but under Christ it is appeased through the forgiveness of sins, and
thereafter it is to be fulfilled through the Spirit. 47. Therefore the
Law will never, in all eternity, be abolished, but will remain, either
to be fulfilled by the damned, or already fulfilled by the blessed. 48.
These pupils of the devil however, seem to think that the Law is
temporary 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 second
disputation: "Why is the Law to be taught? The Law is to be taught on
account of discipline, according to the word of Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: 'The
Law is made for the lawless,' and that by this pedagogy men might come
to Christ as Paul says to the Galatians (3, 24): 'The Law was our
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,' In the second place, the Law is to
be 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 retained
that the saints may know what kind of works God requires in which they
may exercise their obedience toward God. _Lex est retinenda, ut sciant
sancti, quaenam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam exercere erga
Deum 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 sermons
delivered April 23) retracted his error, and declared his assent to the
views expressed in Luther's second disputation, Agricola was again
permitted to preach and teach. As a result, Luther also, though he had
no faith in the sincerity of Agricola's retraction, did not carry out
his original plan of discussing a third and fourth series of theses
which 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 <DW7>s, Turks, Jews, and of all unbelievers and
hypocrites is alike in every respect. 2. It consists in this, that they
are sorry and make satisfaction for one or several sins, and afterwards
are secure as to other sins or original sin. 5. The repentance of
believers in Christ goes beyond the actual sins, and continues
throughout life, till death. 8. For the sin in our flesh remains during
the entire time of our life, warring against the Spirit, who resists it.
[Rom. 7, 23.] 9. Therefore all works after justification are nothing
else than a continuous repentance, or a good purpose against sin. 10.
For nothing else is done than that sin, revealed by the Law and forgiven
in Christ, is swept out. 17. The Lord's Prayer, taught by the Lord
Himself to the saints and believers, is a part of repentance, containing
much of the doctrine of the Law. 18. For whoever prays it aright
confesses with his own mouth that he sins against the Law and repents.
27. Therefore also the Lord's Prayer itself teaches that the Law is
before, below, and after the Gospel (_legem esse ante, sub et post
evangelium_), and that from it repentance must begin. 30. From this it
follows that these enemies of the Law [Antinomians] must abolish also
the Lord's Prayer if they abolish the Law. 31. Indeed, they are
compelled to expunge the greatest part of the sermons of Christ Himself
from the Gospel-story. 32. For Matt. 5, 17ff. He does not only recite
the Law of Moses, but explains it perfectly, and teaches that it must
not be destroyed. 34. Everywhere throughout the Gospel He also reproves,
rebukes, threatens, and exercises similar offices of the Law. 35. So
that there never has been nor ever will be more impudent men than those
who 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 the
Antinomians we quote: "12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine of
the <DW7>s concerning repentance as of hell and the devil himself. 13.
Much more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whatever
in the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught in
reality 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 to
nothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth that
man is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in the
beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not be
taught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders,
adulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence such
things must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing toward
justification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolished
and not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without the
Law' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without the
assistance of the Law,' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demands
fulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faith
in Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works,
without the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good works
follow spontaneously, without the Law, _i.e._, without the help or
coercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nor
necessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less for
salvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvation
are necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to save
that which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the restitution of all
things, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is not
destroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become such
as 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's
relapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was another
disputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, in
which Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled their
hearers into carnal security. He also explained that the passages culled
from his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hence
misinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressed
to consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of the
consolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them to
secure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifying
power of the Law. (Drews, 421f.; Tschackert, 482.)

From the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submit
the 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 so
far 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 death
destroyed. 11. That is, when, through faith we are crucified and have
died in Christ, such things [the Law fulfilled, sin abolished, and death
destroyed] are true also in us. 13. But the fact itself and experience
testify that the just are still daily delivered to death. 14.
Necessarily, therefore, in as far as they are under death, they are
still also under the Law and sin. 15. They [the Antinomians] are
altogether inexperienced men and deceivers of souls who endeavor to
abolish the Law from the church. 16. For this is not only foolish and
wicked, but also absolutely impossible. 17. For if you would abolish the
Law, you will be compelled to abolish also sin and death. 18. For death
and 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 the
Law,' 19. But since you see that the just die daily what a folly is it
to 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 first
proved that the just are altogether without sin and death. 22. Or that
they 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 removed
from 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 the
church is extraordinary. 26. Yet it is a much greater impudence, or
rather insanity, when they assert that even the wicked should be freed
from the Law, and that it should not be preached to them. 29. If,
however, they pretend that their church or their hearers simply are all
pious men and Christians, without the Law, 30. Then it is evident that
they are altogether of unsound mind and do not know what they say or
affirm. 31. For this is nothing else than to imagine that all their
hearers have been removed from this life. 35. Thus it [the Law] is also
given to the pious, in so far as they are not yet dead and still live in
the flesh. 40. Now, in as far as Christ is raised in us, in so far we
are without Law, sin, and death. 41. But in as far as He is not yet
raised in us, in so far we are under the Law, sin, and death. 42.
Therefore the Law (as also the Gospel) must be preached, without
discrimination, to the righteous as well as to the wicked. 44. To the
pious, that they may thereby be reminded to crucify their flesh with its
affections and lusts, lest they become secure. [Gal. 5, 24.] 45. For
security abolishes faith and the fear of God, and renders the latter end
worse than the beginning. [2 Pet. 2, 20.] 46. It appears very clearly
that the Antinomians imagine sin to have been removed through Christ
essentially and philosophically or juridically (_formaliter et
philosophice seu iuridice_) 47. And that they do not at all know that
sin is removed only inasmuch as the merciful God does not impute it [Ps.
32, 2], and forgives it (_solum reputatione et ignoscentia Dei
miserentis_). 61. For if the Law is removed, no one knows what Christ
is, or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. 66. The doctrine of
the Law, therefore, is necessary in the churches, and by all means is to
be retained, as without it Christ cannot be retained. 67. For what will
you retain of Christ when (the Law having been removed which He
fulfilled) you do not know what He has fulfilled? 69. In brief, to
remove the Law and to let sin and death remain, is to hide the disease
of sin and death to men unto their perdition. 70. When death and sin are
abolished (as was done by Christ), then the Law would be removed
happily; 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, Agricola
was again ready to submit. And when a public retraction was demanded, he
even left it to Luther to formulate the recantation. Luther did so in a
public letter to Caspar Guettel in Eisleben, entitled, _Against the
Antinomians--Wider die Antinomer_, which he published in the beginning
of January, 1539. (St. L. 20, 1610.) In a crushing manner Luther here
denounced "the specter of the new spirits who dare thrust the Law or the
Ten Commandments out of the church and relegate it to the courthouse."

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

Referring to his former statements appealed to by Agricola, Luther
continues: "I have indeed taught, and still teach, that sinners should
be led to repentance by the preaching of, and meditation upon, the
suffering of Christ, so that they may realize how great God's wrath is
over sin, seeing that there is no other help against it than that God's
Son must die for it.... But how does it follow from this that the Law
must be abandoned? I am unable to discover such an inference in my
logic, and would like to see and hear the master who would be able to
prove it. When Isaiah says, chap. 53, 8: 'For the transgression of My
people was He stricken,' tell me, dear friend, is the Law abandoned
when here the suffering of Christ is preached? What does 'for the
transgression of My people' mean? Does it not mean: because My people
have sinned against, and not kept, My Law? Or can any one imagine that
sin is something where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the Law must
with it also abolish sins. If he would allow sins to remain, he must
much 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 Christ
is nothing. For why does He die if there be neither Law nor sin for
which 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 may
well and easily be taken away, but not so the Law, which is written in
the heart." (1613f.) "Therefore I request of you, my dear Doctor
[Guettel], that, as you have done heretofore, you would continue in the
pure doctrine and preach that sinners should and must be led to
repentance not only by the sweet grace and suffering of Christ, who has
died for us, but also by the terrors of the Law." (1615.) "For whence
do we know what sin is if there is no Law and conscience? And whence
shall we learn what Christ is, what He has done for us, if we are not
to 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 and
were able to tear it out of our hearts (which is impossible), we
nevertheless must preach it for the sake of Christ (as also is done and
must be done), in order that we may know what He has done and suffered
for us. For who could know what and for what purpose Christ has suffered
for us if no one were to know what sin or the Law is? Therefore the Law
must certainly be preached if we would preach Christ." (1616.) "This,
too, is a peculiar blindness and folly, that they imagine the revelation
of wrath to be something else than the Law (which is impossible); for
the 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, for
I 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, however
he did not withhold the opinion that Agricola's self humiliation would
hardly be of long duration. "If he continues in such humility," said
Luther, "God certainly can and will exalt him; if he abandons it, then
God 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 to
teach his antinomianism, abetted in his sentiments among others also by
Jacob Schenck [since 1536 first Lutheran pastor in Freiberg, Saxony;
1538 dismissed on account of his antinomianism 1540 professor in
Leipzig; later on deposed and finally banished from Saxony]. Indeed in
March, 1540, Agricola even lodged a complaint with the Elector, charging
Luther with "calumnies." In the first part of the following month Luther
answered these charges in a _Report to Doctor Brueck Concerning Magister
John Eisleben's Doctrine and Intrigues_. (St. L. 20, 1648ff.) About the
same time; Count Albrecht of Mansfeld denounced Agricola to the Elector
as 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 had
promised with an oath not to leave before a legal decision had been
rendered. (Drews, 611.) Incensed by the treacherous conduct of Agricola,
Luther, September 10, 1540, held a final disputation on a sixth series
of theses against the Antinomians, charging them with destroying all
order human as well as divine. (St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)

Regarding Agricola's duplicity, Luther, in his _Report_ to Brueck, said
in substance: According to the statements of Caspar Guettel and
Wendelin Faber, Agricola had for years secretly agitated against the
Wittenbergers and founded a sect at Eisleben calling themselves
Minorish [Minorists]; he had branded and slandered their doctrine as
false and impure, and this, too, without conferring with them or
previously admonishing them; he had come to Wittenberg for the purpose
of corrupting and distracting the Church; his adherents had made the
statement that Eisleben would teach the Wittenbergers theology and
logic; he had inveigled Hans Lufft into printing his Postil by falsely
stating that it had been read and approved by Luther; in his dealings
with the Wittenbergers he had acted not as an honest man, let alone a
pious Christian and theologian, but treacherously and in keeping with
his antinomian principles; parading as a loyal Lutheran at public
conventions and laughing and dining with them, he had misled "his old,
faithful friend" [Luther] to confide in him, while secretly he was
acting the traitor by maligning him and undermining his work. In the
_Report_ we read: "Agricola blasphemes and damns our doctrine as impure
and false (_i.e._, the Holy Spirit Himself in His holy Law); he slanders
and defames us Wittenbergers most infamously wherever he can; and all
this he does treacherously and secretly, although we have done him no
harm, but only did well by him, as he himself must admit. He deceives
and attacks us [me], his best friend and father, making me believe that
he is our true friend. Nor does he warn me, but, like a desperate
treacherous villain, secretly works behind our back to cause the people
to forsake our doctrine and to adhere to him, thus treating us with an
ungratefulness, pride, and haughtiness such as I have not frequently met
with before." (1656.)

In his charge against Luther, Agricola had said that it was dangerous to
preach 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 very
purpose that it should bite, cut, strike, kill, and sacrifice the old
man. For it should terrify and punish the proud ignorant, secure Old
Adam and show him his sin and death, so that, being humiliated, he may
despair 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 that
breaketh the rock to pieces.' Again: '_Ego ignis consumens_, etc.--I am
a consuming fire,' Ps. 9, 21 [20]: '_Constitue legislatorem super eos,
ut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes_--Put them
in 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 by
the Law, casting them under the wrath of God, and entirely killing them
before God. But here our dear Master Grickel appears on the scene and
invents a new theology out of his own mad and reckless fool's head and
teaches: One must not kill and reprove the people, _i.e._, one must not
preach the Law. Here he himself confesses publicly in his suit [against
Luther] 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 rides
Master 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 he
intends to do through Master Grickel's folly (for he nevertheless wishes
to be praised as preaching the Law after and under the Gospel, etc.),
_viz._, to hide original sin and to teach the Law no further than
against future actual sins, for such is the manner of his entire Postil;
even as the Turks, Jews, philosophers, and <DW7>s teach who regard our
nature as sound; but Master Grickel does not see that it is just this
which his little spirit [devil] aims at by his bragging and boasting,
that he, too, is preaching the Law.... Thus Christ and God are
altogether vain and lost. And is not this blindness beyond all blindness
that 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 of
forgiveness of sins if previously there have been no sins? How can one
proclaim life if previously there is no death? Are we to preach to
angels who have neither sin nor death concerning forgiveness of sins
and redemption from death? But how can one preach of sins or know that
there are sins, if the Law does not reveal them? For according to its
proper 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 so
great 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 decidedly
he, with words only, denies it, to spite the Wittenbergers, in order
that he also, as _novus autor_ (new author), may produce something of
his own and confuse the people and separate the churches." (1658.)

From the 20 theses which Luther treated in his last disputation against
the Antinomians we cull the following: "1. The inference of St. Paul:
'For where no law is there is no transgression' [Rom. 4, 15] is valid
not only theologically, but also politically and naturally (_non solum
theologice, 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 is
neither wrath nor grace, there is neither divine nor human government.
5. Likewise this too: Where there is neither divine nor human
government, there is neither God nor man. 6. Likewise this too: Where
there is neither God nor man, there is nothing except perhaps the devil.
7. Hence it is that the Antinomians, the enemies of the Law, evidently
are either devils themselves or the brothers of the devil. 8. It avails
the Antinomians nothing to boast that they teach very much of God,
Christ, grace, Law, etc. 10. This confession of the Antinomians is like
the 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 be
taught in reality simply denies the Law. 14. A law which does not damn
is an imagined and painted law as the chimera or tragelaphus. 15. Nor is
the political or natural law anything unless it damns and terrifies
sinners Rom. 13, 1. 5; 1 Pet. 2, 13ff. 17. What the Antinomians say
concerning God, Christ, faith, Law, grace, etc., they say without any
meaning as the parrot says its '_chaire_, Good day!' 18. Hence it is
impossible to learn theology or civil polity (_theologiam aut politiam_)
from the Antinomians. 19. Therefore they must be avoided as most
pestilential teachers of licentious living who permit the perpetration
of 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 that
from them, as a man's judgment, they may gain glory." (Drews, 613; St.
L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)--Regarding Luther's disputations against the
Antinomians Planck pertinently remarks that they compel admiration for
his clear and penetrating mind, and rank among the very best of his
writings. (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 was
required to send (which he also did) a revocation to the preachers, the
council, and the congregation at Eisleben. However, the new and enlarged
edition (1541) of the catechism which Agricola had published in 1527
revealed the fact that also this last recantation was insincere; for in
it he repeated his antinomistic teaching, though not in the original
defiant manner. Little wonder, then, that despite the formal settlement,
cordial relations were not restored between Luther and Agricola. When
the latter visited Wittenberg in 1545, Luther refused to see the man
whom he regarded incurably dishonest. "Grickel," said he, "will remain
Grickel to all eternity, _Grickel wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickel
bleiben_."

And "Grickel" he did remain; for in 1565 he published a sermon in which
he said: "Every one who is to be appointed as teacher and preacher shall
be 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 Gospel
preach? he shall answer: The Gospel preaches repentance and forgiveness
of sins." Considering this a further evidence that Agricola still
adhered to, and was now ready once more to champion, his old errors, the
preachers of Mansfeld registered their protest in a publication of the
same year. A controversy, however, did not materialize, for Agricola
died 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 Law
and the Gospel. The first thesis of his _Positions_ of 1537 reads:
"Repentance is to be taught not from the Decalog or from any law of
Moses, but from the violation of the Son through the Gospel.
_Poenitentia docenda est non ex decalogo aut ulla lege Mosis, sed ex
violatione Filii per evangelium_." (E. 4. 420.) Thesis 13: "In order to
keep the Christian doctrine pure, we must resist those [Luther and
Melanchthon] who teach that the Gospel must be preached only to such
whose hearts have previously been terrified and broken by the Law.
_Quare pro conservanda puritate doctrinae resistendum est iis, qui
docent, evangelium non praedicandum nisi animis prius quassatis et
contritis 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 condemn
with great efficacy, but which saves at the same time; this, however, is
the Gospel, a doctrine which teaches conjointly repentance and remission
of sins." (421.) In his _Brief Summary of the Gospel_, Agricola says:
"In the New Testament and among Christians or in the Gospel we must not
preach the violation of the Law when a man breaks or transgresses the
Law, but the violation of the Son, to wit that he who does not for the
sake of the kingdom of heaven willingly omit what he should omit, and
does 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 of
the doctrines of conversion, faith, and justification. Such was the case
also with respect to Agricola, who taught that justification follows a
contrition 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 us
to Christ and presents us with His grace, turns about, apprehends God's
grace, thanks Him heartily for having spared it so graciously, begins to
repent, 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 the
first stage of the new birth, the true breathing and afflation of the
Holy Spirit. After this he acquires a hearty confidence in God,
believing that He will condone his folly and not blame him for it, since
he did not know any better, although he is much ashamed of it and wishes
that it had never happened; he also resolves, since he has fared so
well, never to sin any more or to do anything that might make him
unworthy of the benefit received as if he were ungrateful and forgetful;
he furthermore learns to work out, confirm, and preserve his salvation
in 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 Roman
doctrine, which makes an antecedent of what in reality is an effect and
a consequence of conversion and justification. Viewed from this angle,
it occasions little surprise that Agricola consented to help formulate
and introduce the Augsburg Interim in which the essentials of
Lutheranism 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, Anton
Otto, Andrew Musculus, and Michael Neander. Poach, born 1516, studied
under Luther and was an opponent of the Philippists, he became pastor in
Halle in 1541; in Nordhausen, 1547; in Erfurt, 1550; Uttenbach, near
Jena, 1572, where he died 1585. At Erfurt, Poach was deposed in 1572 on
account of dissensions due to the antinomistic controversies. He signed
the _Book of Concord_.--Otto [Otho; also called Herzberger, because he
was born in Herzberg, 1505] studied under Luther; served as pastor in
Graefenthal, and from 1543 in Nordhausen where he was deposed in 1568
for adherence to Flacius. However, when Otto, while antagonizing
Majorism and synergism, in sermons on the Letter to the Galatians of
1565 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 a
child, 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 a
zealous and passionate adherent of Luther, whom he considered the
greatest man since the days of the apostles; from 1540 till his death,
September 29, 1581, professor and pastor, later on, General
Superintendent, in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder) also made some extreme
statements. Later on, however, he cooperated in preparing and revising
the _Formula of Concord_. Musculus wrote of Luther: "There is as great a
difference between the dear old teachers and Luther as there is between
the light of the sun and that of the moon; and beyond all doubt, the
ancient fathers, even the best and foremost among them, as Hilary and
Augustine, had they lived contemporaneously with him, would not have
hesitated 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-known
theologians Moerlin, Flacius, Wigand, and Westphal (chiefly in letters
to Poach). The controversy was carried on with moderation, and without
any special efforts to cause trouble among the people. The main issue
was not--as in the conflict with Agricola--whether the Law is necessary
in order to effect contrition and prepare men for the Gospel, but the
so-called Third Use of the Law (_tertius usus legis_), _i.e._, whether
the Law is, and is intended to be, of service to Christians after their
regeneration; in particular, whether the regenerate still need the Law
with respect to their new obedience.

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

Poach wrote: "It would not be correct to say: In the doctrine of the Law
all the works commanded in the Law are necessary to salvation. _In
doctrina legis omnia opera mandata in lege sunt necessaria ad salutem_."
(Schluesselburg 4, 343.) Again: "The works of Christ, which are the
fulfilment of the Law, are the merit of our salvation. Our works, which
ought 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 perfectly
fulfilled all the commandments of God and completely satisfied the
righteousness of God, we would not be worthy of grace and salvation on
that account, nor would God be obliged to give us grace and salvation as
a debt. He justly demands the fulfilment of His Law from us as obedience
due Him from His creature, which is bound to obey its Creator. _Etiamsi
nos omnia mandata Dei perfectissime impleremus et iustitiae Dei penitus
satisfaceremus, tamen non ideo digni essemus gratia et salute, nec Deus
obligatus esset, ut nobis gratiam et salutem daret ex debito. Sed iure
requirit impletionem legis suae a nobis, ut debitam obedientiam a sua
creatura, quae conditori suo obedire tenetur_." (274.) Again: "The Law
has not the necessity of salvation, but the necessity of obligation
(_non habet lex necessitatem salutis, sed necessitatem debiti_). For, as
said, even though a man would most perfectly do the works of the Law, he
would not obtain salvation on account of these works. Nor is God under
obligation to man, but man is under obligation to God. And in the Law
God requires of man the obedience he owes; He does not require an
obedience with the promise of salvation." (276.)

As to Otto, he distinguished, in a series of Latin theses a double
office of the Law, the ecclesiastical; and political--_officium
ecclesiasticum_ and _officium politicum_. The former is to give
knowledge of sin; the latter, to coerce the old man and maintain order
among the obstinate. He denied that the Law in any way serves Christians
with respect to good works. Otto declared: "The Law is useful and
necessary neither for justification nor for any good works. But faith in
Christ the Mediator alone is useful and necessary both for justification
and the good works themselves. _Lex enim non modo ad iustificationem sed
neque ad ulla bona opera utilis et necessaria est. Sed sola fides in
Christum mediatorem utilis et necessaria est tam ad iustificationem quam
ad ipsa bona opera_." Quoting Luther, he said: "The highest art of
Christians is to know nothing of the Law, to ignore works. _Summa ars
Christianorum est nescire legem, ignorare opera_," _i.e._, in the
article of justification, as Otto did not fail to add by way of
explanation. (Luther, Weimar 40, 1, 43; Tschackert, 485.) Seeberg
remarks that in reality, Poach and Otto were merely opposed to such an
interpretation of the Third Use of the Law as made the Law a motive of
good works, and hence could not be charged with antinomianism proper.
(4, 488f.)

Planck, Frank, and other historians have fathered upon Otto also a
series of radical German theses, which, however, were composed, not by
Otto, but probably by some of his adherents. These theses, in which all
of the errors of Agricola are revamped, were discussed at the Altenburg
colloquy, 1568 to 1569; their author, however, was not mentioned. We
submit the following: "1. The Law does not teach good works, nor should
it be preached in order that we may do good works. 3. Moses knew nothing
of our faith and religion. 5. Evangelical preachers are to preach the
Gospel only, and no Law. 7. A Christian who believes should do
absolutely nothing, neither what is good nor what is evil. 10. We should
pray God that we may remain steadfast in faith till our end, without all
works. 14. The Holy Spirit does not work according to the norm or rule
of the Law, but by Himself, without the assistance of the Law. 16. A
believing Christian is _supra omnem obedientiam_, above all Law and all
obedience. 17. The rebuking sermons of the prophets do not at all
pertain to Christians. 21. The Law, good works, and new obedience have
no place in the kingdom of Christ, but in the world just as Moses and
the government of the Pope. 25. The Law has no place in the Church or in
the pulpit, but in the court-house (_Rathaus_). 28. The Third Use of the
Law 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 Use
of the Law is true and is to be taught in the Church. The Holy Spirit in
man knows nothing of the Law; the flesh, however, is betimes in need of
the Law." (Tschackert, 485; Planck 5, 1, 62.) Frank also quotes: "The
Christians or the regenerate are deified (_vergoettert_); yea, they are
themselves God and cannot sin. God has not given you His Word that you
should be saved thereby (_dass du dadurch sollst selig werden_); and
whoever seeks no more from God than salvation (_Seligkeit_) seeks just
as 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 always
sufficiently discreet and guarded in their statements concerning the
necessity of good works and the use of the Law. All expressions of the
Apostle Paul regarding the spiritual use of the Law, said Musculus, must
be understood as referring to such only as are to be justified, not to
those who are justified (_de iustificandis, non de iustificatis_). But
he added: "For these, in as far as they remain in Christ, are far
outside 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 of
antinomianism. He denied that there is any relation whatever between the
Law 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 iustus
seu spiritu vivit_." In a letter, Neander said: "I adhere to the opinion
that 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,' as
Luther says in his marginal note to Jeremiah, chap. 31, 'is no longer
over us, but under us, and does not surround us any more.' Love rules
and governs all laws, and frequently something is true according to the
Law, 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, and
apart from this it has no other use or office, _i.e._, the Law remains
the 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 the
just, regenerated, and new man, however, it is not the norm of good
works, _i.e._, the Law does not govern, regulate, and teach the just
man; _i.e._, it is not active with respect to him as it is with respect
to an unjust man, but is rather regulated and governed and taught by the
just man. It no longer drives the just (as it did before conversion and
as it still drives the flesh), but is now driven and suffers, since as
just men we are no longer under the Law, but above the Law and lords of
the Law. How, therefore, can the Law be a norm to the just man when he
is the lord of the Law, commands the Law, and frequently does what is
contrary to the Law (_cum iustus legis sit dominus, legi imperet et
saepe legi contraria faciat_)?... When the just man meditates in the Law
of the Lord day and night, when he establishes the Law by faith, when he
loves the Law and admires the inexhaustible wisdom of the divine Law,
when he does good works written and prescribed in the Law (as indeed he
alone can), when he uses the Law aright,--all these are neither the
third, nor the fourth, nor the twelfth, nor the fiftieth use or office
of 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 as
yet regenerated, has need of this Law, and he is to be commanded: 'Put
on 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 Law
and the Gospel was caused by the Philippists in Wittenberg whose
teaching was somewhat akin to that of Agricola. They held that the
Gospel, in the narrow sense of the term, and as distinguished from the
Law, is "the most powerful preaching of repentance." (Frank 2, 327.)
Taking his cue from Luther, Melanchthon, in his _Loci_ of 1521 as well
as 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 of
repentance 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 the
preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins, Melanchthon was not
always sufficiently careful to preclude misapprehension and
misunderstanding. Indeed, some of the statements he made after Luther's
death are misleading, and did not escape the challenge of loyal
Lutherans.

During a disputation in 1548, at which Melanchthon presided, Flacius
criticized the unqualified assertion that the Gospel was a preaching of
repentance, but was satisfied when Melanchthon explained that the term
Gospel was here used in the wider sense, as comprising the entire
doctrine of Christ. However, when Melanchthon, during another
disputation, 1556, declared: The ministry of the Gospel "rebukes the
other sins which the Law shows, as well as the saddest of sins which is
revealed by the Gospel (_hoc tristissimum peccatum, quod in Evangelio
ostenditur_), _viz._, that the world ignores and despises the Son of
God." Flacius considered it his plain duty to register a public protest.
It was a teaching which was, at least in part, the same error that
Luther, and formerly also Melanchthon himself, had denounced when
espoused by Agricola, _viz._, that genuine contrition is wrought, not by
the Law, but by the Gospel; by the preaching, not of the violation of
the Law, but of the violation of the Son. (_C. R._ 12, 634. 640.)

These misleading statements of Melanchthon were religiously cultivated
and zealously defended by the Wittenberg Philippists. With a good deal
of animosity they emphasized that the Gospel in its most proper sense is
also a preaching of repentance (_praedicatio poenitentiae,
Busspredigt_), inasmuch as it revealed the baseness of sin and the
greatness of its offense against God, and, in particular, inasmuch as
the 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. These
views, 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 Chief
Controversies of These Times_ (also of 1571), by Pezel and other
Wittenberg 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 of
1571, _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 the
Definition of the Gospel, Opposed to the Stupid Accusation of John
Wigand_, 1571. The teaching of the Philippists was formulated by Paul
Crell as follows: "Since this greatest and chief sin [unbelief] is
revealed, rebuked, and condemned by the Gospel alone, therefore also the
Gospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, a
preaching and a voice of repentance or conversion in its true and proper
sense. _A solo evangelio, cum peccatum hoc summum et praecipuum
monstretur, arguatur et damnetur expresse ac nominatim solum etiam
evangelium vere ac proprie praedicatio ac vox est poenitentiae sive
conversionis vere et proprie ita dictae_." (277. 327.)

This doctrine of the Philippists, according to which the Gospel in the
narrow and proper sense, and as distinguished from the Law, is a
preaching of repentance, was rejected by Article V of the _Formula of
Concord_ as follows: "But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses
himself 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 the
Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing
else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does
not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of
the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again
by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through
Christ'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 reafflrmation
of the doctrines taught and defended by Luther. The fire of prolonged
and hot controversies through which these doctrines passed after his
death had but strengthened the Lutherans in their conviction that in
every point Luther's teaching was indeed nothing but the pure Word of
God itself. It had increased the consciousness that, in believing and
teaching as they did, they were not following mere human authorities,
such as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, but the Holy Scriptures, by
which alone their consciences were bound. Articles VII and VIII of the
_Formula of Concord_, too, reassert Luther's doctrines on the Lord's
Supper and the person of Christ as being in every particular the clear
and unmistakable teaching of the divine Word,--two doctrines, by the
way, which perhaps more than any other serve as the acid test whether
the fundamental attitude of a church or a theologian is truly Scriptural
and fully free from every rationalistic and enthusiastic infection.

The Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of the
true body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, and
under the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating and
drinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing
communicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood of
Christ, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neither
a local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal and
transcendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of
the blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is
not Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real
presence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent
power of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the
Sacrament.

The Eighth Article treats of the person of Christ, of the personal union
of His two natures, of the communication of these natures as well as of
their attributes, and, in particular, of the impartation of the truly
divine majesty to His human nature and the terminology resulting
therefrom. One particular object of Article VIII is also to show that
the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the
Holy Supper, as taught by the Lutheran Church, does not, as was
contended by her Zwinglian and Calvinistic adversaries, conflict in any
way with what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ, His
human nature, His ascension, and His sitting at the right hand of God
the Father Almighty. The so-called Appendix, or Catalogus, a collection
of 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 the
Lutheran doctrine particularly concerning the divine majesty of the
human nature of Christ.

Both articles, the seventh as well as the eighth, were incorporated in
the _Formula of Concord_ in order thoroughly to purify the Lutheran
Church from Reformed errors concerning the Lord's Supper and the person
of Christ, which after Luther's death had wormed their way into some of
her schools and churches, especially those of Electoral Saxony, and to
make 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 to
Calvin's absolute decree of election and reprobation, but to his
doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as formulated by himself in the
_Consensus Tigurinus_ (Zurich Consensus), issued 1549. The subtitle of
this confession reads: "Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria Ministrorum
Tigurinae Ecclesiae, et D. Iohannis Calvini Ministri Genevensis
Ecclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita." In this confession,
therefore, Calvin declares his agreement with the teaching of Zwingli as
represented by his followers in Zurich, notably Bullinger. Strenuous
efforts were made by the Calvinists and Reformed everywhere to make the
_Consensus Tigurinus_ the basis of a pan-Protestant union, and at the
same time the banner under which to conquer all Protestant countries,
Lutheran Germany included, for what must be regarded as being
essentially Zwinglianism. The _Consensus_ was adopted in Switzerland,
England, France, and Holland. In Lutheran territories, too, its teaching
was rapidly gaining friends, notably in Southern Germany, where Bucer
had prepared the way for it, and in Electoral Saxony where the
Philippists offered no resistance. Garnished as it was with glittering
and seemingly orthodox phrases, the _Consensus Tigurinus_ lent itself
admirably 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.) To
counteract this deception, to establish Luther's doctrine of the real
presence of the body and blood of Christ, and to defend it against the
sophistries of the Sacramentarians: Zwinglians, Calvinists, and
Crypto-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 in
Paris, 1523 preparing for theology. In 1529 his father induced him to
take up law in Orleans and Bourges. In 1531 he returned to his
theological studies in Paris. Here he experienced what he himself
describes as a "sudden conversion." He joined the Reformed congregation,
and before long was its acknowledged leader. In 1533 he was compelled to
leave France because of his anti-Roman testimony. In Basel, 1535, he
wrote the first draft of his _Institutio Religionis Christianae_. In
Geneva 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], Calvin
developed and endeavored to put into practise his legalistic ideal of a
theocratic and rigorous puritanical government. As a result he was
banished, 1538. He removed to Strassburg, where he was held and engaged
by Bucer. He attended the conventions in Frankfort, 1539; Hagenau, 1540;
Worms, 1540; and Regensburg, 1541. Here he got acquainted with the
Lutherans notably Melanchthon. September 13, 1541, he returned to
Geneva, where, woefully mixing State and Church, he continued his
reformatory and puritanical efforts. One of the victims of his
theocratic 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 a
far-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 heretofore
that we esteem him as a distinguished apostle of Christ, by whose labor
and service, above all, the purity of the Gospel has been restored at
this time. _De Luthero nunc quoque sicut hactenus non dissimulanter
testamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maxime
opera et ministerio restituta hoc tempore fuerit Evangelii puritas_."
(Gieseler 3, 2, 169.) Even after Luther had published his _Brief
Confession_, in which he unsparingly denounces the Sacramentarians
(deniers of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's
Supper), and severs all connection with them, Calvin admonished
Bullinger in a letter dated November 25, 1544, to bear in mind what a
great and wonderfully gifted man Luther was, and with what fortitude,
ability, and powerful teaching he had shattered the kingdom of
Antichrist and propagated the salutary doctrine. "I am frequently
accustomed to say," he declared, "that, even if he should call me a
devil I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent
servant of God." In the original the remarkable words of Calvin read as
follows: "_Sed haec cupio vobis in mentem venire, primum quantus sit vir
Lutherus, et quantis dotibus excellat, quanta animi fortitudine et
constantia quanta dexteritate, quanta doctrinae efficacia hactenus ad
profligandum Antichristi regnum et simul propagandam salutis doctrinam
incubuerit. Saepe dicere solitus sum, etiamsi me diabolum vocaret, me
tamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam, qui
tamen, 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, like
Zwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg 1529, revealed a theological spirit
which was altogether different from Luther's. In particular, he was
violently opposed to Luther's doctrines of the real presence in the
Lord's Supper and of the majesty of the human nature of Christ.
Revealing his animus, Calvin branded the staunch and earnest defenders
of these doctrines as the "apes" of Luther. In his _Second Defense_
against Westphal, 1556, he exclaimed: "O Luther, how few imitators of
your excellences, but how many apes of your pious ostentation have you
left behind! _O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quam
multas vero sanctae tuae iactantiae simias reliquisti!_" (Gieseler 3, 2,
209.)

True, when in Strassburg, Calvin signed the _Augsburg Confession_ (1539
or 1540), and was generally considered a Lutheran. However, in his _Last
Admonition_ to Westphal, of 1557 and in a letter of the same year to
Martin Schalling, Calvin wrote: "Nor do I repudiate the _Augsburg
Confession_, to which I have previously subscribed, _in the sense in
which the author himself_ [Melanchthon in the _Variata_ of 1540] _has
interpreted it. Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem
volens ac libens subscripsi, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est._"
(_C. R._ 37, 148.) According to his own confession, therefore, Calvin's
subscription to the _Augustana_, at least as far as the article of the
Lord's Supper is concerned, was insincere and nugatory. In fact Calvin
must be regarded as the real originator of the second controversy on
the Lord's Supper between the Lutherans and the Reformed, even as the
first conflict on this question was begun, not by Luther, but by his
opponents, Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. For the adoption of
the _Consensus Tigurinus_ in 1549, referred to above, cannot but be
viewed as an overt act by which the Wittenberg Concord, signed 1536 by
representative Lutheran and Reformed theologians, was publicly
repudiated and abandoned by Calvin and his adherents, and whereby an
anti-Lutheran propaganda on an essentially Zwinglian basis was
inaugurated. Calvin confirmed the schism between the Lutherans and the
Reformed which Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius had originated.

198. Calvin's Zwinglianism.

The doctrine of Calvin and his adherents concerning the Lord's Supper is
frequently characterized as a materially modified Zwinglianism. Schaff
maintains that "Calvin's theory took a middle course, retaining, on the
basis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith,
and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in
Switzerland, gained much favor in Germany and opened a fair prospect for
union." (_Creeds_ 1, 280.) As a matter of fact, however, a fact admitted
also by such Calvinists as Hodge and Shedd, Calvin's doctrine was a
denial _in toto_ of the real presence as taught by Luther. (Pieper,
_Dogm._ 3, 354.) Calvin held that after His ascension Christ, according
to His human nature, was locally enclosed in heaven, far away from the
earth. Hence he denied also the real presence of Christ's body and blood
in the Holy Supper. In fact, Calvin's doctrine was nothing but a
polished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrases
approaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible. Even where
he paraded as Luther, Calvin was but Zwingli disguised (and poorly at
that) in a seemingly orthodox garb and promenading with several
imitation Lutheran feathers in his hat.

In the _Formula of Concord_ we read: "Although some Sacramentarians
strive to employ words that come as close as possible to the _Augsburg
Confession_ and the form and mode of speech in its churches, and confess
that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by
believers, 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 the
consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest
heaven is from the earth.... Therefore they understand this presence of
the body of Christ not as a presence here upon earth, but only _respectu
fidei_ (with respect to faith), that is, that our faith, reminded and
excited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates
itself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body
of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself,
together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but
nevertheless spiritual only;... consequently nothing else is received by
the 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 but
Zwinglianism clothed in seemingly orthodox phrases.

That this picture drawn by the _Formula of Concord_ is not a caricature
or in any point a misrepresentation of Calvinism appears from the
_Consensus Tigurinus_ itself, where we read: "In as far as Christ is a
man, He is to be sought nowhere else than in heaven and in no other
manner than with the mind and the understanding of faith. Therefore it
is a perverse and impious superstition to include Him under elements of
this world. _Christus, quatenus <DW25> est, non alibi quam in coelo nec
aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perversa
et impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis huius mundi includere._"
Again: "We repudiate those [who urge the literal interpretation of the
words of institution] as preposterous interpreters." "For beyond
controversy, they are to be taken figuratively,... as when by metonymy
the name of the symbolized thing is transferred to the sign--_ut per
metonymiam ad signum transferatur rei figuratae nomen._" Again: "Nor do
we regard it as less absurd to place Christ under, and to unite Him
with, the bread than to change the bread into His body. _Neque enim
minus absurdum iudicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum pane
copulare, quam panem transubstantiare in corpus eius._" Again: "When we
say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this mode of speech expresses
a distance of place,... because the body of Christ,... being finite and
contained in heaven, as in a place, must of necessity be removed from us
by as great a distance as the heaven is removed from the earth--_necesse
est, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest a
terra._" (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 196.) Such was the
teaching cunningly advocated by Calvin and his adherents the
Crypto-Calvinists in Germany included but boldly and firmly opposed by
the loyal Lutherans, and finally disposed of by Articles VII and VIII of
the _Formula of Concord_.

199. Melanchthon's Public Attitude.

As stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received with
increasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in Southern
Germany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymen
who secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. They
were called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because,
while they subscribed to the _Augsburg Confession_, claimed to be loyal
Lutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church,
they in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoring
to suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them the
views of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly that
Melanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what the
latter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubt
that Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. In
fact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regarded
as the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists.

True, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord's
Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the
Zwinglians and their "profane" teaching in an _Opinion_ on Carlstadt's
doctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God and
man, _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 old
in the Church. _Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesia
esse_." (823.) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also to
Eberbach. In an _Opinion_ of May 15 1529: "I am satisfied that I shall
not agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingli
and his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament." (1067.) June
20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: "I would rather die than see our people
become contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. _Nam mori
malim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare_. My dear
Jerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed to
death on account of this matter." (_C. R._ 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2,
1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the
Zwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these
profane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can
be upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the
ancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther
does." (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies of
ancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are
now being printed." (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored
to show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian,
Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of
institution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.)
According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine
in the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2,
142. 212.)

At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer
claimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _Opinion
Concerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August,
1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can
be present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot
be anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is
contrary 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 in
different places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that
the body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so
that it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth
and reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with
the bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that
they [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is
not necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that
it can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some
other secret way by which different places are as one point present at
the same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and
real presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes
to accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare
to say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without
geometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word
'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the Holy
Spirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but of
the body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that the
body of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with the
bread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body of
Christ is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, _i.e._, by
imagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men by
saying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'by
contemplation of faith,' _i.e._, by imagination. 14. We teach that
Christ's body is truly and really present with the bread or in the
bread. 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, by
circumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or the
entire Christ is present to all creatures.... We deny
transubstantiation, 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 and
formally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an _Opinion_
written 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: "If
Christ were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with us
essentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, He
gives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always.
This sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting.... Therefore
I conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread and
wine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here we
must cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, _viz._, how Christ
ascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else."
(2. 801.) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, which
plainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also by
unworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff.) In 1537 he subscribed to the
_Smalcald Articles_, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of the
real presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that "bread and wine
in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and
received 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 the
Confession." (_C. R._ 8, 841.) September 6, 1557, he wrote: "We all
embrace and retain the Confession together with the _Apology_ and the
confession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua." (9, 260.)
Again, in November of the same year: "Regarding the Lord's Supper, we
retain the _Augsburg Confession_ and _Apology_." (9, 371.) In an
_Opinion_ of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper
the Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner that
when 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 outward
sign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is a
mere sign by which Christians know each other." (9, 472f.) Several
months before his death, in his preface to the _Corpus Philippicum_,
Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper "Christ is truly and
substantially present and truly administered to those who take the body
and blood of Christ," and that in it "He gives His body and blood to him
who eats and drinks." (Richard. 389.)

200. Melanchthon's Private Views.

While Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the manner
indicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he had
inwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of a
stranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for the
authority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Luther
put it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clear
words of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became a
wavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging toward
Luther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error,
he was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, and
the immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May
24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted and
doubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Know that for ten years
neither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on this
matter," the Lord's Supper. (_C. R._ 3, 537.) And his doubts led to a
departure from his own former position,--a fact for which also
sufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. "Already in 1531," says
Seeberg, "Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough to
the effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of the
divinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body and
the bread. _Ep._, p.85." (_Dogg._ 4, 2, 447.)

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

201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer.

That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities
rather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that
Oecolampadius's _Dialogus_ of 1530--which endeavored to show that the
symbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in
the writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine,
and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 217), says, was
written "with greater exactness (_accuratius_) than he is otherwise wont
to write"--made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is
shown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer,
he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a
result, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the
Zwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the
conference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong
terms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating
and drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is
truly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's _Opinion_ in this
matter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa das
unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi
gegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib
Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den
Zaehnen zerbissen werde." (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when
writing thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his
object merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the
sacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return
from Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at
Cassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign
opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 822)

As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the
compromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood
are truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not
really connected with the bread and wine, the signs or _signa
exhibitiva_, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther
and Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remaining
question therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread
and body,--and of what need is this question? _Tantum igitur reliqua est
quaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid
opus est?_" (_C. R._ 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he
had written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and
wine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I
would not demand anything further." (_C. R._ 2, 787.) In February he
wrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far
from 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 Melanchthon
said: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of
Bucer], 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 of
Hesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one
hand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the
other, 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 the
preceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the
Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion
now," 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 heard
what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally
or when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam noli
nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo,
quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota
aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_." (2, 822.) Two days
later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in
Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he
regarded as dangerous, as, _e.g._, in his defamatory letter to
Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R._ 1, 754), in
which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own
true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon
was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of
the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire
doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times
concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even
though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if
there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other
articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who
are to be execrated.... Concerning the Concord, however, no action
whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions
here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally
concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and
readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real
presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or
defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many
testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the
mystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while the
opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will
have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do
wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without
sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on
account of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any
good 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 you
do not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church.
I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any
sophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this
great matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established
without sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly
abandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that
among them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being
moved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you
think, 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 on
this matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles
they 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, Melanchthon
declares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have
maintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these
things are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is
certainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which
the body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread.
Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present
when the things are received. _Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem
talem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut
misceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud_....
What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you
defend what some even now are saying, _viz._, that the body and blood
are tendered separately--_separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem_. This
too, is new and will not even please the <DW7>s. Error is fruitful, as
the 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] apart
from the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my
dear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the _Loci_ I
have spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away
from 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 concerning
the entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I
shall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I
am speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and
approach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients." (_C.
R._ 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I have
simply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the
words. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and
efficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to
add a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something
altogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church." (3, 536;
7, 882.)

Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his
views concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes
since 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed
sentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate
union, 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 ways
officially recognized in the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1540." (1, 280.)
Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the
alteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential
concession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but
he 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 sounded
the tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy to
defend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divine
majesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failed
the Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For although
Lutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence,
Master Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in the
light of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construe
this attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and wherever
Melanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during this
controversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparent
that his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with the
champions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings and
thrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramental
union and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvin
and his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and their
cause.

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

In a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching of
the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new and
foolish doctrine. Concerning the _Confession and Report of the
Wuerttemberg Theologians_, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, which
emphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence of
Christ also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarked
contemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and in
a letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could not
characterize "the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (_Abbates
Wirtebergenses_) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (_Hechingense
Latinum, 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 his
own, _Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerning
the Lord's Supper_. The timely reappearance of this book, which
Melanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was most
embarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter,
therefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openly
against his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider it
expedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered,
October 14, 1554: "As regards your admonition in your last letter that I
repress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerning
the bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation out
of hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressing
me. _Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui
renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio mei
eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me
opprimendum_." (8, 362.)

Fully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with his
Wittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his
_Last Admonition_ (_Ultima Admonitio_) _to Westphal_, 1557, publicly
claimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give public
testimony "that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothing
foreign to the _Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere a
Confessione Augustana_." "I confirm," Calvin here declared, "that in
this cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be torn
from me than from his own bowels. _Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum
quam 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 sphinxlike
silence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that he
favored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther's
doctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: "If you will permit
me to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully and
earnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are useful
to the Church." (_C. R._ 9, 374.)

After the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his _Dilucida
Explicatio_ against Hesshusius, 1561: "O Philip Melanchthon! For it is
to you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of God
and there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you into
blessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with labor
and overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laid
your head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! But
afterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to be
together. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage in
battle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. In
this way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whose
audacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. _O
Philippe 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 caput
familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu!
Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe
animosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiam
falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo
cohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam
vocabant, crevit insultandi audacia_." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9],
461f.) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claim
by publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings under
the title: _Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini,
ex scriptis eius collecta_. But, alas, the voice of the later
Melanchthon was not that of the former!

205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists.

In various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with the
defenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinistic
opponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposed
Hardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished the
latter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but to
dissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: "_Te autem oro, ne
properes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules_."
(_C. R._ 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises
Hardenberg 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 the
bread-worship is growing." (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like
Timann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's
Supper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the
blood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His
human nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to
acknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the
Reformed doctrine) as his assistant in the distribution of the Lord's
Supper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists,
who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius
come to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and
dismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of
the 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 the
Calvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church.... The
contentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest
agree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to
retain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion
(_koinonia_) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of
the 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 the
nature of the bread is changed, as the <DW7>s say; He does not say, as
those of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he
does not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius
does; but that it is the communion, _i.e._, that by which the union
occurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the
use, 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 is
certainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account
of the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in
you,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in
these true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that
He will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper."
(_C. R._ 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed
to these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently
remarks: "Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the
disputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as
if the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not
diminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They
did the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid
error might." (_Cons. Ref._, 291.)

206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures.

Modern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to the
Lord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier.
Tschackert: "Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the second
controversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of the
Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied with
maintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leaving
the mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt." (532.) Seeberg, who
maintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther's
teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: "Melanchthon merely
does not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in the
Supper, and that it is omnipresent as such." (4, 2, 449.) Theo. Kolde:
"It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X of
the _Augustana_ involved real changes.... In view of his gradually
changed conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that he
sought to leave open for himself and others the possibility of
associating also with the Swiss." (25.) Schaff: "Melanchthon's later
view 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 the
Lord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, who
looked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should become
decided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible for
the Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after the
death of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss,
he was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he had
his way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, the
Lutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed into
a Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt was
shared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr.,
Paul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined toward
Melanchthon's view and attitude also in the matter concerning the Lord's
Supper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to Veit
Dietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ in
the use of the Lord's Supper, but not "the division or separation of the
body and blood." (_C. R._ 3, 610.) Shortly before his death, as related
in a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpable
silence with regard to the truth, declaring: "If you believe as you
speak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in public
lectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen your
brethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict the
wilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be of
no value whatever." (Walther, 40.) Refusal to confess the truth will
ultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is the
first step to open denial.

207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin.

Foremost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating the
Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close as
possible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly and
ably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg
[born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; died
January 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened the
entire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise his
voice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did so
in a publication entitled: "_Farrago Confusanearum et inter se
Dissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and Mutually
Dissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of the
Sacramentarians," 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and his
adherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the real
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just as
emphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time he
refuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated by
the 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 magistrates
everywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. "The
_Farrago_," says Kruske, "signified the beginning of the end of Calvin's
domination in Germany." Schaff: "The controversy of Westphal against
Calvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed and
consolidated the separation of the two Confessions," Lutheran and
Reformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280.)

Thus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the Lutheran
Church from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinistic
movement, 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 the
Evangelists," 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples of
Luther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who,
he declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany for
Zwinglianism.

Westphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a special
emphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in
1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had been
driven from England by Bloody Mary, reached the Continent. The liberty
which Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_,
requested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformed
congregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, but
finally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, the
Calvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, was
forbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity and
propaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena against
Westphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et Orthodoxae
Doctrinae de Sacramentis_, "Defense of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine
Concerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, and
Fruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich and
Geneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutual
Agreement" (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in such
an insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e.g._, with "a mad
dog") that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to assume a
personal and acrimonious character.

208. Controversial Publications.

After Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by such
Lutherans 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 (the
most 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's
Supper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerning
the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdam
Sacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, "Just Defense
against the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian." The last
publication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives of
Calvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were united
only in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor in
Bremen, published in 1555: "_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing in
the True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which the
churches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm assent and
in 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 to
the Crypto-Calvinists, _viz._, "to all ministers of Christ who cultivate
and follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony and
Lower Germany." In it Calvin declared: "I teach that Christ, though
absent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with us
according to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying for
us." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79.) Lasco also wrote two books
against Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort,
and endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine of
the Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullinger
appeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition,
Apologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that the
ministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma in
the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper.

In the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua Breviter
Respondet 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 Westphal
published "_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning the
Sacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches of
Saxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvin
dedicated to them." This publication contained opinions which Westphal
had secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand and
Flacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg,
Brunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. All
of these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely in
favor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of institution as
they read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Nassau, Marburg,
Speier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg
1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _Confession
Concerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522;
died 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defense
of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_.
Westphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his "_Just Defense
against the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in his
letter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches," 1557. In it he
denounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon the
magistrates to institute proceedings against them.

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

Though Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to give
public testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books against
the Calvinists. One of them bears the title: "_Apologetical Writings
(Apologetica Scripta) of J.W._, in which he both defends the sound
doctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of the
Sacramentarians," etc. Another is entitled: _Apology of the Confession
Concerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies of
John Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin and
entered the controversy with his "_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning the
Lord'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 a
decided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors in
Lutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitz
in Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim,
since 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influential
theologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in his
anti-Calvinistic attitude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He is
the author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of the
Theologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body and
Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of Duke
Christopher by the synod assembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion for
drafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished by
Bartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he was
required to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with Jacob
Andreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convinced
of his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching.

The _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakable
terms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all who
partake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personal
union, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence well
able to fulfil the promise He gave at the institution of the Holy
Supper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), the
sacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking
(_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). It
holds "that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of institution],
truly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to all
men who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they are
tendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time also
received with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it." Furthermore,
"that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine are
present in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence of
the body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and received
with the signs of bread and wine." (Tschackert, 541.) It protests: "We
do 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 any
diffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ
(_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christi
distractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by which
He, being placed at the right hand of God, fills all things not only by
His divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in a
way that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majesty
His presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed." (Gieseler
3, 2, 239f.) Thus, without employing the term "ubiquity," this
_Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrine
concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther had
maintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentarians
generally.

As stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as "Hechinger
Latin." In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise
(Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz replied
to this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book of
Bullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the Two
Natures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and His
Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewed
assaults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: "_Answer
(Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' and
the 'right hand of God' still stands firm," 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs
(Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of the
Natures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to the
Arguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatest
writings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina Maiestate
Christi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerning
the True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (Consensus
Dresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejected
the omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature of
Christ.

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 the
theologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result was
a further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published
_Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium ... Concerning the Lord's Supper
and the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttemberg
theologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio et
Confessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of the
Man Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians of
the Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chief
champion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz.

In his various publications against the Calvinists, Brenz, appealing to
Luther, taught concerning the majesty of Christ that by reason of the
personal union the humanity of Christ is not only omnipotent and
omniscient, but also omnipresent, and that the human nature of Christ
received these as well as other divine attributes from the first moment
of the incarnation of the Logos. Following are some of his statements:
"Although the divine substance [in Christ] is not changed into the
human, and each has its own properties, nevertheless these two
substances are united in one person in Christ in such a manner that the
one is never in reality separated from the other." "Wherever the deity
is, there is also the humanity of Christ." "We do not ascribe to Christ
many and various bodies, nor do we ascribe to His body local extension
or diffusion; but we exalt Him beyond this corporeal world, outside of
every creature and place, and place Him in accordance with the condition
of 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 Paul
says, He humbled Himself (_quam etsi tempore carnis suae in hoc saeculo
dissimulavit, seu ea sese, ut Paulus loquitur, exinanivit, tamen numquam
ea caruit_)."  According to Brenz the man Christ was omnipotent,
almighty, omniscient while He lay in the manger. In His majesty He
darkened the sun, and kept alive all the living while in His humiliation
He was dying on the cross. When dead in the grave, He at the same time
was 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 controversy
against the Calvinists in 1560 with his _Repetition (Repetitio) of the
Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of
Christ in the Supper_, in which he based his arguments for the real
presence on the words of institution. Ten years later he published his
famous book _Concerning the Two Natures in Christ (De Duabus Naturis in
Christo)_, etc.,--preeminently the Lutheran classic on the subject it
treats. Appealing also to Luther, he teaches that Christ, according to
His human nature was anointed with all divine gifts; that, in
consequence of the personal union, the human nature of Christ can be and
is present where, when, and in whatever way Christ will; that therefore
in accordance with His promise, He is in reality present in His Church
and in His Supper. Chemnitz says: "This presence of the assumed nature
in Christ of which we now treat is not natural or essential [flowing
from the nature and essence of Christ's humanity], but voluntary and
most free, depending on the will and power of the Son of God (_non est
vel naturalis vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a
voluntate et potentia Filii Dei_); that is to say, when by a definite
word He has told, promised, and asseverated that He would be present
with His human nature, ... let us retain this, which is most certainly
true, that Christ can be with His body wherever, whenever, and in
whatever manner He wills (_Christum suo corpore esse posse, ubicunque,
quandocunque et quomodocunque vult_). But we must judge of His will from
a definite, revealed word." (Tschackert, 644; Gieseler 3, 2, 259.)

The _Formula of Concord_ plainly teaches, both that, in virtue of the
personal union by His incarnation, Christ according to His human nature
possesses also the divine attribute of omnipresence, and that He can be
and is present wherever He will. In the Epitome we read: This majesty
Christ always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained
from it in the state of His humiliation until His resurrection, "so that
now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all
things, _is present with all creatures_, and has under His feet and in
His hand everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
... And this His power He, _being present_, can exercise everywhere, and
to Him everything is possible and everything is known." (821, 16. 27.
30.) The Thorough Declaration declares that Christ "truly fills all
things, 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 and
with the same He [Christ] _can be, and also is, present where He will_,
and especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He is
present as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, or
one-half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ, to which both
natures, the divine and the human, belong, is present not only
according to His divinity, but also according to, and with, His assumed
human nature, according to which He is our Brother, and we are flesh of
His flesh and bone of His bone." (1043 78f.) In virtue of the personal
union Christ is present everywhere also according to His human nature;
while the peculiarly gracious manner of His presence in the Gospel, in
the Church, and in the Lord's Supper depends upon His will and is based
upon 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 and
his followers, was materially increased by the success of the crafty
Calvinists in Bremen and in the Palatinate. In 1547 Hardenberg [Albert
Rizaeus from Hardenberg, Holland, born 1510] was appointed Dome-preacher
in Bremen. He was a former priest whom Lasco had won for the
Reformation. Regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he inclined
towards Zwingli. Self-evidently, when his views became known, the
situation in Bremen became intolerable for his Lutheran colleagues. How
could they associate with and fellowship, a Calvinist! To acknowledge
him would have been nothing short of surrendering their own views and
the 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 true
inwardness, 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 and
two other ministers refused to comply with the demand. In particular,
Hardenberg objected to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ
taught in Timann's _Farrago_. In his _Doctrinal Summary (Summaria
Doctrina)_ Hardenberg taught: "St. Augustine and many other fathers
write that the body of Christ is circumscribed by a certain space in
heaven, and I regard this as the true doctrine of the Church."
(Tschackert, 191.) Hardenberg also published the fable hatched at
Heidelberg (_Heidelberger Landluege_, indirectly referred to also in the
_Formula of Concord_, 981, 28), but immediately refuted by Joachim
Moerlin, according to which Luther is said, toward the end of his life,
to have confessed to Melanchthon that he had gone too far and overdone
the matter in his controversy against the Sacramentarians; that he,
however, did not want to retract his doctrine concerning the Lord's
Supper himself, because that would cast suspicion on his whole teaching;
that therefore after his death the younger theologians might make amends
for it and settle this matter.... In 1556 Timann began to preach against
Hardenberg, but died the following year. The Lower Saxon Diet, however,
decided February 8, 1561, that Hardenberg be dismissed within fourteen
days, yet "without infamy or condemnation, _citra infamiam et
condemnationem_." Hardenberg submitted under protest and left Bremen
February 18, 1561 (he died as a Reformed preacher at Emden, 1574). Simon
Musaeus who had just been expelled from Jena, was called as
Superintendent to purge Bremen of Calvinism. Before long, however, the
burgomaster of the city, Daniel von Bueren, whom Hardenberg had secretly
won for the Reformed doctrine, succeeded in expelling the Lutheran
ministers from the city and in filling their places with Philippists,
who before long joined the Reformed Church. Thus ever since 1562 Bremen
has been a Reformed city.

A much severer blow was dealt Lutheranism when the Palatinate, the home
of Melanchthon, where the Philippists were largely represented, was
Calvinized by Elector Frederick III. Tileman Hesshusius [Hesshusen, born
1527; 1553 superintendent at Goslar; 1556 professor and pastor at
Rostock; 1557 at Heidelberg; 1560 pastor at Magdeburg; 1562
court-preacher at Neuburg; 1569 professor at Jena; 1573 bishop of
Samland, at Koenigsberg; 1577 professor at Helmstedt where he died 1588]
was called in 1557 by Elector Otto Henry to Heidelberg both as professor
and pastor and as superintendent of the Palatinate. Here the Calvinists
and Crypto-Calvinists had already done much to undermine Lutheranism;
and after the death of Otto Henry, February 12, 1559, Hesshusius who
endeavored to stem the Crypto-Calvinistic tide, was no longer able to
hold his own. Under Elector Frederick III, who succeeded Otto Henry, the
Calvinists came out into the open. This led to scandalous clashes, of
which the Klebitz affair was a typical and consequential instance. In
order to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, William Klebitz, the
deacon of Hesshusius, published, in 1560 a number of Calvinistic theses.
As a result Hesshusius most emphatically forbade him henceforth to
assist at the distribution of the Holy Supper. When Klebitz nevertheless
appeared at the altar, Hesshusius endeavored to wrest the cup from his
hands. Elector Frederick ordered both Hesshusius and Klebitz to settle
their trouble in accordance with the _Augustana_ (Variata). Failing to
comply with this unionistic demand, Hesshusius was deposed, September
16, 1559, and Klebitz, too was dismissed. In a theological opinion,
referred to above, Melanchthon approved of the action. Hereupon
Hesshusius entered the public controversy against Calvinism. In 1560 he
published _Concerning the Presence (De Praesentia) of the Body of Christ
in the Lord's Supper_ and his _Answer (Responsio) to the Prejudicial
Judgement (Praeiudicium) of Philip Melanchthon on the Controversy
Concerning the Lord's Supper_ [with Klebitz].

After the dismissal of Hesshusius, Elector Frederick III, who had
shortly before played a conspicuous role in endeavoring to win the day
for Melanchthonianism at the Lutheran Assembly of Naumburg, immediately
began to Calvinize his territory. In reading the controversial books
published on the Lord's Supper, he suffered himself to be guided by the
renowned physician Thomas Erastus [died 1583], who was a Calvinist and
had himself published Calvinistic books concerning the Lord's Supper and
the person and natures of Christ. As a result the Elector, having become
a decided Reformedist, determined to de-Lutheranize the Palatinate in
every particular, regarding practise and divine service as well as with
respect to confessional books, doctrines, and teachers. The large number
of Philippists, who had been secret Calvinists before, was increased by
such Reformed theologians as Caspar Olevianus (1560), Zacharias Ursinus
(1561), and Tremellius (1561). Images, baptismal fonts, and altars were
removed from the churches; wafers were replaced by bread, which was
broken; the organs were closed; the festivals of Mary, the apostles, and
saints were abolished. Ministers refusing to submit to the new order of
things were deposed and their charges filled with Reformed men from the
Netherlands. The Calvinistic _Heidelberg Catechism_, composed by
Olevianus and Ursinus and published 1563 in German and Latin, took the
place of Luther's Catechism. This process of Calvinization was completed
by the introduction of the new Church Order of November 15, 1563. At the
behest of Frederick III the _Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica)_ was
published in 1566, in order to prove by this out-and-out Zwinglian
document, framed by Bullinger, "that he [the Elector of the Palatinate]
entertained no separate doctrine, but the very same that was preached
also in many other and populous churches, and that the charge was untrue
that the Reformed disagreed among themselves and were divided into
sects." Thus the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Confession, for
though Ludwig VI (1576-1583), the successor of Frederick III,
temporarily restored Lutheranism, Frederick IV (1583 to 1610) returned
to Calvinism.

211. Saxony in the Grip of Crypto-Calvinists.

It was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church when Bremen and the
Palatinate fell a prey to Calvinism. And the fears were not unfounded
that before long the Electorate of Saxony would follow in their wake,
and Wittenberg, the citadel of the Lutheran Reformation, be captured by
Calvin. That this misfortune, which, no doubt, would have dealt a final
and fatal blow to Lutheranism, was warded off, must be regarded as a
special providence of God. For the men (Melanchthon, Major, etc.) whom
Luther had accused of culpable silence regarding the true doctrine of
the Lord's Supper, were, naturally enough, succeeded by theologians who,
while claiming to be true Lutherans adhering to the Augsburg Confession
and, in a shameful manner deceiving and misleading Elector August
zealously championed and developed the Melanchthonian aberrations, in
particular with respect to the doctrines concerning the Lord's Supper
and 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 were
out-and-out Calvinists, although they endeavored to appear as genuine
Lutherans before their master," Elector August. (3, 2, 250.)

The most prominent and influential of these so-called Philippists or
Crypto-Calvinists were Dr. Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Dr. Christopher Pezel,
Dr. Frederick Widebram, and Dr. Henry Moeller. The schemes of these men
were aided and abetted by a number of non-theological professors:
Wolfgang Crell, professor of ethics, Esrom Ruedinger, professor of
philosophy; George Cracow, professor of jurisprudence and, later, privy
councilor of Elector August; Melanchthon's son-in-law, Caspar Peucer,
professor of medicine and physician in ordinary of the Elector, who
naturally had a great influence on August and the ecclesiastical
affairs of the Electorate. He held that Luther's doctrine of the real
presence had no more foundation in the Bible than did the Roman
transubstantiation. To these must be added John Stoessel, confessor to
the Elector and superintendent at Pirna; Christian Schuetze,
court-preacher at Dresden, Andrew Freyhub and Wolfgang Harder
professors in Leipzig, and others. The real leaders of these Philippists
were Peucer and Cracow. Their scheme was to prepossess the Elector
against the loyal adherents of Luther, especially Flacius, gradually to
win him over to their liberal views, and, at the proper moment, to
surrender and deliver Electoral Saxony to the Calvinists. In prosecuting
this sinister plan, they were unscrupulous also in the choice of their
means. Thus Wittenberg, during Luther's days the fountainhead of the
pure Gospel and the stronghold of uncompromising fidelity to the truth,
had become a veritable nest of fanatical Crypto-Calvinistic schemers
and dishonest anti-Lutheran plotters who also controlled the situation
in the entire Electorate.

The first public step to accomplish their purpose was the publication of
the _Corpus Doctrinae Christianae_, or _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_, or
_Philippicum_, as it was also called. This collection of symbolical
books was published 1560 at Leipzig by Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon's
son-in-law, with a preface to both the German and Latin editions written
by Melanchthon and dated September 29, 1559, and February 16, 1560,
respectively,--an act by which, perhaps without sufficiently realizing
it, Melanchthon immodestly assumed for himself and his views the place
within the Lutheran Church which belonged not to him, but to Luther. The
title which reveals the insincerity and the purpose of this publication,
runs as follows: _"Corpus Doctrinae, i.e._, the entire sum of the true
and Christian doctrine ... as a testimony of the steadfast and unanimous
confession of the pure and true religion in which the schools and
churches of these Electoral Saxon and Meissen territories have remained
and persevered in all points according to the _Augsburg Confession_ for
now almost thirty years against the unfounded false charges and
accusations of all lying spirits, 1560." As a matter of fact, however,
this _Corpus_ contained, besides the Ecumenical Symbols, only writings
of Melanchthon, notably the altered _Augsburg Confession_ and the
altered _Apology_ of 1542, the Saxon Confession of 1551, the changed
_Loci_, the _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, and the _Responsiones ad
Impios Articulos Inquisitionis Bavaricae_.

Evidently this _Corpus Philippicum_, which was introduced also in
churches outside of Electoral Saxony, particularly where the princes or
leading theologians were Melanchthonians, was intended to alienate the
Electorate from the old teaching of Luther, to sanction and further the
Melanchthonian tendency, and thus to pave the way for Calvinism. It was
foisted upon, and rigorously enforced in, all the churches of Electoral
Saxony. All professors, ministers, and teachers were pledged by an oath
to teach according to it. Such as refused to subscribe were deposed,
imprisoned, or banished. Among the persecuted pastors we find the
following names: Tettelbach, superintendent in Chemnitz; George Herbst,
deacon in Chemnitz and later superintendent in Eisleben; Graf,
superintendent in Sangerhausen; Schade, Heine, and Schuetz, pastors in
Freiberg. When ministers who refused their signatures appealed to
Luther's writings, they were told that Luther's books must be
understood and explained according to Melanchthon's _Corpus_. At
Wittenberg the opposition to Luther and his teaching bordered on
fanaticism. When, for example, in 1568 Conrad Schluesselburg and Albert
Schirmer, two Wittenberg students, entered a complaint against
Professors Pezel and Peucer because of their deviations from Luther in
the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and refused to admit that Peucer and
his colleagues represented the pure doctrine in this matter, they were
expelled from the university, anathematized, and driven from the city.
(Schluesselburg 13, 609. 730; Gieseler 3, 2, 250.)

Immediately after its appearance, the _Corpus Philippicum_ was
denounced by loyal Lutherans, notably those of Reuss, Schoenfeld, and
Jena. When the charges of false teaching against the Wittenberg
theologians increased in number and force, Elector August arranged a
colloquy between the theologians of Jena and Wittenberg. It was held at
Altenburg and lasted from October, 1568, to March, 1569 because the
Wittenbergers, evidently afraid of compromising themselves, insisted on
its being conducted in writing only. The result of this colloquy was a
public declaration on the part of Wigand, Coelestinus, Kirchner Rosinus,
and others to the effect that the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians had
unmistakably revealed themselves as false teachers. At the colloquy the
Jena theologians objected in particular also to the _Corpus Misnicum_
because it contained the altered _Augustana_, concerning which they
declared: Melanchthon "has changed the said _Augsburg Confession_ so
often that finally he has opened a window through which the
Sacramentarians and Calvinists can sneak into it. One must watch
carefully, lest in course of time the <DW7>s also find such a loophole
to twist themselves into it." (Gieseler 3, 2, 252.)

The Philippists of Leipzig and Wittenberg in turn, denounced the Jena
theologians as Flacian fighting cocks (_Flacianische Haderkatzen_). They
also succeeded in persuading Elector August to adopt more rigorous
measures against the malcontents in his territories. For in addition to
the adoption of the _Corpus Philippicum_ the ministers were now required
to subscribe to a declaration which was tantamount to an endorsement of
all of the false doctrines entertained by the Wittenbergers. The
declaration read: "I do not adhere to the dangerous Flacian Illyrian
errors, contentions, poisonous backbitings, and fanaticism (_zaenkischem
Geschmeiss, giftigem Gebeiss und Schwaermerei_) with which the schools
and churches of this country are burdened [by Flacius] concerning the
imagined adiaphorism, synergism, and Majorism and other false
accusations, nor have I any pleasure in it [the quarreling], and in the
future I intend, by the help of God, to abstain from it altogether, to
damn, 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 Wittenberg
Philippists now decided on further public steps in the direction of
Calvinism. In 1570 they published _Propositions (Propositiones)
Concerning the Chief Controversies of This Time_, in which the Lutheran
doctrine regarding the majesty of the human nature of Christ was
repudiated. In the following year they added a new Catechism, entitled:
"_Catechesis_ continens explicationem simplicem et brevem decalogi,
Symboli Apostolici, orationis dominicae, doctrinae Christianae, quod
amplectuntur ac tuentur Ecclesiae regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarum
quae sunt subiectae editioni Ducis Electoris Saxoniae, edita in Academia
Witebergensi et accommodata ad usum scholarum puerilium. 1571."

This Catechism, written, according to Wigand, by Pezel, appeared
anonymously. Its preface, signed by the Wittenberg theological faculty,
explains that the new Catechism was an epitome of the _Corpus Doctrinae
Misnicum_ and merely intended as a supplement of Luther's Catechism for
progressed scholars who were in need of additional instruction. As a
matter of fact, however, its doctrine concerning the person of Christ
and the Lord's Supper was in substantial agreement with the teaching of
Calvin. Under the odious name of "ubiquity" it rejected the omnipresence
of Christ according to His human nature, and sanctioned Calvin's
teaching concerning the local inclusion of Christ in heaven. Acts 3, 21
was rendered in Beza's translation: "_Quem oportet coelo capi_. Who must
be received by the heaven."

The Catechism declares: "The ascension was visible and corporeal; the
entire Antiquity has always written that Christ's body is restricted to
a certain place, wherever He wishes it to be; and a bodily ascension
was made upwards. _Ascensio fuit visibilis et coporalis, et semper ita
scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco
esse, ubicumque vult, et ascensio corporalis facta est sursum_."
Concerning the real presence, the Catechism merely states: "The Lord's
Supper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ as it is instituted in the words of the Gospel; in which eating
(_sumptione_) the Son of God is truly and substantially present, and
testifies that He applies His benefits to the believers. He also
testifies that He has assumed the human nature for the purpose of
making us, who are ingrafted into Him by faith, His members. He finally
testifies that He wishes to be in the believers, to teach, quicken and
govern them." (Gieseler 3, 2, 263.) The sacramental union, oral eating
and drinking, and the eating and drinking of the wicked are not
mentioned. Tschackert remarks that every Calvinist would readily have
subscribed to the teaching of this Catechism. (545.)

When the Wittenberg Catechism was warned against and designated as
Calvinistic by Chemnitz, Moerlin, and other theologians of Brunswick,
Lueneburg, Mansfeld, Jena, and Halle, the Wittenbergers answered and
endeavored to defend their position in the so-called _Grundfeste_, Firm
Foundation, of 1571. It was a coarse and slanderous publication, as even
the title indicates, which reads: "Firm Foundation of the True Christian
Church Concerning the Person and Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ
against the Modern Marcionites, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians,
Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites among the Flacian Rabble
Published by the Theologians in Wittenberg." In this _Grundfeste_ the
Wittenbergers present the matter as though the real issue were not the
Lord's Supper, but Christology. They enumerate as heretics also the
"Ubiquitists," including Brenz, Andreae, and Chemnitz. With respect to
their own agreement with Calvin, they remark that their teaching is the
doctrine of the early Church, in which point, they said, also Calvin
agreed. (Tschackert, 546.)

This daring Calvinistic publication again resulted in numerous protests
against the Wittenbergers on the part of alarmed Lutherans everywhere
outside of Electoral Saxony, which induced Elector August to require his
theologians to deliver at Dresden, October 10, 1571, a definite
statement of their faith. The confession which they presented was
entitled: "_Brief Christian and Simple Repetition of the Confession of
the Churches of God in the Territories of the Elector of Saxony
Concerning the Holy Supper_," etc. The _Consensus Dresdensis_, as the
document was called, satisfied the Elector at least temporarily, and was
published also in Latin and low German. Essentially, however, the
indefinite and dubious language of the Catechism was here but repeated.
Concerning the majesty of Christ the _Dresden Consensus_ declares that
after the resurrection and ascension the human nature of Christ "was
adorned with higher gifts than all angels and men." In His ascension,
the _Consensus_ continues, Christ "passed through the visible heavens
and occupied the heavenly dwelling, where He in glory and splendor
retains the essence, property, form, and shape of His true body, and
from there He, at the last day, will come again unto Judgment in great
splendor, visibly."

In a similar vague, ambiguous, and misleading manner Christ's sitting at
the right hand of God is spoken of. Omitting the oral eating and
drinking and the eating and drinking of the wicked, the _Consensus_
states concerning the Lord's Supper that "in this Sacrament Christ gives
us 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 receives
us, makes us members of His body, washes us with His blood, presents
forgiveness of sins, and wishes truly to dwell and to be efficacious in
us." (Tschackert, 546.) The opponents of the Wittenbergers are branded
as unruly men, who, seeking neither truth nor peace, excite offensive
disputations concerning the real presence in the Lord's Supper as well
as with regard to other articles. Their doctrine of the real
communication ("_realis seu physica communicatio_") is characterized as
a corruption of the article of the two natures in Christ and as a
revamping of the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians, Manicheans,
Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and
Monothelites. (Gieseler 3, 2, 264f.)

213. Apparently Victorious.

All the Crypto-Calvinistic publications of the Wittenberg and Leipzig
Philippists were duly unmasked by the Lutherans outside of Electoral
Saxony, especially in Northern Germany. Their various opinions were
published at Jena, 1572, under the title: "_Unanimous Confession
(Einhelliges Bekenntnis) of Many Highly Learned Theologians and
Prominent Churches_ 1. concerning the New Catechism of the New
Wittenbergers, and 2. concerning their _New Foundation (Grundfeste)_,
also 3. concerning their _New Confession (Consensus Dresdensis)_,
thereupon adopted." However, all this and the repeated warnings that
came from every quarter outside of his own territories, from Lutheran
princes as well as theologians, do not seem to have made the least
impression on Elector August. Yet he evidently was, and always intended
to be a sincere, devoted, true-hearted, and singleminded Lutheran. When,
for example, in 1572 Beza, at the instance of the Wittenberg
Philippists, dedicated his book against Selneccer to Elector August, the
latter advised him not to trouble him any further with such writings, as
he would never allow any other doctrine in his territory than that of
the _Augsburg Confession_.

However, blind and credulous as he was, and filled with prejudice and
suspicion against Flacius and the Jena theologians generally, whom he,
being the brother of the usurper Maurice, instinctively feared as
possibly also political enemies, Elector August was easily duped and
completely hypnotized, as it were, by the men surrounding him, who led
him to believe that they, too, were in entire agreement with Luther and
merely opposed the trouble-breeding Flacians, whom they never tired of
denouncing as zealots, fanatics, bigots, wranglers, barkers, alarmists,
etc. While in reality they rejected the doctrine that the true body and
blood 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 Capernaitic
eating 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 the
Elector 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, they
maintained, was the teaching of their opponents, while they themselves
faithfully adhered to the teachings of Luther and Philip, and, in
general, were opposed only to the exaggerations and excrescences
advocated by the bigoted Flacians. (Walther, 43.)

Such was the manner in which the Elector allowed himself to be duped by
the Philippists who surrounded him,--men who gradually developed the art
of dissimulation to premeditated deceit, falsehood, and perjury. Even
the Reformed theologian Simon Stenius, a student at Wittenberg during
the Crypto-Calvinistic period, charges the Wittenbergers with dishonesty
and systematic dissimulation. The same accusation was raised 1561 by the
jurist Justus Jonas in his letters to Duke Albrecht of Prussia.
(Gieseler 3, 2, 249.) And evidently believing that Elector August could
be fooled all the time, they became increasingly bold in their
theological publications, and in their intrigues as well.

To all practical purposes the University of Wittenberg was already
Calvinized. Calvinistic books appeared and were popular. Even the work
of a Jesuit against the book of Jacob Andreae on the Majesty of the
Person of Christ was published at Wittenberg. The same was done with a
treatise of Beza, although, in order to deceive the public, the
title-page gave Geneva as the place of publication. Hans Lufft, the
Wittenberg printer, later declared that during this time he did not know
how to dispose of the books of Luther which he still had in stock, but
that, if he had printed twenty or thirty times as many Calvinistic
books, he would have sold all of them very rapidly.

Even Providence seemed to bless and favor the plans of the plotters. For
when on March 3, 1573, Duke John William, the patron and protector of
the faithful Lutherans, died, Elector August became the guardian of his
two sons. And fanaticized by his advisers, the Elector, immediately upon
taking hold of the government in Ducal Saxony, banished Wigand,
Hesshusius, Caspar Melissander [born 1540; 1571 professor of theology in
Jena; 1578 superintendent in Altenburg; died 1591] Rosinus [born 1520;
1559 superintendent in Weimar 1574 superintendent in Regensburg; died
1586], Gernhard, court-preacher in Weimar, and more than 100 preachers
and teachers of Ducal Saxony. The reason for this cruel procedure was
their refusal to adopt the _Corpus Philippicum_, and because they
declined 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 the
ignominious downfall and the unmasking of the dishonest Philippists. For
in this year appeared the infamous _Exegesis_, which finally opened the
eyes of Elector August. Its complete title ran: "_Exegesis Perspicua et
ferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena_--Perspicuous and Almost
Complete Explanation of the Controversy Concerning the Holy Supper." The
contents and make-up of the book as well as the secret methods adopted
for its circulation clearly revealed that its purpose was to deal a
final blow to Lutheranism in order to banish it forever from Saxony.
Neither the author, nor the publisher, nor the place and date of
publication were anywhere indicated in the book. The paper bore Geneva
mark and the lettering was French. The _prima facie_ impression was that
it came from abroad.

Before long, however, it was established that the _Exegesis_ had been
published in Leipzig by the printer Voegelin, who at first also claimed
its authorship. But when the impossibility of this was shown, Voegelin,
in a public hearing, stated that Joachim Curaeus of Silesia, a physician
who had left Saxony and died 1573, was the author of the book. Valentin
Loescher, however, relates (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 195) that probably
Pezel and the son-in-law of Melanchthon, Peucer, had a hand in it; that
the Crypto-Calvinist Esram Ruedinger [born 1523, son-in-law of
Camerarius, professor of physics in Wittenberg, died 1591] was its real
author; that it was printed at Leipzig in order to keep the real
originators of it hidden, and that, for the same purpose, the Silesian
Candidate of Medicine Curaeus had taken the responsibility of its
authorship upon himself. (Tschackert, 547.)

Self-evidently, the Wittenberg theologians disclaimed any knowledge of,
or any connection with, the origin of the _Exegesis_. However, they were
everywhere believed to share its radical teachings, and known to have
spread it among the students of the university, and suspected also of
having before this resorted to tactics similar to those employed in the
_Exegesis_. As early as 1561, for example, rhymes had secretly been
circulated in Wittenberg, the burden of which was that faith alone
effects the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that the mouth
receives nothing but natural bread. One of these ran as follows: "Allein
der Glaub' an Jesum Christ Schafft, dass er gegenwaertig ist, Und speist
uns mit sei'm Fleisch und Blut Und sich mit uns einigen tut. Der Mund
empfaeht natuerlich Brot, Die Seel' aber speist selber Gott." (Walther,
46.) Of course, the purpose of such dodgers was to prepare the way for
Calvinism. And on the very face of it, the _Exegesis Perspicua_ was
intended to serve similar secret propaganda.

The chief difference between the preceding publications of the
Philippists and the _Exegesis_ was that here they came out in clear and
unmistakable language. The sacramental union, the oral eating and
drinking (_manducatio oralis_), and the eating and drinking of the
wicked, which before were passed by in silence, are dealt with
extensively and repudiated. The _Exegesis_ teaches: The body of Christ
is inclosed in heaven; in the Holy Supper it is present only according
to its efficacy, there is no union of the body of Christ with the bread
and wine; hence, there neither is nor can be such a thing as oral eating
and drinking or eating and drinking of unbelievers. The "ubiquity," as
the _Exegesis_ terms the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, is
condemned as Eutychian heresy. The _Exegesis_ declared: "In the use of
the bread and wine the believers by faith become true and living members
of the body of Christ, who is present and efficacious through these
symbols, as through a ministry inflaming and renewing our hearts by His
Holy Spirit. The unbelieving, however, do not become partakers, or
_koinonoi_, but because of their contempt are guilty of the body of
Christ." (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 as
to martyrdom surpass the Lutherans, and after a corresponding
depreciation of Luther, who in the heat of the controversy was said
frequently to have gone too far, the _Exegesis_ recommends that the
wisest thing would be to follow the men whom God had placed at the side
of Luther, and who had spoken more correctly than Luther. Following
Melanchthon, all might unite in the neutral formula, "The bread is the
communion of the body of Christ," avoiding all further definition
regarding the ubiquity [the omnipresence of Christ's human nature] and
the eating of the true body of Christ, until a synod had definitely
decided these matters. (Tschackert, 547.)

All purified churches (all churches in Germany, Switzerland, etc.,
purified from Roman errors), the _Exegesis_ urges, "ought to be in
accord with one another; and this pious concord should not be disturbed
on account of this difference [regarding the Holy Supper]. Let us be
united in Christ and discontinue those dangerous teachings concerning
the ubiquity, the eating of the true body on the part of the wicked, and
similar things. The teachers should agree on a formula which could not
create offense. They should employ the modes of speech found in the
writings of Melanchthon. It is best to suppress public disputations, and
when contentious men create strife and disquiet among the people, the
proper thing to do, as Philip advised [in his opinion to the Elector of
the Palatinate], is to depose such persons of either party, and to fill
their places with more modest men. The teachers must promote unity, and
recommend 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 based
on indifferentism, and a surrender in all important doctrinal points to
Calvinism, the Lutherans merely retaining their name. This unionistic
attitude of the _Exegesis_ has been generally, also in America, termed
Melanchthonianism.

215. Plotters Unmasked.

The plain and unmistakable language of the _Exegesis_ cleared the
atmosphere, and everywhere dispelled all doubts as to the real nature of
the theological trend at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Now it was plain to
everybody beyond the shadow of a doubt that Electoral Saxony was indeed
infested with decided Calvinists. And before long also the web of deceit
and falsehood which they had spun around the Elector was torn into
shreds. The appearance of the _Exegesis_ resulted in a cry of
indignation throughout Lutheran Germany against the Wittenberg and
Leipzig Philippists. Yet, in 1574, only few books appeared against the
document, which, indeed, was not in need of a special refutation. Wigand
published _Analysis of the New Exegesis_, and Hesshusius: _Assertion
(Assertio) of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper, against the
Calvinian Exegesis_. At the same time Elector August was again urged by
Lutheran princes notably the King of Denmark and Duke Ludwig of
Wuerttemberg, also by private persons, to proceed against the Calvinists
in 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 Elector
personally in this matter. But there was little need for further
admonitions, for the _Exegesis_ had opened the Elector's eyes. And soon
after its publication discoveries were made which filled August with
deep humiliation and burning indignation at the base deception practised
on him by the very men whom he had trusted implicitly and placed in most
important positions. By lying and deceit the Philippists had for a long
period succeeded in holding the confidence of Elector August; but now
the time for their complete and inglorious unmasking had arrived.

Shortly after the _Exegesis_ had appeared, Peucer wrote a letter to the
Crypto-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 threw
a black hen over his coffin, crying, 'Here flies the Calvinistic devil;'
Joecher, _Lexicon_ 4, 372], which he had addressed to the wife of the
court-preacher in order to avoid suspicion. By mistake the letter was
delivered to the wife of the court-preacher Lysthenius [born 1532;
studied in Wittenberg; became court-preacher of Elector August in 1572
and later on his confessor; opposed Crypto-Calvinism; was dismissed 1590
by Chancellor Crell; 1591 restored to his position in Dresden, died
1596]. 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 of
Anna, the wife of the Elector, a Calvinistic prayer-book which he had
sent with the letter. Peucer added: "If first we have Mother Anna on our
side, there will be no difficulty in winning His Lordship [her husband]
too."

Additional implicating material was discovered when Augustus now
confiscated the correspondence of Peucer, Schuetze, Stoessel, and
Cracow. The letters found revealed the consummate perfidy, dishonesty,
cunning, and treachery of the men who had been the trusted advisers of
the Elector, who had enjoyed his implicit confidence, and who by their
falsehoods had caused him to persecute hundreds of innocent and faithful
Lutheran ministers. The fact was clearly established that these
Philippists had been systematically plotting to Calvinize Saxony. The
very arguments with which Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the
Person of Christ might best be refuted were enumerated in these letters.
However, when asked by the Elector whether they were Calvinists, these
self-convicted deceivers are said to have answered that "they would not
see the face of God in eternity if in any point they were addicted to
the doctrines of the Sacramentarians or deviated in the least from Dr.
Luther's teaching." (Walther, 56.) The leaders of the conspiracy were
incarcerated. Cracow died in prison, 1575; Stoessel, 1576. It was as
late as 1586 that Peucer regained his liberty, Schuetze in 1589.

216. Lutheranism Restored.

In all the churches of Saxony thanksgiving services were held to praise
God for the final triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coin
celebrating the victory over the Crypto-Calvinists, bearing the date
1574, was struck at Torgau. The obverse exhibits Elector August handing
a book to Elector John George of Brandenburg. The inscription above
reads: "_Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum, Domine_. Preserve Thy Word among
Us, O Lord." Below, the inscription runs: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux
Saxionae et Elector_. Augustus, by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony and
Elector." The reverse represents Torgau and its surroundings, with
Wittenberg in the distance. The Elector, clad in his armor, is standing
on a rock bearing the inscription: "_Schloss Hartenfels_" (castle at
Torgau). 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 the
inscription: "_Die Allmacht_, Omnipotence." The lighter and rising pan,
in which four Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinists are vainly exerting
themselves to the utmost in pulling on the chains of their pan in order
to increase its weight, and on the beam of which also the devil is
sitting, 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 Est
Impossibile Verbum Ullum_, Lucae 1. _Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum,
Domine_. 1574. Nothing is impossible with God, Luke 1. Preserve Thy Word
among us, Lord. 1574."

The obverse of a smaller medal, also of 1574 shows the bust of Elector
August with the inscription: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux Saxoniae Et
Elector_." The reverse exhibits a ship in troubled waters with the
crucified Christ in her expanded sails, and the Elector in his armor and
with the sword on his shoulder, standing at the foot of the mast. In the
roaring ocean are enemies, shooting with arrows and striking with
swords, making an assault upon the ship. The fearlessness of the Elector
is expressed in the inscription: "_Te Gubernatore_, Thou [Christ] being
the pilot." Among the jubilee medals of 1617 there is one which
evidently, too, celebrates the victory over Zwinglianism and Calvinism.
Its obverse exhibits Frederick in his electoral garb pointing with two
fingers 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 hand
and pointing with the forefinger of his left hand to a book lying on a
table and bearing the title: "_Biblia Sacra: V[erbum] D[ei] M[anet] I[n]
Ae[ternum]_." The reverse represents the Elector standing on a rock
inscribed: "_Schloss Hartenfels_, Castle Hartenfels." In his right hand
he is holding the sword and in his left a balance. Under the falling
scale, 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 to
reestablish in his territories Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
The beginning was made by introducing a confession prepared by reliable
superintendents and discussed, adopted, and subscribed at the Diet of
Torgau, September, 1574, and published simultaneously in German and
Latin. Its German title ran: "_Brief Confession (Kurz Bekenntnis) and
Articles 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 Leipzig
and Wittenberg, and elsewhere in all churches and schools of the Elector
of Saxony, also what has been rebuked and is still rebuked as
Sacramentarian 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 in
doctrinal agreement with Luther, and that only a few Crypto-Calvinists
had of late been discovered in the Electorate. This pretense was the
chief reason why the Confession did not escape criticism. In 1575 Wigand
published: "Whether the New Wittenbergers had hitherto always taught
harmoniously and agreeably with the Old, and whether Luther's and
Philip's writings were throughout in entire harmony and agreement."

As for its doctrine, however, the Torgau Confession plainly upholds the
Lutheran teaching. Article VII contends that in the distribution of the
Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ "are truly received also by
the unworthy." Article VIII maintains the "oral eating and drinking,
_oris manducatio_." Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and the
Heidelberg theologians are rejected, and their names expressly
mentioned. On the other hand, the "ubiquity [local extension] of the
flesh of Christ" is disavowed and a discussion of the mode and
possibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ is declined
as something inscrutable. The Latin passage reads: "_Ac ne carnis quidem
ubiquitatem, aut quidquam, quod vel veritatem corporis Christi tollat,
vel ulli fidei articulo repugnet, propter praesentiam in Coena fingimus
aut probamus. Denique de modo et possibilitate praesentiae corporis et
sanguinis Domini plane nihil disputamus. Nam omnia haec imperscrutabilia
statuimus_." (Gieseler 3, 2, 268.)

Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Henry Moeller, Christopher Pezel, and Frederick
Widebram, who refused to subscribe the _Brief Confession_, were first
arrested, then, after subscribing with a qualification, released, but
finally (1574) banished. Widebram and Pezel removed to Nassau, Moeller
to Hamburg, and Cruciger to Hesse. At Leipzig, Andrew Freyhub, who
appealing to the _Consensus Dresdensis_, taught that Christ was exalted
according to both natures, that divine properties were not communicated
to His humanity, and that His body was inclosed in a certain place in
heaven was deposed in 1576.

Thus ended the Crypto-Calvinistic drama in Electoral Saxony. Henceforth
such men as Andreae, Chemnitz, and Selneccer were the trusted advisers
of August, who now became the enthusiastic, devoted, and
self-sacrificing leader of the larger movement for settling all of the
controversies distracting the Lutheran Church, which finally resulted in
the 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 it
was for a short period only, for Christian I died September 25, 1591,
and during the regency of Duke Frederick William, who acted as guardian
of Christian II, Lutheranism was reestablished. In order effectually and
permanently to suppress the Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues, the Duke, in
February of 1592, ordered a general visitation of all the churches in
the entire Electorate. For this purpose Aegidius Hunnius [born 1550;
1576 professor in Marburg and later superintendent and professor in
Wittenberg; attended colloquy at Regensburg 1601; wrote numerous books,
particularly against <DW7>s and Calvinists, died 1603], Martin Mirus
[born 1532, died 1593], George Mylius [born 1544; 1584 expelled from
Augsburg because he was opposed to the Gregorian almanac, since 1585
professor in Wittenberg and Jena, died 1607], Wolfgang Mamphrasius [born
1557; superintendent in Wurtzen; died 1616], and others, who were to
conduct 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 with
the Negative and Contrary Doctrines of the Calvinists and the Form of
Subscription, as Presented to be Signed by Both Parties."

As a result of the visitation, the Crypto-Calvinistic professors in
Wittenberg and Leipzig were exiled. John Salmuth [born 1575;
court-preacher in Dresden since 1584; died 1592] and Prierius, also a
minister in Dresden, were imprisoned. As a bloody finale of the
Crypto-Calvinistic drama enacted in Electoral Saxony, Chancellor Crell
was beheaded, October 9, 1601, after an imprisonment of ten years. Crell
was punished, according to his epitaph, as "an enemy of peace and a
disturber of the public quiet--_hostis pacis et quietis publicae
turbator_," or, as Hutter remarks in his _Concordia Concors_, "not on
account of his religion, but on account of his manifold perfidy--_non ob
religionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem_." (448. 1258.) For a long
period (till 1836) all teachers and ministers in Electoral Saxony were
required to subscribe also to the Visitation Articles as a doctrinal
norm. Self-evidently they are not an integral part of the _Book of
Concord_.


XIX. Controversy on Christ's Descent into Hell.

218. Luther's Doctrine.

While according to medieval theologians the descent into hell was
regarded as an act by which Christ, with His soul only, entered the
abode of the dead; and while according to Calvin and the Reformed
generally the descent into hell is but a figurative expression for the
sufferings of Christ, particularly of His soul, on the cross, Luther,
especially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordance
with the Scriptures that Christ the God-man, body and soul, descended
into hell as Victor over Satan and his host. With special reference to
Ps. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial the
whole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered the
devil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner,
however, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by human
reason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and must
therefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simple
faith. It is sufficient if we retain the consolation that neither hell
nor devil are any longer able to harm us. Accordingly, Luther did not
regard the descent into hell as an act belonging to the state of
humiliation, by which He paid the penalty for our sins, but as an act of
exaltation, in which Christ, as it were, plucked for us the fruits of
His sufferings which were finished when He died upon the cross.

Luther's sermon at Torgau graphically describes the descent as a
triumphant march of our victorious Savior into the stronghold of the
dismayed infernal hosts. From it we quote the following: "Before Christ
arose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He
also descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were
to be held in it as prisoners.... However I shall not discuss this
article in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what
it means to 'descend into hell,' but adhere to the simplest meaning
conveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and
uneducated people." "Therefore whoever would not go wrong or stumble had
best adhere to the words and understand them in a simple way as well as
he can. Accordingly, it is customary to represent Christ in paintings on
walls, as He descends, appears before hell, clad in a priestly robe and
with a banner in His hand, with which He beats the devil and puts him to
flight, takes hell by storm, and rescues those that are His. Thus it was
also acted the night before Easter as a play for children. And I am well
pleased with the fact that it is painted, played, sung and said in this
manner for the benefit of simple people. We, too, should let it go at
that, and not trouble ourselves with profound and subtle thoughts as to
how it may have happened, since it surely did not occur bodily inasmuch
as He remained in the grave three days."

Luther continues: "However since we cannot but conceive thoughts and
images of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or
understand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right
that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with
the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we should
put aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us." "But
we ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the
words of the Creed, which says: 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the
entire person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided, 'born of the
Virgin, suffered, died, and buried'; _in like manner I must not divide
it here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in
one person, descended into hell_ but did not remain in it; as Ps. 16, 10
says of Him: 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell nor suffer Thine Holy
One to see corruption.' By the word 'soul,' He, in accordance with the
language of the Scripture, does not mean, as we do, a being separated
from the body, but the entire man, the Holy One of God, as He here calls
Himself. But how it may have occurred that the man lies there in the
grave, and yet descends into hell--that, indeed, we shall and must leave
unexplained and uncomprehended; for it certainly did not take place in a
bodily and tangible manner although we can only paint and conceive it in
a coarse and bodily way and speak of it in pictures." "Such, therefore
is the plainest manner to speak of this article, that we may adhere to
the 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 utterly
destroyed, for which purpose He died, was buried, and descended,--so
that 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 Christ
descended into hell body and soul, and that He descended as a triumphant
Victor, and not in order to complete His suffering and the work of
atonement. The denial of these two points, in particular, caused a new
controversy, which however, was of brief duration only, and practically
confined to the city of Hamburg, hence also called the Hamburg Church
Controversy, _der Hamburger Kirchenstreit_. Its author was John Aepinus
[Huck or Hoeck; born 1499; studied under Luther; persecuted in
Brandenburg and banished; rector in Stralsund; 1532 pastor and later
superintendent in Hamburg; wrote 1547 against the Interim; sided with
Flacius against the Philippists; published books in Latin and Low
German; 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 and
atonement. While the body was lying in the grave, His soul descended
into hell in order to suffer the qualms and pangs required to satisfy
the wrath of God, complete the work of redemption, and render a plenary
satisfaction, _satisfactio plenaria_. The descent is the last stage of
Christ's humiliation and suffering, His triumph first beginning with the
resurrection. Though we know His sufferings in hell to have been most
sad and bitter, yet we are unable to say and define what they were in
particular, or to describe them concretely, because Scripture is silent
on this question.

But while Aepinus originally held that the soul of Christ suffered in
hell the punishment of eternal death, he later on distinguished between
the first and the second death (eternal damnation) asserting the
suffering Christ endured in hell to have been a part of the punishment
of the first death, and that He did not suffer the _cruciatus AETERNI
tartarei ignis_.--Such were the views advocated, developed, and
variously modified by Aepinus in his theological lectures and
publications. From the Latin "_Consummatum est_, It is finished," the
teaching that Christ finished His suffering and the work of atonement by
His death on the cross was stigmatized by Aepinus as "_error
consummaticus_," and its advocates as "Consummatists," while these, in
turn, dubbed Aepinus and his adherents "Infernalists." (Frank 3,440.)

Among the statements of Aepinus are the following: "I believe that hell
is a place prepared by divine justice to punish the devils and wicked
men according to the quality of their sins." (437.) "On account of our
redemption Christ descended to hell, just as He suffered and died for
us." (437.) "Theologians who either deny that the soul of Christ
descended into hell, or say that Christ was present in hell only in
effect and power, and not by His presence, deprive the Church of faith
in the sufficient, complete, and perfect satisfaction and redemption of
Christ and leave to Satan the right over pious souls after their
separation from the body. For by denying that Christ sustained and bore
those punishments of death and hell which the souls were obliged to bear
after their separation from the body, they assert that complete
satisfaction has not been made for them." (439.) "I believe that the
descent of the soul of Christ to hell is a part of the Passion of
Christ, _i.e._, of the struggles, dangers, anguish, pains, and
punishments which He took upon Himself and bore in our behalf; for, in
the Scriptures, to descend to hell signifies to be involved in the
highest struggles, pain, and distress. I believe that the descent of
Christ to hell is a part of His obedience foretold by the prophets and
imposed on Him because of our sins." (440.) "I believe that the descent
of Christ pertains to His humiliation, not to His glorification and
triumph." (441.) "The descent to hell was by God's judgment laid upon
Christ as the last degree of His humiliation and exinanition and as the
extreme part of His obedience and satisfaction." (441.) "Peter clearly
teaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ felt the pangs of hell and
death while His body was resting in the sepulcher." (441.) "What Christ
experienced when He descended into hell is known to Himself, not to us;
may we acknowledge and accept with grateful minds that He descended
into hell for us. But let us not inquire what it was that He experienced
for us in His descent, for we may piously remain ignorant of matters
which God did not reveal to His Church, and which He does not demand
that she know." (444.)

220. Opposed by His Colleagues.

The views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 before
the ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on the
part of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversy
began to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus was
always marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponents
Tileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated and
assailed his teaching in their pulpits.

The chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflicted
with, and invalidated, the words of Christ, "It is finished," "To-day
shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Aepinus rejoined that the word
"to-day" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence and
the indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente tempore
indefinito_). (414.) However, it was not in every respect Luther's
position which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratz
is reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent of
Christ was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) was
identical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hell
referred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; that
Christ immediately after His death entered paradise together with the
malefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completed
with His death. (446.)

In 1550 the city council of Hamburg asked Melanchthon for his opinion.
But Melanchthon's answer of September, 1550, signed also by Bugenhagen,
was rather indefinite, vague, and evasive. He said, in substance:
Although we have frequently heard the Reverend Doctor Luther speak on
this matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now been
raised, we have written also to others for their views, in order to
present a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his
_Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referred
Descent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the rest
must not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome the
torments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not to
be restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul
(_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animae
separationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion
"that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even when
referred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny of
the devil and hell is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ
are liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to the
word: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain
way the Son of God manifested this victory to the devils, and, no doubt,
the devils felt that their power was broken by this Victor, and that the
head of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, by
Christ, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was the
resurrection of many dead." With respect to the controverted point,
concerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separation
from the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg "enjoin
both parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean time
to avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other public
meetings." Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but "only the
investigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of His
departed soul in hell, is to be omitted, an inquiry which also Dr.
Luther did not consider necessary." (_C. R._ 7, 667.)

Before this Melanchthon had written in a similar vein of compromise to
Aepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. "I wish," said he in a letter of
April 4, 1550, "that there would be an amnesty between you in this
entire strife" about the descent of Christ. "Let us cultivate peace with
one another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadder
disputations originate." (7, 569; compare 6, 116.) In the following year
the Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed and
expelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, was
not intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, but
merely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city.

221. Other Participants in This Controversy.

Though the controversy was suppressed in Hamburg, and Aepinus died May
13, 1553, the theological questions involved were not settled, nor had
all of the advocates of the views set forth by Aepinus disappeared from
the scene. Even such theologians as Westphal, Flacius, Gallus, and
Osiander were partly agreed with him. Osiander says in an opinion: "I am
asked whether the descent of Christ pertains to the satisfaction made
for us or only to His triumph over the enemies. I answer briefly that
the descent of Christ into hell pertained to the satisfaction He merited
for us as well as to the triumph over the enemies, just as His death on
the cross does not belong to the one only, but to both.... Thus by
descending into hell He rendered satisfaction for us who merited hell,
according to Ps. 16." On the other hand, a synod held July 11, 1554, at
Greifswald made it a point expressly to deny that the descent of Christ
involved any suffering of His soul, or that it was of an expiatory
nature, or that this article referred to the anguish of His soul before
His death, or that it was identical with His burial. They affirmed the
teaching of Luther, _viz._, that the entire Christ, God and man, body
and soul, descended into hell after His burial and before His
resurrection, etc. (Frank, 446f.; 416.)

Furthermore, in a letter to John Parsimonius, court-preacher in
Stuttgart, dated February 1, 1565 John Matsperger of Augsburg taught
that, in the article of the descent of Christ, the word "hell" must not
be taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc., but literally,
as the kingdom of Satan and the place of the damned spirits and souls
wherever that might be, that the entire Christ descended into this place
according to both divinity and humanity, with His body and soul, and not
only with the latter, while the former remained in the grave; that this
occurred immediately after His vivification or the reunion of body and
soul in the grave and before His resurrection; that the Descent was
accomplished in an instant, _viz._, in the moment after His vivification
and before His resurrection; and that Christ descended, not to suffer,
but, as a triumphant Victor, to destroy the portals of hell for all
believers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any way
suffer after His death, but denied emphatically that "hell" was a
definite physical locality or place in space, and that the descent
involved a local motion of the body. Brenz assented to the views of
Parsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also assented to them. In
order to check his zeal against his opponents, Matsperger was deposed
and imprisoned. (Frank, 450 f.)

Such being the situation within the Lutheran Church concerning the
questions involved in the Hamburg Controversy, which by the way, had
been mentioned also in the Imperial Instruction for the Diet at
Augsburg, 1555, the _Formula of Concord_ considered it advisable to pass
also on this matter. It did so, in Article IX, by simply reproducing
what 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 hell
and took from the devil all his might." (1051, 3.) "But how this
occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the
other world, where not only this point [this mystery], but also still
others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot
comprehend with our blind reason." (827, 4.) Tschackert remarks: "Ever
since [the adoption of the Ninth Article of the _Formula of Concord_]
Lutheran theology has regarded the Descent of Christ as the beginning of
the 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_ is
stated in the opening paragraph of this article: "Although among the
theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ there has not occurred as yet
any public dissension whatever concerning the eternal election of the
children of God that has caused offense, and has become wide-spread, yet
since this article has been brought into very painful controversy in
other places, and even among our theologians there has been some
agitation concerning it; moreover, since the same expressions were not
always employed concerning it by the theologians: therefore in order, by
the aid of divine grace, to prevent disagreement and separation on its
account 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 that
every one may know what is our unanimous doctrine, faith, and confession
also concerning this article." (1063, 1.)

The statements contained in these introductory remarks are in agreement
with the historical facts. For, while serious dissensions pertaining to
election did occur in Reformed countries, the Lutheran Church, ever
since the great conflict with Erasmus on free will, in 1525 had not been
disturbed by any general, public, and offensive controversy on this
question, neither _ad intra_ among themselves, nor _ad extra_ with the
Calvinists. Hence the chief purpose for embodying Article XI in the
_Formula_ was not to settle past or present disputes, but rather, as
stated in the paragraph quoted, to be of service in avoiding future
differences and conflicts.

This earnest concern for the future peace of our Church, as well as for
the maintenance of its doctrinal purity, was partly due to
apprehensions, which, indeed, were not without foundation. As a matter
of fact, long before the _Formula_ was drafted, the theological
atmosphere was surcharged with polemical possibilities and probabilities
regarding predestination,--a doctrine which is simple enough as long as
faith adheres to the plain Word of God, without making rationalistic and
sophistical inferences, but which in public controversies has always
proved to be a most intricate, crucial, and dangerous question.

Calvin and his adherents boldly rejected the universality of God's
grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operation
through the means of grace, and taught that, in the last analysis, also
the eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree of
divine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement of
election), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence to
the _Augsburg Confession_ and were making heavy inroads into Lutheran
territory with their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the
person of Christ,--which in itself was sufficient reason for a public
discussion and determined resentment of their absolute
predestinarianism. The Synergists, on the other hand, had long ago been
busy explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma of
Calvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted and
elected, while the rest are rejected, was to assume a different conduct
in man--_aliqua actio dissimilis in homine_. And as for their Lutheran
opponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were not
always sufficiently guarded to preclude all misapprehensions and false
inferences.

Thus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up in
considerable quantities. Considering these factors, which for decades
had been making for a theological storm, one may feel rather surprised
that a controversy on predestination had not arisen long ago. Tschackert
says: "They [the Lutheran theologians] evidently feared an endless
debate if the intricate question concerning predestination were made a
subject of discussion." (559.) Sooner or later, however, the conflict
was bound to come with dire results for the Church, unless provisions
were made to escape it, or to meet it in the proper way. Well aware of
this entire critical situation and the imminent dangers lurking therein,
the framers of the _Formula of Concord_ wisely resolved to embody in it
also an article on election in order to clear the theological
atmosphere, 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 eternal
election and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergists
were a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula of
Concord_ 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 always
employed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians." These
theologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but not
always without some stumbling in their language. In their expositions
they had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn from
their context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation.
The framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate and
unguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following.

Bucer had written: "The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God
delivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition.
Why, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined to
deliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition?
_Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensum
reprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam
statuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret in
perniciem?_" (Frank 4, 264.) The _Formula of Concord_, however, is
careful to explain: "Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that
when God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes
with obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because of
their subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should not
be interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ that
such 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 God
gives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while He
leaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus ex
universa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua
iustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate,
ut pereat_." (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob and
to leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understood
of the election and rejection of all men in general. "_Potuisset Deus
optimo iure ambos abiicere;... sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum est
Deo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobum
eligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobus
dictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominum
electione et abiectione_." (256.) Hesshusius: "In this respect God does
not will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectu
Deus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_."
(Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548.) Such statements, when torn from their
context, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal.
The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestly
endeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man
alone is the cause of his damnation.

In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf
said: "God has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore
God works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in all
other creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz._, through His willing
and saying alone.... As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so and
in the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, so
that man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God wills
and says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus
agendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo cum homine volente
et intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis,
lapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere.... Sicut lapides et
trunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectus
hominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut <DW25> nihil prorsus velle et eligere
possit 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 of
Concord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has no
mode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless has
a different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational and
that 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 most
intimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to a
correct presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon,
the father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of a
synergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks of
predestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, "with less of
mysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought as
Zwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, Zwinglis
Ausfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_." [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1,
125; _C. R._ 21, 88. 93.) In reality he probably had never fully grasped
the truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, would
account for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the charges
of Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his former
doctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views on
election. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism.
September 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: "But in the entire _Apology_ I
have avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerning
predestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows our
faith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish to
perturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in tota
Apologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de
praedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequatur
nostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim volo
conscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_." (_C. R._
2, 547.)

In the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to the
Romans_, 1532, he suggests "that divine compassion is truly the cause of
election, 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 causam
electionis 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_ in
1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and election
residing in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promise
of 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 to
call us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefits
to be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected those
who obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionem
decrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficia
innotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_." (21,
917.)

The bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed by
Melanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man a
cause 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 of
discrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted
(_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be some
dissimilar action in these two." (21, 659.) Self-evidently Melanchthon
would not have hesitated to replace the phrase "why Saul was rejected
and David accepted," with "why Saul was rejected and David elected."

Melanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escape
from, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from the
absolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternal
damnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's "ability to apply
himself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_." Accordingly, as
he dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supper
as "bread-worshipers," so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans who
opposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R._ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100.
565. 733; 23, 392.) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine as
follows: "Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man the
freedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in his
doctrine of election." (4, 2, 446.) "God elects all men who desire to
believe." (_Grundriss_, 144.)

Naturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed Master
Philip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffinger
declared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in the
chapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: "If the will were
idle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinction
between the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, as
between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become a
respecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked and
damned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God which
conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is in
us some cause why some assent while others do not assent." Thesis 23:
"For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideo
enim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_.) But our
apprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal,
and we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and the
rejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz._, that
those are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those are
accepted who embrace the promise."

The Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause of
our 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 his
election. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter to
Landgrave 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 predestination
conditioned by the conduct of man, John Calvin and his adherents, on the
other hand, made rapid progress in the opposite direction, developing
with increasing clearness and boldness an absolute, bifurcated
predestination, _i.e._, a capricious election to eternal damnation as
well as to salvation, and in accordance therewith denied the
universality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the
efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. In
his "_Institutio Religionis Christianae_, Instruction in the Christian
Religion," of which the first edition appeared 1535, the second in 1539,
and the third in 1559, Calvin taught that God created and foreordained
some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Man's election means
that he has been created for eternal life, man's reprobation, that he
has been created for eternal damnation. We read (_Lib_. 3, cap. 21, 5):
"_Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se
constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari
conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio
aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus
est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus_." (Tholuck,
_Calvini Institutio_ 2, 133.) In the edition of 1559 Calvin says that
eternal election illustrates the grace of God by showing "that He does
not adopt all promiscuously unto the hope of salvation, but bestows on
some what He denies to others--_quod non omnes promiscue adoptat in spem
salutis, 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 of
God into the miserable condition of bondage, in which they are now
fettered; for, as I said in the beginning, one must always finally go
back to the decision of the divine will alone, whose cause is hidden in
itself. _Fateor sane, in hanc qua nunc illigati sunt conditionis
miseriam Dei voluntate cecidisse universos filios Adam; atque id est,
quod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinae
voluntatis arbitrium, cuius causa sit in ipso abscondita_." (173.)
Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was also a strict
supralapsarian. At the colloquy of Moempelgard (Montbeliard), 1586, in
disputing with Andreae, he defended the proposition "that Adam had
indeed of his own accord fallen into these calamities, yet,
nevertheless, not only according to the prescience, but also according
to the ordination and decree of God--_sponte quidem, sed tamen non modo
praesciente, sed etiam iuste ordinante et decernente Deo_." (186.)
"There never has been, nor is, nor will be a time," said he, "when God
has wished, wishes, or will wish, to have compassion on every individual
person. _Nullum tempus fuit vel est vel erit, quo voluerit, velit aut
voliturus sit Deus singulorum misereri_." (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 25. 50.)

In foisting his doctrine of election on the Reformed churches, Calvin
met with at least some opposition. The words in the paragraph of the
_Formula of Concord_ quoted above: "Yet, since this article [of
predestination] has been brought into very painful controversy in other
places," probably refer to the conflicts in Geneva and Switzerland.
October 16, 1551, Jerome Bolsec [a Carmelite in Paris, secretly spread
Pelagianism in Geneva; sided with the Protestants in Paris and Orleans
after his banishment from Geneva; reembraced Romanism when persecution
set in; wrote against Calvin and Beza, died 1584] was imprisoned in
Geneva 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 is
so great that a certain one who dissented from Zeno [Calvin] was
incarcerated. What a miserable affair! The doctrine of salvation is
obscured by disputations foreign to it." (_C. R._ 7, 932.) Although the
German cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel) advised moderation, Bolsec was
banished from Geneva, with the result however, that he continued his
agitation against Calvin in other parts of Switzerland. In Bern all
discussions on predestination were prohibited by the city council.
Calvin complained in a letter of September 18, 1554: "The preachers of
Bern publicly declare that I am a heretic worse than all the <DW7>s."
(Gieseler 3, 2, 178.) January 26, 1555, the council of Bern renewed its
decree against public doctrinal discussions, notably those on
predestination--"_principalement touchant la matiere de la divine
predestination, qui nous semble non etre necessaire_," etc. (179.) Later
on the doctrine of Calvin was opposed by the Arminians from
Semi-Pelagian principles.

226. Calvinistic Confessions.

The essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination were
embodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The _Consensus Genevensis_
of January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [a
fanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; died
December 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled:
"_Concerning God's Eternal Predestination_, by which He has elected some
to salvation and left theothers to their perdition--_qua in salutem
alios 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 absolute
predestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: In
predestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, _viz._,
merciful and just. "Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation and
perdition those whom ... He elected; just, by leaving the others in
their fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves.
_Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quam
sese ipsi praecipites dederunt_." (Niemeyer, 370.) The _Gallic
Confession_ [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved by
a synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translated
into German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of La
Rochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in their
corruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: "We believe that from
this corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God,
according to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He has
chosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without
consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of His
mercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show
in them His justice. _Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione
universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem
eripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola sua
bonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in Iesu
Christo 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 from
eternity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who in
time are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New Covenant
He has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election were
given to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. _Sicut
Christus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omnium
eorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in tempore
Novi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternam
electionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditas
eius_," etc. (Niemeyer, 733.)

The same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the _Canons
of the Synod of Dort_, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the _Westminster
Confession of Faith_, published 1647. In the former we read: "That some
receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it,
proceeds from God's eternal election.... According to His just judgment
He leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy." (Schaff
3, 582.) "The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and in
different measures, attain the assurance of this eternal and
unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and
deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy
and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the
Word of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow
for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc." (583.)
"Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the
eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just,
irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave
in 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 will
and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy
of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect,
for bestowing _upon them alone_ the gift of justifying faith, thereby to
bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that
Christ by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenant
should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and
language all those, _and those only_, who were from eternity chosen to
salvation, and given to Him by the Father." (587.) "But God, who is rich
in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not
_wholly_ withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their
melancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the grace
of adoption and forfeit the state of justification," etc. (Schaff 3,
593; Niemeyer, 716.)

The _Westminster Confession_ declares: "By the decree of God, for the
manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto
everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."
(Schaff 3, 608.) "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath
He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all
the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in
Adam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ
by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,
and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,
sanctified, and saved but the elect only." (609.) "The rest of mankind
God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will,
whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His
sovereign power over His creatures, _to pass by_, and to ordain them to
dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious
justice." (610; Niemeyer, _Appendix_ 6. 7.)

227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg.

In view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it is
certainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularly
with the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long before
the _Formula of Concord_ was able to write that such a conflict had not
yet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarian
conflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities,
within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmish
lacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as a
signal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach and
Zanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI:
"Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has been
mooted also among our theologians." This controversy took place from
1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came into
immediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the _Wittenberg
Concord_ and with it the _Augsburg Confession_ which since took the
place of the _Tetrapolitana_ delivered to Emperor Charles at the Diet
of Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizing
the city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together with
Mathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 and
labored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He had
Bucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the public
controversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled,
_Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians_, which
defends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature.

In his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by the
Crypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a converted
Italian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won for
Protestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor,
first in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to the
Continent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12,
1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563
Zanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though he
had signed the _Augsburg Confession_, he was and remained a rigid
Calvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and that
of 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 Zanchi
now laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (_Historia Motuum_ 3,
30) he taught: "1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God only
once. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith ... can
never again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with their
whole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he,
indeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of the
heart. _1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur.
2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insiti
fidem prorsus amittere ... non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duo
sunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantum
hominem exteriorem, i.e., ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti,
peccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum et
condelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntate
peccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fidei
confessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde_." (Tschackert 560;
Frank 4, 261.)

This tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternally
lost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the _Smalcald Articles_ we
read: "On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of
whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of
the peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who had
once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become
believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in
the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Do
whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faith
blots out all sins,' etc.--they say, besides, that if any one sins after
he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and
faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in
some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is,
accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still
having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving
with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery,
murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed
from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to
gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and
restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what
it 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 he
cannot 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 and
the truth is not in us.'" (491, 42f.)

In an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 some
Antinomians maintained and argued "that, since in this life sin remains
in saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvation
even when they commit adultery and other sins against their
conscience.... There are many at many places who are imbued with this
error [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the conscience
can remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy although
they 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 which
Marbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, which
was 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 its
first article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. It
rejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, and
prescribed the _Wittenberg Concord_ of 1536 as the doctrinal rule
regarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties,
Zanchi stating over his signature: "_Hanc doctrinae formam ut piam
agnosco, ita eam recipio_." Evidently his mental reservation was that he
be permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it as
pious. 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 in
Chiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University of
Heidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died at
Heidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continued
his work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause of
the _Formula of Concord_. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a local
character, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI.
The thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupil
of Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_.

228. The Strassburg Formula.

The _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ sets forth the Scriptural and
peculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, according
to which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance of
his election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not _a
priori_, but _a posteriori_. That is to say, he is not to speculate on
the act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested to
him in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own false
conception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the _Strassburg
Formula_ did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election,--a
stricture frequently made also on Article XI of the _Formula of
Concord_, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election the
Reformed have never fully grasped and realized.

The _Strassburg Formula_ taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, the
doctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it into
conflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor to
deprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in any
way to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is the
grace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election,
especially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the hands
of Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality of
God's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvation
for all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which is
the gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered to
all; 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 known
to God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of God
proposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men are
directed, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is not
contradictory 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 by
God to all when He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinite
goodness, certainly calls earnestly: 'Come unto the marriage, for all
things are now ready,' is a sealed mystery known to God alone, past
finding out for human reason; a secret that must be contemplated with
fear and be adored, as it is written: 'O the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and
His ways past finding out!' Rom. 11, 33. And Christ gives thanks to the
Father because He has hid these things from the wise and prudent and
revealed them unto babes. Matt. 11, 25. Troubled consciences, however,
must not take offense at this hidden way of the divine will but look
upon the will of God revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to
Himself." This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians.
Moerlin wrote: "God has revealed to us that He will save only those who
believe in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden,
however, are God's judgments--why He converts Paul but does not convert
Caiaphas; why He receives fallen Peter again and abandons Judas to
despair." Chemnitz: "Why, then, is it that God does not put such faith
into the heart of Judas so that he, too, might have believed and been
saved through Christ? Here we must leave off questioning and say, Rom.
11: 'O the depth!'... We cannot and must not search this nor meditate
too deeply upon such questions." Kirchner: "Since, therefore, faith in
Christ 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 to
search His secret judgments, Rom. 11: 'O the depth,' etc." In a similar
way Chemnitz, Selneccer, and Kirchner expressed themselves in their
_Apology of the Book of Concord_, of 1582, declaring that, "when asked
why God does not convert all men, we must answer with the apostle: 'How
unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!' but not
ascribe to God the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobation
or 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 _gratia
universalis_, according to which God's grace is the only cause of man's
salvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his damnation, the
Lutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace,
_i.e._, a predestination to salvation only. God's eternal election, says
the _Formula of Concord_, "does not extend at once over the godly and
the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and
ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as
Paul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: 'He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.'" (1065, 5.) This
election, the _Formula_ continues, "not only foresees and foreknows the
salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure
of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and
promotes our salvation, and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine
predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell
cannot 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, Acts
13, 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 no
cause of election in man. The teaching "that not only the mercy of God
and the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause of
God's election on account of which God has elected us to everlasting
life," is rejected by the _Formula of Concord_ as one of the
"blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines whereby all the comfort
which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is
taken from Christians." (837, 20f.)

Concerning the way of considering eternal election, the _Formula_
writes: "If we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably
concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the
children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to
speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable
foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of
God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us
through the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the
purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our
redemption, 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 faith
and salvation, there is no such a thing as an election of wrath or a
predestination to sin and damnation, of both of which God is not the
cause and author. According to the _Formula_ the vessels of mercy are
prepared by God alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared for
damnation, not by God, but by themselves. Moreover, God earnestly
desires that all men turn from their wicked ways and live. We read: "For
all 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 is
not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of
damnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin
is death. Rom. 6, 23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure
in 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 that
any 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 the
Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the
wicked turn from his way and live,' And St. Paul testifies in clear
words that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by
God'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 good
work,' For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and
hence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says
clearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does
not say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have
prepared themselves as vessels of damnation." (1089, 81f.) "Hence the
apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God, who alone makes
vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the
instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of
dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f.: 'God endured with much
long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might
make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had
afore prepared unto glory.' Here, then, the apostle clearly says that
God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not
say 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 and
to men themselves, and not to God." (1089, 79f.)

It is man's own fault when he is not converted by the Word or afterwards
falls away again. We read: "But the reason why not all who hear it [the
Word of God] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is not
because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own
fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but
only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy
Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at
the time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents." (1089, 78.)
"For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the
Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22, 3ff. The cause of this
contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination],
but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and
instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and
resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through
the 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 as
though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in
whom 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 holy
commandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves
again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the
heart 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 His
grace is universal as well as serious and efficacious. The _Formula of
Concord_ declares: "However, that many are called and few chosen is not
owing 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, I
indeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, in
My heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respect
to a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I call
through the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be and
remain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myself
to them otherwise. _Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntates
affingere_. For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. That
is, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is Eternal
Truth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve
another in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and]
punishes also in men this wickedness, when a person declares himself to
one 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's
predestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardening
signify that it never was God's good pleasure to save them. "Moreover,"
says the _Formula_, "it is to be diligently considered that when God
punishes sin with sins, that is when He afterwards punishes with
obduracy and blindness those who had been converted because of their
subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins, this should not be
interpreted to mean that it never had been God's good pleasure that such
persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For both
these facts are God's revealed will: first, that God will receive into
grace all who repent and believe in Christ; secondly, that He also will
punish those who wilfully turn away from the holy commandment, and again
entangle themselves in the filth of the world 2 Pet. 2, 20, and garnish
their hearts for Satan, Luke 11, 25f., and do despite unto the Spirit of
God, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, and
eternally condemned if they persist therein." (1091, 83.)

"But that God ... hardened Pharaoh's heart, namely, that Pharaoh always
sinned again and again, and became the more obdurate the more he was
admonished, that was a punishment of his antecedent sin and horrible
tyranny, which in many and manifold ways he practised inhumanly and
against the accusations of his heart towards the children of Israel. And
since God caused His Word to be preached and His will to be proclaimed
to him, and Pharaoh nevertheless wilfully reared up straightway against
all admonitions and warnings, God withdrew His hand from him and thus
his heart became hardened and obdurate, and God executed His judgment
upon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than hell-fire. Accordingly,
the holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no other
reason than to prove by it the justice of God which He exercises towards
the impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has he
intended or understood it to mean that God begrudged salvation to him or
any person, but had so ordained him to eternal damnation in His secret
counsel that he should not be able, or that it should not be possible
for 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 of
the other articles particularly to Article I, Of Original Sin, and
Article II, Of Free Will and Conversion. Election is to conversion what
the concave side of a lens is to the convex. Both correspond to each
other in every particular. What God does for and in man when He
converts, justifies, sanctifies, preserves, and finally glorifies him,
He has in eternity resolved to do,--that is one way in which eternal
election may be defined. Synergists and Calvinists, however have always
maintained that the Second Article is in a hopeless conflict with the
Eleventh. But the truth is, the Second fully confirms and corroborates
the Eleventh, and _vice versa;_ for both maintain the _sola gratia_ as
well as the _universalis gratia_.

Both articles teach that in every respect grace alone is the cause of
our conversion and salvation, and that this grace is not confined to
some men only, but is a grace for all. Both teach that man, though
contributing absolutely nothing to his conversion and salvation, is
nevertheless the sole cause of his own damnation. Both disavow Calvinism
which denies the universality of grace. Both reject synergism, which
corrupts grace by teaching a cooperation of man towards his own
conversion and salvation. Teaching therefore, as they do, the same
truths, both articles will and must ever stand and fall together. It
was, no doubt, chiefly due to this complete harmony between the Second
and the Eleventh Article that after the former (which received its
present shape only after repeated changes and additions) had been
decided upon the revision of the latter (the Eleventh) caused but little
delay. (Frank 4, V. 133.)

Concerning the alleged conflict between Articles II and XI, we read in
Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom:_ "There is an obvious and
irreconcilable antagonism between Article II and Article XI. They
contain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological
science, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into
a creed. The _Formula_ adopts one part of Luther's book _De Servo
Arbitrio_, 1525, and rejects the other, which follows with logical
necessity. It is Augustinian, yea, hyper-Augustinian and
hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and
anti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It endorses
the anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If
man is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the
grace of God, as Article II teaches, he can only be converted by an act
of almighty power and irresistible grace, which Article XI denies. If
some men are saved without any cooperation on their part, while others,
with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the
difference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable
decree of God. On the other hand if God sincerely wills the salvation of
all 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 lost
towards converting grace, which is denied in Article II. The Lutheran
system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either
from Article II in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or
from Article XI in the direction of synergism and Arminianism. The
former would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine [?],
which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the
latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less
by 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 confusion
otherwise not found in the _Formula_."

Apart from other unwarranted assertions in the passage quoted from
Schaff, the chief charges there raised against the _Formula of Concord_
are: 1. that Articles XI and II are contradictory to each other, 2. that
the Lutheran Church has failed to harmonize the doctrines of _sola
gratia_ and _gratia universalis_. However, the first of these strictures
is based on gross ignorance of the facts, resulting from a superficial
investigation of the articles involved, for the alleged disagreement is
purely imaginary. As a matter of fact, no one can read the two articles
attentively without being everywhere impressed with their complete
harmony. In every possible way Article XI excludes synergism, and
corroborates 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 least
error in the doctrine of free will and conversion was bound to manifest
itself also in the doctrine of election, and that perhaps in a form much
more difficult to detect. Hence Article XI was not only intended to be a
bulwark against the assaults on the doctrine of grace coming from
 Calvinistic quarters, but also an additional reenforcement of the
article of Free Will against the Synergists, in order to prevent a
future recrudescence of their errors in the sphere of predestination.
Its object is clearly to maintain the doctrine of the Bible, according
to 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 of
Calvinism, and forever to close the doors of the Lutheran Church to
every form of these two errors.

According to the Second Article, Christians cannot be assured of their
election if the doctrine of conversion [by grace alone] is not properly
presented. (901, 47. 57.) And Article XI most emphatically supports
Article II in its efforts to weed out every kind of synergistic or
Romanistic corruption. For here we read: "Thus far the mystery of
predestination is revealed to us in God's Word; and if we abide thereby
and cleave thereto, it is a very useful salutary, consolatory doctrine;
for it establishes very effectually the article that we are justified
and saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of grace
alone, for Christ's sake. For before the time of the world, before we
existed, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of
course, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purpose
chosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9.
Moreover, all opinions and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers of
our natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel,
before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by
the power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the
Word, everything that pertains to our conversion." (1077, 43f.; 837,
20.)

Again: "By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving
choice of the elect children of God, His own glory is entirely and fully
given 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 of
His will, as it is written Eph. 1, 5f.: 'Having predestinated us,'...
Therefore it is false and wrong when it is taught that not alone the
mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us
there is a cause of God's predestination on account of which God has
chosen us to eternal life." Indeed, one of the most exclusive
formulations against every possible kind of subtile synergism is found
in Article XI when it teaches that the reason why some are converted and
saved while others are lost, must not be sought in man, _i.e._, in any
minor guilt or less faulty conduct toward grace shown by those who are
saved, as compared with the guilt and conduct of those who are lost.
(1081, 57f.) If, therefore, the argument of the Calvinists and
Synergists that the _sola gratia_ doctrine involves a denial of
universal grace were correct, the charge of Calvinism would have to be
raised against Article XI as well as against Article II.

In a similar manner the Second Article confirms the Eleventh by
corroborating its anti-Calvinistic teaching of universal grace and
redemption; of man's responsibility for his own damnation; of man's
conversion, not by compulsion or coercion, etc. The Second Article most
emphatically teaches the _sola gratia_, but without in any way limiting,
violating, or encroaching upon, universal grace. It is not merely
opposed to Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and synergistic errors, but to Stoic
and Calvinistic aberrations as well. While it is not the special object
of the Second Article to set forth the universality of God's grace, its
anti-Calvinistic attitude is nevertheless everywhere apparent.

Article II plainly teaches that "it is not God's will that anyone should
be damned, but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved
eternally. 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 Word
and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has
promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, and
are 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 and
salvation, effects conversion through the preaching and hearing of God's
Word, 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 this
preaching, because the preaching and hearing of God's Word are the
instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to
work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both
to will and to do." (901, 52ff.)  It admonishes that no one should doubt
that the power and efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present with, and
efficacious in, the Word when it is preached purely and listened to
attentively, and that we should base our certainty concerning the
presence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost not on our feeling, but
on the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is truly an
office and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious
and works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff.; 3, 5ff." [tr. note: sic on
punctuation] (903, 56.) It asserts that men who refuse to hear the Word
of God are not converted because they despised the instrument of the
Holy Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that God does not force men to
become godly; that those who always resist the Holy Ghost and
persistently oppose the known truth are not converted (905, 60). If,
therefore, the inference were correct that the doctrine of universal
grace involved a denial of the _sola gratia_, then the charge of
synergism would have to be raised against Article II as well as against
Article XI.  Both articles will always stand and fall together; for both
teach that the grace of God is the only cause of our conversion and
salvation, 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 they
term "contradictory doctrines": _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_,
--a stricture which must be characterized as flowing from rationalistic
premises, mistaking a divine mystery for a real contradiction, and in
reality directed against the clear Word of God itself. Says Schaff, who
also in this point voices the views of Calvinists as well as Synergists:
"The _Formula of Concord_ sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism
and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later
Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the
universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these
contradictory positions." (304.) "Thus the particularism of election and
the universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man, and
the guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he cannot accept, are
illogically combined." (1, 330.) The real charge here raised against the
_Formula of Concord_ is, that it fails to modify the doctrines of _sola
gratia_ or _universalis gratia_ in a manner satisfactory to the demands
of human reason; for Synergists and Calvinists are agreed that, in the
interest 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, theologians
included, are bound to derive their entire doctrine from the Bible
alone; that matters of faith must be decided exclusively by clear
passages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point to
criticize and lord it over the infallible Word of God; that reason must
be subjected to the obedience of Christ, and dare not hinder faith in
believing the divine testimonies even when they seemingly contradict
each other. We are not commanded to harmonize, says the _Formula_, but
to believe, confess, defend, and faithfully to adhere to the teachings
of the Bible. (1078, 52ff.) In the doctrine of conversion and salvation,
therefore, Lutherans confess both the _sola gratia_ and the _universalis
gratia_, because they are convinced that both are clearly taught in the
Bible, and that to reject or modify either of them would amount to a
criticism of the Word of God, and hence of God Himself. Synergists
differ from Lutherans, not in maintaining universal grace (which in
reality they deny as to intention as well as extension, for they corrupt
the Scriptural content of grace by making it dependent on man's conduct,
and thereby limit its extension to such only as comply with its
conditions), but in denying the _sola gratia_, and teaching that the
will of man enters conversion as a factor alongside of grace. And
Calvinists 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 adhering
to both the _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_, and firmly
maintaining that whoever is saved is saved by grace alone, and whoever
is lost is lost through his own fault alone, the _Formula of Concord_ at
the same time fully acknowledges the difficulty presenting itself to
human reason when we hold fast to this teaching. In particular, it
admits that the question, not answered in the Bible, _viz_., why some
are saved while others are lost, embraces a mystery which we lack the
means and ability of solving, as well as the data. Accordingly, the
_Formula_ also makes no efforts whatever to harmonize them, but rather
discountenances and warns against all attempts to cater to human reason
in this respect, and insists that both doctrines be maintained intact
and taught conjointly. Lutherans are fully satisfied that here every
effort at rational harmonization cannot but lead either to Calvinistic
corruption of universal grace or to synergistic modification of _sola
gratia_.

Thus the Lutheran Church not only admits, but zealously guards, the
mystery contained in the doctrine of grace and election. It
distinguishes between God in as far as He is known and not known; in as
far as He has revealed Himself, and in as far as He is still hidden to
us, but as we shall learn to know Him hereafter. The truths which may be
known concerning God are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible.
The things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments of
God, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question why
some are saved while others are lost. God has not seen fit to reveal
these mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom God, man's
quest for an answer is both presumptuous and vain. That is to say, we
are utterly unable to uncover the divine counsels, which would show that
the mysterious judgments and ways proceeding from them are in complete
harmony with the universal grace proclaimed by the Gospel.

Yet Lutherans believe that the hidden God is not in real conflict with
God as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of God does not
in the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According to
the _Formula of Concord_ there are no real contradictions in God; in Him
everything 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 for
all, Christians may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in the
unknown God, _i.e._, in as far as He has not revealed Himself to them,
which might subvert their simple faith in His gracious promises. The
face of God depicted in the Gospel is the true face of God. Whoever has
seen 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 majestic
God, in whom we live and move and have our being, the God who has all
things well in hand, and without whom nothing can be or occur, must, in
the light of the Scriptures, be viewed as an additional guarantee that,
in spite of all contingencies, the merciful divine promises of the
Gospel shall stand firm and immovable. Upon eternal election, says the
_Formula of Concord_, "our salvation is so [firmly] founded 'that the
gates of hell cannot prevail against it.'" (1065, 8.) As for us,
therefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what God
has withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of God's transcendent
majesty, but merely to rely on, and securely trust in, the blessed
Gospel, which proclaims grace for all and salvation by grace alone, and
teaches that whoever is saved must praise God alone for it, while
whoever is damned must blame only himself.

Regarding the mystery involved in predestination, the _Formula of
Concord_ explains: "A distinction must be observed with especial care
between that which is expressly revealed concerning it [predestination]
in God's Word and what is not revealed. For in addition to what has been
revealed 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 not
investigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw
conclusions nor inquire curiously, but should adhere to the revealed
Word. This admonition is most urgently needed. For our curiosity has
always much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters
[investigating things abstruse and hidden] than with what God has
revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize
it [cannot by the acumen of our natural ability harmonize the intricate
and involved things occurring in this mystery], which, moreover, we have
not been commanded to do."

The _Formula_ enumerates as such inscrutable mysteries: Why God gives
His Word at one place, but not at another; why He removes it from one
place, and allows it to remain at another; why one is hardened, while
another, who is in the same guilt, is converted again. Such and similar
questions, says the _Formula_, we cannot answer and must not endeavor to
solve. On the contrary, we are to adhere unflinchingly to both truths,
_viz_., that those who are converted are saved, not because they are
better than others, but by pure grace alone; and that those who are not
converted and not saved cannot accuse God of any neglect or injustice
but are lost by their own fault. The _Formula_ concludes its paragraphs
on the mysteries in predestination by saying: "When we proceed thus far
in this article [maintaining that God alone is the cause of man's
salvation and man alone is the cause of his damnation, and refusing to
solve the problems involved], we remain on the right [safe and royal]
way, as it is written Hos. 13, 9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed
thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in
this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we
should, 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 in
exact harmony with the Scriptures. They alone, too, are able to serve
the purpose for which the Scriptures are given, _viz_., to convert and
save sinners, and to comfort troubled Christians. Scriptural doctrines
are always profitable, and detrimental doctrines are never Scriptural.
This is true also of the article of eternal election. It is a truly
edifying doctrine as also the _Formula of Concord_ is solicitous to
explain. (1092, 89ff.) However, it is comforting only when taught in its
purity, _i.e._, when presented and preserved in strict adherence to the
Bible; that is to say, when both the _sola gratia_ and _gratia
universalis_ are kept inviolate. Whenever the doctrine of predestination
causes despair or carnal security, it has been either misrepresented or
misunderstood.

In the introductory paragraphs of Article XI we read: "For the doctrine
concerning this article, if taught from, and according to the pattern of
the divine Word, neither can nor should be regarded as useless or
unnecessary, much less as offensive or injurious, because the Holy
Scriptures not only in but one place and incidentally, but in many
places thoroughly treat and urge the same. Moreover, we should not
neglect or reject the doctrine of the divine Word on account of abuse or
misunderstanding, but precisely on that account, in order to avert all
abuse and misunderstanding the true meaning should and must be explained
from the foundation of the Scriptures." (1063, 2; 1067, 13.)

"If it is treated properly," says also the Epitome, the doctrine of
predestination "is a consolatory article" (830, 1); that is to say, if
predestination 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 wholesome
knowledge whatever concerning election, but mere noxious human dreams.
And when the universality of grace is denied, it is impossible for any
one to know whether he is elected, and whether the grace spoken of in
the Gospel is intended for or belongs to him. "Therefore," says the
_Formula of Concord_, "if we wish to consider our eternal election to
salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to
this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the
Gospel is _universalis_ (universal), that is, it pertains to all men,
Luke 24, 47," etc. (1071, 28.) By denying that universal grace is meant
seriously and discounting the universal promises of the Gospel, "the
necessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain and
void, 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 and
conclude what His will toward us is, and that we should believe and not
doubt what it affirms to us and promises." (1075, 36.) If God cannot be
trusted in His universal promises, absolutely nothing in the Bible can
be relied upon. A doctrine of election from which universal grace is
eliminated, necessarily leads to despair or to contumaciousness and
carnal security. Calvin was right when he designated his predestination
theory, which denies universal grace, a "horrible decree." It left him
without any objective foundation whatever upon which to rest his faith
and hope.

In like manner, when the doctrine of election and grace is modified
synergistically, no one can know for certain whether he has really been
pardoned and will be saved finally, because here salvation is not
exclusively based on the sure and immovable grace and promises of God,
but, at least in part, on man's own doubtful conduct--a rotten plank
which can serve neither foot for safely crossing the great abyss of sin
and death. Only when presented and taught in strict adherence to the
Bible is the doctrine of election and grace fully qualified to engender
divine certainty of our present adoption and final salvation as well,
since it assures us that God sincerely desires to save all men (us
included), that He alone does, and has promised to do, everything
pertaining thereto, and that nothing is able to thwart His promises,
since He who made them and confirmed them with an oath is none other
than the majestic God Himself.

Accordingly, when Calvinists and Synergists criticize the _Formula of
Concord_ for not harmonizing (modifying in the interest of rational
harmony) the clear doctrines of the Bible, which they brand as
contradictions, they merely display their own conflicting, untenable
position. For while professing to follow the Scriptures, they at the
same time demand that its doctrines be corrected according to the
dictate of reason, thus plainly revealing that their theology is not
founded on the Bible, but orientated in rationalism, the true ultimate
principle of Calvinism as well as synergism.

In the last analysis, therefore, the charge of inconsistency against
the _Formula of Concord_ is tantamount to an indirect admission that the
Lutheran Church is both a consistently Scriptural and a truly
evangelical Church. Consistently Scriptural, because it receives in
simple faith and with implicit obedience every clear Word of God, all
counter-arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. Truly evangelical,
because in adhering with unswerving loyalty to the seemingly
contradictory, but truly Scriptural doctrine of grace, it serves the
purpose of the Scriptures, which--praise the Lord--is none other than to
save, 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_, is
to 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 very
useful, salutary, consolatory doctrine." Every presentation of eternal
election, however which produces carnal security or despair, is false.
We read: "If any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious
election of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive
comfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the
impenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and
true that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will
of God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the
instigation 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 by
Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to
the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost." (1093, 91f., 837, 16; 1077,
43.)

Predestination is comforting when Christians are taught to seek their
election in Christ. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a
cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely,
when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and
His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent
sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled
sinners who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath, to repentance and
the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the
Holy Ghost for purification and renewal, and thus gives the most
enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that
their salvation is not placed in their own hands (for otherwise they
would lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in
Paradise, yea, every hour and moment), but in the gracious election of
God which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man
shall pluck us, John 10, 28; 2 Tim. 2, 19." (1093, 89.)

In order to manifest its consolatory power predestination must be
presented in proper relation to the revealed order of salvation. We
read: "With this revealed will of God [His universal, gracious promises
in the Gospel] we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligently
engaged upon it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the Holy
Ghost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end [to begin and
complete our salvation], and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss of
God's hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13, 24, where one
asks: 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' and Christ answers: 'Strive
to enter in at the strait gate.' Accordingly, Luther says [in his
Preface to the Epistle to the Romans]: 'Follow the Epistle to the Romans
in its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, that
you may recognize your sins and His grace; next that you contend with
sin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when in
the eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by]
temptation under the cross and afflictions,--this will teach you in the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is,'
etc." (1073, 33.)

Predestination, properly taught, affords the glorious comfort that no
one shall pluck us out of the almighty hands of Christ. The _Formula_
says: "Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent glorious
consolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion,
righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully
purposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the world
was laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose
ordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation],
and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so
well and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of
our flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and
might of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He
ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown,
and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus
Christ, from which no one can pluck us, John 10, 28. Hence Paul also
says, Rom. 8, 28. 39: 'Because we have been called according to the
purpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?'
[Paul builds the certainty of our blessedness upon the foundation of the
divine purpose, when, from our being called according to the purpose of
God, he infers that no one can separate us, etc.]" (1079, 45.) "This
article also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God will
exist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell, and likewise
teaches which is the true Church of God, lest we be offended by the
great authority [and majestic appearance] of the false Church, Rom. 9,
24. 25." (1079, 50.)

Especially in temptations and tribulations the doctrine of eternal
election reveals its comforting power. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine
affords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations,
namely, that God in His counsel, before the time of the world determined
and decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties and
perplexities], grant patience, give consolation, excite [nourish and
encourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to our
salvation. 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 time
of the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every one
of His elect to the image of His Son, and that to every one his cross
shall and must work together for good, because they are called according
to the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain and
indubitable that neither tribulation nor distress, nor death, nor life,
etc., shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in
Christ 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 original
doctrine of predestination was essentially identical with that of John
Calvin. Melanchthon was among the first who raised a charge to this
effect. In his _Opinion_ to Elector August, dated March 9, 1559, we
read: "During Luther's life and afterwards I rejected these Stoic and
Manichean deliria, when Luther and others wrote: All works, good and
bad, in all men, good and bad, must occur as they do. Now it is apparent
that such speech contradicts the Word of God, is detrimental to all
discipline and blasphemes God. Therefore I have sedulously made a
distinction, showing to what extent man has a free will to observe
outward discipline, also before regeneration," etc. (_C. R._ 9, 766.)
Instead of referring to his own early statements, which were liable to
misinterpretation more than anything that Luther had written,
Melanchthon disingenuously mentions Luther, whose real meaning he
misrepresents and probably had never fully grasped. The true reason why
Melanchthon charged Luther and his loyal adherents with Stoicism was his
own synergistic departure from the Lutheran doctrine of original sin and
of salvation by grace alone. Following Melanchthon, rationalizing
Synergists everywhere have always held that without abandoning Luther's
doctrine of original sin and of the _gratia sola_ there is no escape
from Calvinism.

In this point Reformed theologians agree with the Synergists, and have
therefore always claimed Luther as their ally. I. Mueller declared in
_Lutheri de Praedestionatione et Libero Arbitrio Doctrina_ of 1832: "As
to the chief point (_quod ad caput rei attinet_), Zwingli's view of
predestination is in harmony with Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_." In his
_Zentraldogmen_ of 1854 Alexander Schweizer endeavored to prove that the
identical doctrine of predestination was originally the central dogma of
the Lutheran as well as of the Zwinglian reformation. "It is not so much
the dogma [of predestination] itself," said he (1, 445), "as its
position which is in dispute" among Lutherans and Calvinists. Schweizer
(1, 483) based his assertion on the false assumption "that the doctrines
of the captive will and of absolute predestination [denial of universal
grace] 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 predestination
Zwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart from
Luther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simple
and implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that the
agreement 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 acquainted
with the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [of
predestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheran
and the Calvinistic theology." (559.) F. Pieper declares that Luther and
Calvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to
substance. (_Dogm_. 3, 554.)

The _Visitation Articles_, adopted 1592 as a norm of doctrine for
Electoral Saxony, enumerate the following propositions on
"Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God" which must be upheld
over against the Calvinists as "the pure and true doctrine of our
[Lutheran] churches": "1. That Christ has died for all men, and as the
Lamb of God has borne the sins of the whole world. 2. That God created
no one for condemnation, but will have all men to be saved, and to come
to the knowledge of the truth. He commands all to hear His Son Christ in
the Gospel, and promises by it the power and working of the Holy Ghost
for conversion and salvation. 3. That many men are condemned by their
own guilt who are either unwilling to hear the Gospel of Christ, or
again fall from grace, by error against the foundation or by sins
against conscience. 4. That all sinners who repent are received into
grace 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, and
God has compassion on all His works." (CONC. TRIGL. 1153.) Not one of
these propositions, which have always been regarded as a summary of the
Lutheran teaching in contradistinction from Calvinism, was ever denied
by 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 we
live and move and have our being, and God manifest in Christ; God's
unsearchable judgments and ways past finding out, and His merciful
promises in the Gospel. Being truly God and not an idol, God, according
to Luther, is both actually omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can exist
or occur without His power, and everything surely will occur as He has
foreseen it. This is true of the thoughts, volitions, and acts of all
His creatures. He would not be God if there were any power not derived
from, or supplied by Him, or if the actual course of events could annul
His decrees and stultify His knowledge. Also the devils and the wicked
are not beyond His control.

As for evil, though God does not will or cause it,--for, on the
contrary, He prohibits sin and truly deplores the death of a sinner--yet
sin 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 its
every 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 free
will, when defined as the power of man to nullify and subvert what God's
majesty has foreseen and decreed, is a nonent, a mere empty title. This,
however, does not involve that the human will is coerced or compelled to
do evil, nor does it exclude in fallen man the ability to choose in
matters temporal and subject to reason.

But while holding that we must not deny the majesty and the mysteries of
God, Luther did not regard these, but Christ crucified and justification
by faith in the promises of the Gospel, as the true objects of our
concern. Nor does he, as did Calvin, employ predestination as a
corrective and regulative norm for interpreting, limiting, invalidating,
annulling, or casting doubt upon, any of the blessed truths of the
Gospel. Luther does not modify the revealed will of God in order to
harmonize it with God's sovereignty. He does not place the hidden God in
opposition to the revealed God, nor does he reject the one in order to
maintain the other. He denies neither the revealed universality of God's
grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the efficaciousness of the Holy
Spirit in the means of grace, nor the unsearchable judgments and ways of
God's majesty. Even the Reformed theologian A. Schweizer admits as much
when he says in his _Zentraldogmen_ (1, 445): "In the Zwinglio-Calvinian
type of doctrine, predestination is a dogma important as such and
regulating the other doctrines, yea, as Martyr, Beza, and others say,
the chief part of Christian doctrine; while in the Lutheran type of
doctrine it is merely a dogma supporting other, more important central
doctrines." (Frank 4, 264.)

Moreover, Luther most earnestly warns against all speculations
concerning the hidden God as futile, foolish, presumptuous, and wicked.
The secret counsels, judgments, and ways of God cannot and must not be
investigated. God's majesty is unfathomable, His judgments are
unsearchable, His ways past finding out. Hence, there is not, and there
cannot be, any human knowledge, understanding, or faith whatever
concerning God in so far as He has not revealed Himself. For while the
fact that there are indeed such things as mysteries, unsearchable
judgments, and incomprehensible ways in God is plainly taught in the
Bible, their nature, their how, why, and wherefore, has not been
revealed to us and no amount of human ingenuity is able to supply the
deficiency. Hence, in as far as God is still hidden and veiled, He
cannot serve as a norm by which we are able to regulate our faith and
life. Particularly when considering the question how God is disposed
toward us individually, we must not take refuge in the secret counsels
of God, which reason cannot spy and pry into. According to Luther, all
human speculations concerning the hidden God are mere diabolical
inspirations, bound to lead away from the saving truth of the Gospel
into despair and destruction.

What God, therefore, would have men believe about His attitude toward
them, must according to Luther, be learned from the Gospel alone. The
Bible tells us how God is disposed toward poor sinners, and how He wants
to deal with them. Not His hidden majesty, but His only-begotten Son,
born in Bethlehem, is the divinely appointed object of human
investigation. Christ crucified is God manifest and visible to men.
Whoever has seen Christ has seen God. The Gospel is God's only
revelation to sinful human beings. The Bible, the ministry of the Word,
Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution are the only means of knowing
how God is disposed toward us. To these alone God has directed us. With
these alone men should occupy and concern themselves.

And the Gospel being the Word of God, the knowledge furnished therein is
most reliable. Alarmed sinners may trust in its comforting promises with
firm assurance and unwavering confidence. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther
earnestly warns men not to investigate the hidden God, but to look to
revelation 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_ he
refers to this admonition and repeats it, protesting that he is innocent
if any one is misled to take a different course. "I have added" [to the
statements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ concerning necessity and the hidden
God] 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 men
guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal,
and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the
universality 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. Also
according to _De Servo Arbitrio_, God wants all men to be saved, and
does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove
it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: "As I
live, 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 evil
ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" He calls the above a
"glorious passage" and "that sweetest Gospel voice--_illam vocem
dulcissimi Evangelii_." (E. v. a. 7, 218.)

Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to
convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. In
like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone
to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine
assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the
final victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if he
were 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 Servo
Arbitrio_ everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the
assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does "work
something in matters pertaining to salvation," and to establish the
monergism 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 is
lost. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ he argues: Since it is God's will that all
men should be saved, it must be attributed to man's will if any one
perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious
will 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, he
demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of
God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the
Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and
the 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 or
invalidate what He has made known of Himself in the Gospel. There are
and can be no contradictory wills in God. Despite appearances to the
contrary, therefore, Christians are firmly to believe that, in His
dealings with men, God, who saves so few and damns so many, is
nevertheless both truly merciful and just. And what we now believe we
shall see hereafter. When the veil will have been lifted and we shall
know God even as we are known by Him, then we shall see with our eyes no
other face of God than the most lovable one which our faith beheld in
Jesus. The light of glory will not correct but confirm, the truths of
the Bible, and reveal the fact that in all His ways God was always in
perfect harmony with Himself.

Indeed, according to Luther, the truth concerning the majestic God, in
whom we live and move and have our being, and without whom nothing can
be or occur, in a way serves both repentance and faith. It serves
repentance and the Law inasmuch as it humbles man, causing him to
despair of himself and of the powers of his own unregenerate will. It
serves faith inasmuch as it guarantees God's merciful promises in the
Gospel. For if God is supreme, as He truly is, then there can be nothing
more reliable than the covenant of grace to which He has pledged Himself
by 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 to
fulfil His glorious promises, also the promise that nothing shall pluck
us out of the hands of Christ.--Such, essentially was the teaching set
forth 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, not
by 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 [moves
us], but what we can do ourselves, _viz_., whether, after being created
out of nothing, we can do or endeavor [to do] anything through that
general movement of omnipotence toward preparing ourselves for being a
new creation of His Spirit. This question should have been answered,
instead of turning aside to another." Luther continues: "We go on to
say: Man, before he is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdom
of the Spirit, does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preparing himself
for renewal and the kingdom; and afterwards, when he has been created
anew, he does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preserving himself in
that kingdom; but the Spirit alone does each of these things in us, both
creating us anew without our cooperation and preserving us when
recreated,--even as Jas. 1, 18 says: 'Of His own will begat He us by the
Word 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 _Martin
Luther on the Bondage of the Will_, London, 1823.)

Man lacks also the ability to do what is good before God. Luther: "I
reply: The words of the Prophet [Ps. 14, 2: "The Lord looketh down from
heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did
understand and seek God. They are all gone aside," etc.] include both
act and power; and it is the same thing to say, 'Man does not seek after
God,' as it would be to say, 'Man cannot seek after God.'" (E. 330; St.
L. 1923.) Again: "Since, therefore, men are flesh, as God Himself
testifies, they cannot but be carnally minded (_nihil sapere possunt
nisi carnem_); hence free will has power only to sin. And since they
grow worse even when the Spirit of God calls and teaches them, what
would they do if left to themselves, without the Spirit of God?" (E.
290; St. L. 1876.) "In brief, you will observe in Scripture that
wherever flesh is treated in opposition to the Spirit, you may
understand by flesh about everything that is contrary to the Spirit, as
in the passage [John 6, 63]: 'The flesh profiteth nothing.'" (E. 291; St.
L. 1877.) "Thus also Holy Scripture, by way of emphasis (_per
epitasin_), calls man 'flesh,' as though he were carnality itself,
because his mind is occupied with nothing but carnal things. _Quod nimio
ac 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 a
neutral and pure volition (_medium et purum velle_); nor can those prove
it who assert it. It was born of ignorance of things and servile regard
to words, as if something must straightway be such in substance as we
state it to be in words, which sort of figments are numberless among the
Sophists [Scholastic theologians]. The truth of the matter is stated by
Christ when He says [Luke 11, 23]: 'He that is not with Me is against
Me,' He does not say, 'He that is neither with Me nor against Me, but in
the middle,' For if God be in us, Satan is absent, and only the will for
good is present with us. If God be absent, Satan is present, and there
is no will in us but towards evil. Neither God nor Satan allows a mere
and pure volition in us; but, as you have rightly said, having lost our
liberty, we are compelled to serve sin; that is sin and wickedness we
will, 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 Luther
quotes numerous Bible-passages, and thoroughly refutes as fallacies _a
debito ad posse_, etc., the arguments drawn by Erasmus from mandatory
and conditional passages of Scripture. His own arguments he summarizes
as follows: "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and
preordains everything, also, that He can neither be deceived nor
hindered in His foreknowledge and predestination furthermore that
nothing occurs without His will (a truth which reason itself is
compelled to concede), then, according to the testimony of the selfsame
reason, 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 is
perpetually plotting and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all
his might, so that he does not release captive men unless he be driven
out by the divine power of the Spirit, it is again manifest that there
can be no such thing as free will. Again, if we believe original sin to
have so ruined us that, by striving against what is good, it makes most
troublesome work even for those who are led by the Spirit, then it is
clear that in man devoid of the Spirit nothing is left which can turn
itself to good, but only [what turns itself] to evil. Again, if the
Jews, following after righteousness with all their might rushed forth
into unrighteousness, and the Gentiles, who were following after
unrighteousness, have freely and unexpectingly attained to
righteousness, it is likewise manifest, even by very deed and
experience, that man without grace can will nothing but evil. In brief,
if we believe Christ to have redeemed man by His blood, then we are
compelled to confess that the whole man was lost; else we shall make
Christ either superfluous, or the Redeemer only of the vilest part [of
man] 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 not
over God in His majesty. We read: "We know that man is constituted lord
of the things beneath him, over which he has power and free will, that
they may obey him and do what he wills and thinks. But the point of our
inquiry is whether he has a free will toward God, so that God obeys and
does what man wills; or, whether it is not rather God who has a free
will over man, so that the latter wills and does what God wills, and can
do nothing but what God has willed and does. Here the Baptist says that
man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven: wherefore
free will is nothing." (E. 359, St. L. 1957.)

God as revealed in the Word may, according to Luther, be opposed and
resisted by man, but not God in His majesty. We read: "Lest any one
should suppose this to be my own distinction, [let him know that] I
follow Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist (2
Thess. 2, 4) that he will exalt himself above every God that is
proclaimed and worshiped, plainly indicating that one may be exalted
above God, so far as He is proclaimed and worshiped, that is, above the
Word and worship by which God is known to us, and maintains intercourse
with us. Nothing, however, can be exalted above God as He is in His
nature and majesty (as not worshiped and proclaimed); rather, everything
is under His powerful hand." (E. 221; St. L. 1794.)

God in His majesty is supreme and man cannot resist His omnipotence, nor
thwart His decrees, nor foil His plans, nor render His omniscience
fallible. Luther: "For all men find this opinion written in their
hearts, and, when hearing this matter discussed, they, though against
their will, acknowledge and assent to it, first, that God is omnipotent,
not only as regards His power, but also, as stated His action; else He
would be a ridiculous God; secondly, that He knows and foreknows all
things, 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 are
not made by our own will, but by necessity, so likewise we do nothing
according to the right of free will, but just as God has foreknown and
acts 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 as
a power independent of God's power] is nothing, although this writing
[in the hearts of men] be obscured through so many contrary disputations
and the great authority of so many persons who during so many ages have
been teaching differently." (E. 268; St. L. 1851.)

The very idea of God and omnipotence involves that free will is not, and
cannot be, a power independent of God. Luther: "However, even natural
reason is obliged to confess that the living and true God must be such a
one who by His freedom imposes necessity upon us, for, evidently, He
would be a ridiculous God or, more properly, an idol, who would either
foresee 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 all
things, or if anything occurred without Him. Now, if foreknowledge and
omnipotence are conceded, it naturally follows as an irrefutable
consequence that we have not been made by ourselves, nor that we live or
do anything by ourselves, but through His omnipotence. Since, therefore,
He foreknew that we should be such [as we actually are], and even now
makes, moves, and governs us as such, pray, what can be imagined that is
free in us so as to occur differently than He has foreknown or now
works? God's foreknowledge and omnipotence, therefore, conflict directly
with our free will [when defined as a power independent of God]. For
either God will be mistaken in foreknowing, err also in acting (which is
impossible), or we shall act, and be acted upon, according to His
foreknowledge and action. By the omnipotence of God, however, I do not
mean that power by which He can do many things which He does not do but
that active omnipotence by means of which He powerfully works all things
in all, in which manner Scripture calls Him omnipotent. This omnipotence
and prescience of God, I say, entirely abolish the dogma of free will.
Nor can the obscurity of Scripture or the difficulty of the matter be
made 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 the
natural 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 independently
of God, or differently from what His omniscience has foreseen. Luther:
"Hence it follows irrefutably that all things which we do, and all
things which happen, although to us they seem to happen changeably and
contingently, do in reality happen necessarily and immutably, if one
views the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious and cannot be
thwarted since it is God's natural power itself. It is also wise, so
that it cannot be deceived. And since His will is not thwarted, the work
itself 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 that
God is not the cause of sin. True, His omnipotence impels also the
ungodly; but the resulting acts are evil because of man's evil nature.
He writes: "Since, therefore, God moves and works all in all, He
necessarily moves and acts also in Satan and in the wicked. But He acts
in them precisely according to what they are and what He finds them to
be (_agit in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit_). That
is to say, since they are turned away [from Him] and wicked, and [as
such] are impelled to action by divine omnipotence, they do only such
things as are averse [to God] and wicked, just as a horseman driving a
horse which has only three or two [sound] feet (_equum tripedem vel
bipedem_) will drive him in a manner corresponding to the condition of
the horse (_agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est_), _i.e._, the horse
goes at a sorry gait. But what can the horseman do? He drives such a
horse together with sound horses, so that it sadly limps along, while
the others take a good gait. He cannot do otherwise unless the horse is
cured. Here you see that when God works in the wicked and through the
wicked, the result indeed is evil (_mala quidem fieri_), but that
nevertheless God cannot act wickedly, although He works that which is
evil through the wicked; for He being good, cannot Himself act wickedly,
although He uses evil instruments, which cannot escape the impulse and
motion of His power. The fault, therefore, is in the instruments, which
God does not suffer to remain idle, so that evil occurs, God Himself
impelling them, but in no other manner than a carpenter who, using an ax
that is notched and toothed, would do poor work with it. Hence it is
that a wicked man cannot but err and sin continually, because, being
impelled by divine power, he is not allowed to remain idle, but wills,
desires, and acts according to what he is (_velit, cupiat, faciat
taliter, qualis ipse est_)." (E. 255; St. L. 1834.) "For although God
does not make sin, still He ceases not to form and to multiply a nature
which, the Spirit having been withdrawn is corrupted by sin, just as
when a carpenter makes statues of rotten wood. Thus men become what
their 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 action
flows from the sinful nature of the creature. Luther: "Whoever would
have any understanding of such matters, let him consider that God works
evil in us, _i.e._, through us, not by any fault of His, but through our
own fault. For since we are by nature evil, while God is good, and since
He impels us to action according to the nature of His omnipotence, He,
who Himself is good, cannot do otherwise than do evil with an evil
instrument, although, according to His wisdom, He causes this evil to
turn 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 works
without the grace of His Spirit [in His majesty, outside of Word and
Sacrament], He works all in all, even in the wicked; for He alone moves
all things, which He alone has created, and drives and impels all things
by virtue of His omnipotence, which they [the created things] cannot
escape or change, but necessarily follow and obey, according to the
power which God has given to each of them--such is the manner in which
all, even wicked, things cooperate with Him. Furthermore, when He acts
by the Spirit of Grace in those whom He has made righteous, _i.e._, in
His own kingdom, He in like manner impels and moves them; and, being new
creatures, 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, without
the grace of God, man still remains under the general omnipotence of
God, who does, moves, impels all things, so that they take their course
necessarily and without fail, but that what man, so impelled, does, is
nothing, _i.e._, avails nothing before God, and is accounted nothing but
sin." (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: "But
pray, are we disputing now concerning coercion and force? Have we not in
so many books testified that we speak of the necessity of immutability?
We know ... that Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ. But we
affirm that, if God foreknew it, this volition would certainly and
without fail occur in this very Judas.... We are not discussing the
point whether Judas became a traitor unwillingly or willingly, but
whether at the time foreappointed by God it infallibly had to happen
that 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 it
does willingly? It is enough for me to have you concede that it must
necessarily happen, that he [Judas] does what he does of his own
volition, and that he cannot conduct himself otherwise if God has so
foreknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will betray, or that he will
change his mind about it,--whichever of the two He shall have foreknown
will necessarily come to pass, else God would be mistaken in foreknowing
and foretelling,--which is impossible. Necessity of consequence effects
this: 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 to
nullify God's prescience]. (E. 272; St. L. 1855.)

To wish that God would abstain from impelling the wicked is, according
to Luther, tantamount to wishing that He cease to be God. Luther: "There
is still this question which some one may ask, 'Why does God not cease
to impel by His omnipotence, in consequence of which the will of the
wicked is moved to continue being wicked and even growing worse?' The
answer is: This is equivalent to desiring that God cease to be God for
the 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 spiritual
matters or as a power independent of God) a mere word without anything
corresponding to it in reality (_figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine
re_, E.v.a. 5, 230), because natural will has powers only in matters
temporal and subject to reason, but none in spiritual things, and
because of itself and independently of God's omnipotence it has no power
whatever. We read: "Now it follows that free will is a title altogether
divine 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 He
wills 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 were
ascribed to them,--a sacrilege than which there is none greater.
Accordingly it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this word
when they intended to speak of human power, and to reserve it
exclusively for God, thereupon also to remove it from the mouth and
discourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their
God. And if they would at all ascribe some power to man, they should
have taught that it be called by some other name than 'free will,'
especially since we all know and see that the common people are
miserably deceived and led astray by this term, for by it they hear and
conceive something very far different from what theologians mean and
discuss. 'Free will' is too magnificent, extensive, and comprehensive a
term; by it common people understand (as also the import and nature of
the word require) a power which can freely turn to either side, and
neither yields nor is subject to any one," (E. 158; St. L. 1720.)

If the term "free will" be retained, it should, according to Luther, be
conceived of as a power, not in divine things, but only in matters
subject to human reason. We read: "So, then, according to Erasmus, free
will is the power of the will which is able of itself to will and not to
will the Word and work of God, whereby it is led to things which exceed
both its comprehension and perception. For if it is able to will and not
to will, it is able also to love and to hate. If it is able to love and
to hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to keep the Law and to
believe the Gospel. For if you will or do not will, a certain thing, it
is impossible that by that will you should not be able to do something
of the work, even though, when hindered by another, you cannot complete
it." (E. 191; St. L. 1759.) "If, then, we are not willing to abandon
this term altogether, which would be the safest and most pious course to
follow, 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 to
such 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 has
the right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to his
free will; although also even this is directed by the free will of God
alone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or in
things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but is
the captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of the
will of Satan." (E. 160; St. L. 1722.) "Perhaps you might properly
attribute some will (_aliquod arbitrium_) to man, but to attribute free
will to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of all
who hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which can
do and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without being
hindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free who
acts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety do
we 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 a
moment by their own power." (E. 189; St. L. 1756.)

Lost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is no
health. 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 to
will anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressions
than that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. My
grammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title of
liberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. If
here I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure and
ambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot call
health that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, I
believe to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away with
monstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which we
affirm 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 nothing
good? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use of
speech. The _Diatribe_ is rather to be accused of blurting out its words
as if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does not
consider, 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 to
will 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, his
prince) adds this plague of blindness to his other plagues, that he
believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered, strong, healthy, alive.
For Satan knows that, if man were to realize his own misery, he would
not be able to retain any one in his kingdom, because God could not but
at once pity and help him who recognizes his misery and cries for
relief. For throughout all Scripture He is extolled and greatly praised
for 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 poor
and to heal the broken-hearted. Accordingly, it is Satan's business to
keep his grip on men, lest they recognize their misery, but rather take
it 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 mysterious
judgments and ways must not be searched, nor should speculations
concerning 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 to
us, and which we meditate upon, we must treat in a different way than of
God in so far as He is not proclaimed, not revealed, and not offered to
us, and is not the object of our meditations. For in so far as God hides
Himself, and desires not to be known of us, we have nothing to do with
Him. Here the saying truly applies, 'What is above us does not concern
us.'" (E. 221, St. L. 1794.) "We say, as we have done before, that one
must not discuss the secret will of [divine] majesty, and that man's
temerity, which, due to continual perverseness, disregards necessary
matters and always attacks and encounters this [secret will], should be
called away and withdrawn from occupying itself with scrutinizing those
secrets of divine majesty which it is impossible to approach; for it
dwells '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 majesty
must not be investigated, says Luther, "is not our invention, but an
injunction 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, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God?... Hath not the potter
power,' etc.? And before him Isaiah, chapter 58, 2: 'Yet they seek Me
daily, and delight to know My ways, as a nation that did righteousness,
and forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of Me the
ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God,' These
words, I take it, show abundantly that it is unlawful for men to
scrutinize the will of majesty." (E. 228; St. L. 1803.)

Instead of searching the Scriptures, as they are commanded to do, men
unlawfully crave to investigate the hidden judgments of God. We read:
"But we are nowhere more irreverent and rash than when we invade and
argue these very mysteries and judgments which are unsearchable.
Meanwhile we imagine that we are exercising incredible reverence in
searching the Holy Scriptures, which God has commanded us to search.
Here we do not search, but where He has forbidden us to search, there we
do nothing but search with perpetual temerity, not to say blasphemy. Or
is it not such a search when we rashly endeavor to make that wholly free
foreknowledge of God accord with our liberty, and are ready to detract
from the prescience of God, if it does not allow us liberty, or if it
induces necessity, to say with the murmurers and blasphemers, 'Why doth
He find fault? Who shall resist His will? What is become of the most
merciful God? What of Him who wills not the death of the sinner? Has He
made men that He might delight Himself with their torments?' and the
like, 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 distinction
between the proclaimed and the hidden God, that is between the Word of
God and God Himself. God does many things which He has not shown us in
His Word. He also wills many things concerning which He has not shown us
in His Word that He wills them. For instance, He does not will the death
of a sinner namely, according to His Word, but He wills it according to
His 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 Verbum
relinquendaque illa voluntas imperscrutabilis; Verbo enim nos dirigi,
non voluntate illa inscrutabili oportet_). Indeed, who could direct
himself by that inscrutable and unknowable will? It is enough merely to
know that there is such an inscrutable will in God; but what, why, and
how far it wills, that is altogether unlawful for us to inquire into, to
wish [to know], and to trouble or occupy ourselves with; on the
contrary, we should fear and adore it." (E. 222; St. L. 1795)

Instead of investigating the mysteries of divine majesty, men ought to
concern themselves with God's revelation in the Gospel. Luther: "But let
her [human temerity] occupy herself with the incarnate God or, as Paul
says, with Jesus Crucified, in whom are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge. For through Him she has abundantly what she ought
to 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, and
offer to all men all things which are necessary to salvation, although
He offends very many who, being either abandoned or hardened by that
secret will of His majesty, do not receive Him who wills, speaks, works,
offers, even as John says: 'The light shineth in darkness, and the
darkness comprehendeth it not;' and again: 'He came unto His own and His
own 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 to
all. We read in _De Servo Arbitrio_: "Paul had said just before: 'The
Gospel 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 or
ambiguous: 'To the Jews and to the Greeks,' that is, to all men, the
Gospel of the power of God is necessary, in order that, believing, they
may 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, His
injunction is that His Gospel, which is necessary for all, should be
limited 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 to
poor sinners. Luther: "It is the voice of the Gospel and the sweetest
consolation to poor miserable sinners when Ezekiel says [18, 23. 32]: 'I
have no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he be
converted and live,' Just so also the thirtieth Psalm [v. 5]: 'For His
anger endureth but a moment; in His favor is life [His will rather is
life].' And the sixty-ninth [v.16]: 'For Thy loving-kindness is good
[How sweet is Thy mercy, Lord!]' Also: 'Because I am merciful,' And that
saying of Christ, Matt. 11, 28: 'Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will refresh you,' Also that of Exodus [20, 6], 'I
show mercy unto thousands of them that love Me,' Indeed, almost more
than 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 no
pleasure in the death of a sinner'? Is it not the same thing to say, 'I
am 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 up
afflicted consciences terrified by the sense of sin and the fear of
death 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 remove
death, so that man must blame himself if he is lost. Luther: "God in His
majesty and nature therefore must be left untouched [unsearched] for in
this respect we have nothing to do with Him, nor did He want us to deal
with Him in this respect; but we deal with Him in so far as He has
clothed Himself and come forth in His Word, by which He has offered
Himself to us. This [Word] is His glory and beauty with which the
Psalmist, 21, 6, celebrates Him as being clothed." Emphasizing the
seriousness of universal grace, Luther continues: "Therefore we affirm
that the holy God does not deplore the death of the people which He
works in them, but deplores the death which He finds in the people, and
endeavors to remove (_sed deplorat mortem, quam invenit in populo, et
amovere studet_). For this is the work of the proclaimed God to take
away sin and death, that we may be saved. For He has sent His Word and
healed them." (E. 222; St. L. 1795.) "Hence it is rightly said, If God
wills 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 have
all men to be saved, coming, as He does, with His Word of salvation to
all men; and the fault is in the will, which does not admit Him, as He
says, Matt. 23, 37: 'How often would I have gathered thy children
together, 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 is
able to engender assurance of salvation. He writes: "As for myself, I
certainly confess that, if such a thing could somehow be, I should be
unwilling 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 because
in the midst of so many dangers and adversities and also of so many
assaulting devils I should not be strong enough to remain standing and
keep 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 no
dangers and no adversities and no devils, I should still be compelled to
toil forever uncertainly, and to beat the air in my struggle. For though
I should live and work to eternity, my own conscience would never be
sure 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 doubt
whether it pleased God, or whether He required anything more, as is
proved by the experience of all who endeavor to be saved by the Law
(_iustitiariorum_), and as I, to my own great misery, have learned
abundantly during so many years. But now, since God has taken my
salvation out of the hands of my will, and placed it into those of His
own and has promised to save me, not by my own work or running, but by
His grace and mercy, I feel perfectly secure, because He is faithful and
will not lie to me; moreover, He is powerful and great, so that neither
devils nor adversities can crush Him, or pluck me out of His hand. No
one, says He, shall pluck them out of My hand; for My Father, who gave
them unto Me, is greater than all. Thus it comes to pass that, though
not all are saved, at least some, nay, many are, whereas by the power of
free will absolutely none would be saved, but every one of us would be
lost. We are also certain and sure that we please God, not by the merit
of 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 anything
amiss, He does not impute it to us, but, as a father, forgives and
amends 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 is
repeated as follows: "If the matter [our salvation] were to depend upon
our merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless, because we never
could determine when we would have sufficient merit. And this
experienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for a
thousand 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 majesty
as being of service to His gracious will. We read: "Two things require
the preaching of these truths [concerning the infallibility of God's
foreknowledge, etc.]; the first is, the humbling of our pride and the
knowledge of the grace of God; the second, Christian faith itself.
First, God has certainly promised His grace to the humbled, _i.e._, to
those who deplore their sins and despair [of themselves]. But man cannot
be thoroughly humbled until he knows that his salvation is altogether
beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works, and depends
altogether upon the decision, counsel, will, and work of another,
_i.e._, of God only. For as long as he is persuaded that he can do
anything toward gaining salvation, though it be ever so little, he
continues 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 may
finally obtain salvation." (E. 153. 133; St. L. 1715. 1691.) "More than
once," says Luther, "I myself have been offended at it [the teaching
concerning God's majesty] to such an extent that I was at the brink of
despair, so that I even wished I had never been created a man,--until I
learned 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's
majesty serves the Gospel, we read: "Moreover, I do not only wish to
speak of how true these things are,... but also how becoming to a
Christian, how pious, and how necessary it is to know them. For if these
things are not known, it is impossible for either faith or any worship
of God to be maintained. That would be ignorance of God indeed; and if
we do not know Him, we cannot obtain salvation, as is well known. For if
you doubt that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but
necessarily and immutably, or if you scorn such knowledge, how will you
be able to believe His promises, and with full assurance trust and rely
upon them? When He promises, you ought to be sure that He knows what He
is promising, and is able and willing to accomplish it, else you will
account Him neither true nor faithful. That, however, is unbelief,
extreme impiety, and a denial of the most high God. But how will you be
confident and sure if you do not know that He certainly, infallibly,
unchangeably, and necessarily knows, and wills, and will perform what He
promises? Nor should we merely be certain that God necessarily and
immutably wills and will perform [what He has promised], but we should
even glory in this very thing, as Paul does, Rom. 3, 4: 'Let God be
true, 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, that
cannot 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 a
rewarder of them that hope in Him.' So, then, Christian faith is
altogether extinguished, the promises of God and the entire Gospel fall
absolutely to the ground, if we are taught and believe that we have no
need of knowing the foreknowledge of God to be necessary and the
necessity of all things that must be done. For this is the only and
highest possible consolation of Christians in all adversities to know
that God does not lie, but does all things immutably, and that His will
can 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 the
questions: Why did God permit the fall of Adam? Why did He suffer us to
be 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: "But
why 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 are
incomprehensible. Nor is it our business to investigate, but to adore
these mysteries. If, therefore, flesh and blood here take offense and
murmur, let them murmur; but they will effect nothing, God will not be
changed on that account. And if the ungodly are scandalized and leave in
ever so great numbers, the elect will nevertheless remain. The same
answer 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 He
could have preserved him [Adam], and created us from something else, or
after first having purged the seed?' He is God, for whose will there is
no cause or reason which might be prescribed for it as a standard and
rule of action; for it has no equal or superior, but is itself the rule
for everything. If it had any rule or standard, cause or reason, it
could no longer be the will of God. For what He wills is right, not
because 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 and
reason are prescribed to a creature's will, but not to the will of the
Creator, unless you would set another Creator over Him." (E. 259; St. L.
1840.)

Regarding the question why some are converted while others are not, we
read: "But why this majesty does not remove this fault of our will, or
change it in all men (seeing that it is not in the power of man to do
so), or why He imputes this [fault of the will] to man when he cannot be
without 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 art
thou that repliest against God?'" (E. 223, St. L. 1796.) "But as to why
some are touched by the Law and others are not, so that the former
receive, and the latter despise, the grace offered, this is another
question, and one not treated by Ezekiel in this place, who speaks of
the preached and offered mercy of God, not of the secret and
to-be-feared will of God, who by His counsel ordains what and what kind
of persons He wills to be capable and partakers of His preached and
offered mercy. This will of God must not be searched, but reverently
adored, as being by far the most profound and sacred secret of divine
majesty, reserved for Himself alone, and prohibited to us much more
religiously than countless multitudes of Corycian Caves." (E. 221; St.
L. 1794.)

Christians firmly believe that in His dealings with men God is always
wise and just and good. Luther: "According to the judgment of reason it
remains absurd that this just and good God should demand things that are
impossible of fulfilment by free will, and, although it cannot will that
which is good but necessarily serves sin, should nevertheless charge
this to free will; and that, when He does not confer the Spirit, He
should not act a whit more kindly or more mercifully than when He
hardens or permits men to harden themselves. Reason will declare that
these are not the acts of a kind and merciful God. These things exceed
her understanding too far, nor can she take herself into captivity to
believe God to be good, who acts and judges thus; but setting faith
aside, she wants to feel and see and comprehend how He is just and not
cruel. She would indeed comprehend if it were said of God: 'He hardens
nobody, He damns nobody, rather pities everybody, saves everybody,' so
that, hell being destroyed and the fear of death removed, no future
punishment need be dreaded. This is the reason why she is so hot in
striving to excuse and defend God as just and good. _But faith and the
spirit judge differently, believing God to be good though he were to
destroy all men_." (E. 252; St. L. 1832.) "The reason why of the divine
will must not be investigated, but simply adored, and we must give the
glory 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 far
otherwise to us. Godly men are content with this answer_." (E. 153; St.
L. 1714.)

According to Luther, divine justice must be just as incomprehensible to
human reason as God's entire essence. We read: "But when we feel ill at
ease for the reason that it is difficult to vindicate the mercy and
equity of God because He damns the undeserving, _i.e._, such ungodly men
as are born in ungodliness, and hence cannot in any way prevent being
and remaining ungodly and damned, and are compelled by their nature to
sin and perish, as Paul says [Eph. 2, 3]: 'We were all the sons of wrath
even as others,' they being created such by God Himself out of the seed
which was corrupted through the sin of the one Adam,--then the most
merciful God is to be honored and revered in [His dealings with] those
whom He justifies and saves, although they are most unworthy, and at
least a little something ought to be credited to His divine wisdom by
believing Him to be just where to us He seems unjust. For if His justice
were such as could be declared just by human understanding, it would
clearly not be divine, differing nothing from human justice. But since
He is the one true God, and entirely incomprehensible and inaccessible
to human reason, it is proper, nay, necessary, that His justice also be
incomprehensible, even as Paul also exclaims, Rom. 11, 33, saying: 'O
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Now,
they would not be incomprehensible if we were able, in everything He
does, 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 our
strength compared with His powers? What is our knowledge compared with
His wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In short,
what is everything that is ours as compared with everything that is
His?" (E. 363; St. L. 1962.)

Christians embrace the opportunity offered by the mysterious ways of God
to 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 be
delighted with the torments of the wretched, and worthy of hatred rather
than of love. If, then, I could in any way comprehend how this God is
merciful and just who shows such great wrath and [seeming] injustice,
there would be no need of faith. But now, since this cannot be
comprehended there is to be an opportunity for the exercise of faith
when 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 and
understand what they here believed, _viz_., that in His dealings with
men God truly is and always was absolutely just. Luther: "If you are
pleased with God for crowning the unworthy, you ought not to be
displeased with Him for condemning the undeserving [who were not worse
or more guilty than those who are crowned]. If He is just in the former
case, why not in the latter? In the former case He scatters favor and
mercy upon the unworthy, in the latter He scatters wrath and severity
upon the undeserving [who are guilty in no higher degree than those who
are saved]. In both cases He is excessive and unrighteous before [in the
judgment of] men but just and true in His own mind. For how it is just
that He crowns the unworthy is incomprehensible to us now; _but we shall
understand it when we have come to that place where we shall no longer
believe, but behold with our face unveiled_. So, too, how it is just
that He condemns the undeserving we cannot comprehend now, yet we
believe 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 a
little 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 that
He has been, and is, just_." (E. 364; St. L. 1964.)

Again: "Do you not think that since the light of grace has so readily
solved a question which could not be solved by the light of nature, the
light of glory will be able to solve with the greatest ease the question
which in the light of the Word or of grace is unsolvable? In accordance
with the common and good distinction let it be conceded that there are
three lights--the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of
glory. In the light of nature it is unsolvable that it should be just
that the good are afflicted while the wicked prosper. The light of
grace, however, solves this [mystery]. In the light of grace it is
unsolvable how God may condemn him who cannot by any power of his own do
otherwise than sin and be guilty. There the light of nature as well as
the light of grace declares that the fault is not in wretched man, but
in the unjust God. For they cannot judge otherwise of God, who crowns a
wicked man gratuitously without any merits, and does not crown another,
but condemns him, who perhaps is less, or at least not more wicked [than
the one who is crowned]. _But the light of glory pronounces a different
verdict_, and when it arrives, it will show God, whose judgment is now
that of incomprehensible justice, to be a Being of most just and
manifest justice, which meanwhile we are to believe, admonished and
confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which accomplishes a
like miracle with respect to the light of nature." (E. 365; St. L.
1965.)

246. Statements Made by Luther before Publication of "De Servo
Arbitrio."

Wherever Luther touches on predestination both before and after 1525,
essentially the same thoughts are found, though not developed as
extensively as in _De Servo Arbitrio_. He consistently maintains that
God's majesty must be neither denied nor searched, and that Christians
should be admonished to look and rely solely upon the revealed universal
promises of the Gospel. In his _Church Postil_ of 1521 we read: "The
third 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 His
counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed
unto Him again?'] are those who indeed hear the Word of Revelation. For
I am not now speaking of such as deliberately persecute the Word (they
belong to the first class, who do not at all inquire about God) but of
those who disregard the revelation and led by the devil, go beyond and
beside it, seeking to grasp the ways and judgments of God which He has
not revealed. Now, if they were Christians, they would be satisfied and
thank God for giving His Word, in which He shows what is pleasing to
Him, 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 His
invisible majesty, how He secretly governs the world, and what He has in
particular decreed for each one in the future. For nature and human
reason cannot desist; they will meddle in His judgment with their
wisdom, 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 hell
for trying to meddle in [matters of] divine majesty, and who in the same
way eagerly seeks to bring man to fall, and to cast him down with
himself, as he did in Paradise in the beginning, tempting also the
saints and even Christ with the same thing, when he set Him on the
pinnacle of the Temple, etc. Against such in particular St. Paul here
introduces these words [Rom. 11, 34. 35] to the inquisitive questions of
wise reason: Why did God thus punish and reject the Jews while He
permitted the condemned heathen to come to the Gospel? Again, Why does
He govern on this wise, that wicked and evil men are exalted while the
pious are allowed to undergo misfortune and be suppressed? Why does He
call Judas to be an apostle and later on reject him while He accepts the
murderer and malefactor? By them [his words, Rom. 11] Paul would order
such to cease climbing up to the secret Majesty, and to adhere to the
revelation which God has given us. For such searching and climbing is
not 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 better
than busying yourself with His Word and works, in which He has revealed
Himself and permits Himself to be heard and apprehended, to wit, how He
sets before you His Son Christ upon the cross. That is the work of your
redemption. There you can certainly apprehend God, and see that He does
not wish to condemn you on account of your sins if you believe, but to
give you eternal life, as Christ says: 'God so loved the world that He
gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life,' (John 3, 16.) In this Christ, says
Paul, 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 engender
a desire and love for God. It is a work which in this life you will
never finish studying; a work of which, as Peter says, even the angels
cannot see enough, but which they contemplate unceasingly with joy and
delight. (1 Pet. 1, 12.)"

"This I say that we may know how to instruct and direct those (if such
we should meet with) who are being afflicted and tormented by such
thoughts of the devil to tempt God, when he entices them to search the
devious ways of God outside of revelation, and to grope about trying to
fathom what God plans for them--whereby they are led into such doubt and
despair that they know not how they will survive. Such people must be
reminded of these words [Rom. 11], and be rebuked with them (as St. Paul
rebukes his Jews and wiseacres) for seeking to apprehend God with their
wisdom and to school Him, as His advisers and masters, and for dealing
with Him by themselves without means, and for giving Him so much that He
must requite them again. For nothing will come of it; He has carefully
built so high that you will not thus scale Him by your climbing. His
wisdom, counsel, and riches are so great that you will never be able to
fathom or to exhaust them. Therefore be glad that He permits you to know
and 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 for
us how to treat of predestination. Many frivolous spirits, who have not
felt much of faith, tumble in, strike at the top, concerning themselves
first of all with this matter, and seek to determine by means of their
reason whether they are elected in order to be certain of their
standing. 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 way
which Peter here proposes. Take another, and you have already gone
astray; your own experience must teach you. If faith is well exercised
and stressed, you will finally become sure of the matter, so that you
will 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 which
he speaks of God's will with respect to sin in an illuminating manner as
follows: "Most of all he [the fanatic] fiercely contended that God's
command was good, and that God did not desire sin, which is true without
a doubt; and the fact that we also confessed this did not do us any
good. But he would not admit that, although God does not desire sin, He
nevertheless permits (_verhaengt_) it to happen, and such permission
certainly does not come to pass without His will. For who compels Him to
permit it? Aye, how could He permit it if it was not His will to permit
it? Here he exalted his reason, and sought to comprehend how God could
not desire sin, and still, by permitting sin, will it, imagining that he
could exhaust the abyss of divine majesty: how these two wills may exist
side by side.... Nor do I doubt that he will quote me to you as saying
that 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 truth
in this matter. I say that God has forbidden sin, and does not desire
it. This will has been revealed to us, and it is necessary for us to
know it. But in what manner God permits or wills sin, this we are not to
know; for He has not revealed it. St. Paul himself would not and could
not know it, saying, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?' Therefore I beseech you in case this spirit should trouble
you much with the lofty question regarding the secret will of God, to
depart from him and to speak thus: 'Is it too little that God instructs
us 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 forbidden
to know, are unable to know, and which you do not know yourself? Let the
manner in which that comes to pass be commended to God; it suffices us
to know that He desires no sin. In what way, however, He permits or
wills sin, this we shall leave unanswered (_sollen wir gehen lassen_).
The servant is not to know his master's secrets but what his master
enjoins upon him, much less is a poor creature to explore and desire to
know the secrets of the majesty of its God,'--Behold, my dear friends,
here you may perceive that the devil always makes a practise of
presenting unnecessary, vain, and impossible things in order thereby to
tempt the frivolous to forsake the right path. Therefore take heed that
you abide by that which is needful, and which God has commanded us to
know, as the wise man says: 'Do not inquire for that which is too high
for you, but always remain with that which God has commanded you,' We
all have work enough to learn all our lifetime God's command and His Son
Christ." (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 days
ago my dear brother Caspar Cruciger, Doctor of Divinity, informed me
with grief that on his various visitations he learned from your friends
that you are afflicted with abnormal and strange thoughts pertaining to
God's predestination, and are completely confused by them; also that you
grow dull and distracted on account of them, and that finally it must be
feared that you might commit suicide,--from which Almighty God may
preserve you!... Your proposition and complaints are: God Almighty knows
from eternity who are to be and who will be saved, be they dead, living
or still to live in days to come,--which is true, and shall and must be
conceded; 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 stars
in the heavens, the roots, branches, twigs, leaves of all trees, also
all the hair of men. From this you finally conclude that, do what you
will, 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 of
damnation than of salvation and on that account you are faint-hearted,
nor do you know how God is minded toward you; hence you grow dispirited
and altogether doubtful."

"Against this I, as a servant of my dear Lord Jesus Christ, give you
this advice and comfort, that you may know how God Almighty is disposed
toward you, whether you are elected unto salvation or damnation.
Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in
all creatures must come to pass according to His will (_iuxta decretum
voluntatis suae_), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye,
His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them
partakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He
says: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked
turn and live. Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners
who live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not
separate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts,
inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east
to 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 requires
true and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair
and is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon
all.' 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 grovel
under the banner of the sinners." "Think also as constantly and
earnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort
yourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill
winds will cease and pass entirely."

"Thus we are to comfort our hearts and consciences, silence and resist
the evil thoughts by and with the divine Scriptures. For one must not
speculate about God's Word, but be still, drop reason and, holding the
Word to be true, believe it, and not cast it to the winds, nor give the
Evil Spirit so much power as to suffer ourselves to be overcome, and
thus to sink and perish. For the Word, by which all things and creatures
in all the wide world, no matter what they are called, have been created
and made and by which all that lives and moves is still richly
preserved, is true and eternal; and it must be accounted and held to be
greater and more important, mightier and more powerful than the
fluttering, empty, and vain thoughts which the devil inspires in men.
For the Word is true, but the thoughts of men are useless and vain. One
must also think thus: God Almighty has not created, predestinated, and
elected us to perdition, but to salvation, as Paul asserts, Eph. 1, 4;
nor should we begin to dispute about God's predestination from the Law
or reason, but from the grace of God and the Gospel, which is proclaimed
to all men." "Hence these and similar thoughts about God's
predestination must be judged and decided from the Word of God's grace
and mercy. When this is done, there remains no room or occasion for a
man thus to pester and torment himself,--which neither avails anything
even if he should draw the marrow out of his bones, leaving only skin
and 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 fact
that he, too, had passed through temptation concerning predestination.
"For," says he, "I am well acquainted with this malady, having lain in
this hospital sick unto eternal death. Now, in addition to my prayer I
would gladly advise and comfort you, though writing is weak in such an
affair. However, I shall not omit what I am able to do (perhaps God will
bless it), and show you how God helped me out of this affliction, and by
what art I still daily maintain myself against it. In the first place,
you must be firmly assured in your heart that such thoughts are without
doubt the inspiration and the fiery darts of the foul fiend.... Hence it
is certain that they do not proceed from God, but from the devil, who
therewith plagues a heart that man may become an enemy of God and
despair,--all of which God has strictly forbidden in the First
Commandment, bidding men to trust, love, and praise Him--whereby we
live. Secondly: When such thoughts come to you, you must learn to ask
yourself, 'Friend, in what commandment is it written that I must think
or treat of this?'... Fourthly: The chief of all the commandments of God
is 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 see
how 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 of
predestination. 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 are
also surely predestinated. Do not suffer this mirror and throne of grace
to be plucked from the eyes of your heart. On the contrary when such
thoughts come and bite like fiery serpents, then under no circumstances
look at the thoughts or the fiery serpents, but turn your eyes away from
them 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 and
ungodly conclusions. They argue: He whom God has elected is saved
without means; but as for him who is not elected, may he do what he
will, be as pious and believing as he will, it is nevertheless ordained
that he must fall and cannot be saved; hence I will let matters take
what course they will. If I am to be saved, it is accomplished without
my assistance; if not, all I may do and undertake is nevertheless in
vain. Now every one may readily see for himself what sort of wicked,
secure people develop from such thoughts. However, in treating of the
passage from the Prophet Micah on the day of Epiphany, we have
sufficiently shown that one must guard against such thoughts as against
the devil, undertake another manner of studying and thinking of God's
will, and let God in His majesty and with respect to election untouched
[unsearched]; for there He is incomprehensible. Nor is it possible that
a man should not be offended by such thoughts, and either fall into
despair 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 the
Father but by Me,' Whoever knows the Father aright and would come unto
Him 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 of
God now do? He becomes man for our sakes, is made under the Law to
redeem us from the Law, and was Himself crucified in order to pay for
our sins. He rises again from the dead, in order by His resurrection to
pave the way to eternal life for us, and to aid us against eternal
death. He sits at the right hand of God in order to represent us, to
give us the Holy Spirit, to govern and lead us by Him, and to protect
His believers against all tribulations and insinuations of Satan. That
means knowing Christ rightly."

"Now when this knowledge has been clearly and firmly established in your
heart, then begin to ascend into heaven and make this conclusion: Since
the Son of God has done this for the sake of men, how, then, must God's
heart be disposed to us, seeing that His Son did it by the Father's will
and 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 not
spared Him for our sakes, He surely cannot harbor evil intentions
against us? Evidently He does not desire our death, for He seeks and
employs the very best means toward assisting us to obtain eternal life.
In this manner one comes to God in the right way, as Christ Himself
declares, John 3, 16: God so loved the world that He gave His
only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. Now contrast these thoughts with those that
grow out of the former opinion, and they will be found to be the
thoughts of the foul fiend, which must offend a man, causing him either
to despair, or to become reckless and ungodly, since he can expect
nothing good from God."

"Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are
called', _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 one
who 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 are
saved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man
first learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing
but devilish blasphemy. Hence the sense of this passage, 'Many are
called,' etc., is far different. For the preaching of the Gospel is
general and public, so that whoever will may hear and accept it.
Furthermore, God has it preached so generally and publicly that every
one should hear, believe, and accept it, and be saved. But what happens?
As the Gospel states: 'Few are chosen,' _i.e._, few conduct themselves
toward the Gospel in such a manner that God has pleasure in them. For
some 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 hear
it, but are more concerned about money and goods, or the pleasures of
the world. This, however, is displeasing to God, who has no pleasure in
such people. This Christ calls 'not to be chosen,' _i.e._, conducting
oneself so that God has no pleasure in one. Those men are chosen of God
and well-pleasing to Him who diligently hear the Gospel, believe in
Christ, prove their faith by good fruits, and suffer on that account
what 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, I
cannot afford to live so as to have an evil conscience, sin against
God's commandments, and be unwilling to resist sin; but I must go to
church, and pray God for His Holy Spirit; nor must I permit the Word to
be taken out of my heart, but resist the devil and his suggestions, and
pray for protection, patience, and help. This makes good Christians,
whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either
become 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; for
you are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your
Savior, who has paid for your sin. Remember this command and obey it. If
you notice that you are lacking faith, or that your faith is weak, pray
God to grant you His Holy Ghost, and do not doubt that Christ is your
Savior, and that if you believe in Him, _i.e._, if you take comfort in
Him, you shall by Him be saved. Dear Lord Jesus Christ, grant this unto
us 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 speaks
especially against those who would be wise and judge in religious
matters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, which
is overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teaching
and by judging. Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when He
conceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to be
over and not under God. Not as though He hid it in fact or desired to
hide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entire
heaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preaching
which the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden from
them through their own fault, since they do not want to have it--as is
written Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not,' Lo, they see,
_i.e._, they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly and
publicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it and
refuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their own
blindness. And so, on the other hand, He reveals it to the babes; for
the babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth is
revealed 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 that
you are at times in tribulation about God's eternal predestination, and
requested me to write you this short letter on that matter. Now to be
sure, this is a sore tribulation. But to overcome it one must know that
we are forbidden to understand this or to speculate about it. For what
God wants to conceal we should be glad not to know. This is the apple
the eating of which brought death upon Adam and Eve and upon all their
children, when they wanted to know what they were not to know. For as it
is sin to commit murder, to steal, or to curse, so it is also sin to
busy oneself searching such things. As an antidote to this God has given
us His Son, Jesus Christ. Of Him we must daily think; in Him we must
consider ourselves (_uns in ihm spiegeln_). Then predestination will
appear lovely. For outside of Christ everything is only danger, death,
and the devil; in Him, however, there is nothing but peace and joy. For
if one forever torments himself with predestination, all one gains is
anguish of soul. Hence flee and avoid such thoughts as the affliction of
the serpent of Paradise, and, instead, look upon Christ. God preserve
you!" (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 search
the hidden God (who cannot be apprehended in His bare majesty--_qui in
nuda sua maiestate non potest apprehendi_, E., Op. Lat. 2, 171), but to
adhere to the revelation He has given us in the Gospel, is repeated
again and again also in his _Commentary on Genesis_, which was begun in
1536 and completed in 1545. In the explanation of chap. 26, 9 we read,
in part: "I gladly take occasion from this passage to discuss the
question concerning doubt, concerning God and God's will. For I hear
that everywhere among the nobles and magnates profane sayings are spread
concerning predestination or divine prescience. For they say: 'If I am
predestinated, I shall be saved, whether I have done good or evil. If I
am not predestinated, I shall be damned, without any regard whatever to
my works.' Against these ungodly sayings I would gladly argue at length
if my ill health would permit. For if these sayings are true, as they
believe them to be, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His
suffering and resurrection, and whatever He did for the salvation of the
world, is entirely abolished. What would the prophets and the entire
Holy Scriptures profit us? what the Sacraments? Let us therefore abandon
and crush all this," all these ungodly sayings.

Luther proceeds: "These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm
knowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it is
useful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain,
and being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, as
otherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by His
promises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this is
to be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless flee
to 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 and
calling of God are without repentance.' Accordingly, in the book _De
Servo Arbitrio_ and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish
when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For
one 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 no
faith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply the
saying: What is above us does not concern us (_Quae supra nos, nihil ad
nos_). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond or
without the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by them
nothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition,
because they are occupied with an unsearchable object, _i.e._, the
unrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteries
concealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so much
that they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, or
glory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see My
back parts; but My face shall not be seen. _Posteriora mea tibi
ostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris_.' For this curiosity is
original sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to God
by natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vain
endeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto the
Father but by Me.' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, there
is no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible God
whom 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 my
death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all
manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have
written 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 the
revealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: '_Er heisst Jesus Christ, der
Herr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott_,' 'Jesus Christ it is, of
Sabaoth Lord, and there's none other God.' But they will pass by all
these passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You,
therefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that we
must not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, but
acquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of the
Word. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvation
and say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life,' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnation
or wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things I
have set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit them
orally, 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 recalled
his book _De Servo Arbitrio_, and retracted, changed and essentially
modified 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 [before
1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the
background. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore
Semi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of
predestination, Luther, in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ with an overbold
defiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his
position. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine,
but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation
of the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the
merits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace;
and he even opposed that doctrine [of _De Servo Arbitrio_] expressly as
erroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on
that subject." Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with the
facts in the case," J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther
with "absolute predestinarianism," remarks: "But this is certain: the
older Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism
into the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God
and on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (_in omnes,
super omnes_) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who
believe." (_Conf. Hist._, 336.)

Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by
synergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts.
Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of
predestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always
a messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of
grace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and
teaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His
merits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In _De
Servo Arbitrio_ Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else than
Christ Crucified." (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons
and books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the
idea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the
center of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very
gradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means
of grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were
products of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace
and pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The
bent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and
Scriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the
question of predestination to such an extent as he did in _De Servo
Arbitrio_, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the
rationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental
Christian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his
salvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just
such an answer as he gave in _De Servo Arbitrio_. Wherever the occasion
demanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's
majesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the
universal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.

Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther
later 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 free
will, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of
Rotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the
beginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the
disposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (_und
sich besser erklaeret_); and we believe, if a synod were held and one
would hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this
article." (_C. R._ 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this
assertion was false, as appeared from Luther's _Commentary on Genesis_
and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger
2, 82.) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first
asserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book _De Servo Arbitrio;_
but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a
wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that
Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July
9], 1637, as one of his very best." (_Creeds_ 1, 303.) In his letter to
Capito, Luther says: "_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte
'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum_,'" thus endorsing _De Servo
Arbitrio_ in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before
this Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me in
his 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 to
refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil
together with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is
the immutable truth of God." (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous
endeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence
has been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or
changed his doctrine of grace.

Luther's extensive reference to _De Servo Arbitrio_ in his _Commentary
on Genesis_, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been
interpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the _Formula of
Concord_ these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" his
former position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his
former fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his
own, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by
quoting from his books--"_post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent
in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt_."
Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his
statements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had
expressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but
look 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 as
well as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in
_De Servo Arbitrio, viz._, that we must neither deny nor investigate or
be concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed
Himself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the
means of grace.

252. Luther's Doctrine Approved by Formula of Concord.

Flacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared at
the colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context,
Luther's statements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ contained no inapt
expressions (_nihil incommodi_). He added: "I do not want to be the
reformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussion
concerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. _Nolo reformator
esse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamus
sanae ecclesiae_." (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255.) In Article II of the
_Formula of Concord_ the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondage
of the will together with his declarations in his _Commentary on
Genesis_. In referring to this matter the _Formula_ gives utterance to
the following thoughts: 1. that in _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther
"elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also by
the _Formula of Corcord_] well and thoroughly, _egregie et solide_"; 2.
that "afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition
of the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;" 3. that in this
exposition also "his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar
disputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute
necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful
way against all misunderstanding and perversion;" 4. that the _Formula
of Concord_ "appeals and refers others" to these deliverances of Luther.
(CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44.)

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, endorsed Luther's _De Servo
Arbitrio_ without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever,
and, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essential
thoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. The
said articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther's
doctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man's
salvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particular
they reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and the
inability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergism
in man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousness
of the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of grace
and for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways;
the mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all are
equally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem in
the light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never were
contradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well as
of free will, therefore, the _Formula of Concord_ is not a compromise
between synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther over
the later Melanchthon.

253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord.

The attitude of the _Formula of Concord_ with respect to Luther's _De
Servo Arbitrio_ was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. They
expressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its public
endorsement by the _Formula of Concord_. In 1569 the theologians of
Ducal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine "set
forth most luminously and skilfully (_summa luce et dexteritate
traditum_)" in _De Servo Arbitrio_, the _Commentary on Genesis_, and
other books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133.) That the authors of the
_Formula of Concord_ were fully conscious of their agreement with
Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_ and his _Commentary on Genesis_ appears
also from the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, composed 1582 by
Kirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther with
errors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the
_Formula or Concord_, endorse and defend his position, _viz_., that we
must neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospel
for an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us.

In this _Apology_ the opening paragraph of the section defending Article
XI of the _Formula of Concord_ against the Neustadt theologians reads as
follows: "In their antilog [antilogia--attack on Article XI of the
_Formula of Concord_] regarding God's eternal election and
predestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in this
article the doctrine of the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula of
Concord_] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book _De
Servo Arbitrio_, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appeal
to Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the _Book of Concord_ with
condemning Luther, who in the book called _Servum Arbitrium_ maintained
the proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary and
useful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (_Versehung_)
is certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, these
words of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also well
know how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of the
First Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his." (Fol.
204a.) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we cited
above (p. 223f.), the _Apology_ continues: "With this explanation of
Luther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadt
theologians] wish to brood over it any further and in their
investigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth of
this mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] and
suffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content to
adhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and lead
and direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life to
come." (405a.)

254. Agreement of Apology with Formula of Concord and Luther.

Doctrinally also, the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ is in agreement
with both Luther and the _Formula of Concord_. This appears from the
following excerpts: "Nor does the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula
of Concord_] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejects
some; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in
_De Servo Arbitrio_ against Erasmus that it is the highest degree of
faith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless most
merciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient cause
of such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponents
teaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all men
should put their finger on their lips and first say with the Apostle
Paul, Rom. 11, 20: '_Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt_--Because of
unbelief they were broken off,' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin is
death.' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lord
does not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, all
men, etc. (which He is certainly able to do--_das er doch wohl
koennte_), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]:
'_Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viae
eius_--How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding
out,' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing and
efficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent."
"But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election of
the elect, you must also admit the other thing, _viz_., that in God
Himself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart from
sin,' etc., then we declare that we are not at all minded to make God
the author [_Ursacher_] of reprobation (the cause of which properly lies
not in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause of
the damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of the
Prophet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' Nor do we intend to search
our dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. For
it is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the more
we occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from our
dear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us." (206.)

The _Apology_ continues: "Likewise the _Book of Concord_ [_Formula of
Concord_] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the same
manner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called through
the public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade us
to infer with them that God is an efficient [_wirkliche_] cause of the
reprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His mere
counsel [_fuer sich aus blossem Rat_] to reject and cast them away
eternally, even irrespective of their sin [_auch ausserhalb der
Suende_]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, it
is sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments are
unsearchable,' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Whatever goes beyond this
our Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life."

"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the _Book of Concord_ did not
distinguish between _malum culpae, i.e._, sin which God neither wills,
nor approves, nor works, and _malum poenae_, or the punishments which He
wills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not to
discuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matter
concerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summary
statement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere this
distinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there any
one among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, is
pleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as a
blasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318
[edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evil
acts and works, from which it is apparent that the _Book_ [_Formula_]
_of Concord_ does not at all teach that God is the author of _malum
culpae_ or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works the
punishments of sins." (206 b.)

255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax.

Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and the
possibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally
damned, the _Apology_ proceeds: "And why should we not also reject [the
proposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is
undoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected
and damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and
there is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still
alive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his last
end; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody
might have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12,
39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of
eternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no
reprobate can be converted and saved.... It is therefore the meaning
neither 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 to
damnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and
correct understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate and
impenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to
become more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and
wickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that
He, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins,
has foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convert
themselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, we
shall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this
blasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also
of 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 what
He approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes
to work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret
counsel in no other way than by working in man, _viz_., through
conversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or
hardened and damned.... With regard to this we give the following
correct answer, _viz_.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on
a dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secret
counsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed
Himself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the
words of Luther himself, _viz_., that concerning God, so far as He has
not been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word,
there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of
Him, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together
with our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments
of God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel,
purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some to
damnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His
secret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that
through the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards
them and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it
written in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that all
should be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained
some to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that
they cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they
prove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy
Scriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ,
contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread
it 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 all
men, enlightening all,--for neither does He give His Word to all,--and
that nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and that
nobody 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 his
finger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [_gruebeln_--from
the facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of God's universal serious
grace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments,
and His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as our
opponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, God has
ordained that some should be damned. For as to what God holds and has
decreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Nor
should one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonder
life, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of God by which we are
called to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us.
And this Word, or revealed will, of God concerning the giving rest to
all those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible,
unwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of God, with
which alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing that
conflicts with the will revealed in the Word of God should be inferred
from 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 must
not declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin,
God in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent to
damnation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has not
been revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that God's
judgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible."

"It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning this
article should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicurean
security, when in this doctrine it is taught that God, from His mere
counsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some to
damnation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hears
this, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into these
Epicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His free
purpose and without regard to sin, God has ordained to damnation, then
you cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those who
shall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you must
nevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join our
opponents in giving occasion for such things. God also shall protect us
from it." (209.)

Again: "They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universal
promises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain to
believers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, _viz_., that the
promises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers,
who labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. But
their [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying that
some are ordained to damnation from the free purpose of God, also
without regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though He
calls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them,
--which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horror
against such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine." (209 b.)


XXII. Article XII of the Formula of Concord: Of Other Heretics and
Sects.

257. Purpose of Article XII.

The purpose of the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_ was
not only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward off
future controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of the
<DW7>s and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple,
their assertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and had
abandoned the _Augsburg Confession_, and that the Reformation was bound
to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The _Formula of Concord_ was
to leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers a
united front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists,
the errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidently
also against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom the
Romanists slanderously identified them.

Summarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the _Formula of
Concord_ declares: "First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errors
which were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodox
Church, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures.
Secondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which are
rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary
of the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the
_Formula of Concord_]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors which
caused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt with
and refuted in the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_."
(857, 17ff.) Among the errors rejected in the _Augsburg Confession_ and
the 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 summarily
and reject by name. Before this the _Book of Confutation_, composed 1559
by the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejected
the doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and the
Anabaptists.

From the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg,
1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans with
the Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsible
for their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the _Formula of
Concord_. For here we read: "However, lest there be silently ascribed to
us the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects
(which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly
stole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room
was given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere
teachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the
Papacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feel
the manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their
simplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was not
papistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly,
before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship with
their errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and
all, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the
prophets and apostles, and to our Christian _Augsburg Confession_, well
grounded in God's Word." (1097, 7f.)

258. The Anabaptists.

The Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders were
Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called
_Blaurock_, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. In
rapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol,
Austria, Moravia, etc. Because of their attitude toward the civil
government the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treated
accordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed in
Zurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists in
the autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation of
more than 1,100 "Apostolic Brethren," as the Anabaptists there called
themselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529,
authorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women of
every age, by fire or sword "without previous inquisition by spiritual
judges." They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about
1,000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2,000) had been executed in Tyrol
and Goerz.

The most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonists
were 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 adulterer
February 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldier
and son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14,
1527, impassionate in his writings against the "old and new <DW7>s,"
_i.e._, Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ in
the Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; Christian
Entfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, and
later on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a former
priest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; Joerg
Haug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed
1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer,
former Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, an
Antitrinitarian, 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; Peter
Riedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequently
imprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacher
and prolific author, who died in prison at Strassburg, 1543.
(Tschackert, 148ff.; Schlottenloher, _Philipp Ulhart, ein Augsburger
Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der "Schwaermer" und "Wiedertaeufer,"_
1523--1529, p. 59ff.)

The various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the Twelfth
Article of the _Formula of Concord_. The Epitome remarks: "The
Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one
contends for more, another for less errors; however they all in common
propound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the
church, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic
life." (839, 2.) Urbanus Regius said in his book _Against the New
Baptistic Order:_ "Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of these
errors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to do
an injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the Baptistic
Order 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 the
Trinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infant
baptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means of
grace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was not
faith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism,
sensation-faith (_Gefuehlsglaube_), and the law of love as exemplified
by Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: "Whoever follows
the voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himself
the true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist the
evil." (153.) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning,
Salminger said: "Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifies
will be received by God." Schlottenloher remarks: "It was medieval
mysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consuming
desire 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 and
professor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522
pastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had read
the books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. In
January, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now "he
proclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself," referring in
particular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the same
year he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which he
continued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published his
book _Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers_, which was directed
against Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich,
whither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants in
their rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputation
with Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from which
he was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped to
Nicolsburg, 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 into
the Danube.

Hubmaier denounced infant baptism as "an abominable idolatry." He
taught: Children are incapable of making the public confession required
by Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs us
of the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptized
while in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: "Since
the alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receive
water-baptism according to the institution of Christ cannot be charged
with anabaptism."

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: "Here it is apparent that
the bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewise
the wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that He
has shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins." "In
the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spiritually
and by faith only." In the Supper of Christ "bread is bread and wine is
wine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the right
hand of God, His Father."

Hubmaier did not regard the Word as a means of grace nor Baptism and the
Lord's Supper as gracious acts of God, but as mere works of man. "In
believers," he says, "God works both to will and to do, by the inward
anointing of His Holy Spirit." Concerning church discipline he taught:
Where the Christian ban is not established and used according to the
command of Christ, there sin, shame, and vice control everything. A
person who is expelled must be denied all communion until he repents. In
connection with his deliverances on the ban, Hubmaier, after the fashion
of the <DW7>s, made the Gospel of Christian liberty as preached by
Luther responsible for the carnal way in which many abused it. The
socialistic 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 the
large Anabaptistic congregation in Augsburg, where he was also
imprisoned, 1527. He, not Langenmantel, is the author of the
"_Offenbarung von den wahrhaftigen Wiedertaeufern_. Revelation of the
True Anabaptists," secretly published by the Anabaptistic printer Philip
Ulhart in Augsburg and accepted as a sort of confession by the council
held by the Anabaptists in the fall of 1527 at Augsburg. The book of
Urban Regius: "_Wider den neuen Tauforden notwendige Warnung an alle
Christenglaeubigen_--Against the new Baptistic Order, a Necessary
Warning to All Christians," was directed against Dachser's _Revelation_.
In 1529 Dachser published his _Form and Order of Spiritual Songs_, the
first 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 each
other; we don't know any more where the truth is. While all are
convinced that the Pope has erred and deceived us, the new preachers, by
reviling and maligning each other, betray that they, too, are not sent
by 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 their
doctrine, they thereby reveal that they are not sent by God." "God draws
us to Himself through the power which is in us, and warns us against
wickedness and through the Teacher Christ, who in His Word has taught us
the will of God." "Christ sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to all
creatures and to baptize such as believe. And such as obey this command
are called 'Anabaptists'!" "By our evil will original purity has been
defiled; from this uncleanness we must purge our heart. Who does not
find this uncleanness in himself, neither without nor within, is a true
child of God, obedient to the Word of God. Who, in accordance with the
command of Christ, preaches and baptizes such as believe, is not an
Anabaptist, 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 the
Son of God, by first baptizing, instead of first teaching and awaiting
faith, as Christ commanded." "We need but strive with Christ to do the
will of the Father then we receive from God through the Holy Ghost the
power to fulfil the divine command." (Schlottenloher, 72ff.)

Hans Hutt (Hut), a restless bookbinder in Franconia, attended the
Anabaptistic council in Augsburg, where he was opposed by Regius and
incarcerated. He died 1527 in an attempt to escape from prison. As a
punishment his body was burned. Hutt must not be confounded with Jacob
Huter or Hueter, an Anabaptist in Tyrol. The followers of Hans Hutt in
the city of Steyr developed the socialistic tendencies of Anabaptism.
They taught: Private ownership is sinful; all things are to be held in
common; Judgment Day is imminent; then the Anabaptists will reign with
Christ on earth. Some also taught that finally the devil and all the
damned would be saved; others held that there is neither a devil nor a
hell, because Christ had destroyed them. (Tschackert 134ff. 141. 153.)
Article XVII of the _Augsburg Confession_ condemns "the Anabaptists, who
think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and
devils...; also others, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions,
that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession
of 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 opposed
by Osiander. Banished in the following year, he escaped to St. Gallen.
Expelled again, he fled to Augsburg. Here he was rebaptized by immersion
and became an active member of the Anabaptistic "Apostolic Brethren,"
who at that time numbered about 1,100 persons. Denk was the leader of
the council held by the Anabaptists in 1527 in Augsburg. Expelled from
the city, Denk died during his flight, 1527, at Basel. His "Retraction,
_Widerruf_" (a title probably chosen by the printer), published 1527
after his death, does not contain a retraction, but a summary of his
teaching. (Schlottenloher, 84.) The mystic mind of Denk runs a good deal
in the channels of the author of the "German Theology, _Deutsche
Theologie_," and of his pantheistic contemporary, Sebastian Franck.

Denk taught: God is one, and the source of unity. To return from all
divisions to this unity must be our constant aim. The only way is entire
surrender to God and submission in tranquillity. He says: "Nothing is
necessary for this salvation [reunion with God] but to obey Him who is
in us, and to be tranquil and wait for Him in the true real Sabbath and
tranquillity, losing ourselves and all that is ours, so that God may
both work and suffer in us. He who is in us is ready every hour and
moment to follow, if we are but willing. His hour is always, but ours is
not. He calls and stretches forth His arms the entire day, always ready;
nobody answers Him, nobody admits Him or suffers Him to enter. Do but
seek 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, and
even now is knocking. Do but open unto Him and let Him in. Apprehend and
know the Lord, even as you are apprehended and known of Him."

Denk held that the source of religious and moral knowledge is not the
Scriptures, 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 are
His. [Before Denk, Thomas Muenzer had said: "_Was Bibel! Bibel, Bubel,
Babel!_"] Whoever has this divine Law in his heart lacks nothing that is
needed to fulfil the will of God. According to Denk a man may be saved
without the preaching of the Word, without the Scriptures, and without
any knowledge of the historical Christ and His work. Nor can the
Scriptures be understood without heeding the revelation of God in our
own bosom. The Scriptures must indeed be regarded as higher than "all
human 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 of
believers; hence it can be administered to such only as are conscious of
their faith. Ceremonies in themselves are not sin, says Denk, "but
whoever imagines to obtain grace through them, either by Baptism or by
the 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 noble
family in Silesia, was born 1490 and studied in Cologne. In 1524 he
helped to introduce the Reformation in Liegnitz. He was twice in
Wittenberg; 1522, when he met Carlstadt and Thomas Muenzer and 1525,
when he visited Luther. He endeavored to interest Luther in the
formation of conventicles, and particularly in his mystical theory
concerning the Lord's Supper, which he considered the correct middle
ground on which Lutherans and Zwinglians might compromise. But Luther
had no confidence in the enthusiast, whom he characterized as a "mad
fool," "possessed by the devil." He said: "In Silesia Schwenckfeldt has
kindled a fire which as yet has not been quenched and will burn on him
eternally."

Because of the troubles and dissensions created in Liegnitz,
Schwenckfeldt, in 1529, was compelled to leave. Having removed to
Strassburg he was zealous in propagating his enthusiasm in Southern
Germany by establishing conventicles of "Lovers of the Glory of Christ,"
as the adherents of Schwenckfeldt called themselves. At a colloquy in
Tuebingen, 1535, he promised not to disquiet the Church. In 1539 he
published his _Summary of Several Arguments that Christ according to His
Humanity Is To-day No Creature, but Entirely Our God and Lord_. He
called it the doctrine of the "Deification of the Flesh of Christ." When
this teaching was rejected as Eutychianism, Schwenckfeldt published his
_Large Confession_, 1540. At the convention of Smalcald, also 1540, his
views were condemned and his books prohibited and burned. Compelled to
leave Strassburg, he spent the remainder of his life in Augsburg, in
Speier and in Ulm (where he died, December 10, 1561). Schwenckfeldt
exchanged controversial writings with many contemporary theologians,
whom he kept in constant excitement. In Liegnitz he was supported by the
ministers Valentin Krautwald, Fabian Eckel, Sigismund Werner, and
Valerius Rosenheyn. His adherents were called "Neutrals," because they
declined to affiliate with any of the existing churches.

263. Schwenckfeldt's Doctrine.

In 1526 Schwenckfeldt wrote to Paul Speratus: Since by the preaching of
the Gospel as set forth by Luther so few people amended their lives, the
thought had occurred to him that "something must still be lacking,
whatever that may be." Endeavoring to supply this defect, Schwenckfeldt
taught: Grace cannot be imparted by any creature, bodily word, writing,
or sacrament, but only by the omnipotent, eternal Word proceeding from
the mouth of God. Whatever is external is a mere symbol and image of
God, able neither to bring God into the soul nor to produce faith or an
inward experience of divine life. "Mark well" says he, "God is not in
need of external things and means for His internal grace and spiritual
action. For even Christ, according to the flesh, was a hindrance to
grace and [the Spirit] of God, and had to be translated into the
heavenly mode of being that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come to
us.... Whoever endeavors to come from without and through external means
into the inner [the heart] does not understand the course of grace. God
works without all means and pictures.... Man must forget and drop
everything, and be free and tranquil for the inbreathing [_Einsprechen_,
inspiration], and be drawn away from all creatures, giving himself up to
God altogether."

Schwenckfeldt continues: The Holy Spirit enters the quiet soul only
through the eternal Word, which "proceeds from the mouth of God without
means and not at all through Scripture, external Word, Sacrament, or any
creature in heaven or on earth. God wants to have this honor reserved
solely to Himself through Himself [without any means] He wants to pardon
man, teach him, impart the Holy Spirit to him, and save him. He does not
want to grant His grace, and effect illumination and salvation through
any creature; for even the flesh of Christ was not a sufficient
instrument for this purpose before He was glorified, translated into the
heavenly places, and removed from our eyes." "Scripture is for the
external man; the Holy Spirit teaches everything to the elect inwardly
and is not in need of Scripture to give faith to them and to save them."
Schwenckfeldt, who employed the term "revelation" for this immediate
operation of God, was inconsistent in not rejecting Scripture,
preaching, etc., altogether. But when admitting these, he adds that he
distinguishes "God's own inner work from the external service."

Self-evidently, these views concerning the means of grace had a
corrupting influence also on other doctrines. Saving faith, according to
Schwenckfeldt, is not trust in God's promise of pardon for Christ's
sake, but an immediate mystical relation of the soul to God.
Justification, says he, "is not only forgiveness and non-imputation of
sin, but also renewal of the heart." "We must seek our justification and
righteousness not in Christ according to His first state [of
humiliation], in a manner historical," but according to His state of
glorification, 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," thus
corrupting the doctrine of the exaltation and of the person of Christ in
the direction of Monophysitism. And the more his views were opposed, the
more 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 deified
humanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeed
through bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of any
medium), internally, spiritually. The words of institution mean: My
body, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, _i.e._, a food
for souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, _i.e._, a
drink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of God. Baptism, says
Schwenckfeldt, is the "baptizing of the heavenly High Priest Jesus
Christ, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and by
fire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, but
detrimental to the baptism of Christ." (Tschackert, 159ff.)

264. The Antitrinitarians.

The first article of the _Augsburg Confession_ makes a special point of
rejecting not only the ancient, but also the "modern Samosatenes,"
_i.e._, the Antitrinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformation
began their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most of
these "modern Arians and Antitrinitarians," as they are called in the
Twelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_ came from the skeptical
circles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists and
Epicureans the _Apology_ remarks: "Many [in Italy and elsewhere] even
publicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, they
approve such things only as are in harmony with human reason, and
regard 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 as
being one of those who spoke of the profitable "fables concerning
Christ."

According to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, a
fanatic (_Rumpelgeist_) there taught: "Every man has the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (_ingenium et ratio
naturalis_). Every man believes. There is neither hell nor damnation.
Every one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do unto
my 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 to
lust. 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, Melanchthon
remarks: "We have heard that some of them [the Strassburgers] speak of
the Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not God by nature. (_C.
R._ 1, 1099.) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spoken
incorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a book
against the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted to
be published." (1103.)

In a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: "Your undertaking [of
publishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christian
and wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles of
faith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the one
concerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be derided
confidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably assisted not
only by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which they
flatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers and
others, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sow
their seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paul
says [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (_gar sehr um sich fressen_)
and promote godlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laugh
so 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 already
been referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creed
because of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, as
stated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied the
tripersonality of God and the preexistence of the Logos, and
blasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as
"superstition" and the trust in His satisfaction as "drinking on the
score of Christ (_ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi_)." According to
Denk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselves
which we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed of
the divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461.) It was of Denk that
Capito wrote, 1526: "At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald denied
that the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for this
reason he was expelled." (Plitt, _Augustana_ 1, 153.)

At Strassburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, with
denying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527
Urban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining that
Christ was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same year
Althamer of Nuernberg published his book _Against the New Jews and
Arians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ_. In 1529
Osiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: "It is well known,
and may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradict
the sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from which
it follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ." "Christ
is not the natural, true Son of God," such was also the accusation made
by Justus Menius in his book concerning the _Doctrines and Secrets of
the Anabaptists_. In his _Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius said
"Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of Jesus
Christ.... This was their chief article that they despised the written
Word, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of Jesus
Christ the eternal Son of God."

265. Franck, Campanus, Ochino, Servetus, Blandrata, etc.

Sebastian Franck and John Campanus must also be numbered among the
Antitrinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in the
vicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soap
manufacturing, writing, and printing. Campanus appeared in Wittenberg,
1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther and
Zwingli by explaining the words: "This is My body" to mean: This is a
body created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: "Against the Entire
World after the Apostles--_Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum_," in
which he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied the
personality of the Holy Spirit. "He argues," says Melanchthon, who in
his letters frequently refers to the "blasphemies of Campanus," "that
Christ is not God; that the Holy Spirit is not God; that original sin is
an empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform into
philosophy." (_C. R._ 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132.) When
Campanus endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished from
Saxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminence
of Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their property
and declined to work any longer. Campanus was imprisoned for twenty
years and died 1575.

Prominent among the numerous Antitrinitarians who came from Italy were
Ochino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. Bernardino
Ochino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renowned
pulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in order
to escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurich
from 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defended
polygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his _Thirty Dialogs_,
published 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of
Christ, and of the atonement. (_Herzog R_. 14, 256.)--Michael Servetus
was born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, at
Hagenau, Alsace, he published _De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII_. He
was opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his
_Christianismi Restitutio_, a voluminous book, which he published in
1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanic
doctrine, 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 burned
at the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also by
Melanchthon. (_C. R._ 8, 362; 9, 763.)--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554,
uttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italian
congregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. He
died 1564.--John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italian
fugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerning
the Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Antitrinitarian
errors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (_Herzog R_. 6, 518.)

George Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for his
liberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania.
Here he published his _Confessio Antitrinitaria_, and was instrumental
in introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In
1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. He
taught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that there
were two natures in Christ.

266. Davidis and Socinus.

Francis Davidis in Transylvania was an Antitrinitarian of the most
radical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 he
joined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 and
publicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduce
Unitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked the
doctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 he
published his views in _De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et
Spiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo_. He contended that the doctrine of
the Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ,
though born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in the
decree of God, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanating
from God for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and the
Lord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the nobility had
been won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent of
the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty was
proclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were
tolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The Catholic
Stephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitarians
from his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579,
Davidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring it
to be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Three
days after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings instituted
against him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced to
imprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesying
the final downfall of all "false dogmas," meaning, of course, the
doctrines which he had combated.

In Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-minded
nobility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and later
on also fugitive Antitrinitarians. Among these were the Italians Francis
Lismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however,
lacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, the
preexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continued
until 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 was
established there, and died in Zurich, 1562.

Faustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncle
Laelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the first
chapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire program
of Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata to
oppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) as
taught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland,
where he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: the
Anabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ,
etc., and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland was
rapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about
1,000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638
the school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachers
and ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banished
as traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism were
confirmed.

The chief source of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian doctrine is the
Racovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latin
language under the title: "_Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom of
Poland_ which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ is that One God of Israel." It teaches: There is but one divine
person; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity of
Christ is false; as a reward for His sinless life, God has given Christ
all 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 no
original sin; with the help of God, that is to say, with the
commandments and promises of God revealed by Christ, man may acquire
salvation; 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, the
doctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by His
death Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandments
are adherents of Christ; these will participate in His dominion; the
wicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing as
eternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason and
serves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous for
Christians, because all matters pertaining to religion are contained
better and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473.)

Evidently, in every detail, Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism are
absolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence of
Christianity. The _Apology_ declares that the deniers of the doctrine of
the Holy Trinity "are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters,
and insult God." (103, 1.) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII of
the _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 all
incompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnest
desire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a truly
Christian and godly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth.
Also in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther's
death faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire for
such a godly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased.
While Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of a
unionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union based
on the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the Lutheran
Confessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that the
controversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Church
should never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor with
any teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth.

As a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peace
were made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians,
especially the theologians who had not participated in the
controversies, but for all that were no less concerned about the
maintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at the
expense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flacius
and Gallus published their _Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen
Sachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen_. In this Appeal
they urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had not
participated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chief
differences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two following
years Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interest
influential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthon
and his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in the
matter.

At the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber,
Schnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discuss
the conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing to
disagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, they
demanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines of
Zwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by the
Wittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7.)

268. Pacific Overtures of Flacius.

Soon after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector of
the school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimate
friend of Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciously
slandered Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the latter
submitted the conditions on which peace might be established. However, a
letter written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was not
answered by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's object
merely was to kindle hatred. (_C. R._ 8, 794.)

In May, 1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to Paul
Eber his "Mild Proposals, _Linde Vorschlaege_, dadurch man gottselige
und notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen den
Wittenbergischen und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica und
den andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben." According to these
_Proposals_, Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by the
theologians of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the true
Antichrist, the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: "Good
works are necessary to salvation," be condemned, also the errors of
Zwingli and Osiander. "The good Lord knows," said Flacius, "that every
day and hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of the
Adiaphorists might be settled in a Christian manner." But he added that
he could not be satisfied until, by repentance, "they wipe out their
sin, denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them by
their excuses." But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber nor
from Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consent
of Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accorded
the role of a braying ass being crowned by other asses with a soiled
crown. (Preger 2, 11. 13.)

Another offer of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discuss
the matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthon
wrote: "I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, and
I would gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before this
he has spread things which I had neither said nor thought, wherefore
now, 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 Melanchthon
are alive, unity will not be restored," had been reported to him in the
form: unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not be
possible. "None of my friends," he wrote, "is willing to attend the
colloquy, and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him
[Flacius] alone." (_C. R._ 8, 798.) Considering Melanchthon's answer as
insincere and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestly
sought peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He did
so by publishing "_Von der Einigkeit_, Concerning Unity," a book which
he 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 of
September 1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with God
and the Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result,
Melanchthon wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to in
our chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in a
qualified way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply of
September 16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not any
triumph or glory for himself, but "only the maintenance of truth and the
rooting out of error," and that nothing was able to remove the offense
given by Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of the
truth and an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, broke
off the correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity against
Flacius. (Preger 2, 29f.)

269. Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon and
Flacius.

Despite his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himself
to be discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace.
Embracing an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of Lower
Saxony concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the Lower
Saxons to mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for this
purpose articles, differing from the _Mild Proposals_ only in expressly
mentioning also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and four
superintendents, accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for the
purpose to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: Valentin
Curtius and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen and
Westphal; from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; from
Brunswick: Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January
14, 1557, on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring with
Flacius 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 the
following day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denounced
Flacius and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat with
the Lower Saxons on the basis of the "Flacian theses." On January 21 the
delegation submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: "All
corruptions which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and that
of the _Augsburg Confession_ shall be eliminated from the article of
justification, in particular the corruption concerning the necessity of
good works to salvation." Article VII requested Melanchthon to make a
public statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of good
works, declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church.
(Preger 2, 37.)

The presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect on
Melanchthon. The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such an
extent that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a most
violent manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherously
conspiring with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber,
he finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. In
his answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavy
burdens of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; they
therefore ought now to have had compassion with him instead of
assaulting him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once told
him on leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius,
they had presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him and
others to cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves,
Melanchthon objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely charged
him and others with having taught and defended errors regarding
justification. He declined Article VII because the publication there
required was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his many
writings what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2,
38. 40.)

Fearing that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessions
detrimental to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand,
Baumgartner, Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, Antonius
Otto) assembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In a
letter, dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators not
to yield anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist on
the elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (_ut id iugulum
recte iuguletis_). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meet
them in Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to assist in winning
Melanchthon for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flacius
remarked: he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon
"sweet rather than wholesome and strong medicine." (Preger 2, 42.) In a
similar manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg to
influence Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore the
Saxon delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt no
resolution before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] for
consideration. No news having arrived by Saturday, January 23, an
additional letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the same
spirit of anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield,
and to continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they said
would 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 in
Coswig. Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted the
articles presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. At
the same time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh language
of Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they had
met with in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatened
to stone them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a brief
consultation. Their impression was (which they neither made any efforts
to hide) that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not been
sufficiently careful in seeking only the honor of God, the welfare of
the Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held on
Sunday, January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfaction
with the proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to the
shocking stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxon
delegates to regard God higher than men, and earnestly and openly to
call the Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates,
besides a list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statements
culled from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained their
strictures on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answer
to Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This matter
troubled him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphorists
who had despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, was
constantly decreasing; having already yielded more than he should have
done, he now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties,
the Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the future
the people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance.
Flacius furthermore declared that his theses should have been either
retained or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen.
Moerlin answered, irritated: They had presented other articles because
Melanchthon had declined the first; if any one was able to frame better
theses, he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, the
delegation returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached its
climax. For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, and
in the presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio had
spoken of Flacius as "the rascal and knave (_Schalk und Bube_)," and
even referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also a
filthy and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in which
Flacius and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated in
Wittenberg and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49.) The first lines of
the pasquil ran thus; "_Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Ab
illo concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quae
communio veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?_" (_C. R._ 9, 50. 235.)

Having read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthon
could never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, the
delegation (with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned to
Coswig, January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the list
of errors to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would have
been broken off immediately; only the charges with respect to
justification had been transmitted; they therefore requested the
Magdeburgers to declare their agreement with the articles already
submitted to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgers
finally yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and some
changes in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but "only with a
wounded conscience," as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, the
delegates transmitted the modified articles together with the additions
of the Magdeburgers to Melanchthon.

In his answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon said
in part: "You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion of
opinions obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere.
And many hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular to
me. I was also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes.
If, therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm in
any matter, I ask God and the churches to forgive me and shall submit to
the verdict of the Church.... As to the Flacian quarrels, however,
concerning which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into which
Flacius has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that this
affair pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, I
cannot decide and settle anything (_me aliquid statuere posse_).... This
now I desire to be my last answer (_hanc volo nunc meam postremam
responsionem esse_); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdict
of the Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of God
govern all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!" As to the articles
submitted by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes and
additions suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was not
willing to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way to
censure the honorable men who had participated in the deliberations
concerning the Leipzig Interim. (_C. R._ 9, 62.)

Toward evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with the
information that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, and
that now the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early next
morning they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which they
modified their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues their
efforts to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors.
"We call upon God as our witness," they said, "that we most earnestly
desire a godly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the fault
lies not with us, but with them, who expressly say and confess
concerning themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn the
Adiaphoristic errors--the real issue of the entire controversy." (_C.
R._ 9, 67.) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegation
when they were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increased
animosity on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts of
the Lower Saxon theologians.

270. Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht.

Four weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to
Wittenberg for the same purpose, _viz._, of mediating between
Melanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously
requested 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 to
present them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles
were submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent
agitation. The report says: "As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was
criticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a
mild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not
permit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most
earnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but
burst 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 again
interrupted them, exclaiming: "Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the
lot of the peaceful.... I commend myself to God." After Melanchthon had
left, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates:
"Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr sollt
forthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden lassen mit solchen Haendeln_." (9,
106f.)

Regarding the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates of
Duke Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared in
his answer of February 27: "I should not be astonished to have these two
conditions [to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc.] imposed on me if
I had been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I may
have been lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never been
an enemy.... Therefore I clearly state that I do not assent to these
presentations [of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, if
I accept them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipse
iugulem_)." (_C. R._ 9, 104.)

The Magdeburgers refused to participate in these efforts of Count
Albrecht, chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace as
long as Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenberg
friends. But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts to
bring about a godly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who passed
Jena on his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on the
Adiaphoristic question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said:
"Omit that; let us treat of other things." Flacius also wrote to King
Christian III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish the
Adiaphoristic errors, but apparently without any result.

271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.

The Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that
a colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the
Lutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the
colloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at
Frankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect
that all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and the
Romanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were
all agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution
Nicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest.
Self-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that
the controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not
assent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying
their convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the
situation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to
decline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch
Lutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the
Lutherans was unavoidable.

Before the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at
Worms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he
admonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other
Lutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism,
Osiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because
the Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the
Leipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C.
R._ 9, l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the
dukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their
delegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John
Frederick said it was impossible that, in defending the _Augsburg
Confession_ against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man
and speak as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), if
they had not previously come to an agreement among themselves and
condemned the errors. For otherwise the <DW7>s would be able to defeat
the Lutherans with their own sword, _i.e._, their own polemical
publications. (231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated
his sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and
Sarcerius. (232ff.)

In a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr.
Basilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in
keeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon
Erhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought
to be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the
motion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided
that his theologians could not participate in the colloquy with
Lutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _Augsburg
Confession_, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true
members and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and
the _Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was
temporarily warded off by the concession on the part of the
Melanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely
to express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At
the session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding
demanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians,
Calvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servo
arbitrio_) from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied the
Lutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander,
Major, and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declared
evasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed
in the _Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided to
enter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority
threatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if
they dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which
they rejected] before the <DW7>s. The consequence was that the
Thuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius
Pflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning
had been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining
Lutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who
the 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 the
Lutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official
publicity to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was
unscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, their
sinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed
by the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold.
In particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among
the Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _Augsburg
Confession_ to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the
Augsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the
opportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies
that were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran
princes, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to
the Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to
bend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoring
religious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made
especially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But
instead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of
the princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of
dissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming the
conviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger
indeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and
an unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish
peace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.

At Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachim
of 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 they
again solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, the
Ecumenical Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its
_Apology_. (_C. R._ 9, 494.) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that the
existing dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against the
Lutherans, who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in their
confession. In four articles the controverted questions concerning
justification, good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora were
dealt with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being based
on Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff.; 462ff.)

When the _Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to the
estates who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive the
expected approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt,
Henneberg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, and
Regensburg. The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony,
where Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first was
entitled: "_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio cum
sectis et corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation of
the Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally and
perniciously confounded with the sects." The other: "_Grund und Ursach',
warum das Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reason
and Cause why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted." The chief
objections of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have been
included in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within the
Lutheran Church should not have been treated as questions of minor
import. 3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false,
and not merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerning
the Lord's Supper are "dark, general, and ambiguous," hence
Crypto-Calvinistic. 5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous and
altogether unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppress
theological discussions and controversies would lead to suppression of
the truth ("binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost") and tyrannizing of the
churches by the princes. (Preger 2, 74.)

In his attitude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and by
Duke John Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to sign
the _Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth his
objection in a special book. Elector August, in turn, charged
Melanchthon to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducal
theologians; which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unite
the opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxons
to attend a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius induced
the Duke to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinal
differences within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision of
this _Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologians
participated: Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, Simon
Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November
28, 1558, it received the sanction of the dukes. Among the
Melanchthonians the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a special
point to refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists,
caused consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently its
theological attitude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence the
breach now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August,
Melanchthon, in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion of
the _Book of Confutation_. (_C. R._ 9, 763.) But contents as well as
form of this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians in
their position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publishing
the _Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippicum_ or _Misnicum_), which
contained writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_,
therefore, instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increased
their mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick,
the Duke of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, on
January 20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke of
Saxony also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, he
foiled 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 adherents
fervently advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559
they published "_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum ... pro Libera
Christiana et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians ... for
a Free, Christian and Lawful Synod." The document was signed by 51
superintendents, professors, and pastors, "who after Luther's death," as
they emphasized, "had contended orally and in writing against the
corruptions and sects." The signatures represented theologians from
Ducal 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 and
how it was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said,
would be to pass on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, all
participants 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 the
Flacianists might get control of the prospective general council, he, in
advance, 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, the
object of these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have said
that they would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc agunt
isti hypocritae, ut me pellant, cum sanguinem meum haurire non possint;
et quidem oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturos
esse in Germania vestigium pedis_." (_C. R._ 9, 1079.) Philip of Hesse
consented to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power of
the Jena theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger
2, 93.) That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due to
Elector 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 best
means to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and
estates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561.
The object of this assembly, he said, was neither to discuss the
differences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but
only to renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and to
consider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous
confession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All
finally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector
August (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined
participation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the
Palatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from
this assembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general
synod and sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additional
writing, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes
not to enter into an ungodly and unionistic agreement, rather to
eliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose
object was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to
consider their petition, and, on February 8, the last day of the
convention, returned the documents to their authors in Jena.

After comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, the
Naumburg Assembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered
1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg.
But when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already
was openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August,
demanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct
explanation of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princes
yielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in
the Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons for
renewing their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg.
This Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg
Crypto-Calvinist Cracow, also asserted that hitherto no doctrinal
corruptions or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had been
tolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies
within the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_.

Evidently, to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuine
Lutherans. Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin and
Stoessel that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The duke
replied that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than put
his signature to a document in which the errors introduced by the
Philippists, etc., were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took the
same stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed in
accordance with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and left
Naumburg without any further conference with the princes. When hereupon
the latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. As
conditions of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface the
apostasy during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features of
the Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought out
clearly, the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm be
eliminated, and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest of
the Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princes
closed the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke,--hence also without
having attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans.

The Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the
Electors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of
Wuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of
other princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any
means stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic
Naumburg document. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also
left Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of
Brunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of
Saxon-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 loyal
Lutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all the
princes who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg
emphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his
delegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the
Palatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg
signified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the
views and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the
beginning 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 illustrious
predecessors, which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention,
first at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were
recorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful
settlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors
and false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our
mind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for,
and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from
the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as
many of us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly
reserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of
time, anything would be desired with respect to the _Augsburg
Confession_, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would
further declare all things thoroughly and at length." (CONC. TRIGL. 15.)
Even Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke
John Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had
misled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg,
openly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent
Lutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate
proved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true
unity and the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. And
more than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring
about this result. (Preger 2, 102.)

275. Andreae and Chemnitz.

The theologians who were first in adopting effective methods and
measures to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divine
truth were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 in
Weiblingen, Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546
he became pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposed
because of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he became
pastor and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was also
professor and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae has
been called "the spiritual heir of John Brenz." Hoping against hope, he
incessantly labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church.
Being a man of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her at
numerous occasions and in various capacities. In his pacification
efforts he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelical
courts, cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. With
the consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service of
Elector August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony till
his dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing the
affairs of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work of
Lutheran pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unite
the Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severely
criticized also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due to
the fact that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himself
to be duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough to
defend them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. While
thus Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacification
which culminated in the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_, he lacked
the theological insight, acumen, and consistency which characterized
Martin Chemnitz.

Martin Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen in
Brandenburg. As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school in
Wittenberg, where he "rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he had
heard so much at home, and to hear Luther preach." From 1539 to 1542 he
attended the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied in
Frankfort-on-the-Oder; in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthon
directed his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school in
Koenigsberg, and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary.
Owing to his participation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lost
the favor of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9,
1554, he began his lectures on Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ before a
large and enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of his
hearers. In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in
1567 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 to
Luther, the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther and
Chemnitz, the Romanists said: "You Lutherans have two Martins; if the
second had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (_si posterior
non fuisset, prior non stetisset_)." Besides the two Lutheran classics:
_Examen Concilii Tridentini_, published 1565--1573, and _De Duabus
Naturis in Christo_, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: _Harmonia
Evangelica_, continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed by
John Gerhard, and _Foundations_ (_Die Fundamente_) _of the Sound
Doctrine concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating and
Drinking of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper_, 1569.

Andreae and Chemnitz became acquainted with each other in 1568, when
Duke Julius invited the former to conduct the visitation in Brunswick
together with Chemnitz. They jointly also composed the Brunswick Church
Order 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 prevalent
corruptions." Andreae and Chemnitz are the theologians to whom more than
any other two men our Church owes the _Formula of Concord_ and the
unification of our Church in the one true Christian faith as taught by
Luther. However, it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any other
theologian, must be credited with the theological clarity and the
correctness which characterizes the _Formula_.

276. First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail.

In his first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavored
to reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who then
were contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at the
instance of Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel and Duke Christopher of
Wuerttemberg, Andreae composed his "_Confession and Brief Explanation of
Several Controverted Articles_, according to which a Christian unity
might be effected in the churches adhering to the _Augsburg Confession_,
and the offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled." In five
articles he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4.
The Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains that
we are neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ has
earned for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocent
obedience, suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousness
to all believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teach
otherwise, but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works are
necessary to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after the
Fall, man is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, though
weak, will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual matters
his 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, of
his own powers, to accept the grace of God offered in Christ. It rejects
all who teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies are
no longer free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connected
with a denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. It
rejects all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes that
also the wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the body
of Christ, but to their damnation. It furthermore declares: Since it is
objected that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supper
because Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary "to
explain the article of the incarnation of the Son of God, and to
indicate, in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which both
natures, divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears to
what height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personal
union." (Hutter, _Concordia Concors_, 110ff.)

In 1568, at the Brunswick Visitation, referred to above, Andreae
submitted, his five articles to Duke Julius, and succeeded in winning
him for his plan. In the same interest he came to Wittenberg, January 9,
1569. Furnished with letters of commendation from Duke Julius and
Landgrave William of Hesse, he obtained an interview also with Elector
August, who referred him to his theologians. On August 18, 1569, Andreae
held a conference with the Wittenbergers. They insisted that the basis
of the contemplated agreement must be the _Corpus Misnicum_
(_Philippicum_). When Andreae, unsophisticated as he still was with
respect to the real character of Philippism, publicly declared that the
Wittenbergers were orthodox teachers, and that the _Corpus Misnicum_
contained no false doctrine he was supplied with a testimonial in which
the Wittenbergers refer to their _Corpus_, but not to Andreae's
articles, to which also they had not fully consented. The result was
that the Jena theologians, in particular Tilemann Hesshusius, denounced
Andreae's efforts as a unionistic scheme and a betrayal of true
Lutheranism in the interest of Crypto-Calvinism. They rejected Andreae's
articles because they were incomplete, and contained no specific
rejection of the errors of the Philippists.

At the instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst in
Anhalt, at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony,
Brunswick, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxon
theologians declining to participate). The conference decided that a new
confession was not needed, and unanimously recognized the _Augsburg
Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the Catechisms
of Luther. Andreae was elated. In his "Report" to the Emperor and the
princes he gloried in "the Christian unity" attained at Zerbst. But also
this apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory rather
than real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscription
by formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessions
enumerated only in as far as they agreed with the _Corpus Philippicum_.
And before long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in the
chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make their
appearance. The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae,
which lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did not
sufficiently exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was that
he himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents of
the Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had with
the dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that it
was impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union as
long 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 the
animosity among the Lutherans and to discredit himself, Andreae resolved
henceforth to confine his peace efforts to true Lutherans, especially
those of Swabia and Lower Saxony, and to unite them in opposition to the
Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Philippists, who, outside of Electoral
Saxony, were by this time generally regarded as traitors to the cause of
Lutheranism. In 1573 he made his first move to carry out this new plan
of his by publishing sermons which he had delivered 1572 on the
doctrines controverted within the Lutheran Church. The title ran: "_Six
Christian Sermons_ concerning the dissensions which from the year 1548
to this 1573d year have gradually arisen among the theologians of the
_Augsburg Confession_, as to what attitude a plain pastor and a common
Christian layman who may have been offended thereby should assume toward
them according to his Catechism." These sermons treat of justification,
good works, original sin, free will, the adiaphora, Law and Gospel, and
the person of Christ. As the title indicates, Andreae appealed not so
much to the theologians as to the pastors and the people of the Lutheran
Church, concerning whom he was convinced that, adhering as they did, to
Luther's Catechism, they in reality, at least in their hearts, were even
then, and always had been, agreed. Andreae sent these sermons to
Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Hesshusius, Wigand, and other theologians with the
request that they be accepted as a basis of agreement. In the preface,
dated February 17, 1573, he dedicated them to Duke Julius of Brunswick
whose good will and consent in the matter he had won in 1568, when he
assisted in introducing the Reformation in his territories. Before this
Nicholas Selneccer, then superintendent of Wolfenbuettel, in order to
cultivate the friendly relations between Swabia and Lower Saxony, had
dedicated his _Instruction in the Christian Religion_ (_Institutio
Religionis Christianae_) to the Duke of Wuerttemberg, praising the
writings of Brenz, and lauding the services rendered by Andreae to the
duchy of Brunswick.

The sermons of Andreae were welcomed by Chemnitz, Westphal in Hamburg,
David Chytraeus in Rostock, and others. They also endeavored to obtain
recognition for them from various ecclesiastical ministries of Lower
Saxony. But having convinced themselves that the sermonic form was not
adapted for a confession, they, led by Chemnitz, advised that their
contents be reduced to articles in "thesis and antithesis," and that
this be done "with the assistance of other theologians." Andreae
immediately acted on this suggestion and the result was what is known as
the _Swabian Concordia_ (_Schwaebische Konkordie_)--the first draft of
the _Formula of Concord_. This document, also called the Tuebingen Book,
was submitted to, and approved by, the theologians of Tuebingen and by
the Stuttgart Consistory. In substance it was an elaboration of the _Six
Sermons_ with the addition of the last two articles. It contains eleven
articles, treating 1. Original Sin; 2. Free Will; 3. The Righteousness
of Faith before God; 4. Good Works; 5. Law and Gospel; 6. The Third Use
of the Law; 7. The Church Usages Called Adiaphora; 8. The Lord's Supper;
9. The Person of Christ: 10. Eternal Election; 11. Other Factions and
Sects. In the introduction Andreae also emphasizes the necessity of
adopting those symbols which were afterwards received into the _Book of
Concord_.

278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia.

On March 22, 1574, Andreae sent the _Swabian Concordia_ to Duke Julius
and Chemnitz with the request to examine it and to have it discussed in
the churches of Lower Saxony. On the twelfth of May the Duke ordered
Chemnitz to prepare an opinion on the book and to present it to the
clergy for their examination and approval. Under the leadership of
Chemnitz numerous conferences were held, and the various criticisms
offered led to a revision of the document. This work was begun in April,
1575, by the theological faculty of Rostock. Apart from numerous changes
and additions everywhere, the articles on Free Will and on the Lord's
Supper were completely remodeled by Chytraeus and Chemnitz.

The new confession, known as the _Swabian [Lower] Saxon Concordia_, was
subscribed by the theologians and pastors of the duchies of Brunswick,
Mecklenburg, Mansfeld, Hoya, and Oldenburg. It acknowledges as its
doctrinal basis the Holy Scriptures, the three Ecumenical Creeds, the
_Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and
Luther's two Catechisms. It discusses the following articles in the
following order: 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Of
the Righteousness of Faith before God; 4. Of Good Works, 5. Of the Law
and the Gospel; 6. Of the Third Use of the Law of God; 7. Of the Holy
Supper; 8. Of God's Eternal Providence and Election; 9. Of Church Usages
which are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 10. Of Free Will or
Human Powers; 11. Of Other Factions and Sects which have Never
Acknowledged the _Augsburg Confession_.

While this new _Concordia_ was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, to
whom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied with
its form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticized
the 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 the
references to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence they
preferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which was
done in the _Formula of Concord_ as finally adopted.

279. The Maulbronn Formula.

The movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received a
powerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse of
Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking the
Philippists, God had removed the chief obstacle of a godly and general
peace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began to
disappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed to
the dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peace
embracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the public
exposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by Count
Henneberg and other princes, _viz._, that the Wittenberg theologians
were universally suspected, and that peace could not be established
until their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrines
of the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown in
the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists of
Electoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists rather
than Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic _Exegesis
Perspicua_ of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector that
for years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologians
and unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, were
secret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitz
remarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the article
on the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention.
(Richard, 426.)

Among Lutherans generally the humiliating events in Saxony increased the
feeling of shame at the conditions prevailing within their Church as
well as the earnest desire for a genuine and lasting peace in the old
Lutheran truths. And now Elector August, who, despite his continued
animosity against Flacius, always wished to be a true Lutheran, but up
to 1574 had not realized that the Philippistic type of doctrine dominant
in his country departed from Luther's teaching, was determined to
satisfy this universal longing for unity and peace. Immediately after
the unmasking of the Philippists he took measures to secure the
restoration of orthodox Lutheranism in his own lands. At the same time
he placed himself at the head of the larger movement for the
establishment of religious peace among the Lutherans generally by the
elaboration and adoption of a doctrinal formula settling the pending
controversies. To restore unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, which
his own theologians had done so much to disturb, was now his uppermost
desire. He prosecuted the plan of pacification with great zeal and
perseverance. He also paid the heavy expenses (80,000 gulden), incurred
by the numerous conventions, etc. And when, in the interest of such
peace and unity, the theologians were engaged in conferences the pious
Elector and his wife were on their knees, asking God that He would crown
their labor with success.

The specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript of
November 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians,
appointed by the various Lutheran princes "meet in order to deliberate
how, by the grace of God, all [the existing various _corpora doctrinae_]
might be reduced to one _corpus_ which we all could adopt, and that this
book or _corpus doctrinae_ be printed anew and the ministers in the
lands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby." Before this
Elector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to take
the initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg,
Duke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask a
number of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question as
to how a document might be prepared which would serve as a beginning to
bring about true Christian concord among the churches of the _Augsburg
Confession_. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttemberg
court-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgart
provost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and several
theologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November
14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach were
ordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. The
document which they submitted was discussed with theologians from
Henneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribed
January 19, 1576.

The _Maulbronn Formula_, as the document was called, differs from the
_Swabian-Saxon Concordia_ in being much briefer (about half as
voluminous), in avoiding technical Latin terms, in making no reference
whatever to Melanchthon, in quoting from Luther's works only, and in
omitting such doctrinal points (Anabaptism, Schwenckfeldianism,
Antitrinitarianism, etc.) as had not been controverted among the
Lutherans. Following the order of the _Augustana_, this _Formula_ treats
the 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, Called
Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 8. Of Free Will; 9. Of the Third Use of
God's Law.

280. The Torgau Book.

On February 9, 1576, the _Maulbronn Formula_, approved by Count Ludwig
of Wuerttemberg, Margrave Carl of Baden, and Count George Ernest of
Henneberg, was transmitted to Elector August, who had already received a
copy of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia from Duke Julius of Brunswick. The
Elector submitted both to Andreae for an opinion, whom formal reasons
induced to decide in favor of the _Maulbronn Formula_. At the same time
Andreae advised the Elector to arrange a general conference of prominent
theologians to act and decide in this matter, suggesting as two of its
members Chemnitz and Chytraeus of Rostock. This being in agreement with
his own plans, the Elector, at the convention at Lichtenberg, February
15, 1576 submitted the suggestions of Andreae to twelve of his own
theologians, headed by Nicholas Selneccer, then professor in Leipzig.
[Selneccer was born December 6, 1530. In 1550 he took up his studies in
Wittenberg, where he was much impressed and influenced by Melanchthon.
In 1557 he was appointed court-preacher in Dresden. Beginning with 1565
after the banishment of Flacius and his colleagues, he was professor in
Jena. He returned to Leipzig in 1568. In 1570 he accepted a call from
Duke Julius as court-preacher and superintendent in Brunswick, but
returned to Leipzig in 1574. Before the unmasking of the
Crypto-Calvinists his theological attitude lacked clearness and
determination. Ever after, however, he was the leader of the Lutheran
forces in Electoral Saxony. At the Lichtenberg Convention, convoked
February 16, 1576, by Elector August, Selneccer successfully advocated
the removal of the Wittenberg Catechism, the _Consensus Dresdensis_, and
the _Corpus Philippicum_. In their place he recommended the adoption of
a 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 on
Galatians_. Finally he advised that the electors and princes arrange a
convention 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 and
transmitted to Elector August. Though contributing little to the
contents of the _Formula of Concord_, Selneccer heartily cooperated in
its preparation, revision, and adoption. In 1580, of his own accord, he
published the Latin _Book of Concord_, which was followed in 1584 by an
edition authorized by the princes. Selneccer also participated in
preparing the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, first published 1582 in
Magdeburg. In May, 1589, after the Crypto-Calvinistic reaction under
Christian I, Selneccer, whom the Calvinists hated more than others of
the theologians who had participated in the promulgation of the _Formula
of Concord_, was deposed, harassed, and reduced to poverty because of
his testimony against Chancellor Crell and his earnest and continued
warnings against the Calvinists. After the death of Christian I,
Selneccer was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, five
days before his death, May 24, 1592.]

Having through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained the
consent of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also in
accordance with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector August
immediately made arrangements for the contemplated general convention of
theologians. It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, and
attended by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in the
Lichtenberg convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [General
Superintendent of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor in
Frankfurt-on-the-Oder; born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [born
February 26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister in
Tuebingen when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 in
Wittenberg, where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from
1551 till his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgau
deliberations, in which much time was spent on the articles of Original
Sin and Free Will, was the so-called _Torgau Book_. On the seventh of
June the theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of the
Swabian-Saxon and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, had
agreed on a _corpus doctrinae_.

The _Torgau Book_ was essentially the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_, recast
and revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to the
desirable features (enumerated above) of the _Maulbronn Formula_. The
majority decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should be
retained, but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotations
from Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the
_Maulbronn Formula_. The _Torgau Book_ contained the twelve articles of
the later _Formula of Concord_ and in the same sequence; Article IX, "Of
the Descent of Christ into Hell," had been added at Torgau. The Book was
entitled: "_Opinion_ as to how the dissensions prevailing among the
theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ may, according to the Word of
God, be agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner." It was signed as
"their faith, doctrine, and confession" by the six men who were chiefly
responsible for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz,
Nicholas Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher
Cornerus. The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving to
Almighty God for the blessed results of their labors and the happy
termination and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccer
delivering the sermon. Similar services were held at other places,
notably in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony.

In a letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the Torgau
Convention: "Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from,
beyond, above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought of
all. I was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that these
things were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me.
certainly a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward the
restoration of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination of
corruptions, toward the establishment of a godly confession." In a
letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in a
similar vein, saying: "Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almost
overwhelmed with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau]
brought to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the right
hand of the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since the
truth no longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute to
the 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 the
Elector of Saxony examined the _Torgau Book_ himself and had copies of
it sent to the various Lutheran princes and estates in Germany with the
request to have it tested by their theologians, and to return their
opinions and censures to Dresden. Of these (about 25) the majority were
favorable. The churches in Pomerania and Holstein desired that
Melanchthon's authority be recognized alongside of Luther's. On the
other 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 of
theologians objected to the _Torgau Book_ because it was too bulky. To
meet 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 many
years, were settled in a Christian manner at Torgau in the month of
June, 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 the
criticisms and final editing of the new confession. They finished their
work on March 14. Later when other criticisms arrived and a further
revision 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 the
present form was substituted for the sermon of Luther, the doctrinal
substance of the _Torgau Book_ remained unchanged. The chief object of
the revisers was to eliminate misunderstandings and to replace ambiguous
and dark terms with clear ones. At the last meeting of the six revisers
(at Bergen, in May) the _Solid Declaration_ was quickly and finally
agreed upon, only a few changes of a purely verbal and formal nature
being made. On May 28, 1577, the revised form of the _Torgau Book_ was
submitted to Elector August. It is known as the _Bergic Book_, or the
_Solid Declaration_, or the _Formula of Concord_, also as the _Book of
Concord_ (a title which was afterwards reserved for the collection of
all the Lutheran symbols). Of course, the _Epitome_, prepared by
Andreae, was also examined and approved by the revisers at Cloister
Bergen.

In order to remove a number of misunderstandings appearing after the
completion of the _Bergic Book_, a "Preface" (Introduction to the _Book
of 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 of
Andreae and Chemnitz, and not a part of the confession. Its special
purpose is to prove that the Lutheran doctrine concerning the person of
Christ and the majesty of His human nature as set forth in Article VII
of the _Formula of Concord_, is clearly taught by the Scriptures as well
as by the Fathers of the ancient Church. The _Formula of Concord_
(German) was first published at Dresden, 1580, as a part of the _Book of
Concord_. 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 a
general convention of the evangelical estates for approval. But fearing
that this might lead to new discussions and dissensions, the six
theologians, in their report (May 28, 1577) on the final revision of the
_Bergic Book_, submitted and recommended a plan of immediate
subscription instead of an adoption at a general convention. Consenting
to their views, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg forthwith sent
copies of the _Bergic Book_ to such princes and estates as were expected
to consent. These were requested to multiply the copies, and everywhere
to circulate and submit them for discussion and subscription. As a
result the _Formula of Concord_ was signed by the electors of Saxony, of
Brandenburg, and of the Palatinate; furthermore by 20 dukes and princes,
24 counts, 4 barons, 35 imperial cities, and about 8,000 pastors and
teachers embracing about two-thirds of the Lutheran territories of
Germany.

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 following
solemn protestation: "Since now, in the sight of God and of all
Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall
come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all
the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is
our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by
God's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of
Jesus Christ, and give an account of it and that we will neither
privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it but, by
the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after
mature deliberation we have, in God's fear and with the invocation of
His 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 its
subscription. That the wish of the ruler contributed to this result
cannot be denied and is confirmed by the Crypto-Calvinistic troubles
reappearing later on in Saxony. But that the influence of the rulers
must not be overestimated, appears, apart from other things from the
frequent additions to the signatures 'With mouth and heart (_cum ore et
corde_).'" Self-evidently the Crypto-Calvinists as well as other
errorists had to face the alternative of either subscribing or being
suspended from the ministry. The very object of the _Formula of Concord_
was to purge the Lutheran Church from Calvinists and others who were not
in sympathy and agreement with the Lutheran Confessions and constituted
a 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, and
perhaps, in some instances, even severe. Coercion, however, was nowhere
employed for obtaining the signatures. At any rate, no instance is
recorded in which compulsion was used to secure its adoption. Moreover,
the campaign of public subscription, for which about two years were
allowed, was everywhere conducted on the principle that such only were
to be admitted to subscription as had read the _Formula_ and were in
complete agreement with its doctrinal contents. Yet it was probably true
that some, as Hutter assumes, signed with a bad conscience [Hutter:
"_Deinde esto: subscripserunt aliqui mala conscientia Formulae
Concordiae";_ Mueller, _Einleitung_, 115]; for among those who affixed
their names are quite a few of former Crypto-Calvinists--men who had
always found a way of escaping martyrdom, and, also in this instance,
may have preferred the retaining of their livings to following their
conviction. The fact is that no other confession can be mentioned in the
elaboration of which so much time, labor, and care was expended to bring
out clearly the divine truth, to convince every one of its complete
harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran symbols, and to hear and meet
all objections, as was the case with respect to the _Formula of
Concord_.

"In reply to the criticism [of the Calvinists in the _Neustadt
Admonition_, etc.] that it was unjust for only six theologians to write
a Confession for the whole Church, and that a General Synod should have
been held before the signing of the Confession, the Convention of
Quedlinburg, 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, to
all the Lutheran churches in Germany; how, in order to consider them,
synods and conferences had been held on every side, and the articles had
been thoroughly tested, how criticisms had been made upon them; and how
the criticisms had been conscientiously taken in hand by a special
commission. The Quedlinburg Convention therefore declared in its minutes
that, indeed, 'such a frequent revision and testing of the _Christian
Book of Concord_, many times repeated, is a much greater work than if a
General Synod had been assembled respecting it to which every province
would have commissioned two or three theologians, who in the name of all
the rest would have helped to test and approve the book. For in that way
only one synod would have been held for the comparing and testing of
this work, but, as it was, many synods were held; and it was sent to
many provinces, which had it tested by the weighty and mature judgment
of their theologians, in such manner as has never occurred in the case
of any book or any matter of religion since the beginning of
Christianity, as is evident from the history of the Church,'... We are
solemnly told [by Andreae, Selneccer, etc.] that no one was forced by
threats to sign the _Formula of Concord_, and that no one was tempted to
do 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 extended
through years, so several years were given for the work of signing. We
very much doubt whether the Lutheran Church to-day could secure any
democratic subscription so clean, so conscientious, so united, or so
large 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 many
years, prevailing conditions naturally called for a strict procedure.
For Calvinists could certainly not be tolerated as preachers in Lutheran
churches or as teachers in Lutheran schools. Such was also the settled
conviction and determination of Elector August. When he learned that the
Wittenberg professors were trying to evade an unqualified subscription,
he declared: By the help of God I am determined, as long as I live to
keep my churches and schools pure and in agreement with the _Formula of
Concord_. Whoever does not want to cooperate with me may go, I have no
desire for him. God protect me, and those belonging to me, from <DW7>s
and 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, the
commissioners addressed the ministers and schoolteachers, who had been
summoned from the smaller towns and villages, read the _Formula_ to
them, exhorted them to examine it and to express their doubts or
scruples, if they had any, and finally demanded subscription of all
those who could not bring any charge of false doctrine against it.
According to Planck only one pastor, one superintendent (Kolditz, who
later on subscribed), and one schoolteacher refused to subscribe. (6,
560.) Several professors in Leipzig and Wittenberg who declined to
acknowledge the _Formula_ were dismissed.

However, as stated, also in Electoral Saxony coercion was not employed.
Moreover, objections were listened to with patience, and time was
allowed for consideration. Indeed, in the name of the Elector every one
was admonished not to subscribe against his conscience. I. F. Mueller
says in his _Historico-Theological Introduction to the Lutheran
Symbols_: "At the Herzberg Convention, 1578, Andreae felt justified in
stating: 'I can truthfully say that no one was coerced to subscribe or
banished on that account. If this is not true, the Son of God has not
redeemed me with His blood; for otherwise I do not want to become a
partaker of the blood of Christ.' Pursuant to this declaration the
opponents were publicly challenged to mention a single person who had
subscribed by compulsion, but they were unable to do so. Moreover, even
the Nuernbergers, who did not adopt the _Formula of Concord_,
acknowledged that the signatures had been affixed without employment of
force." (115.) True, October 8, 1578, Andreae wrote to Chemnitz: "We
treated the pastors with such severity that a certain truly good man and
sincere minister of the church afterwards said to us in the lodging
that, when the matter was proposed so severely, his mind was seized with
a great consternation which caused him to think that he, being near
Mount Sinai, was hearing the promulgation of the Mosaic Law (_se animo
adeo consternato fuisse, cum negotium tam severiter proponeretur, ut
existimaret, se monti Sinai proximum legis Mosaicae promulgationem
audire_).... I do not believe that anywhere a similar severity has been
employed." (116.) But the term "severity" here employed does not mean
force or compulsion, but merely signifies religious seriousness and
moral determination to eliminate Crypto-Calvinism from the Lutheran
Church in Electoral Saxony. The spirit in which also Andreae desired
this matter to be conducted appears from his letter of November 20,
1579, to Count Wolfgang, in which he says: Although as yet some
ministers in his country had not subscribed to the _Formula_, he should
not make too much of that, much less press or persuade them; for whoever
did not subscribe spontaneously and with a good conscience should
abstain from subscribing altogether much rather than pledge himself with
word and hand when his heart did not concur--_denn wer es nicht mit
seinem Geist und gutem Gewissen tue, bleibe viel besser davon, als dass
er sich mit Worten und mit der Hand dazu bekenne und das Herz nicht
daran waere_. (115.)

Also Selneccer testifies to the general willingness with which the
ministers in Saxony affixed their signatures. With respect to the
universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig, however, he remarks that there
some were found who, while willing to acknowledge the first part of the
_Book of Concord_, begged to be excused from signing the _Formula_, but
that they had been told by the Elector: If they agreed with the first
part, there was no reason why they should refuse to sign the second,
since it was based on the first. (Carpzov, _Isagoge_ 20.) While thus in
Electoral Saxony subscription to the _Formula_ was indeed demanded of
all professors and ministers, there is not a single case on record in
which compulsion was employed to obtain it.

In Brandenburg the clergy subscribed unconditionally, spontaneously, and
with thankfulness toward God and to their "faithful, pious ruler for his
fatherly care of the Church." Nor was any opposition met with in
Wuerttemberg, where the subscription was completed in October, 1577. In
Mecklenburg the ministers were kindly invited to subscribe. Such as
refused were suspended and given time for deliberation, with the proviso
that they abstain from criticizing the _Formula_ before the people. When
the superintendent of Wismar and several pastors declined finally to
adopt the _Formula_, they were deposed.

Accordingly, it was in keeping with the facts when the Lutheran electors
and princes declared in the Preface to the _Formula of Concord_ "that
their theologians, ministers, and schoolteachers" "did with glad heart
and heartfelt thanks to God the Almighty voluntarily and with
well-considered courage adopt, approve, and subscribe this _Book of
Concord_ [_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 the
confession of some few of our theologians only, but is called, and is in
general, the unanimous confession of each and every one of the ministers
and 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, Lower
Hesse, the Palatinate, etc.), comparatively few of the German princes
and estates considered adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ declined
to accept the _Formula of Concord_ because of any doctrinal
disagreement. Some refused to append their names for political reasons;
others, because they were opposed on principle to a new symbol. With
still others, notably some of the imperial cities, it was a case of
religious particularism, which would not brook any disturbance of its
own mode of church-life. Also injured pride, for not having been
consulted in the matter, nor called upon to participate in the
preparation and revision of the _Formula_, was not altogether lacking as
a motive for withholding one's signature. In some instances personal
spite figured as a reason. Because Andreae had given offense to Paul von
Eitzen, Holstein rejected the _Formula_, stating that all the articles
it treated were clearly set forth in the existing symbols. Duke Julius
of Brunswick, though at first most zealous in promoting the work of
pacification and the adoption of the _Book of Concord_, withdrew in
1583, because Chemnitz had rebuked him for allowing his son to be
consecrated Bishop of Halberstadt. (Kolde, 73f.) However, despite the
unfriendly attitude of Duke Julius, some of the Brunswick theologians
openly declared their agreement with the _Formula_ as well as their
determination by the help of God, to adhere to its doctrine. No doubt
but that much more pressure was exercised in hindering than in urging
Lutherans 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 received
later), Anhalt, the Palatinate (which, after a short Lutheran
interregnum, 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 of
the _Formula of Concord_ on penalty of execution and confiscation of
property. 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 esteemed
also in the Danish Church and to be regarded as a symbol, at least in
fact, 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 latter
were Holstein, Pomerania, Krain, Kaernthen, Steiermark, etc. In Sweden
the _Formula_ was adopted 1593 by the Council of Upsala; in Hungary, in
1597. With few exceptions the Lutheran synods in America and Australia
all 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 and
unsound tendencies. It did so, not by proclaiming new exclusive laws and
doctrines, but by showing that these corruptions were already excluded
by the spirit and letter of the existing Lutheran symbols. Doctrinally
the _Formula of Concord_ is not a new confession, but merely a
repetition and explanation of the old Lutheran confessions. It does not
set forth or formulate a new faith or tenets hitherto unknown to the
Lutheran Church. Nor does it correct, change, or in any way modify any
of her doctrines. On the contrary its very object was to defend and
maintain the teaching of her old symbols against all manner of attacks
coming from without as well as from within the Lutheran Church. The
_Formula_ merely presents, repeats, reaffirms explains, defends, clearly
defines, and consistently applies the truths directly or indirectly,
explicitly or implicitly confessed and taught in the antecedent Lutheran
confessions. The _Augsburg Confession_ concludes its last paragraph: "If
there is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are
ready God willing, to present ampler information (_latiorem
informationem_) according to the Scriptures." (94, 7.) Close scrutiny
will reveal the fact that in every detail the _Formula_ must be regarded
as just such an "ampler information, according to the Scriptures." The
Lutheran Church, therefore, has always held that whoever candidly adopts
the _Augsburg Confession_ cannot and will not reject the _Formula of
Concord_ either.

As for the _Formula_ itself, it most emphatically disclaims to be
anything really new. In their Preface to the _Book of Concord_ the
Lutheran princes declared: "We indeed (to repeat in conclusion what we
have mentioned several times above) have wished, in this work of
concord, _in no way to devise anything new_, or to depart from the truth
of the heavenly doctrine, which our ancestors (renowned for their piety)
as well as we ourselves have acknowledged and professed. We mean that
doctrine, which, having been derived from the prophetic and apostolic
Scriptures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the _Augsburg
Confession_, presented in the year 1530 to Emperor Charles V, of
excellent memory, then in the _Apology_, which was added to this, in the
_Smalcald Articles_, and lastly in both the Catechisms of that excellent
man, Dr. Luther. _Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a
finger's breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the
phrases which are found in them_, but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us,
to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly
agreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this
true norm and declaration of the pure doctrine." (CONC. TRIGL. 23.) In
the Comprehensive Summary we read: "We [the framers and signers of the
_Formula of Concord_] have declared to one another with heart and mouth
that we will not make or receive _a separate or new confession of our
faith_, but confess the public common writings which always and
everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in
all the churches of the _Augsburg Confession_ before the dissensions
arose among those who accept the _Augsburg Confession_, and as long as
in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to the pure
doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."
(851, 2. 9.) The _Formula of Concord_ therefore did not wish to offer
anything that was new doctrinally. It merely expressed the consensus of
all loyal Lutherans, and applied the truths contained in the existing
symbols 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 the
promoters and authors of the _Formula of Concord_. And in deciding the
controverted questions, they certainly did most faithfully adhere to
Luther's teaching. The _Formula_ is an exact, clear, consistent, and
guarded statement of original Lutheranism purified of all foreign
elements later on injected into it by the Philippists and other
errorists. It embodies the old Lutheran doctrine, as distinguished not
merely from Romanism and Calvinism, but also from Melanchthonianism and
other innovations after the death of Luther. Surely Luther would not
have hesitated to endorse each and all of its articles or doctrinal
statements. Even Planck, who poured contempt and sarcasm on the loyal
Lutherans, admits: "It was almost beyond controversy that the _Formula_,
in every controverted article, established and authorized precisely the
view which was most clearly sanctioned by the _Unaltered Augsburg
Confession_, 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 Protestants
in Germany.

As for Luther, the _Formula of Concord_ regards him as the God-given
Reformer and teacher of the Church. We read: "By the special grace and
mercy of the Almighty the doctrine concerning the chief articles of our
Christian religion (which under the Papacy had been horribly obscured by
human teachings and ordinances) _were explained and purified again from
God'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 of
His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy _through the
faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther_." (851, 5.)
Luther is spoken of as "this highly illumined man," "the hero illumined
with unparalleled and most excellent gifts of the Holy Ghost," "the
leading teacher of the _Augsburg Confession_." (980, 28; 983, 34.) "Dr.
Luther," says the _Formula_, "is to be regarded as the most
distinguished (_vornehmste, praecipuus_) teacher of the Churches which
confess the _Augsburg Confession_, whose entire doctrine as to sum and
substance is comprised in the articles of the _Augsburg Confession_."
(985, 41.) Again: "Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood
the true and proper meaning of the _Augsburg Confession_, and who
constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it,
shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article [of
the Lord's Supper] with great zeal in his last Confession." (983, 33.)
Accordingly, only from Luther's writings quotations are introduced by
the _Formula_ to prove the truly Lutheran character of a doctrine. In
this respect Luther was considered the highest authority, outweighing by
far that of Melanchthon or any other Lutheran divine. Everywhere
Luther's books are referred and appealed to, _e.g._, his "beautiful and
glorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians," his
book concerning Councils, his _Large Confession_, his _De Servo
Arbitrio_, 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 in
the old Lutheran symbols, and was "collected into the articles and
chapters of the _Augsburg Confession_." (851, 5.) The _Augsburg
Confession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the _Small_ and
the _Large Catechism_, says the _Formula_, "have always been regarded as
the norm and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory,
has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against
the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his
doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as
far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works
has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings."
(853, 9.) According to the _Formula_ there were no dissensions among the
Lutherans "as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous
adherence 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 their
own, 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 its
promoters and authors was to restore, reaffirm, and vindicate the
doctrine of Luther. In a letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and
Wigand, Andreae giving an account of the results of the Torgau
Convention, remarks: "For this I dare affirm and promise sacredly that
the illustrious Elector of Saxony is bent on this alone that the
doctrine of Luther, which has been partly obscured, partly corrupted,
partly condemned openly or secretly, shall again be restored pure and
unadulterated in the schools and churches, and accordingly Luther shall
live, _i.e._, Christ, whose faithful servant Luther was--_adeoque
Lutherus, hoc est, Christus, cuius fidelis minister Lutherus fuit,
vivat_. What more do you desire? Here [in the _Torgau Book_] nothing is
, nothing is dressed up, nothing is concealed, but everything is
in keeping with the spirit of Luther which is Christ's. _Nihil hic
fucatum, 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 compromise
between Luther and Melanchthon, a "synthesis or combination of the two
antagonistic forces of the Reformation, a balance of mutually
destructive principles," etc. The _Formula_, says also Seeberg
represents a "Melanchthonian Lutheranism." But the plain truth is that
the _Formula_ is a complete victory of Luther over the later Melanchthon
as well as the other errorists who had raised their heads within the
Lutheran Church. It gave the floor, not to Philip, but to Martin. True,
it was the avowed object of the _Formula_ to restore peace to the
Lutheran Church, but not by compromising in any shape or form the
doctrine of Luther, which, its authors were convinced, is nothing but
divine 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 leave
room for, any doctrines or doctrinal tendencies deviating in the least
from original genuine Scriptural Lutheranism. At every point it occupied
the old Lutheran ground. Everywhere it observed a correct balance
between two errors (_e.g._, Romanism and Zwinglianism, Calvinism and
synergism, Majorism and antinomianism); it steered clear of Scylla as
well as Charybdis avoiding errors to the right as well as pitfalls to
the left. The golden highway of truth on which it travels was not
Melanchthon nor a middle ground between Luther and Melanchthon, but
simply Luther and the truths which he had brought to light again.

Melanchthonianism may be defined as an effort to inoculate Lutheranism
with a unionistic and Calvinistic virus. The distinct object of the
_Formula_, however, was not merely to reduce, but to purge the Lutheran
Church 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 as
the true and reliable exponent of Lutheranism, Melanchthon is nowhere
appealed to as an authority in this respect. It is only in the _Preface
of 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 _Book
of Concord_." (16.)

287. Scripture Sole Standard and Rule.

From the high estimation in which Luther was held by the _Formula of
Concord_ it has falsely been inferred that this Confession accords
Luther the "highest authority" as Hase says, or considers him "the
regulative and almost infallible expounder" of the Bible, as Schaff
asserts. (_Creeds_ 1, 313.) But according to the _Formula_ the supreme
arbiter and only final rule in all matters of religion is the inspired
Word of God; and absolutely all human teachers and books, including
Luther and the Lutheran symbols, are subject to its verdict. When, after
Luther's death, God permitted doctrinal controversies to distract the
Church, His purpose, no doubt, being also to have her fully realize not
only that Luther's doctrine is in complete harmony with Scripture, but,
in addition, that in matters of faith and doctrine not Luther, not the
Church, not the symbols, nor any other human authority but His Word
alone is the sole rule and norm. The _Formula_ certainly learned this
lesson well. In its opening paragraph we read: "We believe, teach, and
confess that the sole rule and standard according to which both all
doctrines and all teachers should be estimated and judged are the
prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament
alone.... Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers,
whatever name they bear must not be regarded as equal to the Holy
Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them." (777, 1.)
And in this, too, the _Formula_ was conscious of being in agreement with
Luther. Luther himself, it declares, "has expressly drawn this
distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the
only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man
should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be
subjected." (853, 9.) Scripture is, and always must remain, the only
_norma normans_, the standard that rules everything,--such was the
attitude of the _Formula of Concord_.

Accordingly, the proof proper for the truth of any doctrinal statement
is taken by the _Formula_ neither from the Lutheran symbols nor the
writings of Luther, but from the Word of God. And the only reason why
the promoters and framers of the _Formula_ were determined to restore
the unadulterated teaching of Luther was because, in the controversies
following his death, they had thoroughly convinced themselves that, on
the one hand, the doctrines proclaimed by Luther were nothing but the
purest gold mined from the shafts of God's Word, and that, on the other
hand, the various deviations from Luther's teaching, which had caused
the dissensions, were aberrations not only from the original Lutheran
Confessions, but also from Holy Scripture. The thirty years of
theological discussion had satisfied the Lutherans that to adhere to the
Bible was tantamount to adhering to the teaching of Luther, and _vice
versa_. Accordingly, the _Formula_ also declared it as its object to
prove that the doctrines it presented were in harmony with the Bible, as
well as with the teaching of Luther and the _Augsburg Confession_. (856,
19.) This agreement with the Word of God and the preceding Lutheran
symbols constitutes the _Formula_ a Lutheran confession, which no one
who is a true Lutheran can reject or, for doctrinal reasons, refuse to
accept.

288. Formula Benefited Lutheran Church.

It has frequently been asserted that the _Formula of Concord_ greatly
damaged Lutheranism, causing bitter controversies, and driving many
Lutherans 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 and
logical explanation of the older confessions and is therefore the test
and touchstone of Lutheranism, had the effect, as one extreme generates
a counter-extreme, of driving many individual Lutherans and many
Lutheran churches into the Calvinistic fold, as that fold was
represented in Germany by the Heidelberg Catechism as the chief
confession of faith." (516.)

But this entire view is founded on indifferentism and unionism flowing
from the false principle that quality must be sacrificed to quantity,
eternal truth to temporal peace and unity to external progress and
temporary success. Viewed in the light of God's Word, error is the
centrifugal force and the real cause of dissension and separations among
Christians, while divine truth always acts as a centripetal or a truly
unifying power. The _Formula_ therefore, standing clearly as it does for
divine truth only, cannot be charged with causing dissension and
breeding trouble among Christians. It settled many controversies and
healed dissensions, but produced none. True, the _Formula_ was condemned
by many, but with no greater justice and for no other reasons than those
for which the truths of God's Word have always been assailed by their
enemies.

Nor is the statement correct that the _Formula of Concord_ drove loyal
Lutherans out of their own churches into Calvinistic folds. It clearly
stated what, according to God's Word and their old confessions,
Lutherans always will believe, teach, and confess, as also what they
always must reject as false and detrimental to the cause of the Church
of Christ; however, in so doing, it did not drive Lutherans into the
ranks of the Calvinists, but drove masked Calvinists out of the ranks of
loyal Lutherans into those folds to which they really belonged. Indeed,
the _Formula_ failed to make true Lutherans of all the errorists; but
neither did the _Augsburg Confession_ succeed in making friends and
Lutherans of all <DW7>s, nor the Bible, in making Christians of all
unbelievers. However, by clearly stating its position in thesis and
antithesis, the _Formula_ did succeed in bringing about a wholesome
separation, ridding the Lutheran Church of antagonistic spirits, unsound
tendencies, and false doctrines. In fact, it saved the Church from slow,
but sure poisoning at the hands of the Crypto-Calvinists; it restored
purity, 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 Church
therefore may have lost in extension, it won in intention; what it lost
in numbers, it won in unity, solidity, and firmness in the truth.

True, the _Formula of Concord_ completely foiled Melanchthon's plan of a
union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the basis of the
Variata of 1540,--a fact which more than anything else roused the ire of
Philippists and Calvinists. But that was an ungodly union, contrary to
the Word of God; a union involving a denial of essential Christian
truths; a union incompatible with the spirit of Lutheranism, which
cannot survive where faith is gagged and open confession of the truth is
smothered; a union in which Calvinism, engrafted on Lutheranism, would
have 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 way
for, a truly Christian agreement. On the contrary, it formulated the
only true basis for such a union, which it also realized among the
Lutherans. And if the Lutheran and Reformed churches will ever unite in
a true and godly manner it must be done on the basis of the truths set
forth 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 there
was 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 a
different opinion. A new confession was necessary, not indeed because
new truths had been discovered which called for confessional coining or
formulation, but because the old doctrines, assailed by errorists, were
in need of vindication, and the Lutheran Church, distracted by prolonged
theological warfare, was sorely in need of being restored to unity,
peace, and stability. The question-marks suspended everywhere in Germany
after Luther's death were: Is Lutheranism to die or live? Are its old
standards and doctrines to be scrapped or vindicated? Is the Church of
Luther to remain, or to be transformed into a unionistic or Reformed
body? Is it to retain its unity, or will it become a house divided
against 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 and
theological atmosphere, but restore confidence, hope, and normalcy. A
confession was needed which would bring out clearly the truths for which
Lutherans must firmly stand if they would be true to God, true to His
Word, true to their Church, true to themselves, and true to their
traditions. A confession was needed which would draw exactly, clearly,
and unmistakably the lines which separate Lutherans, not only from
Romanists, 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 only
way for the Lutheran Church to maintain her identity and independence
was to settle her controversies not by evading or compromising the
doctrinal issues involved, but by honestly facing and definitely
deciding them in accordance with her principles: the Word of God and the
old confessions. Particularly with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, 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 and
loyalty. Even Calvin, and the German Reformed generally subscribed to
it, "in the sense," they said, "in which Melanchthon has explained it."
The result was a corruption of Lutheranism and a pernicious Calvinistic
propaganda in Lutheran territories. A new confession was the only means
of ending the confusion and checking the invasion.

290. Formula Fully Met Requirements.

The _Formula of Concord_ was just such a confession as the situation
called for. The Preface to the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, signed
by Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, remarks that the purpose of the
_Formula_ was "to establish and propagate unity in the Lutheran churches
and schools, and to check the Sacramentarian leaven and other
corruptions and sects." This purpose was fully attained by the
_Formula_. It maintained and vindicated the old Lutheran symbols. It
cleared our Church from all manner of foreign spirits which threatened
to transform its very character. It settled the controversies by
rendering a clear and correct decision on all doctrinal questions
involved. It unified our Church when she was threatened with hopeless
division, anarchy, and utter ruin. It surrounded her with a wall of fire
against all her enemies. It made her a most uncomfortable place for such
opponents of Lutheranism as Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, etc. It
infused her with confidence, self-consciousness, conviction, a clear
knowledge of her own position over against the errors of other churches
and 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 easy
prey to unionism and sectarianism; but wherever and whenever the
_Formula_ was held in high esteem, Lutheranism flourished and its
enemies were confounded. Says Schaff: "Outside of Germany the Lutheran
Church is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes with the change of
language and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. This is the
case 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 Schaff
wrote the above, the Lutheran Church developed and flourished nowhere as
in America, owing chiefly to the return of American Lutherans to their
confessions, including the _Formula of Concord_. The _Formula of
Concord_ fully supplied the dire need created by the controversies after
Luther's death; and, despite many subsequent controversies, also in
America, down to the present day, no further confessional deliverances
have been necessary, and most likely such will not be needed in the
future either.

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, must ever be regarded as a great
blessing of God. "But for the _Formula of Concord_," says Krauth, "it
may be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the
world. It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding to
death; and crises were at hand in history in which Lutheranism was
essential to the salvation of the Reformatory interest in Europe. The
Thirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay
indeed in the future of another century, yet it was fought and settled
in the Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirate,
the sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery and
division in the Church of the Reformation would have done what the arts
and arms of Rome failed to do. But the miracle of restoration was
wrought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Lutheran
Church had become the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg,
despite the storm, the mildew, and the worm, had ripened into the full
round fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession in which the
Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." (Schmauk, 830.)

291. Formula Attacked and Defended.

Drawing accurately and deeply, as it did, the lines of demarcation
between Lutheranism, on the one hand, and Calvinism, Philippism, etc.,
on the other, and thus also putting an end to the Calvinistic propaganda
successfully carried on for decades within the Lutheran Church, the
_Formula of Concord_ was bound to become a rock of offense and to meet
with opposition on the part of all enemies of genuine Lutheranism within
as well as without the Lutheran Church. Both Romanists and Calvinists
had long ago accustomed themselves to viewing the Lutheran Church as
moribund and merely to be preyed upon by others. Accordingly, when,
contrary to all expectations, our Church, united by the _Formula_, rose
once more to her pristine power and glory, it roused the envy and
inflamed the ire and rage of her enemies. Numerous protests against the
_Formula_, emanating chiefly from Reformed and Crypto-Calvinistic
sources, were lodged with Elector August and other Lutheran princes.
Even Queen Elizabeth of England sent a deputation urging the Elector not
to allow the promulgation of the new confession. John Casimir of the
Palatinate, also at the instigation of the English queen, endeavored to
organize the Reformed in order to prevent its adoption. Also later on
the Calvinists insisted that a general council (of course, participated
in by Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists) should have been held to decide
on 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 chiefly
against its doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, the
majesty of the human nature of Christ, and eternal election,
particularly its refusal to solve, either in a synergistic or in a
Calvinistic manner, the mystery presented to human reason in the
teaching 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 advised
the Reformed to continue accepting the _Augsburg Confession_, but to
agitate against the _Formula_. He himself led the Reformed attacks by
publishing, 1581, "_Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae_, Christian
Admonition Concerning the Book of Concord," also called "_Admonitio
Neostadiensis_, Neustadt Admonition." Its charges were refuted in the
"Apology or Defense of the Christian Book of Concord--_Apologia oder
Verantwortung des christlichen Konkordienbuchs_, in welcher die wahre
christliche Lehre, so im Konkordienbuch verfasst, mit gutem Grunde
heiliger, goettlicher Schrift verteidiget, die Verkehrung aber und
Kalumnien, so von unruhigen Leuten wider gedachtes christliche Buch
ausgesprenget, widerlegt worden," 1583 (1582). Having been prepared by
command of the Lutheran electors, and composed by Kirchner, Selneccer,
and Chemnitz, and before its publication also submitted to other
theologians for their approval, this guardedly written _Apology_, also
called the Erfurt Book, gained considerable authority and influence.

The Preface of this Erfurt Book enumerates, besides the Christian
Admonition of Ursinus and the Neustadt theologians, the following
writings published against the _Formula of Concord_: 1. _Opinion and
Apology_ (_Bedencken und Apologie_) of Some Anhalt Theologians; 2.
_Defense_ (_Verantwortung_) of the Bremen Preachers; Christian Irenaeus
on 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_ by
Ambrosius Wolf, in which the author asserts that from the beginning the
doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin predominated in all Protestant churches.
The theologians of Neustadt, Bremen, and Anhalt replied to the Erfurt
Apology; which, in turn, called forth counter-replies from the
Lutherans. Beza wrote: _Refutation of the Dogma Concerning the
Fictitious Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ_. In 1607 Hospinian
published his _Concordia Discors_," [tr. note: sic on punctuation] to
which Hutter replied in his _Concordia Concors_. The papal detractors of
the _Formula_ were led by the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin, who in 1589
published 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 assailed
particularly by unionistic and Reformed opponents of true Lutheranism.
Schaff criticizes: "Religion was confounded with theology, piety with
orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism." (1, 259.)
However, the subjects treated in the _Formula_ are the most vital
doctrines of the Christian religion: concerning sin and grace, the
person and work of Christ, justification and faith, the means of grace,
--truths without which neither Christian theology nor Christian religion
can remain; "Here, then," says Schmauk, "is the one symbol of the ages
which treats almost exclusively of Christ--of His work, His presence,
His person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran Church. One might
almost say that the _Formula of Concord_ is a developed witness of
Luther's explanation of the Second and Third Articles of the Apostles'
Creed, meeting the modern errors of Protestantism, those cropping up
from 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 a
dead scholasticism" as an unjust charge. (478.) Indeed, it may be
questioned whether the doctrine of grace, the real heart of
Christianity, would have been saved to the Church without the _Formula_.

R. Seeberg speaks of the "ossification of Lutheran theology" caused by
the _Formula of Concord_, and Tschackert charges it with transforming
the Gospel into a "doctrine." (571.) But what else is the Gospel of
Christ than the divine doctrine or statement and proclamation of the
truth that we are saved, not by our own works, but by grace and faith
alone, for the sake of Christ and His merits? The _Formula of Concord_
truly says: "_The Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man
should believe_, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God,
namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and
borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins,
through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain
forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the
punishments 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 first
generation of Protestantism, by incessant and agonizing conflict, and
coming forth from that experience as a true and tried teaching, a
standard recognized by many." (821.) The _Formula of Concord_ is truly
Scriptural, not only because all its doctrines are derived from the
Bible, but also because the burden of the Scriptures, the doctrine of
justification, is the burden also of all its expositions the living
breath, as it were, pervading all its articles.

Another modern objection to the _Formula_ is that it binds the future
generations 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 our
posterity, what is and should remain (_sei und bleiben solle--esseque
perpetuo debeat_) the unanimous understanding and judgment of our
churches in reference to the articles in controversy." (857, 16.)
However, the criticism implied in the charge is unwarranted. For the
Lutheran Confessions, as promoters, authors, and signers of the
_Formula_ were fully persuaded, are in perfect agreement with the
eternal and unchangeable Word of God. As to their contents, therefore,
they must always remain the confession of every Church which really is
and would remain loyal to the Word of God.

293. Formula Unrefuted.

From the day of its birth down to the present time the _Formula of
Concord_ has always been in the limelight of theological discussion. But
what its framers said in praise of the _Augsburg Confession_, _viz._,
that, in spite of numerous enemies, it had remained unrefuted, may be
applied also to the _Formula_: it stood the test of centuries and
emerged unscathed from the fire of every controversy. It is true today
what Thomasius wrote 1848 with special reference to the _Formula_:
"Numerous as they may be who at present revile our Confession, not one
has ever appeared who has refuted its chief propositions from the
Bible." (_Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. Kirche_, 227.)

Nor can the _Formula_ ever be refuted, for its doctrinal contents are
unadulterated truths of the infallible Word of God. It confesses the
doctrine which Christians everywhere will finally admit as true and
divine indeed, which they all in their hearts believe even now, if not
explicitly and consciously, at least implicitly and in principle. The
doctrines of the _Formula_ are the ecumenical truths of Christendom; for
true Lutheranism is nothing but consistent Christianity. The _Formula_,
says Krauth, is "the completest and clearest confession in which the
Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." Such being the case, the
_Formula of Concord_ must be regarded also as the key to a godly peace
and true unity of entire Christendom.

The authors of the _Formula_ solemnly declare: "We entertain heartfelt
pleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and
anxious to advance with our utmost power that unity [and peace] by which
His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the
Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor
sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith,
confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone
through the sole merit of Christ." (1095, 95.) Such was the godly peace
and true Christian unity restored by the _Formula of Concord_ to the
Lutheran Church. And what it did for _her_ it is able also to do for the
Church at large. Being in complete agreement with Scripture, it is well
qualified to become the regeneration center of the entire present-day
corrupted, disrupted, and demoralized Christendom.

Accordingly Lutherans, the natural advocates of a truly wholesome and
God-pleasing union based on unity in divine truth, will not only
themselves hold fast what they possess in their glorious Confession, but
strive to impart its blessings also to others, all the while praying
incessantly, fervently, and trustingly with the pious framers of the
_Formula_: "May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the
grace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly
abide 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 not
included in this transcription]





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Historical Introductions to the
Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, by Friedrich Bente

*** 