{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26909/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26909","id":"gutenberg_26909","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26909","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Formula Concordiae -- Catechisms","Lutheran Church -- Catechisms"],"text":"Produced by Kurt A. T. Bodling, Concordia Seminary, St.\nLouis, Class of 1980\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHistorical Introductions\nto the\nSymbolical Books\nof the Evangelical Lutheran Church\nby F. Bente\n\n\nI. The Book of Concord, or The Concordia.\n\n1. General and Particular Symbols.\n\nBook of Concord, or Concordia, is the title of the Lutheran _corpus\ndoctrinae, i.e._, of the symbols recognized and published under that\nname by the Lutheran Church. The word symbol, _sumbolon,_ is derived\nfrom the verb _sumballein,_ to compare two things for the purpose of\nperceiving their relation and association. _Sumbolon_ thus developed the\nmeaning of _tessara,_ or sign, token, badge, banner, watchword, parole,\ncountersign, confession, creed. A Christian symbol, therefore, is a mark\nby which Christians are known. And since Christianity is essentially the\nbelief in the truths of the Gospel, its symbol is of necessity a\nconfession of Christian doctrine. The Church, accordingly, has from the\nbeginning defined and regarded its symbols as a rule of faith or a rule\nof truth. Says Augustine: \"Symbolum est regula fidei brevis et grandis:\nbrevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententiarum. A symbol is a rule\nof faith, both brief and grand: brief, as to the number of words, grand,\nas to the weight of its thoughts.\"\n\nCyprian was the first who applied the term symbol to the baptismal\nconfession, because, he said, it distinguished the Christians from\nnon-Christians. Already at the beginning of the fourth century the\nApostles' Creed was universally called symbol, and in the Middle Ages\nthis name was applied also to the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. In\nthe Introduction to the Book of Concord the Lutheran confessors\ndesignate the Augsburg Confession as the \"symbol of our faith,\" and in\nthe Epitome of the Formula of Concord, as \"our symbol of this time.\"\n\nSymbols may be divided into the following classes: 1. Ecumenical\nsymbols, which, at least in the past, have been accepted by all\nChristendom, and are still formally acknowledged by most of the\nevangelical Churches; 2. particular symbols, adopted by the various\ndenominations of divided Christendom; 3. private symbols, such as have\nbeen formulated and published by individuals, for example, Luther's\nConfession of the Lord's Supper of 1528. The publication of private\nconfessions does not necessarily involve an impropriety; for according\nto Matt. 10, 32 33 and 1 Pet. 3, 15 not only the Church as a whole, but\nindividual Christians as well are privileged and in duty bound to\nconfess the Christian truth over against its public assailants.\nSelf-evidently, only such are symbols of particular churches as have\nbeen approved and adopted by them. The symbols of the Church, says the\nFormula of Concord, \"should not be based on private writings, but on\nsuch books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of\nthe churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion.\"\n(CONC. TRIGL., 851, 2.)\n\nNot being formally and explicitly adopted by all Christians, the\nspecifically Lutheran confessions also are generally regarded as\nparticular symbols. Inasmuch, however, as they are in complete agreement\nwith Holy Scripture, and in this respect differ from all other\nparticular symbols, the Lutheran confessions are truly ecumenical and\ncatholic in character. They contain the truths believed universally by\ntrue Christians everywhere, explicitly by all consistent Christians,\nimplicitly even by inconsistent and erring Christians. Christian truth,\nbeing one and the same the world over is none other than that which is\nfound in the Lutheran confessions.\n\n2. The German Book of Concord.\n\nThe printing of the official German edition of the Book of Concord was\nbegun in 1578 under the editorship of Jacob Andreae. The 25th of June,\n1580, however, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the\nAugsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V, was chosen as the date for its\nofficial publication at Dresden and its promulgation to the general\npublic. Following are the contents of one of the five Dresden folio\ncopies which we have compared: 1. The title-page, concluding with the\nwords, \"Mit Churf. G. zu Sachsen Befreiung. Dresden MDLXXX.\" 2. The\npreface, as adopted and signed by the estates at Jueterbock in 1579,\nwhich supplanted the explanation, originally planned, of the theologians\nagainst the various attacks made upon the Formula of Concord. 3. The\nthree Ecumenical Symbols. 4. The Augsburg Confession of 1530. 5. The\nApology of 1530. 6. The Smalcald Articles of 1537, with the appendix,\n\"Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope.\" 7. Luther's Small\nCatechism, omitting the \"Booklets of Marriage and Baptism,\" found in\nsome copies. 8. Luther's Large Catechism. 9. The Formula of Concord,\nwith separate title-pages for the Epitome and the Solida Declaratio,\nboth dated 1580. 10. The signatures of the theologians, etc., amounting\nto about 8,000. 11. The Catalogus Testimoniorum, with the superscription\n\"Appendix\" (found in some copies only). The Preface is followed by a\n_Privilegium_ signed by Elector August and guaranteeing to Matthes\nStoeckel and Gimel Bergen the sole right of publication, a document not\nfound in the other copies we compared. The Formula of Concord is\nfollowed by a twelve-page index of the doctrines treated in the Book of\nConcord, and the list of signatures, by a page containing the trade-mark\nof the printer. The center of this page features a cut inscribed,\n\"Matthes Stoeckel Gimel Bergen 1579.\" The cut is headed by Ps. 9, 1. 2:\n\"Ich danke dem Herrn von ganzem Herzen und erzaehle all deine Wunder.\nIch freue mich und bin froehlich in dir und lobe deinen Namen, du\nAllerhoechster. I thank the Lord with all my heart and proclaim all Thy\nwonders. I am glad and rejoice in Thee, and praise Thy name, Thou Most\nHigh.\" Under the cut are the words: \"Gedruckt zu Dresden durch Matthes\nStoeckel. Anno 1580. Printed by Matthes Stoeckel, Dresden, 1580.\"\n\nIn a letter dated November 7, 1580, Martin Chemnitz speaks of two\nDresden folio editions of the German Book of Concord, while Feuerlinus,\nin 1752, counts seven Dresden editions. As a matter of fact, the Dresden\nfolio copies differ from one another, both as to typography and\ncontents. Following are the chief differences of the latter kind: 1.\nOnly some copies have the liturgical Forms of Baptism and of Marriage\nappended to the Small Catechism. 2. The Catalogus is not entitled\n\"Appendix\" in all copies, because it was not regarded as a part of the\nconfession proper. 3. In some copies the passage from the Augsburg\nConfession, quoted in Art. 2, 29 of the Solida Declaratio, is taken, not\nfrom the Mainz Manuscript, but from the quarto edition of 1531, which\nalready contained some alterations. 4. Some copies are dated 1580, while\nothers bear the date 1579 or 1581. Dr. Kolde gives it as his opinion\nthat in spite of all these and other (chiefly typographical) differences\nthey are nevertheless all copies of one and the same edition, with\nchanges only in individual sheets. (_Historische Einleitung in die\nSymbolischen Buecher der ev.-luth. Kirche,_ p. 70.) Dr. Tschackert\ninclines to the same view, saying: \"Such copies of this edition as have\nbeen preserved exhibit, in places, typographical differences. This,\naccording to Polycarp Leyser's _Kurzer und gegruendeter Bericht,_\nDresden, 1597 (Kolde, 70), is due to the fact that the manuscript was\nrushed through the press and sent in separate sheets to the interested\nestates, and that, while the forms were in press, changes were made on\nthe basis of the criticisms sent in from time to time, yet not equally,\nso that some copies differ in certain sheets and insertions.\" (_Die\nEntstehung der luth. und der ref. Kirchenlehre,_ 1910, p. 621.)\n\nHowever, while this hypothesis explains a number of the variations in\nthe Dresden folio copies, it does not account for all of them especially\nnot for those of a typographical nature. In one of the five copies which\nwe compared, the title-page, radically differing from the others, reads\nas follows: \"Formula Concordiae. Das ist: Christliche, Heilsame Reine\nVergleichunge, in welcher die Goettliche Leer von den vornembsten\nArtikeln vnserer wahrhafftigen Religion, aus heiliger Schrift in kurtze\nbekanntnues oder Symbola vnd Leerhafte Schrifften,: welche allbereit vor\ndieser zeit von den Kirchen Gottes Augspurgischer Confession, angenommen\nvnd approbiert:, verfasset. Sampt bestendiger, in Gottes wort\nwolgegruendeter, richtiger, endlicher widerholung, erklerung und\nentscheidung deren Streit, welche vnter etlichen Theologen, so sich zu\nermelter Confession bekant, fuergefallen. Alles nach inhalt der heiligen\nSchrifft, als der einigen Richtschnur der Goettlichen wahrheit, vnd nach\nanleitung obgemeldter in der Kirchen Gottes, approbierten Schrifften.\nAuff gnedigsten, gnedigen, auch guetigsten beuehl, verordnung und\neinwilligung nach beschriebener Christlichen Churfuersten, Fuersten vnd\nStende des heiligen Roemischen Reichs Deutscher Nation, Augspurgischer\nConfession, derselben Landen, Kirchen, Schulen vnd Nachkommen zum trost\nvnd besten in Druck vorfertiget. M. D. LXXIX.\" (\"Formula of Concord,\nthat is, Christian, wholesome, pure agreement, in which the divine\ndoctrine of the chief articles of our true religion have been drawn up\nfrom the Holy Scripture in short confessions or symbols and doctrinal\nwritings, which have already before this time been accepted and approved\nby the Churches of God of the Augsburg Confession, together with a firm,\nScripturally well-founded, correct, final repetition, explanation and\ndecision of those controversies which have arisen among some theologians\nwho have subscribed to said Confession, all of which has been drawn up\naccording to the contents of Holy Scripture, the sole norm of divine\nTruth, and according to the analogy of the above-named writings which\nhave the approval of the Churches of God. Published by the most\ngracious, kind, and benevolent command, order, and assent of the\nsubscribed Christian Electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Roman\nEmpire, of the German nation, of the Augsburg Confession, for the\ncomfort and benefit of said lands churches, schools, and posterity.\n1579.\")\n\nApart from the above title this copy differs from the others we examined\nin various ways Everywhere (at four different places) it bears the date\n1579, which, on the chief title-page, however, seems to have been\nentered in ink at a later date. Also the place of publication, evidently\nDresden, is not indicated. Two variations are found in the Preface to\nthe Book of Concord, one an omission, the other an addition. The\nsignatures of the princes and estates to the Preface are omitted.\nMaterial and formal differences are found also on the pages containing\nthe subscriptions of the theologians to the Formula of Concord; and the\nCatalogus is lacking entirely. The typography everywhere, especially in\nthe portions printed in Roman type, exhibits many variations and\ndivergences from our other four copies, which, in turn, are also\ncharacterized by numerous typographical and other variations. The copy\nof which, above, we have given the contents is dated throughout 1580.\nOur third copy bears the same date 1580, excepting on the title-page of\nthe Solida Declaratio, which has 1579. In both of these copies the\ntypography of the signatures to the Book of Concord is practically\nalike. In our fourth copy the date 1580 is found on the title-page of\nthe Concordia, the Catalogus, and the appended Saxon Church Order, which\ncovers 433 pages, while the title-pages of the Epitome and the\nDeclaratio and the page carrying the printer's imprint are all dated\n1579. In this copy the typography of the signatures closely resembles\nthat of the copy dated everywhere 1579. In our fifth Dresden folio copy,\nthe title-page of the Book of Concord and the Catalogus are dated 1580,\nwhile the title-pages of the Epitome and Solida Declaratio are dated\n1579. This is also the only copy in which the Catalogus is printed under\nthe special heading \"Appendix.\"\n\nIn view of these facts, especially the variation of the Roman type in\nall copies, Kolde's hypothesis will hardly be regarded as firmly\nestablished. Even if we eliminate the copy which is everywhere dated\n1579, the variations in our four remaining Dresden folio copies cannot\nbe explained satisfactorily without assuming either several editions or\nat least several different compositions for the same edition, or perhaps\nfor the two editions mentioned by Chemnitz. Feuerlinus distinguishes\nseven Dresden editions of the Book of Concord--one, printed for the\ngreater part in 1578, the second, third, and fourth in 1580, the fifth\nin 1581, the sixth also in 1581, but in quarto, and the seventh in 1598,\nin folio. (_Bibliotheca Symbolica,_ 1752, p. 9.) A copy like the one\nreferred to above, which is everywhere dated 1579, does not seem to have\ncome to the notice of Feuerlinus.\n\nIn the copy of the Tuebingen folio edition which is before us, the Index\nfollows the Preface. The appendices of the Small Catechism are omitted,\nlikewise the superscription Appendix of the Catalogus. Our copy of the\nHeidelberg folio edition of 1582 omits the Catalogus and adds the\nApology of the Book of Concord of 1583, as also the Refutation of the\nBremen Pastors of the same year. A copy of the Magdeburg quarto edition\nlying before us has the year 1580 on the title-pages of the Book of\nConcord, the Epitome, the Declaratio, and the Catalogus. The Preface is\nfollowed by three pages, on which Joachim Frederick guarantees to\n\"Thomas Frantzen Buchvorlegern\" (Thomas Frantzen, publishers) the sole\nright of publication for a period of five years, and prohibits the\nintroduction of other copies, excepting only those of the Dresden folio\nedition of 1580. Luther's Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism are\nappended to the Small Catechism, and to the Large Catechism is added\n\"Eine kurze Vermahnung zu der Beicht, A Brief Exhortation to\nConfession.\" (None of the Dresden folio copies we compared contain these\nappendices, nor are they found in the Latin editions of 1580 and 1584.)\nThe index is followed by a page of corrected misprints. The last page\nhas the following imprint: \"Gedruckt zu Magdeburg durch Johann Meiszner\nund Joachim Walden Erben, Anno 1580, Printed at Magdeburg by John\nMeissner's and Joachim Walden's heirs. In the year 1580.\"\n\n3. The Latin Concordia.\n\nEven before the close of 1580, Selneccer published a Latin Concordia\ncontaining a translation of the Formula of Concord begun by Lucas\nOsiander in 1578 and completed by Jacob Heerbrand. It was a private\nundertaking and, owing to its numerous and partly offensive mistakes,\nfound no recognition. Thus, for instance, the passage of the Tractatus\n\"De Potestate et Primatu Papae\" in sec. 24: \"Christ gives the highest\nand final judgment to the church,\" was rendered as follows: \"Et Christus\nsummum et ultimum ferculum apponit ecclesiae.\" (p. 317.) Besides,\nSelneccer had embodied in his Concordia the objectionable text of the\nAugsburg Confession found in the octavo edition of 1531, which\nMelanchthon had altered extensively.\n\nThe necessary revision of the Latin text was made at the convention in\nQuedlinburg during December, 1582, and January, 1583, Chemnitz giving\nmaterial assistance. The revised edition, which constitutes the Latin\n_textus receptus_ of the Formula of Concord, was published at Leipzig in\n1584. Aside from many corrections, this edition contains the translation\nof the Formula of Concord as already corrected by Selneccer in 1582 for\nhis special Latin-German edition, and afterwards thoroughly revised by\nChemnitz. The texts of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology follow\nthe _editio princeps_ of 1531. The 8,000 signatures, embodied also in\nthe Latin edition of 1580, were omitted, lest any one might complain\nthat his name was appended to a book which he had neither seen nor\napproved. In keeping herewith, the words in the title of the Book of\nConcord: \"_et nomina sua huic libro subscripserunt_--and have subscribed\ntheir names to this book,\" which Mueller retained in his edition, were\neliminated. The title-page concludes as in the edition of 1580, the word\n\"denuo\" only being added and the date correspondingly changed. On the\nlast two pages of this edition of 1584 Selneccer refers to the edition\nof 1580 as follows: \"Antea publicatus est liber Christianae Concordiae,\nLatine, sed privato et festinato instituto, Before this the Book of\nConcord has been published in Latin, but as a private and hasty\nundertaking.\" In the edition of 1584, the text of the Small Catechism is\nadorned with 23 Biblical illustrations.\n\nAmong the later noteworthy editions of the Book of Concord are the\nfollowing: Tuebingen 1599; Leipzig, 1603, 1622; Stuttgart 1660, 1681.\nEditions furnished with introductions or annotations or both: H.\nPipping, 1703; S.J. Baumgarten, 1747; J.W. Schoepff, Part I, 1826, Part\nII, 1827; F.A. Koethe, 1830; J.A. Detzer, 1830; F.W. Bodemann, 1843. In\nAmerica the entire Book of Concord was printed in German by H. Ludwig,\nof New York, in 1848, and by the Concordia Publishing House of St.\nLouis, Mo., in 1880. In Leipzig, Latin editions appeared in the years\n1602, 1606, 1612, 1618, 1626, 1654, 1669, 1677. Adam Rechenberg's\nedition \"with an appendix in three parts and new indices\" (_cum\nappendice tripartita et novis indicibus_) saw five editions--1678, 1698,\n1712, 1725, 1742. We mention also the edition of Pfaffius, 1730;\nTittmann, 1817; H.A.G. Meyer, 1830, containing a good preface; Karl\nHase, in his editions of 1827, 1837, and 1845, was the first to number\nthe paragraphs. Reineccius prepared a German-Latin edition in 1708. This\nwas followed in 1750 by the German-Latin edition of Johann Georg Walch.\nMueller's well-known German-Latin Concordia saw eleven editions between\n1847 and 1912. Since 1907 it appears with historical introductions by\nTh. Kolde.\n\n4. English Translations.\n\nAll of the Lutheran symbols have been translated into the English\nlanguage repeatedly. In 1536 Richard Tavener prepared the first\ntranslation of the Augsburg Confession. Cranmer published, in 1548, \"A\nShort Instruction into the Christian Religion,\" essentially a\ntranslation of the Ansbach-Nuernberg Sermons on the Catechism. In 1834 a\ntranslation of the German text of the Augsburg Confession with\n\"Preliminary Observations\" was published at Newmarket, Va., by Charles\nHenkel, Prof. Schmidt of the Seminary at Columbus O., assisting in this\nwork. The Introduction to the Newmarket Book of Concord assigns Henkel's\ntranslation of the Augsburg Confession to the year 1831. Our copy,\nhowever, which does not claim to be a second edition, is dated 1834. In\nhis _Popular Theology_ of 1834, S.S. Schmucker offered a translation of\nthe Latin text, mutilated in the interest of his _American Lutheranism._\nHazelius followed him with a translation in 1841. In 1848, Ludwig, of\nNew York, issued a translation of the German text of the Unaltered\nAugsburg Confession, as well as of the Introduction, prepared by C.H.\nSchott, together with the Ecumenical Symbols, also with introductions.\nThe title-page of our copy lists the price of the book at 12 1/2 cents.\nC.P. Krauth's translation of the Augsburg Confession appeared in 1868.\nThe first complete translation of the German text of the entire Book of\nConcord was published in 1851 by the publishing house of Solomon D.\nHenkel & Bros., at Newmarket, Va. In this translation, however, greater\nstress was laid on literary style than upon an exact reproduction of the\noriginal. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel prepared the translation of the\nAugsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Appendix,\nand the Articles of Visitation. The Small Catechism was offered in the\ntranslation prepared by David Henkel in 1827. The Large Catechism was\ntranslated by J. Stirewalt; the Epitome, by H. Wetzel; the Declaratio,\nby J.R. Moser. The second, improved edition of 1854 contained a\ntranslation of the Augsburg Confession by C. Philip Krauth, the Apology\nwas translated by W.F. Lehmann, the Smalcald Articles by W.M. Reynolds,\nthe two Catechisms by J.G. Morris, and the Formula of Concord together\nwith the Catalogus by C.F. Schaeffer. In both editions the historical\nintroductions present a reproduction of the material in J.T. Mueller's\n_Book of Concord._\n\nIn 1882 a new English translation of the entire Book of Concord,\ntogether with introductions and other confessional material, appeared in\ntwo volumes, edited by Dr. H.E. Jacobs. The first volume of this edition\nembraces the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church. It contains\nC.P. Krauth's translation of the Augsburg Confession as revised for\nSchaff's _Creeds of Christendom._ Jacobs translated the Apology (from\nthe Latin, with insertions, in brackets, of translations from the German\ntext), the Smalcald Articles (from the German), the Tractatus (from the\nLatin), and the Formula of Concord. The translation of the Small\nCatechism was prepared by a committee of the Ministerium of\nPennsylvania. The Large Catechism was done into English by A. Martin. A\nreprint of this edition appeared in 1911, entitled \"People's Edition,\"\nin which the Augsburg Confession is presented in a translation prepared\nby a committee of the General Council, the General Synod, the United\nSynod in the South, and the Ohio Synod. The second volume of Jacobs's\nedition of the Book of Concord embodies historical introductions to the\nLutheran symbols, translations of the Marburg Articles, the Schwabach\nArticles, the Torgau Articles, the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540\nand 1542, Zwingli's Ratio Fidei, the Tetrapolitana, the Romish\nConfutatio, Melanchthon's Opinion of 1530, Luther's Sermon on the\nDescent into Hell of 1533, the Wittenberg Concordia, the Leipzig Interim\nthe Catalogus Testimoniorum, the Articles of Visitation, and the\nDecretum Upsaliense of 1593. The Principles of Faith and Church Polity\nof the General Council and an index complete this volume. A Norwegian\nand a Swedish translation of the Book of Concord have also been\npublished in America.\n\n5. Corpora Doctrinae Supplanted by Book of Concord.\n\nMore than twenty different Lutheran collections of symbols or _corpora\ndoctrinae_ (a term first employed by Melanchthon), most of them bulky,\nhad appeared after the death of Luther and before the adoption of the\nFormula of Concord, by which quite a number of them were supplanted.\nFrom the signatures to its Preface it appears that the entire Book of\nConcord was adopted by 3 electors, 20 princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, and\n35 imperial cities. And the list of signatures appended to the Formula\nof Concord contains about 8,000 names of theologians, preachers, and\nschoolteachers. About two-thirds of the German territories which\nprofessed adherence to the Augsburg Confession adopted and introduced\nthe Book of Concord as their _corpus doctrinae._ (Compare Historical\nIntroduction to the Formula of Concord.)\n\nAmong the _corpora doctrinae_ which were gradually superseded by the\nBook of Concord are the following: 1. Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum, or\nMisnicum, or Wittenbergense of 1560, containing besides the Three\nEcumenical Symbols, the following works of Melanchthon: Variata,\nApologia, Repetitio Augustanae Confessionis, Loci, Examen Ordinandorum\nof 1552, Responsio ad Articulos Bavaricae Inquisitionis, Refutatio\nServeti. Melanchthon, shortly before his death, wrote the preface for\nthe Latin as well as the German edition of this Corpus. 2. Corpus\nDoctrinae Pomeranicum of 1564 which adds Luther's Catechisms, the\nSmalcald Articles, and three other works of Luther to the Corpus\nDoctrinae Philippicum, which had been adopted 1561. 3. Corpus Doctrinae\nPrutenicum, or Borussicum, of Prussia, 1567, containing the Augsburg\nConfession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Repetition of the\nSum and Content of the True, Universal Christian Doctrine of the Church,\nwritten by Moerlin and Chemnitz. 4. Corpus Doctrinae Thuringicum in\nDucal Saxony, of 1570, containing the Three Ecumenical Symbols, Luther's\nCatechisms, the Smalcald Articles, the Confession of the Landed Estates\nin Thuringia (drawn up by Justus Menius in 1549), and the Prince of\nSaxony's Book of Confutation (_Konfutationsbuch_) of 1558. 5. Corpus\nDoctrinae Brandenburgicum of 1572, containing the Augsburg Confession\naccording to the Mainz Manuscript, Luther's Small Catechism, Explanation\nof the Augsburg Confession drawn from the postils and doctrinal writings\n\"of the faithful man of God Dr. Luther\" by Andreas Musculus, and a\nChurch Agenda. 6. Corpus Doctrinae Wilhelminum of Lueneburg, 1576,\ncontaining the Three Ecumenical Symbols, the Augsburg Confession, the\nApology, the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms, Formulae Caute\nLoquendi (Forms of Speaking Cautiously) by Dr. Urbanus Regius, and\nFormulae Recte Sentiendi de Praecipuis Horum Temporum Controversiis\n(Forms of Thinking Correctly concerning the Chief Controversies of These\nTimes) by Martin Chemnitz. 7. Corpus Doctrinae Iulium of Duke Julius of\nBraunschweig-Wolfenbuettel, 1576, containing the documents of the\nWilhelminum, with the sole addition of the Short Report of Some\nProminent Articles of Doctrine, from the Church Order of Duke Julius, of\n1569. 8. The Hamburg Book of Confession of 1560, which was also adopted\nby Luebeck and Lueneburg, and contained a confession against the Interim\ndrawn up by Aepinus in 1548, and also four declarations concerning\nAdiaphorism, Osiandrism, Majorism, and the doctrine of the Lord's\nSupper, drawn up since 1549. 9. The Confessional Book of Braunschweig,\nadopted in 1563 and reaffirmed in 1570, containing, The Braunschweig\nChurch Order of 1528, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology\nthereof, the Smalcald Articles, Explanation, etc., drawn up at Lueneburg\nin 1561 against the Crypto-Calvinists. 10. The Church Order of the city\nof Goettingen 1568, containing the Church Order of Goettingen of 1531,\nLuther's Small Catechism, the Smalcald Articles, the Augsburg\nConfession, and the Apology. (Tschackert, _l.c._, 613f.; Feuerlinus,\n_l.c._, 1f.)\n\n6. Subscription to Confessions.\n\nThe position accorded the symbols in the Lutheran Church is clearly\ndefined by the Book of Concord itself. According to it Holy Scripture\nalone is to be regarded as the sole rule and norm by which absolutely\nall doctrines and teachers are to be judged. The object of the\nAugustana, as stated in its Preface, was to show \"what manner of\ndoctrine has been set forth, in our lands and churches from the Holy\nScripture and the pure Word of God.\" And in its Conclusion the Lutheran\nconfessors declare: \"Nothing has been received on our part against\nScripture or the Church Catholic,\" and \"we are ready, God willing, to\npresent ampler information according to the Scriptures.\" \"Iuxta\nScripturam\"--such are the closing words of the Augsburg Confession. The\nLutheran Church knows of no other principle.\n\nIn the Formula of Concord we read: \"Other writings, however, of ancient\nor modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as\nequal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to\nthem, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses,\n[which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and\nat what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles was\npreserved.\" (777, 2.) In the Conclusion of the Catalog of Testimonies we\nread: \"The true saving faith is to be founded upon no church-teachers,\nold or new, but only and alone upon God's Word, which is comprised in\nthe Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles, as unquestionable\nwitnesses of divine truth.\" (1149.)\n\nThe Lutheran symbols, therefore, are not intended to supplant the\nScriptures, nor do they do so. They do, however, set forth what has been\nat all times the unanimous understanding of the pure Christian doctrine\nadhered to by sincere and loyal Lutherans everywhere; and, at the same\ntime, they show convincingly from the Scriptures that our forefathers\ndid indeed manfully confess nothing but God's eternal truth, which every\nChristian is in duty bound to, and consistently always will, believe,\nteach, and confess.\n\nThe manner also in which Lutherans pledge themselves confessionally\nappears from these symbols. The Augsburg Confession was endorsed by the\nprinces and estates as follows: \"The above articles we desire to present\nin accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to\nexhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our\nteachers.\" (95, 6.) In the preamble to the signatures of 1537 the\nLutheran preachers unanimously confess: \"We have reread the articles of\nthe Confession presented to the Emperor in the Assembly at Augsburg, and\nby the favor of God all the preachers who have been present in this\nAssembly at Smalcald harmoniously declare that they believe and teach in\ntheir churches according to the articles of the Confession and Apology.\"\n(529.) John Brenz declares that he had read and reread, time and again,\nthe Confession, the Apology, etc., and judged \"that all these agree with\nHoly Scripture, and with the belief of the true and genuine catholic\nChurch (_haec omnia convenire cum Sacra Scriptura et cum sententia verae\nkai gnesies catholicae ecclesiae_).\" (529.) Another subscription--to the\nSmalcald Articles--reads: \"I, Conrad Figenbotz, for the glory of God\nsubscribe that I have thus believed and am still preaching and firmly\nbelieving as above.\" (503, 13.) Brixius writes in a similar vein: \"I ...\nsubscribe to the Articles of the reverend Father Martin Luther, and\nconfess that hitherto I have thus believed and taught, and by the Spirit\nof Christ I shall continue thus to believe and teach.\" (503, 27.)\n\nIn the Preface to the Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord the\nLutheran confessors declare: \"To this Christian Augsburg Confession, so\nthoroughly grounded in God's Word, we herewith pledge ourselves again\nfrom our inmost hearts. We abide by its simple, clear, and unadulterated\nmeaning as the words convey it, and regard the said Confession as a pure\nChristian symbol, with which at the present time true Christians ought\nto be found next to God's Word.... We intend also, by the grace of the\nAlmighty, faithfully to abide until our end by this Christian\nConfession, mentioned several times, as it was delivered in the year\n1530 to the Emperor Charles V; and it is our purpose, neither in this\nnor in any other writing, to recede in the least from that oft-cited\nConfession, nor to propose another or new confession.\" (847, 4. 5.)\nAgain: \"We confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our\nsymbol for this time (not because it was composed by our theologians,\nbut because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded firmly and\nwell therein), precisely in the form in which it was committed to\nwriting in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at\nAugsburg.\" (851, 5.)\n\nIn like manner the remaining Lutheran symbols were adopted. (852. 777.)\nOther books, the Formula of Concord declares, are accounted useful, \"as\nfar as (_wofern, quatenus_) they are consistent with\" the Scriptures and\nthe symbols. (855, 10.) The symbols, however, are accepted \"that we may\nhave a unanimously received, definite, common form of doctrine, which\nall our Evangelical churches together and in common confess, from and\naccording to which, because (_cum, weil_) it has been derived from God's\nWord, all other writings should be judged and adjusted, as to how far\n(_wiefern, quatenus_) they are to be approved and accepted.\" (855, 10.)\n\nAfter its adoption by the Lutheran electors, princes, and estates, the\nFormula of Concord, and with it the entire Book of Concord, was, as\nstated, solemnly subscribed by about 8,000 theologians, pastors, and\nteachers, the pledge reading as follows: \"Since now, in the sight of God\nand of all Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those\nwho shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented\nconcerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained,\nand no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession in which we are\nalso willing, by God's grace to appear with intrepid hearts before the\njudgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we\nwill neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to\nit, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore,\nafter mature deliberation, we have, in God's fear and with the\ninvocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands.\"\n(1103, 40.)\n\nFurthermore, in the Preface to the Book of Concord the princes and\nestates declare that many churches and schools had received the Augsburg\nConfession \"as a symbol of the present time in regard to the chief\narticles of faith, especially those involved in controversy with the\nRomanists and various corruptions of the heavenly doctrine.\" (7.) They\nsolemnly protest that it never entered their minds \"either to introduce,\nfurnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least\neven to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at\nAugsburg.\" (15.) They declare: \"This Confession also, by the help of\nGod, we will retain to our last breath when we shall go forth from this\nlife to the heavenly fatherland, to appear with joyful and undaunted\nmind and with a pure conscience before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\" (15.) \"Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a\nfinger's breadth either from the subjects themselves or from the phrases\nwhich are found in them (_vel a rebus ipsis vel a phrasibus, quae in\nilla habentur, discedere_), but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to\npersevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly\nagreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this\ntrue norm and declaration of the pure doctrine.\" (23.)\n\n7. Pledging of Ministers to the Confessions.\n\nSuch being the attitude of the Lutherans towards their symbols, and such\ntheir evaluation of pure doctrine, it was self-evident that the public\nteachers of their churches should be pledged to the confessions. In\nDecember 1529, H. Winckel, of Goettingen, drew up a form in which the\ncandidate for ordination declares: \"I believe and hold also of the most\nsacred Sacrament ... as one ought to believe concerning it according to\nthe contents of the Bible, and as Doctor Martin Luther writes and\nconfesses concerning it especially in his Confession\" (of the Lord's\nSupper, 1528). The Goettingen Church Order of 1530, however, did not as\nyet embody a vow of ordination. The first pledges to the symbols were\ndemanded by the University of Wittenberg in 1533 from candidates for the\ndegree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1535 this pledge was required also of\nthe candidates for ordination. The oath provided that the candidate must\nfaithfully teach the Gospel without corruption, steadfastly defend the\nEcumenical Symbols, remain in agreement with the Augsburg Confession,\nand before deciding difficult controversies consult older teachers of\nthe Church of the Augsburg Confession. Even before 1549 the candidates\nfor philosophical degrees were also pledged by oath to the Augsburg\nConfession.\n\nIn 1535, at the Diet of Smalcald, it was agreed that new members\nentering the Smalcald League should promise \"to provide for such\nteaching and preaching as was in harmony with the Word of God and the\npure teaching of our [Augsburg] Confession.\" According to the Pomeranian\nChurch Order which Bugenhagen drew up in 1535, pastors were pledged to\nthe Augsburg Confession and the Apology thereof. Capito, Bucer, and all\nothers who took part in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, promised, over\ntheir signatures, \"to believe and to teach in all articles according to\nthe Confession and the Apology.\" (_Corpus Reformatorum,_ opp.\nMelanthonis, 3, 76.) In 1540, at Goettingen, John Wigand promised to\naccept the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and to abide by them all\nhis life. \"And,\" he continued, \"if I should be found to do otherwise or\nbe convicted of teaching and confessing contrary to such Confession and\nApology, then let me, by this signature, be condemned and deposed from\nthis divine ministry. This do I swear, so help me God.\" Also at\nGoettingen, Veit Pflugmacher vowed, in 1541, that he would preach the\nGospel in its truth and purity according to the Augsburg Confession and\nthe contents of the postils of Anton Corvinus. He added: \"Should I be\nfound to do otherwise and not living up to what has been set forth\nabove, then shall I by such act have deposed myself from office. This do\nI swear; so help me God.\"\n\nIn 1550 and 1552, Andrew Osiander attacked the oath of confession which\nwas in vogue at Wittenberg, claiming it to be \"an entanglement in\noath-bound duties after the manner of the Papists.\" \"What else,\" said\nhe, \"does this oath accomplish than to sever those who swear it from the\nHoly Scriptures and bind them to Philip's doctrine? Parents may\ntherefore well consider what they do by sending their sons to Wittenberg\nto become Masters and Doctors. Money is there taken from them, and they\nare made Masters and Doctors. But while the parents think that their son\nis an excellent man, well versed in the Scriptures and able to silence\nenthusiasts and heretics, he is, in reality, a poor captive, entangled\nand embarrassed by oath-bound duties. For he has abjured the Word of God\nand has taken an oath on Philip's doctrine.\" Replying to this fanatical\ncharge in 1553, Melanchthon emphasized the fact that the doctrinal\npledges demanded at Wittenberg had been introduced chiefly by Luther,\nfor the purpose of \"maintaining the true doctrine.\" \"For,\" said\nMelanchthon, \"many enthusiasts were roaming about at that time, each, in\nturn, spreading new silly nonsense, _e.g._, the Anabaptists, Servetus,\nCampanus, Schwenckfeld, and others. And such tormenting spirits are not\nlacking at any time (_Et non desunt tales furiae ullo tempore_).\" A\ndoctrinal pledge, Melanchthon furthermore explained, was necessary \"in\norder correctly to acknowledge God and call upon Him to preserve harmony\nin the Church, and to bridle the audacity of such as invent new\ndoctrines.\" (_C.R._ 12, 5.)\n\n\nII. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols.\n\n8. Ecumenical Symbols.\n\nThe Ecumenical (general, universal) Symbols were embodied in the Book of\nConcord primarily for apologetic reasons. Carpzov writes: \"The sole\nreason why our Church appealed to these symbols was to declare her\nagreement with the ancient Church in so far as the faith of the latter\nwas laid down in these symbols, to refute also the calumniations and the\naccusations of the opponents, and to evince the fact that she preaches\nno new doctrine and in no wise deviates from the Church Catholic.\"\n(_Isagoge,_ 37.) For like reasons Article I of the Augsburg Confession\ndeclares its adherence to the Nicene Creed, and the first part of the\nSmalcald Articles, to the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds. The oath\nintroduced by Luther in 1535, and required of the candidates for the\ndegree of Doctor of Divinity, also contained a pledge on the Ecumenical\nSymbols. In 1538 Luther published a tract entitled, \"The Three Symbols\nor Confessions of the Faith of Christ Unanimously Used in the Church,\"\ncontaining the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Te Deum of\nAmbrose and Augustine. To these was appended the Nicene Creed.\n\nIn the opening sentences of this tract, Luther remarks: \"Whereas I have\npreviously taught and written quite a bit concerning faith, showing both\nwhat faith is and what faith does, and have also published my Confession\n[1528], setting forth both what I believe and what position I intend to\nmaintain; and whereas the devil continues to seek new intrigues against\nme, I have decided, by way of supererogation, to publish conjointly, in\nthe German tongue, the three so-called Symbols, or Confessions, which\nhave hitherto been received, read, and chanted throughout the Church. I\nwould thereby reaffirm the fact that I side with the true Christian\nChurch, which has adhered to these Symbols, or Confessions, to the\npresent day, and not with the false, vainglorious church, which in\nreality is the worst enemy of the true Church, having introduced much\nidolatry beside these beautiful confessions.\" (St. L. 10, 993; Erl. 23,\n252.) Luther's translation of the Ecumenical Symbols, together with the\ncaptions which appeared in his tract, were embodied in the Book of\nConcord. The superscription, \"Tria Symbola Catholica seu Oecumenica,\"\noccurs for the first time in Selneccer's edition of the Book of Concord\nof 1580. Before this, 1575, he had written: \"Quot sunt Symbola fidei\nChristianae in Ecclesia? Tria sunt praecipua quae nominantur oecumenica,\nsive universalia et authentica, id est, habentia auctoritatem et non\nindigentia demonstratione aut probatione, videlicet Symbolum\nApostolicum, Nicaenum et Athanasianum.\" (Schmauk, _Confessional\nPrinciple,_ 834.)\n\n9. The Apostles' Creed.\n\nThe foundation of the Apostles' Creed was, in a way, laid by Christ\nHimself when He commissioned His disciples, saying, Matt. 28, 19. 20:\n\"Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you.\" The formula of Baptism here\nprescribed, \"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost,\" briefly indicates what Christ wants Christians to be taught, to\nbelieve, and to confess. And the Apostles' Creed, both as to its form\nand contents, is evidently but an amplification of the trinitarian\nformula of Baptism. Theo. Zahn remarks: \"It has been said, and not\nwithout a good basis either, that Christ Himself has ordained the\nbaptismal confession. For the profession of the Triune God made by the\ncandidates for Baptism is indeed the echo of His missionary and\nbaptismal command reechoing through all lands and times in many thousand\nvoices.\" (_Skizzen aus dem Leben der Kirche,_ 252.)\n\nBut when and by whom was the formula of Baptism thus amplified?--During\nthe Medieval Ages the Apostles' Creed was commonly known as \"The Twelve\nArticles,\" because it was generally believed that the twelve apostles,\nassembled in joint session before they were separated, soon after\nPentecost drafted this Creed, each contributing a clause. But, though\nretained in the Catechismus Romanus, this is a legend which originated\nin Italy or Gaul in the sixth or seventh (according to Zahn, toward the\nend of the fourth) century and was unknown before this date. Yet, though\nit may seem more probable that the Apostles' Creed was the result of a\nsilent growth and very gradual formation corresponding to the\never-changing environments and needs of the Christian congregations,\nespecially over against the heretics, there is no sufficient reason why\nthe apostles themselves should not have been instrumental in its\nformulation, nor why, with the exception of a number of minor later\nadditions its original form should not have been essentially what it is\nto-day.\n\nNathanael confessed: \"Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King\nof Israel,\" John 1, 49, the apostles confessed: \"Thou art the Christ,\nthe Son of the living God,\" Matt. 16, 16; Peter confessed: \"We believe\nand are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,\" John\n6, 69; Thomas confessed: \"My Lord and my God,\" John 20, 28. These and\nsimilar confessions of the truth concerning Himself were not merely\napproved of, but solicited and demanded by, Christ. For He declares most\nsolemnly: \"Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I\nconfess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall\ndeny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in\nheaven,\" Matt. 10, 32. 33. The same duty of confessing their faith,\n_i.e._, the truths concerning Christ, is enjoined upon all Christians by\nthe Apostle Paul when he writes: \"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth\nthe Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him\nfrom the dead, thou shalt be saved,\" Rom. 10, 9.\n\nIn the light of these and similar passages, the trinitarian baptismal\nformula prescribed by Christ evidently required from the candidate for\nBaptism a definite statement of what he believed concerning the Father,\nSon and Holy Ghost, especially concerning Jesus Christ the Savior. And\nthat such a confession of faith was in vogue even in the days of the\napostles appears from the Bible itself. Of Timothy it is said that he\nhad \"professed a good profession before many witnesses,\" 1 Tim. 6, 12.\nHeb. 4, 14 we read: \"Let us hold fast our profession.\" Heb. 10, 23: \"Let\nus hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.\" Jude urges\nthe Christians that they \"should earnestly contend for the faith which\nwas once delivered unto the saints,\" and build up themselves on their\n\"most holy faith,\" Jude 3. 20. Compare also 1 Cor. 15, 3. 4; 1 Tim. 3,\n16; Titus 1, 13; 3, 4-7.\n\n10. Apostles' Creed and Early Christian Writers.\n\nThe Christian writers of the first three centuries, furthermore, furnish\nample proof for the following facts: that from the very beginning of the\nChristian Church the candidates for Baptism everywhere were required to\nmake a confession of their faith; that from the beginning there was\nexisting in all the Christian congregations a formulated confession\nwhich they called the rule of faith, the rule of truth, etc.; that this\nrule was identical with the confession required of the candidates for\nBaptism; that it was declared to be of apostolic origin; that the\nsummaries and explanations of this rule of truth, given by these\nwriters, tally with the contents and in part, also with the phraseology\nof the Apostles' Creed; that the scattered Christian congregations, then\nstill autonomous, regarded the adoption of this rule, of faith as the\nonly necessary condition of Christian unity and fellowship.\n\nThe manner in which Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, and\nother early Christian writers present the Christian truth frequently\nreminds us of the Apostles' Creed and suggests its existence. Thus\nJustin Martyr, who died 165, says in his first Apology, which was\nwritten about 140: \"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who\nalso was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate,\nprocurator of Judea, that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that\nHe is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second\nplace, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.\" \"Eternal praise to the\nFather of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\"\nSimilar strains, sounding like echoes of the Second Article, may be\nfound in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Christians at Smyrna\nwritten by Ignatius, the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch, who died\n107.\n\nIrenaeus, who died 189, remarks: Every Christian \"who retains immovable\nin himself the rule of the truth which he received through Baptism (_ho\nton kanona tes altheias akline en eauto katechon, hon dia tou\nbaptismatos eilephe_)\" is able to see through the deceit of all\nheresies. Irenaeus here identifies the baptismal confession with what he\ncalls the \"rule of truth, _kanon tes eiltheias_\" _i.e._, the truth which\nis the rule for everything claiming to be Christian. Apparently, this\n\"rule of truth\" was the sum of doctrines which every Christian received\nand confessed at his baptism. The very phrase \"rule of truth\" implies\nthat it was a concise and definite formulation of the chief Christian\ntruths. For \"canon, rule,\" was the term employed by the ancient Church\nto designate such brief sentences as were adopted by synods for the\npractise of the Church. And this \"rule of truth\" is declared by Irenaeus\nto be \"the old tradition,\" \"the old tradition of the apostles\": he te\napo ton apostolon en te ekklesia paradosis. (Zahn, _l.c._, 379f.)\nIrenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp the Martyr; and what he had learned\nfrom him, Polycarp had received from the Apostle John. Polycarp, says\nIrenaeus, \"taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and\nwhich the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.\" According\nto Irenaeus, then, the \"rule of truth\" received and confessed by every\nChristian at his baptism was transmitted by the apostles. The contents\nof this rule of truth received from the apostles are repeatedly set\nforth by Irenaeus. In his _Contra Haereses_ (I, 10, 1) one of these\nsummaries reads as follows: \"The Church dispersed through the whole\nworld, to the ends of the earth has received from the apostles and their\ndisciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who has made heaven\nand earth and the sea and all things that are in them, and in one Jesus\nChrist, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in\nthe Holy Spirit, who has proclaimed through the prophets the\ndispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the\npassion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption\ninto heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His manifestation\nfrom heaven in the glory of the Father.\" It thus appears that the \"rule\nof truth\" as Irenaeus knew it, the formulated sum of doctrines mediated\nby Baptism, which he, in accordance with the testimony of his teacher\nPolycarp, believed to have been received from the apostles, at least\napproaches our present Apostolic Creed.\n\n11. Tertullian and Cyprian on Apostles' Creed.\n\nA similar result is obtained from the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian,\nNovatian, Origen and others. \"When we step into the water of Baptism,\"\nsays Tertullian, who died about 220, \"we confess the Christian faith\naccording to the words of its law,\" _i.e._, according to the law of\nfaith or the rule of faith. Tertullian, therefore, identifies the\nconfession to which the candidates for Baptism were pledged with the\nbrief formulation of the chief Christian doctrines which he variously\ndesignates as \"the law of faith,\" \"the rule of faith,\" frequently also\nas _tessara,_ watchword and _sacramentum,_ a term then signifying the\nmilitary oath of allegiance. This Law or Rule of Faith was, according to\nTertullian, the confession adopted by Christians everywhere, which\ndistinguished them from unbelievers and heretics. The unity of the\ncongregations, the granting of the greeting of peace, of the name\nbrother, and of mutual hospitality,--these and similar Christian rights\nand privileges, says Tertullian, \"depend on no other condition than the\nsimilar tradition of the same oath of allegiance,\" _i.e._, the adoption\nof the same baptismal rule of faith. (Zahn, 250.)\n\nAt the same time Tertullian most emphatically claims, \"that this rule of\nfaith was established by the apostles, aye, by Christ Himself,\" inasmuch\nas He had commanded to baptize \"in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost.\" (Zahn, 252.) In his book _Adversus\nPraxeam,_ Tertullian concludes an epitome which he gives of \"the rule of\nfaith\" as follows: \"That this rule has come down from the beginning of\nthe Gospel, even before the earlier heretics, and so, of course before\nthe Praxeas of yesterday, is proved both by the lateness of all heretics\nand by the novelty of this Praxeas of yesterday.\" (Schaff, _Creeds of\nChristendom,_ 2, 18.) The following form is taken from Tertullian's _De\nVirginibus Velandis:_ \"For the rule of faith is altogether one, alone\n(_sola_), immovable, and irreformable, namely, believing in one God\nomnipotent the Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of\nthe Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead\nthe third day, received into the heavens, sitting now at the right hand\nof the Father who shall come to judge the living and the dead, also\nthrough the resurrection of the flesh.\" Cyprian the Martyr, bishop of\nCarthage, who died 257, and who was the first one to apply the term\n_symbolum_ to the baptismal creed, in his Epistle to Magnus and to\nJanuarius, as well as to other Numidian bishops, gives the following as\nthe answer of the candidate for Baptism to the question, \"Do you\nbelieve?\": \"I believe in God the Father, in His Son Christ, in the Holy\nSpirit. I believe the remission of sins, and the life eternal through\nthe holy Church.\"\n\n12. Variations of the Apostles' Creed.\n\nWhile there can be no reasonable doubt either that the Christian\nchurches from the very beginning were in possession of a definite and\nformulated symbol, or that this symbol was an amplification of the\ntrinitarian formula of Baptism, yet we are unable to ascertain with any\ndegree of certainty what its exact original wording was. There has not\nbeen found in the early Christian writers a single passage recording the\nprecise form of the baptismal confession or the rule of truth and faith\nas used in the earliest churches. This lack of contemporal written\nrecords is accounted for by the fact that the early Christians and\nChristian churches refused on principle to impart and transmit their\nconfession in any other manner than by word of mouth. Such was their\nattitude, not because they believed in keeping their creed secret, but\nbecause they viewed the exclusively oral method of impartation as the\nmost appropriate in a matter which they regarded as an affair of deepest\nconcern of their hearts.\n\nIt is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostles\nwere instrumental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that the\nwording of it was not absolutely identical in all Christian\ncongregations, and that in the course of time various changes and\nadditions were made. \"Tradition,\" says Tertullian with respect to the\nbaptismal confession, received from the apostles, \"has enlarged it,\ncustom has confirmed it, faith observes and preserves it.\" (Zahn, 252.\n381.) When, therefore, Tertullian and other ancient writers declare that\nthe rule of faith received from the apostles is \"altogether one,\nimmovable, and irreformable,\" they do not at all mean to say that the\nphraseology of this symbol was alike everywhere, and that in this\nrespect no changes whatever had been made, nor that any clauses had been\nadded. Such variations, additions, and alterations, however, involved a\ndoctrinal change of the confession no more than the Apology of the\nAugsburg Confession implies a doctrinal departure from this symbol. It\nremained the same Apostolic Creed, the changes and additions merely\nbringing out more fully and clearly its true, original meaning. And this\nis the sense in which Tertullian and others emphasize that the rule of\nfaith is \"one, immovable, and irreformable.\"\n\nThe oldest known form of the Apostles' Creed, according to A. Harnack,\nis the one used in the church at Rome, even prior to 150 A.D. It was,\nhowever, as late as 337 or 338, when this Creed, which, as the church at\nRome claimed, was brought thither by Peter himself, was for the first\ntime quoted as a whole by Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra in a letter to\nBishop Julius of Rome, for the purpose of vindicating his orthodoxy.\nDuring the long period intervening, some changes, however, may have\nbeen, and probably were, made also in this Old Roman Symbol, which reads\nas follows:--\n\n_Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora; kai eis Christon Iesoun [ton]\nhuion autou ton monogene, ton kupion hemon, ton gennethenta ek\npneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou\nstaurothenta kai taphenta, te trite hemera anastanta ek [ton] nekron,\nanabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen\nerchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous; kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian\nekklesian aphesin hamartion, sapkos anastasin._ (Herzog, _R. E._ 1,\n744.)\n\n13. Present Form of Creed and Its Contents.\n\nThe complete form of the present _textus receptus_ of the Apostles'\nCreed, evidently the result of a comparison and combination of the\nvarious preexisting forms of this symbol, may be traced to the end of\nthe fifth century and is first found in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles\nin France, about 500.--In his translation, Luther substituted\n\"Christian\" for \"catholic\" in the Third Article. He regarded the two\nexpressions as equivalent in substance, as appears from the Smalcald\nArticles, where he identifies these terms, saying: \"Sic enim orant\npueri: Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam sive Christianam.\" (472, 5;\n498, 3.) The form, \"I believe a holy Christian Church,\" however, is met\nwith even before Luther's time. (Carpzov, _Isagoge,_ 46.)--In the Greek\nversion the received form of the Apostles' Creed reads as follows:--\n\n_Pisteuo eis theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges. Kai\neis Iesoun Christon, huion autou ton monogene, ton kurion hemon, ton\nsullephthenta ek pneumatos hagiou, gennethenta ek Marias tes parthenou,\npathonta epi Pontiou Pilatou, staurothenta, thanonta, kai taphenta,\nanastanta apo ton nekron, anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kathezomenon en\ndexia theou patros pantodunamou, ekeithen erchomenon krinai zontas kai\nnekrous. Pisteuo eis to pneuma to hagion, hagian ekklesian, hagion\nkoinonian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, zoen aionion, Amen._\n\nAs to its contents, the Apostles' Creed is a positive statement of the\nessential facts of Christianity. The Second Article, says Zahn, is \"a\ncompend of the Evangelical history, including even external details.\"\n(264.) Yet some of the clauses of this Creed were probably inserted in\nopposition to prevailing, notably Gnostic, heresies of the first\ncenturies. It was the first Christian symbol and, as Tertullian and\nothers declare, the bond of unity and fellowship of the early Christian\ncongregations everywhere. It must not, however, be regarded as inspired,\nmuch less as superior even to the Holy Scriptures; for, as stated above,\nit cannot even, in any of its existing forms, be traced to the apostles.\nHence it must be subjected to, and tested and judged by, the Holy\nScriptures, the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule and\nnorm of all doctrines, teachers, and symbols. In accordance herewith the\nLutheran Church receives the Apostles' Creed, as also the two other\necumenical confessions, not as _per se_ divine and authoritative, but\nbecause its doctrine is taken from, and well grounded in, the prophetic\nand apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments. (CONC. TRIGL. 851,\n4.)\n\n14. The Nicene Creed.\n\nIn the year 325 Emperor Constantine the Great convened the First\nEcumenical Council at Nicaea, in Bithynia, for the purpose of settling\nthe controversy precipitated by the teaching of Arius, who denied the\ntrue divinity of Christ. The council was attended by 318 bishops and\ntheir assistants, among whom the young deacon Athanasius of Alexandria\ngained special prominence as a theologian of great eloquence, acumen,\nand learning. \"The most valiant champion against the Arians,\" as he was\ncalled, Athanasius turned the tide of victory in favor of the\nHomoousians, who believed that the essence of the Father and of the Son\nis identical. The discussions were based upon the symbol of Eusebius of\nCaesarea, which by changes and the insertion of Homoousian phrases (such\nas _ek tes ousias tou patrous; gennetheis, ou poietheis; homoousios to\npatri_) was amended into an unequivocal clean-cut, anti-Arian\nconfession. Two Egyptian bishops who refused to sign the symbol were\nbanished, together with Arius, to Illyria. The text of the original\nNicene Creed reads as follows:--\n\n_Pisteuomen eis hena theon, patera pantokratora, panton oraton te kai\naoraton poieten. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou\ntheou, gennethenta ek tou patros monogene, toutestin ek tes ousias tou\npatros, theon ek theou, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou\nalethinou, gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta\npanta egeneto, ta te en to ourano kaita epi tes ges; ton di' hemas tous\nanthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta kai sarkothenta\nkai enanthropesanta, pathonta, kai anastanta te trite hemera, kai\nanelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai erchomenon palin krinai zontas kai\nnekrous. Kai eis to pneuma to hagion. Tous de legontas, hoti pote hote\nouk en, kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto, en ex heteras hupostaseos e\nousias phaskontas einai, e ktiston, e alloioton, e trepton ton huion\ntou theou, toutous anathematizei he katholike kai apostolike ekklesia._\n(Mansi, _Amplissima Collectio,_ 2, 665 sq.)\n\n15. Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.\n\nIn order to suppress Arianism, which still continued to flourish,\nEmperor Theodosius convened the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381 at\nConstantinople. The bishops here assembled, 150 in number, resolved that\nthe faith of the Nicene Fathers must ever remain firm and unchanged, and\nthat its opponents, the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians, Eudoxians,\nSemi-Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians,\nmust be rejected. At this council also Macedonius was condemned, who\ntaught that the Holy Spirit is not God: _elege gar auto me einai theon,\nalla tes theontos tou patros allotrion._ (Mansi, 3, 568. 566. 573. 577.\n600.) By omissions, alterations, and additions (in particular concerning\nthe Holy Spirit) this council gave to the Nicene Creed its present form.\nHence it is also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Third\nEcumenical Council, which assembled at Toledo, Spain, in 589, inserted\nthe word \"Filioque,\" an addition which the Greek Church has never\nsanctioned, and which later contributed towards bringing about the great\nEastern Schism. A. Harnack considers the Constantinopolitanum (CPanum),\nthe creed adopted at Constantinople, to be the baptismal confession of\nthe Church of Jerusalem, which, he says, was revised between 362 and 373\nand amplified by the Nicene formulas and a rule of faith concerning the\nHoly Ghost. (Herzog, _R. E._, 11, 19f.) Following is the text of the\nCPanum according to Mansi:\n\n_Pisteuomen eis hena theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges,\noratwn te pantwn kai aoratwn. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon ton\nhuion tou theou ton monogene, ton ek tou patros gennethenta pro panton\nton aionon, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou alethinou,\ngennethevta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta panta\negeneto, ton di' hemas tous anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian\nkatelthovnta ek tov ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai\nMarias tes parthenou, kai enanthropesanta, staurothenta te huper hemon\nepi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta, kai taphenta, kai anastanta te trite\nhemera kata tas gpaphas, kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai\nkathezomenon ek dexion tou patros, kai palin erchomenon meta doxes\nkrinai zontas kai nekrous; ou tes basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eis\npneuma to hagion, to kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou patros\nekporeuomenon, to sun patri kai huio sumproskunoumenon kai\nsundoxazovmenon, to lalesan dia ton propheton, eis mian hagian\nkatholiken kai apostoliken ekklesian. Homologoumen hen baptisma eis\naphesin hamartion; prosdokomen anastasin nekron, kai zwen tou mellontos\naionos. Amen._ (3, 565.)\n\n16. The Athanasian Creed.\n\nFrom its opening word this Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque.\nRoman tradition has it that Athanasius, who died 373, made this\nconfession before Pope Julius when the latter summoned him \"to submit\nhimself to him [the Pope], as to the ecumenical bishop and Supreme\narbiter of matters ecclesiastical (_ut ei, seu episcopo oecumica et\nsupremo rerum ecclesiasticarum arbitro, sese submitteret_).\" However,\nAthanasius is not even the author of this confession, as appears from\nthe following facts: 1. The Creed was originally written in Latin. 2.\nIt is mentioned neither by Athanasius himself nor by his Greek\neulogists. 3. It was unknown to the Greek Church till about 1200, and\nhas never been accorded official recognition by this Church nor its\n\"orthodox\" sister churches. 4. It presupposes the post-Athanasian\nTrinitarian and Christological controversies.--Up to the present day it\nhas been impossible to reach a final verdict concerning the author of\nthe Quicunque and the time and place of its origin. Koellner's\n_Symbolik_ allocates it to Gaul. Loofs inclines to the same opinion and\nventures the conjecture that the source of this symbol must be sought in\nSouthern Gaul between 450 and 600. (Herzog, _R. E._, 2, 177.) Gieseler\nand others look to Spain for its origin.\n\nParagraphs 1, 2, and 40 of the Athanasian Creed have given offense not\nonly to theologians who advocate an undogmatic Christianity, but to many\nthoughtless Christians as well. Loofs declares: The Quicunque is\nunevangelical and cannot be received because its very first sentence\nconfounds _fides_ with _expositio fidei._ (H., _R. E._, 2, 194.)\nHowever, the charge is gratuitous, since the Athanasian Creed deals with\nthe most fundamental Christian truths: concerning the Trinity, the\ndivinity of Christ, and His work of redemption, without the knowledge of\nwhich saving faith is impossible. The paragraphs in question merely\nexpress the clear doctrine of such passages of the Scriptures as Acts 4,\n12: \"Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other\nname under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;\" John 8, 21:\n\"If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins\"; John 14, 6:\n\"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man\ncometh unto the Father but by Me.\" In complete agreement with the\nimpugned statements of the Athanasian Creed, the Apology of the Augsburg\nConfession closes its article \"Of God\" as follows: \"Therefore we do\nfreely conclude that they are all idolatrous, blasphemers, and outside\nof the Church of Christ who hold or teach otherwise.\" (103)\n\nIn the early part of the Middle Ages the Quicunque had already received\na place in the order of public worship. The Council of Vavre resolved,\n1368: \"Proinde Symbolum Apostolorum silenter et secrete dicitur quotidie\nin Completorio et in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo nondum erat\nfides catholica propalata. Alia autem duo publice in diebus Dominicis et\nfestivis, quando maior ad ecclesiam congregatur populus, decantantur,\nquia fuere edita tempore fidei propalatae. Symbolum quidem Nicaenum post\nevangelium cantatur in Missa quasi evangelicae fidei expositio. Symbolum\nAthanasii de mane solum cantatur in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore quo\nmaxime fuerunt depulsa et detecta nox atra et tenebrae haeresium et\nerrorum.\" (Mansi, 26, 487.) Luther says: \"The first symbol, that of the\napostles, is indeed the best of all, because it contains a concise,\ncorrect and splendid presentation of the articles of faith and is easily\nlearned by children and the common people. The second, the Athanasian\nCreed, is longer ... and practically amounts to an apology of the first\nsymbol.\" \"I do not know of any more important document of the New\nTestament Church since the days of the apostles\" [than the Athanasian\nCreed]. (St. L. 10, 994; 6, 1576; E. 23, 253.)\n\n17. Luther on Ecumenical Creeds.\n\nThe central theme of the Three Ecumenical Symbols is Christ's person and\nwork, the paramount importance of which Luther extols as follows in his\ntract of 1538: \"In all the histories of the entire Christendom I have\nfound and experienced that all who had and held the chief article\nconcerning Jesus Christ correctly remained safe and sound in the true\nChristian faith. And even though they erred and sinned in other points,\nthey nevertheless were finally preserved.\" \"For it has been decreed,\nsays Paul, Col. 2, 9, that in Christ should dwell all the fulness of the\nGodhead bodily, or personally, so that he who does not find or receive\nGod in Christ shall never have nor find Him anywhere outside of Christ,\neven though he ascend above heaven, descend below hell, or go beyond the\nworld.\" \"On the other hand, I have also observed that all errors,\nheresies, idolatries, offenses, abuses, and ungodliness within the\nChurch originally resulted from the fact that this article of faith\nconcerning Jesus Christ was despised or lost. And viewed clearly and\nrightly, all heresies militate against the precious article of Jesus\nChrist, as Simeon says concerning Him, Luke 2, 34, that He is set for\nthe falling and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign which is\nspoken against; and long before this, Isaiah, chapter 8, 14, spoke of\nHim as 'a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.'\" \"And we in the\nPapacy, the last and greatest of saints, what have we done? We have\nconfessed that He [Christ] is God and man; but that He is our Savior,\nwho died and rose for us, etc., this we have denied and persecuted with\nmight and main\" (those who taught this). \"And even now those who claim\nto be the best Christians and boast that they are the Holy Church, who\nburn the others and wade in innocent blood, regard as the best doctrine\n[that which teaches] that we obtain grace and salvation through our own\nworks. Christ is to be accorded no other honor with regard to our\nsalvation than that He made the beginning, while we are the heroes who\ncomplete it with our merit.\"\n\nLuther continues: \"This is the way the devil goes to work. He attacks\nChrist with three storm-columns. One will not suffer Him to be God; the\nother will not suffer Him to be man, the third denies that He has\nmerited salvation for us. Each of the three endeavors to destroy Christ.\nFor what does it avail that you confess Him to be God if you do not also\nbelieve that He is man? For then you have not the entire and the true\nChrist, but a phantom of the devil. What does it avail you to confess\nthat He is true man if you do not also believe that He is true God? What\ndoes it avail you to confess that He is God and man if you do not also\nbelieve that whatever He became and whatever He did was done for you?\"\n\"Surely, all three parts must be believed, namely, that He is God, also,\nthat He is man, and that He became such a man for us, that is, as the\nfirst symbol says: conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary,\nsuffered, was crucified, died, and rose again, etc. If one small part is\nlacking, then all parts are lacking. For faith shall and must be\ncomplete in every particular. While it may indeed be weak and subject to\nafflictions, yet it must be entire and not false. Weakness [of faith]\ndoes not work the harm but false faith--that is eternal death.\" (St. L.\n10, 998; E. 23, 258.)\n\nConcerning the mystery involved in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the\nchief topic of the Ecumenical Creeds, Luther remarks in the same tract:\n\"Now, to be sure, we Christians are not so utterly devoid of all reason\nand sense as the Jews consider us, who take us to be nothing but crazy\ngeese and ducks, unable to perceive or notice what folly it is to\nbelieve that God is man, and that in one Godhead there are three\ndistinct persons. No, praise God, we perceive indeed that this doctrine\ncannot and will not be received by reason. Nor are we in need of any\nsublime Jewish reasoning to demonstrate this to us. We believe it\nknowingly and willingly. We confess and also experience that, where the\nHoly Spirit does not, surpassing reason, shine into the heart, it is\nimpossible to grasp, or to believe, and abide by, such article;\nmoreover, there must remain in it [the heart] a Jewish, proud, and\nsupercilious reason deriding and ridiculing such article, and thus\nsetting up itself as judge and master of the Divine Being whom it has\nnever seen nor is able to see and hence does not know what it is passing\njudgment on, nor whereof it thinks or speaks. For God dwells in a 'light\nwhich no man can approach unto,' 1 Tim. 6, 16. He must come to us, yet\nhidden in the lantern, and as it is written, John 1, 18: 'No man hath\nseen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of\nthe Father, He hath declared Him,' and as Moses said before this, Ex.\n33: 'There shall no man see Me [God] and live.'\" (St. L. 10, 1007; E.\n23, 568.)\n\n\nIII. The Augsburg Confession.\n\n18. Diet Proclaimed by Emperor.\n\nJanuary 21, 1530, Emperor Charles V proclaimed a diet to convene at\nAugsburg on the 8th of April. The manifesto proceeded from Bologna,\nwhere, three days later, the Emperor was crowned by Pope Clement VII.\nThe proclamation, after referring to the Turkish invasion and the action\nto be taken with reference to this great peril, continues as follows:\n\"The diet is to consider furthermore what might and ought to be done and\nresolved upon regarding the division and separation in the holy faith\nand the Christian religion; and that this may proceed the better and\nmore salubriously, [the Emperor urged] to allay divisions, to cease\nhostility, to surrender past errors to our Savior, and to display\ndiligence in hearing, understanding, and considering with love and\nkindness the opinions and views of everybody, in order to reduce them to\none single Christian truth and agreement, to put aside whatever has not\nbeen properly explained or done by either party, so that we all may\nadopt and hold one single and true religion; and may all live in one\ncommunion, church, and unity, even as we all live and do battle under\none Christ.\"\n\nIn his invitation to attend the diet, the Emperor at the same time\nurged the Elector of Saxony by all means to appear early enough (the\nElector reached Augsburg on May 2 while the Emperor did not arrive\nbefore June 16), \"lest the others who arrived in time be compelled to\nwait with disgust, heavy expenses and detrimental delay such as had\nfrequently occurred in the past.\" The Emperor added the warning: In case\nthe Elector should not appear, the diet would proceed as if he had been\npresent and assented to its resolutions. (Foerstemann, _Urkundenbuch,_ 1,\n7 f.)\n\nMarch 11 the proclamation reached Elector John at Torgau. On the 14th\nChancellor Brueck advised the Elector to have \"the opinion on which our\nparty has hitherto stood and to which they have adhered,\" in the\ncontroverted points, \"properly drawn up in writing, with a thorough\nconfirmation thereof from the divine Scriptures.\" On the same day the\nElector commissioned Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon to\nprepare a document treating especially of \"those articles on account of\nwhich said division, both in faith and in other outward church customs\nand ceremonies, continues.\" (43.) At Wittenberg the theologians at once\nset to work, and the result was presented at Torgau March 27 by\nMelanchthon. On April 4 the Elector and his theologians set out from\nTorgau, arriving at Coburg on the 15th, where they rested for eight\ndays. On the 23d of April the Elector left for Augsburg, while Luther,\nwho was still under the ban of both the Pope and the Emperor, remained\nat the fortress Ebernburg. Nevertheless he continued in close touch with\nthe confessors, as appears from his numerous letters written to\nAugsburg, seventy all told about twenty of which were addressed to\nMelanchthon.\n\n19. Apology Original Plan of Lutherans.\n\nThe documents which the Wittenberg theologians delivered at Torgau\ntreated the following subjects: Human Doctrines and Ordinances, Marriage\nof Priests, Both Kinds, Mass, Confession, Power of Bishops, Ordination,\nMonastic Vows, Invocation of the Saints, German Singing, Faith and\nWorks, Office of the Keys (Papacy), Ban, Marriage, and Private Mass.\nAccordingly, the original intention of the Lutherans was not to enter\nupon, and present for discussion at Augsburg, such doctrines as were not\nin controversy (Of God, etc.), but merely to treat of the abuses and\nimmediately related doctrines, especially of Faith and Good Works. (66\nff.) They evidently regarded it as their chief object and duty to\njustify before the Emperor and the estates both Luther and his\nprotectors, the electors of Saxony. This is borne out also by the\noriginal Introduction to the contemplated Apology, concerning which we\nread in the prefatory remarks to the so-called Torgau Articles mentioned\nabove: \"To this end [of justifying the Elector's peaceable frame of\nmind] it will be advantageous to begin [the projected Apology] with a\nlengthy rhetorical introduction.\" (68; _C. R._, 26, 171.) This\nintroduction, later on replaced by another, was composed by Melanchthon\nat Coburg and polished by him during the first days at Augsburg. May 4\nhe remarks in a letter to Luther: \"I have shaped the Exordium of our\nApology somewhat more rhetorical (_hretorikoteron_) than I had written\nit at Coburg.\" (_C. R._, 2, 40; Luther, St. L. 16, 652.) In this\nintroduction Melanchthon explains: Next to God the Elector builds his\nhope on the Emperor, who had always striven for peace, and was even now\nprepared to adjust the religious controversy in mildness. As to the\nElector and his brother Frederick, they had ever been attached to the\nChristian religion, had proved faithful to the Emperor, and had\nconstantly cultivated peace. Their present position was due to the fact\nthat commandments of men had been preached instead of faith in Christ.\nNot Luther, but Luther's opponents, had begun the strife. It was for\nconscience' sake that the Elector had not proceeded against Luther.\nBesides, such action would only have made matters worse, since Luther\nhad resisted the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists. Equally unfounded\nwere also the accusations that the Evangelicals had abolished all order\nas well as all ceremonies, and had undermined the authority of the\nbishops. If only the bishops would tolerate the Gospel and do away with\nthe gross abuses, they would suffer no loss of power, honor, and\nprestige. In concluding Melanchthon emphatically protests: \"Never has a\nreformation been undertaken so utterly without any violence as this [in\nSaxony]; for it is a public fact that our men have prevailed with such\nas were already in arms to make peace.\" (Kolde, _l.c._, 13.) The\ndocument, accordingly, as originally planned for presentation at\nAugsburg, was to be a defense of Luther and his Elector. In keeping\nherewith it was in the beginning consistently designated \"Apology.\"\n\n20. Transformation of Apology into Confession Due to Eck's Slanders.\n\nThis plan, however, was modified when the Lutherans, after reaching\nAugsburg, heard of and read the 404 Propositions published by Dr. John\nEck, in which Luther was classified with Zwingli, Oecolampadius,\nCarlstadt, Pirkheimer, Hubmaier, and Denk, and was charged with every\nconceivable heresy. In a letter of March 14, accompanying the copy of\nhis Propositions which Eck sent to the Emperor, he refers to Luther as\nthe domestic enemy of the Church (_hostis ecclesiae domesticus_), who\nhas fallen into every Scylla and Charybdis of iniquity; who speaks of\nthe Pope as the Antichrist and of the Church as the harlot; who has\npraise for none but heretics and schismatics; whom the Church has to\nthank for the Iconoclasts, Sacramentarians, New Hussites, Anabaptists,\nNew Epicureans, who teach that the soul is mortal, and the Cerinthians;\nwho rehashes all the old heresies condemned more than a thousand years\nago, etc. (Plitt, _Einleitung in die Augustana,_ 1, 527 ff.) Such and\nsimilar slanders had been disseminated by the Papists before this, and\nthey continued to do so even after the Lutherans, at Augsburg, had made\na public confession of their faith and had most emphatically disavowed\nall ancient and modern heresies. Thus Cochlaeus asserted in his attack\non the Apology, published 1534, that Lutheranism was a concoction of all\nthe old condemned heresies, that Luther taught fifteen errors against\nthe article of God, and Melanchthon nine against the Nicene Creed, etc.\nLuther, he declared, had attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in a\ncoarser fashion than Arius. (Salig, _Historie d. Augsb. Konf.,_ 1, 377.)\n\nThese calumniations caused the Lutherans to remodel and expand the\ndefense originally planned into a document which should not merely\njustify the changes made by them with regard to customs and ceremonies,\nbut also present as fully as possible the doctrinal articles which they\nheld over against ancient and modern heresies, falsely imputed to them.\nThus to some extent it is due to the scurrility of Eck that the\ncontemplated Apology was transformed into an all-embracing Confession, a\nterm employed by Melanchthon himself. In a letter to Luther, dated May\n11, 1530, he wrote: \"Our Apology is being sent to you--though it is\nrather a Confession. _Mittitur tibi apologia nostra, quamquam verius\nconfessio est._ I included [in the Confession] almost all articles of\nfaith, because Eck published most diabolical lies against us, _quia\nEckius edidit diabolikontatas diabolas contra nos._ Against these it was\nmy purpose to provide an antidote.\" (_C. R._ 2, 45; Luther, St. L. 16,\n654.)\n\nThis is in accord also with Melanchthon's account in his Preface of\nSeptember 29, 1559 to the German _Corpus Doctrinae_ (Philippicum),\nstating: \"Some papal scribblers had disseminated pasquinades at the diet\n[at Augsburg, 1530], which reviled our churches with horrible lies,\ncharging that they taught many condemned errors, and were like the\nAnabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to His\nImperial Majesty, and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decided\nto include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, that\nevery one might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in the\nlying papal writings. ... Finally, this Confession was, as God directed\nand guided, drawn up by me in the manner indicated, and the venerable\nDoctor Martin Luther was pleased with it.\" (_C. R._ 9, 929.)\n\nThe original plan, however, was not entirely abandoned, but merely\nextended by adding a defense also against the various heresies with\nwhich the Lutherans were publicly charged. This was done in an objective\npresentation of the principal doctrines held by the Lutherans, for which\nthe Marburg and Schwabach Articles served as models and guides.\n\n21. Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles.\n\nThe material from which Melanchthon constructed the Augsburg Confession\nis, in the last analysis, none other than the Reformation truths which\nLuther had proclaimed since 1517 with ever-increasing clarity and force.\nIn particular, he was guided by, and based his labor on, the Marburg\nArticles, the Schwabach Articles, and the so-called Torgau Articles. The\nMarburg Articles, fifteen in number, had been drawn up by Luther, in\n1529, at the Colloquy of Marburg, whence he departed October 6, about\nsix months before the Diet at Augsburg. (Luther, St. L., 17, 1138 f.)\nThe seventeen Schwabach Articles were composed by Luther, Melanchthon,\nJonas, Brenz and Agricola, and presented to the Convention at Smalcald\nabout the middle of October, 1529. According to recent researches the\nSchwabach Articles antedated the Marburg Articles and formed the basis\nfor them. (Luther, Weimar Ed., 30, 3, 97, 107.) In 1530 Luther published\nthese Articles, remarking: \"It is true that I helped to draw up such\narticles; for they were not composed by me alone.\" This public statement\ndiscredits the opinion of v. Schubert published in 1908 according to\nwhich Melanchthon is the sole author of the Schwabach Articles, Luther's\ncontribution and participation being negligible. The Schwabach Articles\nconstitute the seventeen basic articles of the first part of the\nAugsburg Confession. (St. L. 16, 638. 648. 564; _C. R._ 26, 146 f.)\n\nThe so-called Torgau Articles are the documents referred to above,\ntouching chiefly upon the abuses. Pursuant to the order of the Elector,\nthey were prepared by Luther and his assistants, Melanchthon,\nBugenhagen, and possibly also Jonas. They are called Torgau Articles\nbecause the order for drafting them came from Torgau (March 14), and\nbecause they were presented to the Elector at Torgau. (Foerstemann, 1,\n66; _C. R._ 26, 171; St. L. 16, 638.) With reference to these articles\nLuther wrote (March 14) to Jonas, who was then still conducting the\nvisitation: \"The Prince has written to us, that is, to you, Pomeranus,\nPhilip, and myself, in a letter addressed to us in common, that we\nshould come together set aside all other business, and finish before\nnext Sunday whatever is necessary for the next diet on April 8. For\nEmperor Charles himself will be present at Augsburg to settle all things\nin a friendly way, as he writes in his bull. Therefore, although you are\nabsent, we three shall do what we can today and tomorrow; still, in\norder to comply with the will of the Prince, it will be incumbent upon\nyou to turn your work over to your companions and be present with us\nhere on the morrow. For things are in a hurry. _Festinata enim sunt\nomnia._\" (St. L. 16, 638.)\n\nMelanchthon also wrote to Jonas on the 15th of March: \"Luther is\nsummoning you by order of the Prince; you will therefore come as soon as\nit is at all possible. The Diet, according to the proclamation, will\nconvene at Augsburg. And the Emperor graciously promises that he will\ninvestigate the matter, and correct the errors on both sides. May Christ\nstand by us!\" (_C. R._ 2, 28; Foerstemann, 1, 45.) It was to these\narticles (Torgau Articles) that the Elector referred when he wrote to\nLuther from Augsburg on the 11th of May: \"After you and others of our\nlearned men at Wittenberg, at our gracious desire and demand, have\ndrafted the articles which are in religious controversy, we do not wish\nto conceal from you that Master Philip Melanchthon has now at this place\nperused them further and drawn them up in one form.\" (_C. R._ 2, 47.)\n\n22. Luther's Spokesman at Augsburg.\n\nThe material, therefore, out of which Melanchthon, who in 1530 was still\nin full accord with Luther doctrinally, framed the fundamental symbol of\nthe Lutheran Church were the thoughts and, in a large measure, the very\nwords of Luther. Melanchthon gave to the Augsburg Confession its form\nand its irenic note, its entire doctrinal content, however must be\nconceded to be \"_iuxta sententiam Lutheri,_ according to the teaching of\nLuther,\" as Melanchthon himself declared particularly with respect to\nthe article of the Lord's Supper. (_C. R._ 2, 142.) On the 27th of June,\ntwo days after the presentation of the Confession, Melanchthon wrote to\nLuther: \"We have hitherto followed your authority, _tuam secuti hactenus\nauctoritatem,_\" and now, says Melanchthon, Luther should also let him\nknow how much could be yielded to the opponents. (2, 146.) Accordingly,\nin the opinion of Melanchthon, Luther, though absent, was the head of\nthe Evangelicals also at Augsburg.\n\nIn his answer Luther does not deny this, but only demands of Melanchthon\nto consider the cause of the Gospel as his own. \"For,\" says he, \"it is\nindeed my affair, and, to tell the truth, my affair more so than that of\nall of you.\" Yet they should not speak of \"authority.\" \"In this matter,\"\nhe continues, \"I will not be or be called your author [authority]; and\nthough this might be correctly explained, I do not want this word. If it\nis not your affair at the same time and in the same measure, I do not\ndesire that it be called mine and be imposed upon you. If it is mine\nalone, I shall direct it myself.\" (St. L. 16, 906. 903. Enders, _Luthers\nBriefwechsel,_ 8, 43.)\n\nLuther, then, was the prime mover also at Augsburg. Without him there\nwould have been no Evangelical cause, no Diet of Augsburg, no\nEvangelical confessors, no Augsburg Confession. And this is what Luther\nreally meant when he said: \"_Confessio Augustana mea;_ the Augsburg\nConfession is mine.\" (Walch 22, 1532.) He did not in the least thereby\nintend to deprive Melanchthon of any credit properly due him with\nreference to the Confession. Moreover, in a letter written to Nicolaus\nHausmann on July 6, 1530, Luther refers to the Augustana as \"our\nconfession, which our Philip prepared; _quam Philippus noster paravit._\"\n(St. L. 16, 882; Enders 8, 80.) As a matter of fact, however, the day of\nAugsburg, even as the day of Worms, was the day of Luther and of the\nEvangelical truth once more restored to light by Luther. At Augsburg,\ntoo, Melanchthon was not the real author and moving spirit, but the\ninstrument and mouthpiece of Luther, out of whose spirit the doctrine\nthere confessed had proceeded. (See Formula of Concord 983, 32--34.)\n\nOnly blindness born of false religious interests (indifferentism,\nunionism, etc.) can speak of Melanchthon's theological independence at\nAugsburg or of any doctrinal disagreement between the Augsburg\nConfession and the teaching of Luther. That, at the Diet, he was led,\nand wished to be led, by Luther is admitted by Melanchthon himself. In\nthe letter of June 27, referred to above, he said: \"The matters, as you\n[Luther] know, have been considered before, though in the combat it\nalways turns out otherwise than expected.\" (St. L. 16, 899; _C. R._ 2,\n146.) On the 31st of August he wrote to his friend Camerarius: \"Hitherto\nwe have yielded nothing to our opponents, except what Luther judged\nshould be done, since the matter was considered well and carefully\nbefore the Diet; _re bene ac diligenter deliberata ante conventum_.\" (2,\n334.)\n\nVery pertinently E. T. Nitzsch said of Melanchthon (1855): \"With the son\nof the miner, who was destined to bring good ore out of the deep shaft,\nthere was associated the son of an armorer, who was well qualified to\nfollow his leader and to forge shields, helmets, armor, and swords for\nthis great work.\" This applies also to the Augsburg Confession, in which\nMelanchthon merely shaped the material long before produced by Luther\nfrom the divine shafts of God's Word. Replying to Koeller, Rueckert, and\nHeppe, who contend that the authorship of the Augsburg Confession must\nin every way be ascribed to Melanchthon, Philip Schaff writes as\nfollows: \"This is true as far as the spirit [which Luther called\n'pussyfooting,' _Leisetreten_] and the literary composition are\nconcerned; but as to the doctrines Luther had a right to say, 'The\nCatechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg\nConfession are _mine._'\" (_Creeds_ 1, 229.)\n\n23. Drafting the Confession.\n\nMay 11 the Confession was so far completed that the Elector was able to\nsubmit it to Luther for the purpose of getting his opinion on it.\nAccording to Melanchthon's letter of the same date, the document\ncontained \"almost all articles of faith, _omnes fere articulos fedei._\"\n(_C. R._ 2, 45.) This agrees with the account written by Melanchthon\nshortly before his death, in which he states that in the Augsburg\nConfession he had presented \"the sum of our Church's doctrine,\" and that\nin so doing he had arrogated nothing to himself; for in the presence of\nthe princes, etc., each individual sentence had been discussed.\n\"Thereupon,\" says Melanchthon, \"the entire Confession was sent also to\nLuther, who informed the princes that he had read it and approved it.\nThe princes and other honest and learned men still living will remember\nthat such was the case. _Missa est denique et Luthero tota forma\nConfessionis, qui Principibus scripsit, se hanc Confessionem et legisse\net probare. Haec ita acta esse, Principes et alii honesti et docti viri\nadhuc superstites meminerint._\" (9, 1052.) As early as May 15 Luther\nreturned the Confession with the remark: \"I have read Master Philip's\nApology. I am well pleased with it, and know nothing to improve or to\nchange in it; neither would this be proper, since I cannot step so\ngently and softly. Christ, our Lord, grant that it may produce much and\ngreat fruit which, indeed, we hope and pray for. Amen.\" (St. L. 16,\n657.) Luther is said to have added these words to the Tenth Article:\n\"And they condemn those who teach otherwise, _et improbant secus\ndocentes._\" (Enders, 7, 336.)\n\nUp to the time of its presentation the Augsburg Confession was\ndiligently improved, polished, perfected, and partly recast. Additions\nwere inserted and several articles added. Nor was this done secretly and\nwithout Luther's knowledge. May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: \"Daily\nwe change much in the Apology. I have eliminated the article On Vows,\nsince it was too brief, and substituted a fuller explanation. Now I am\nalso treating of the Power of the Keys. I would like to have you read\nthe articles of faith. If you find no shortcoming in them, we shall\nmanage to treat the remainder. For one must always make some changes in\nthem and adapt oneself to conditions. _Subinde enim mutandi sunt atque\nad occasiones accommodandi._\" (_C. R._ 2, 60; Luther, 16, 689.)\nImprovements suggested by Regius and Brenz were also adopted. (Zoeckler,\n_Die A. K._, 18.)\n\nEven Brueck is said to have made some improvements. May 24 the Nuernberg\ndelegates wrote to their Council: \"The Saxon Plan [Apology] has been\nreturned by Doctor Luther. But Doctor Brueck, the old chancellor, still\nhas some changes to make at the beginning and the end.\" (_C. R._ 2, 62.)\nThe expression \"beginning and end (_hinten und vorne_),\" according to\nTschackert, is tantamount to \"all over (_ueberall_).\" However, even\nbefore 1867 Plitt wrote it had long ago been recognized that this\nexpression refers to the Introduction and the Conclusion of the\nConfession, which were written by Brueck. (Aug. 2, 11.) Bretschneider is\nof the same opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 62.) June 3 the Nuernberg delegates\nwrote: \"Herewith we transmit to Your Excellencies a copy of the Saxon\nPlan [Confession] in Latin, together with the Introduction or Preamble.\nAt the end, however, there are lacking one or two articles [20 and 21]\nand the Conclusion, in which the Saxon theologians are still engaged.\nWhen that is completed, it shall be sent to Your Excellencies. Meanwhile\nYour Excellencies may cause your learned men and preachers to study it\nand deliberate upon it. When this Plan [Confession] is drawn up in\nGerman, it shall not be withheld from Your Excellencies. The Saxons,\nhowever, distinctly desire that, for the present, Your Excellencies keep\nthis Plan or document secret, and that you permit no copy to be given to\nany one until it has been delivered to His Imperial Majesty. They have\nreasons of their own for making this request. ... And if Your\nExcellencies' pastors and learned men should decide to make changes or\nimprovements in this Plan or in the one previously submitted, these,\ntoo, Your Excellencies are asked to transmit to us.\" (2, 83.) June 26\nMelanchthon wrote to Camerarius: \"Daily I changed and recast much; and I\nwould have changed still more if our advisers (_sumphradmones_) had\npermitted us to do so.\" (2, 140.)\n\n24. Public Reading of the Confession.\n\nJune 15, after long negotiations, a number of other estates were\npermitted to join the adherents of the Saxon Confession. (_C. R._ 2,\n105.) As a result, Melanchthon's Introduction, containing a defense of\nthe Saxon Electors, without mentioning the other Lutheran estates, no\nlonger fitted in with the changed conditions. Accordingly, it was\nsupplanted by the Preface composed by Brueck, and translated into Latin\nby Justus Jonas, whose acknowledged elegant Latin and German style\nqualified him for such services. At the last deliberation, on June 23,\nthe Confession was signed. And on June 25, at 3 P.M., the ever-memorable\nmeeting of the Diet took place at which the Augustana was read by\nChancellor Beyer in German, and both manuscripts were handed over. The\nEmperor kept the Latin copy for himself, and gave the German copy to the\nImperial Chancellor, the Elector and Archbishop Albrecht, to be\npreserved in the Imperial Archives at Mainz. Both texts, therefore, the\nLatin as well as the German, have equal authority, although the German\ntext has the additional distinction and prestige of having been publicly\nread at the Diet.\n\nAs to where and how the Lutheran heroes confessed their faith, Kolde\nwrites as follows: \"The place where they assembled on Saturday, June 25,\nat 3 P.M., was not the courtroom, where the meetings of the Diet were\nordinarily conducted, but, as the Imperial Herald, Caspar Sturm,\nreports, the 'Pfalz,' the large front room, _i.e._, the Chapter-room of\nthe bishop's palace, where the Emperor lived. The two Saxon chancellors,\nDr. Greg. Brueck and Dr. Chr. Beyer, the one with the Latin and the\nother with the German copy of the Confession, stepped into the middle of\nthe hall, while as many of the Evangelically minded estates as had the\ncourage publicly to espouse the Evangelical cause arose from their seats.\nCaspar Sturm reports: 'Als aber die gemeldeten Commissarii und\nBotschaften der oesterreichischen Lande ihre Werbung und Botschaft\nvollendet und abgetreten, sind darauf von Stund' an Kurfuerst von Sachsen\nnaemlich Herzog Johannes, Markgraf Joerg von Brandenburg, Herzog Ernst\nsamt seinem Bruder Franzisko, beide Herzoege zu Braunschweig und\nLueneburg, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Graf Wolf von Anhalt usw. von\nihrer Session auf; und gegen Kaiserliche Majestaet gestanden.' The\nEmperor desired to hear the Latin text. But when Elector John had called\nattention to the fact that the meeting was held on German soil, and\nexpressed the hope that the Emperor would permit the reading to proceed\nin German, it was granted. Hereupon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. The\nreading lasted about two hours; but he read with a voice so clear and\nplain that the multitude, which could not gain access to the hall,\nunderstood every word in the courtyard.\" (19 f.)\n\nThe public reading of the Confession exercised a tremendous influence in\nevery direction. Even before the Diet adjourned, Heilbronn, Kempten,\nWindsheim, Weissenburg and Frankfurt on the Main professed their\nadherence to it. Others had received the first impulse which\nsubsequently induced them to side with the Evangelicals. Brenz has it\nthat the Emperor fell asleep during the reading. However, this can have\nbeen only temporarily or apparently, since Spalatin and Jonas assure us\nthat the Emperor, like the other princes and King Ferdinand, listened\nattentively. Their report reads: \"_Satis attentus erat Caesar,_ The\nEmperor was attentive enough.\" Duke William of Bavaria declared: \"Never\nbefore has this matter and doctrine been presented to me in this\nmanner.\" And when Eck assured him that he would undertake to refute the\nLutheran doctrine with the Fathers, but not with the Scriptures, the\nDuke responded, \"Then the Lutherans, I understand, sit in the Scriptures\nand we of the Pope's Church beside the Scriptures! _So hoer' ich wohl,\ndie Lutherischen sitzen in der Schrift und wir Pontificii daneben!_\" The\nArchbishop of Salzburg declared that he, too desired a reformation, but\nthe unbearable thing about it was that one lone monk wanted to reform\nthem all. In private conversation, Bishop Stadion of Augsburg exclaimed,\n\"What has been read to us is the truth, the pure truth, and we cannot\ndeny it.\" (St. L. 16, 882; Plitt, _Apologie,_ 18.) Father Aegidius, the\nEmperor's confessor, said to Melanchthon, \"You have a theology which a\nperson can understand only if he prays much.\" Campegius is reported to\nhave said that for his part he might well permit such teaching; but it\nwould be a precedent of no little consequence, as the same permission\nwould then have to be given other nations and kingdoms, which could not\nbe tolerated. (Zoeckler, _A. K._, 24.)\n\n25. Luther's Mild Criticism.\n\nJune 26 Melanchthon sent a copy of the Confession, as publicly read, to\nLuther, who adhering to his opinion of May 15, praised it yet not\nwithout adding a grain of gentle criticism. June 29 he wrote to\nMelanchthon: \"I have received your Apology and can not understand what\nyou may mean when you ask what and how much should be yielded to the\nPapists. ... As far as I am concerned too much has already been yielded\n(_plus satis cessum est_) in this Apology; and if they reject it, I see\nnothing that might be yielded beyond what has been done, unless I see\nthe proofs they proffer, and clearer Bible-passages than I have hitherto\nseen. ... As I have always written--I am prepared to yield everything to\nthem if we are but given the liberty to teach the Gospel. I cannot yield\nanything that militates against the Gospel.\" (St. L. 16, 902; Enders, 8,\n42. 45.) The clearest expression of Luther's criticism is found in a\nletter to Jonas, dated July 21, 1530. Here we read: \"Now I see the\npurpose of those questions [on the part of the Papists] whether you had\nany further articles to present. The devil still lives, and he has\nnoticed very well that your Apology steps softly, and that it has veiled\nthe articles of Purgatory, the Adoration of the Saints, and especially\nthat of the Antichrist, the Pope.\" Another reading of this passage of\nLuther: \"_Apologiam vestram, die Leisetreterin, dissimulasse,_\" is\nseverer even than the one quoted: \"_Apologiam vestram leise treten et\ndissimulasse._\" (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders, 8, 133.)\n\nBrenz regarded the Confession as written \"very courteously and modestly,\n_valde de civiliter et modeste._\" (_C. R._ 2, 125.) The Nuernberg\ndelegates had also received the impression that the Confession, while\nsaying what was necessary, was very reserved and discreet. They reported\nto their Council: \"Said instruction [Confession], as far as the articles\nof faith are concerned, is substantially like that which we have\npreviously sent to Your Excellencies, only that it has been improved in\nsome parts, and throughout made as mild as possible (_allenthalben aufs\nglimpflichste gemacht_), yet, according to our view, without omitting\nanything necessary.\" (2, 129.) At Smalcald, in 1537, the theologians\nwere ordered by the Princes and Estates \"to look over the Confession, to\nmake no changes pertaining to its contents or substance, nor those of\nthe Concord [of 1536], but merely to enlarge upon matters regarding the\nPapacy, which, for certain reasons, was previously omitted at the Diet\nof Augsburg in submissive deference to His Imperial Majesty.\" (Kolde,\n_Analecta,_ 297.)\n\nIndirectly Melanchthon himself admits the correctness of Luther's\ncriticism. True, when after the presentation of the Confession he\nthought of the angry Papists, he trembled fearing that he had written\ntoo severely. June 26 he wrote to his most intimate friend, Camerarius:\n\"Far from thinking that I have written milder than was proper, I rather\nstrongly fear (_mirum in modum_) that some have taken offense at our\nfreedom. For Valdes, the Emperor's secretary, saw it before its\npresentation and gave it as his opinion that from beginning to end it\nwas sharper than the opponents would be able to endure.\" (_C. R._ 2,\n140.) On the same day he wrote to Luther: \"According to my judgment, the\nConfession is severe enough. For you will see that I have depicted the\nmonks sufficiently.\" (141.)\n\nIn two letters to Camerarius, however, written on May 21 and June 19,\nrespectively, hence before the efforts at toning down the Confession\nwere completed, Melanchthon expressed the opinion that the Confession\ncould not have been written \"in terms more gentle and mild, _mitior et\nlenior._\" (2, 57.) No doubt, Melanchthon also had in mind his\nfar-reaching irenics at Augsburg, when he wrote in the Preface to the\nApology of the Augsburg Confession: \"It has always been my custom in\nthese controversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form of\nthe customarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concord\nmight the more readily be effected. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far\nfrom this custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this age\nstill farther from the opinions of the adversaries.\" (101, 11.)\nEvidently, Melanchthon means to emphasize that in the Augustana he had\nbeen conservative criticizing only when compelled to do so for\nconscience' sake.\n\n26. Luther Praising Confession and Confessors.\n\nLuther's criticism did not in the least dampen his joy over the glorious\nvictory at Augsburg nor lessen his praise of the splendid confession\nthere made. In the above-mentioned letter of June 27 he identifies\nhimself fully and entirely with the Augustana and demands that\nMelanchthon, too, consider it an expression of his own faith, and not\nmerely of Luther's faith. July 3 he wrote to Melanchthon: \"Yesterday I\nreread carefully your entire Apology, and it pleases me extremely\n(_vehementer_).\" (St. L. 16, 913; Enders, 8, 79.) July 6 he wrote a\nletter to Cordatus in which he speaks of the Augustana as \"altogether a\nmost beautiful confession, _plane pulcherrima confessio._\" At the same\ntime he expresses his great delight over the victory won at Augsburg,\napplying to the Confession Ps. 119, 46: \"I will speak of Thy testimonies\nalso before kings, and will not be ashamed,\"--a text which ever since\nhas remained the motto, appearing on all of its subsequent manuscripts\nand printed copies.\n\nLuther said: \"I rejoice beyond measure that I lived to see the hour in\nwhich Christ was publicly glorified by such great confessors of His, in\nso great an assembly, through this in every respect most beautiful\nConfession. And the word has been fulfilled [Ps. 119, 46]: 'I will speak\nof Thy testimonies also before kings;' and the other word will also be\nfulfilled: 'I was not confounded.' For, 'Whosoever confesses Me before\nmen' (so speaks He who lies not), 'him will I also confess before My\nFather which is in heaven.'\" (16, 915; E. 8, 83.) July 9 Luther wrote to\nJonas \"Christ was loudly proclaimed by means of the public and glorious\nConfession (_publica et gloriosa confessione_) and confessed in the open\n(_am Lichte_) and in their [the Papists'] faces, so that they cannot\nboast that we fled, had been afraid, or had concealed our faith. I only\nregret that I was not able to be present when this splendid Confession\nwas made (_in hac pulchra confessione_).\" (St. L. 16, 928; E. 8, 94.)\n\nOn the same day, July 9, Luther wrote to the Elector: \"I know and\nconsider well that our Lord Christ Himself comforts the heart of Your\nElectoral Grace better than I or any one else is able to do. This is\nshown, too, and proved before our eyes by the facts, for the opponents\nthink that they made a shrewd move by having His Imperial Majesty\nprohibit preaching. But the poor deluded people do not see that, through\nthe written Confession presented to them, more has been preached than\notherwise perhaps ten preachers could have done. Is it not keen wisdom\nand great wit that Magister Eisleben and others must keep silence? But\nin lieu thereof the Elector of Saxony, together with other princes and\nlords, arises with the written Confession and preaches freely before His\nImperial Majesty and the entire realm, under their noses so that they\nmust hear and cannot gainsay. I think that thus the order prohibiting\npreaching was a success indeed. They will not permit their servants to\nhear the ministers, but must themselves hear something far worse (as\nthey regard it) from such great lords, and keep their peace. Indeed,\nChrist is not silent at the Diet; and though they be furious, still they\nmust hear more by listening to the Confession than they would have heard\nin a year from the preachers. Thus is fulfilled what Paul says: God's\nWord will nevertheless have free course. If it is prohibited in the\npulpit, it must be heard in the palaces. If poor preachers dare not\nspeak it, then mighty princes and lords proclaim it. In brief, if\neverything keeps silence, the very stones will cry out, says Christ\nHimself.\" (16, 815.) September 15, at the close of the Diet, Luther\nwrote to Melanchthon: \"You have confessed Christ, offered peace, obeyed\nthe Emperor, endured reproach, been sated with slander, and have not\nrecompensed evil for evil; in sum you have performed the holy work of\nGod, as becomes saints, in a worthy manner. ... I shall canonize you\n(_canonizabo vos_) as faithful members of Christ.\" (16, 2319; E. 8,\n259.)\n\n27. Manuscripts and Editions of Augustana.\n\nAs far as the text of the Augsburg Confession is concerned, both of the\noriginal manuscripts are lost to us. Evidently they have become a prey\nto Romish rage and enmity. Eck was given permission to examine the\nGerman copy in 1540, and possibly at that time already it was not\nreturned to Mainz. It may have been taken to Trent for the discussions\nat the Council, and thence carried to Rome. The Latin original was\ndeposited in the Imperial Archives at Brussels, where it was seen and\nperused by Lindanus in 1562. February 18, 1569, however, Philip II\ninstructed Duke Alva to bring the manuscript to Spain, lest the\nProtestants \"regard it as a Koran,\" and in order that \"such a damned\nwork might forever be destroyed; _porque se hunda para siempre tan\nmalvada obra._\" The keeper of the Brussels archives himself testifies\nthat the manuscript was delivered to Alva. There is, however, no lack of\nother manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession. Up to the present time no\nless than 39 have been found. Of these, five German and four Latin\ncopies contain also the signatures. The five German copies are in verbal\nagreement almost throughout, and therefore probably offer the text as\nread and presented at Augsburg.\n\nThe printing of the Confession had been expressly prohibited by the\nEmperor. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich: \"Our Confession has\nbeen presented to the Emperor. He ordered that it be not printed. You\nwill therefore see that it is not made public.\" (_C. R._ 2, 142.)\nHowever, even during the sessions of the Diet a number of printed\neditions six in German and one in Latin, were issued by irresponsible\nparties. But since these were full of errors, and since, furthermore,\nthe Romanists asserted with increasing boldness and challenge that the\nConfession of the Lutherans had been refuted, by the Roman Confutation,\nfrom the Scriptures and the Fathers, Melanchthon, in 1530, had a correct\nedition printed, which was issued, together with the Apology, in May,\n1531. This quarto edition (\"Beide, Deutsch Und Lateinisch Ps. 119\") is\nregarded as the _editio princeps._\n\nFor years this edition was also considered the authentic edition of the\nAugsburg Confession. Its Latin text was embodied 1584 in the Book of\nConcord as the _textus receptus._ But when attention was drawn to the\nchanges in the German text of this edition (also the Latin text had been\nsubjected to minor alterations), the Mainz Manuscript was substituted in\nthe German Book of Concord, as its Preface explains. (14.) This\nmanuscript, however contains no original signatures and was erroneously\nconsidered the identical document presented to the Emperor, of which it\nwas probably but a copy. In his Introduction to the Symbolical Books, J.\nT. Mueller expresses the following opinion concerning the Mainz\nManuscript: \"To say the least, one cannot deny that its text, as a rule,\nagrees with that of the best manuscripts, and that its mistakes can\neasily be corrected according to them and the _editio princeps,_ so that\nwe have no reason to surrender the text received by the Church and to\naccept another in place thereof, of which we cannot prove either that it\nis any closer to the original.\" (78.) Tschackert, who devoted much study\nto the manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession, writes: \"The Saxon\ntheologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is still certainly\nbetter than Melanchthon's original imprint [the _editio princeps_] yet,\nwhen compared with the complete and--because synchronous with the\noriginally presented copy--reliable manuscripts of the signers of the\nConfession, the Mainz Manuscript proves to be defective in quite a\nnumber of places.\" (_L.c._ 621 f.)\n\nHowever, even Tschackert's minute comparison shows that the Mainz\nManuscript deviates from the original presented to the Emperor only in\nunimportant and purely formal points. For example, in sec. 20 of the\nPreface the words: \"Papst das Generalkonzilium zu halten nicht\ngeweigert, so waere E. K. M. gnaediges Erbieten, zu fordern und zu\nhandeln, dass der\" are omitted. Art. 27 sec. 48 we are to read: \"dass\ndie erdichteten geistlichen Orden Staende sind christlicher\nVollkommenheit\" instead of: \"dass die erdichteten geistlichen\nOrdensstaende sind christliche Vollkommenheit.\" Art. 27, sec. 61 reads,\n\"die Uebermass der Werke,\" instead of, \"die Uebermasswerke,\" by the way,\nan excellent expression, which should again be given currency in the\nGerman. The conclusion of sec. 2 has \"Leichpredigten\" instead of\n\"Beipredigten.\" According to the manuscripts, also the Mainz Manuscript,\nthe correct reading of sec. 12 of the Preface is as follows: \"Wo aber\nbei unsern Herrn, Freunden und besonders den Kurfuersten, Fuersten und\nStaenden des andern Teils die Handlung dermassen, wie E. K. M.\nAusschreiben vermag (bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb und\nGuetigkeit) nicht verfangen noch erspriesslich sein wollte\" etc. The\nwords, \"bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb' und Guetigkeit,\" are\nquoted from the imperial proclamation. (Foerstemann, 7, 378; Plitt, 2,\n12.)\n\nOriginally only the last seven articles concerning the abuses had\nseparate titles, the doctrinal articles being merely numbered, as in the\nMarburg and Schwabach Articles, which Melanchthon had before him at\nAugsburg. (Luther, Weimar 30, 3, 86. 160.) Nor are the present captions\nof the doctrinal articles found in the original German and Latin\neditions of the Book of Concord, Article XX forming a solitary\nexception; for in the German (in the Latin Concordia, too, it bears no\ntitle) it is superscribed: \"Vom Glauben und guten Werken, Of Faith and\nGood Works.\" This is probably due to the fact that Article XX was taken\nfrom the so-called Torgau Articles and, with its superscription there,\nplaced among the doctrinal articles. In the German edition of 1580 the\nword \"Schluss\" is omitted where the Latin has \"Epilogus.\"\n\nAs to the translations, even before the Confession was presented to the\nEmperor, it had been rendered into French. (This translation was\npublished by Foerstemann, 1, 357.) The Emperor had it translated for his\nown use into both Italian and French. (_C. R._ 2, 155; Luther, St. L.,\n16, 884.) Since then the Augustana has been done into Hebrew, Greek,\nSpanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Slavic, Danish, Swedish, English, and many\nother languages. As to the English translations, see page 6. [tr. note:\nnumbered section 4, above]\n\n28. Signatures of Augsburg Confession.\n\nConcerning the signatures of the Augustana, Tschackert writes as\nfollows: The names of the signers are most reliably determined from the\nbest manuscript copies of the original of the Confession, which have\nbeen preserved to us. There we find the signatures of eight princes and\ntwo free cities, to wit, Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of\nBrandenburg-Ansbach, Duke Ernest of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Landgrave\nPhilip of Hesse, then John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony,\nErnest's brother Francis of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Prince Wolfgang of\nAnhalt, Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and the cities Nuernberg and\nReutlingen. (_L.c._ 285; see also Luther's letter of July 6, 1530, St.\nL. 16, 882.) Camerarius, in his Life of Melanchthon, relates that\nMelanchthon desired to have the Confession drawn up in the name of the\ntheologians only, but that his plan did not prevail because it was\nbelieved that the signatures of the princes would lend prestige and\nsplendor to the act of presenting this confession of faith. Besides,\nthis plan of Melanchthon's was excluded by the Emperor's proclamation.\n\nAlthough Philip of Hesse, in the interest of a union with the Swiss, had\nzealously, but in vain, endeavored to secure for the article concerning\nthe Lord's Supper a milder form still, in the end, he did not refuse to\nsign. Regius wrote to Luther, May 21, that he had discussed the entire\ncause of the Gospel with the Landgrave, who had invited him to dinner,\nand talked with him for two hours on the Lord's Supper. The Prince had\npresented all the arguments of the Sacramentarians and desired to hear\nRegius refute them. But while the Landgrave did not side with Zwingli\n(_non sentit cum Zwinglio_), yet he desired with all his heart an\nagreement of the theologians, as far as piety would permit (_exoptat\ndoctorum hominum concordiam, quantum sinit pietas_). He was far less\ninclined to dissension than rumor had it before his arrival. He would\nhardly despise the wise counsel of Melanchthon and others. (Kolde,\n_Analecta,_ 125; see also _C. R._ 2, 59, where the text reads, \"_nam\nsentit cum Zwinglio_\" instead of, \"_non sentit cum Zwinglio._\")\nAccordingly, the mind of the Landgrave was not outright Zwinglian, but\nunionistic. He regarded the followers of Zwingli as weak brethren who\nmust be borne with, and to whom Christian fellowship should not be\nrefused. This also explains how the Landgrave could sign the Augustana,\nand yet continue his endeavors to bring about a union.\n\nMay 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: \"The Macedonian [Philip of Hesse]\nnow contemplates signing our formula of speech, and it appears as if he\ncan be drawn back to our side; still, a letter from you will be\nnecessary. Therefore I beg you most urgently that you write him,\nadmonishing him not to burden his conscience with a godless doctrine.\"\nStill the Landgrave did not change his position in the next few weeks.\nJune 25, however, Melanchthon reported to Luther: \"The Landgrave\napproves our Confession and has signed it. You will, I hope accomplish\nmuch if you seek to strengthen him by writing him a letter.\" (_C. R._ 2,\n60. 92. 96. 101. 103. 126; Luther St. L., 16, 689; 21a, 1499.)\n\nAt Augsburg, whither also Zwingli had sent his _Fidei Ratio,_ the\nSouth-German imperial cities (Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau)\npresented the so-called _Confessio Tetrapolitana,_ prepared by Bucer and\nCapito, which declares that the Sacraments are \"holy types,\" and that in\nthe Lord's Supper the \"true body\" and the \"true blood\" of Christ \"are\ntruly eaten and drunk as meat and drink for the souls which are thereby\nnourished unto eternal life.\" However, in 1532 these cities, too, signed\nthe Augsburg Confession.\n\nThus the seed which Luther sowed had grown wonderfully. June 25, 1530,\nis properly regarded as the real birthday of the Lutheran Church. From\nthis day on she stands before all the world as a body united by a public\nconfession and separate from the Roman Church. The lone, but courageous\nconfessor of Worms saw himself surrounded with a stately host of true\nChristian heroes, who were not afraid to place their names under his\nConfession, although they knew that it might cost them goods and blood,\nlife and limb. When the Emperor, after entering Augsburg, stubbornly\ndemanded that the Lutherans cease preaching, Margrave George of\nBrandenburg finally declared: \"Rather than deny my God and suffer the\nWord of God to be taken from me, I will kneel down and have my head\nstruck off.\" (_C. R._ 2, 115.) That characterizes the pious and heroic\nframe of mind of all who signed the Augustana in 1530 In a letter, of\nJune 18, to Luther, Jonas relates how the Catholic princes and estates\nknelt down to receive the blessing of Campegius when the latter entered\nthe city, but that the Elector remained standing and declared: \"To God\nalone shall knees be bowed; _In Deo flectenda sunt genua._\" (Kolde,\n_Analecta,_ 135.) When Melanchthon called the Elector's attention to the\npossible consequences of his signing the Augsburg Confession, the latter\nanswered that he would do what was right, without concerning himself\nabout his electoral dignity; he would confess his Lord, whose cross he\nprized higher than all the power of the world.\n\nBrenz wrote: \"Our princes are most steadfast in confessing the Gospel,\nand surely, when I consider their great steadfastness, there comes over\nme no small feeling of shame because we poor beggars [theologians] are\nfilled with fear of the Imperial Majesty.\" (_C. R._ 2, 125.) Luther\npraises Elector John for having suffered a bitter death at the Diet of\nAugsburg. There, says Luther, he had to swallow all kinds of nasty soups\nand poison with which the devil served him; at Augsburg he publicly,\nbefore all the world, confessed Christ's death and resurrection, and\nhazarded property and people, yea, his own body and life; and because of\nthe confession which he made we shall honor him as a Christian. (St. L.\n12, 2078 f.) And not only the Lutheran Church, but all Protestant\nChristendom, aye, the entire world has every reason to revere and hold\nsacred the memory of the heroes who boldly affixed their names to the\nConfession of 1530.\n\n29. Tributes to Confession of Augsburg.\n\nFrom the moment of its presentation to the present day, men have not\ntired of praising the Augsburg Confession, which has been called\n_Confessio augusta, Confessio augustissima,_ the \"_Evangelischer\nAugapfel,_\" etc. They have admired its systematic plan, its\ncompleteness, comprehensiveness, and arrangement; its balance of\nmildness and firmness; its racy vigor, freshness, and directness; its\nbeauty of composition, \"the like of which can not be found in the entire\nliterature of the Reformation period.\" Spalatin exclaims: \"A Confession,\nthe like of which was never made, not only in a thousand years, but as\nlong as the world has been standing!\" Sartorius: \"A confession of the\neternal truth, of true ecumenical Christianity, and of all fundamental\narticles of the Christian faith!\" \"From the Diet of Augsburg, which is\nthe birthday of the Evangelical Church Federation, down to the great\nPeace Congress of Muenster and Osnabrueck, this Confession stands as the\ntowering standard in the entire history of those profoundly troublous\ntimes, gathering the Protestants about itself in ever closer ranks, and,\nwhen assaulted by the enemies of Evangelical truth with increasing fury,\nis defended by its friends in severe fighting, with loss of goods and\nblood, and always finally victoriously holds the field. Under the\nprotection of this banner the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has\nbeen built up on firm and unassailable foundations: under the same\nprotection the Reformed Church in Germany has found shelter. But the\nbanner was carried still farther; for all Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and\nPrussians have sworn allegiance to it, and the Esthonians, Latts, Finns,\nas well as all Lutherans of Russia, France, and other lands recognize\ntherein the palladium of their faith and rights. No other Protestant\nconfession has ever been so honored.\" (Guericke, _Kg._, 3, 116 f.)\n\nVilmar says in praise of the Confession: \"Whoever has once felt a gentle\nbreath of the bracing mountain air which is wafted from this mighty\nmountain of faith [the Augsburg Confession] no longer seeks to pit\nagainst its firm and quiet dignity his own uncertain, immature, and\nwavering thoughts nor to direct the vain and childish puff of his mouth\nagainst that breath of God in order to give it a different direction.\"\n(_Theol. d. Tatsachen,_ 76.) In his Introduction to the Symbolical\nBooks, J. T. Mueller says: \"Luther called the Diet of Augsburg 'the last\ntrumpet before Judgment Day;' hence we may well call the confession\nthere made the _blast_ of that trumpet, which, indeed, has gone forth\ninto all lands, even as the Gospel of God which it proclaims in its\npurity.\" (78.) The highest praise, however, is given the Augsburg\nConfession by the Church which was born with it, when, _e.g._, in the\nFormula of Concord, the Lutherans designate it as \"the symbol of our\ntime,\" and glory in it as the Confession, which, though frowned upon and\nassailed by its opponents, \"down to this day has remained unrefuted and\nunoverthrown (bis auf diesen Tag unwiderlegt und unumgestossen\ngeblieben).\" (777, 4; 847, 3.)\n\n\nIV. Melanchthon's Alterations of the Augsburg Confession.\n\n30. Changes Unwarranted.\n\nMelanchthon continued uninterruptedly to polish and correct the Augsburg\nConfession till immediately before its presentation on June 25, 1530.\nWhile, indeed he cannot be censured for doing this, it was though\noriginally not so intended by Melanchthon, an act of presumption to\ncontinue to alter the document after it had been adopted, signed, and\npublicly presented. Even the _editio princeps_ of 1531 is no longer in\nliteral agreement with the original manuscripts. For this reason the\nGerman text embodied in the Book of Concord is not the one contained in\nthe _editio princeps,_ but that of the Mainz Manuscript, which, as\nstated, was erroneously believed to be the identical German copy\npresented to the Emperor. The Latin text of the _editio princeps,_\nembodied in the Book of Concord, had likewise undergone some, though\nunessential, changes. These alterations became much more extensive in\nthe Latin octavo edition of 1531 and in the German revision of 1533. The\nVariata of 1540 and 1542, however, capped the climax as far as changes\nare concerned, some of them being very questionable also doctrinally. In\ntheir \"Approbation\" of the Concordia Germanico-Latina, edited by\nReineccius, 1708, the Leipzig theologians remark pertinently:\nMelanchthon found it \"impossible to leave a book as it once was.\"\nWitness his _Loci_ of 1521, which he remodeled three times--1535, 1542,\nand 1548. However, the _Loci_ were his own private work while the\nAugustana was the property and confession of the Church.\n\nTschackert is right when he comments as follows: \"To-day it is regarded\nas an almost incomprehensible trait of Melanchthon's character that\nimmediately after the Diet and all his lifetime he regarded the\nConfession as a private production of his pen, and made changes in it as\noften as he had it printed, while he, more so than others, could but\nevaluate it as a state-paper of the Evangelical estates, which, having\nbeen read and delivered in solemn session, represented an important\ndocument of German history, both secular and ecclesiastical. In\nextenuation it is said that Melanchthon made these changes in\npedagogical interests, namely, in order to clarify terms or to explain\nthem more definitely; furthermore, that for decades the Evangelical\nestates and theologians did not take offense at Melanchthon's changes.\nBoth may be true. But this does not change the fact that the chief\neditor of the Confession did not appreciate the world-historical\nsignificance of this state-paper of the Evangelical estates.\" (_L.c._\n288.) Nor can it be denied that Melanchthon made these changes, not\nmerely in pedagogical interests, but, at least a number of them, also\nin the interest of his deviating dogmatic views and in deference to\nPhilip of Hesse, who favored a union with the Swiss. Nor can Melanchthon\nbe fully cleared of dissimulation in this matter. The revised Apology of\n1540, for example, he openly designated on the titlepage as \"diligently\nrevised, _diligenter recognita\";_ but in the case of the Augsburg\nConfession of 1540 and 1542 he in no way indicated that it was a changed\nand augmented edition.\n\nAs yet it has not been definitely ascertained when and where the terms\n\"Variata\" and \"Invariata\" originated. At the princes' diet of Naumburg,\nin 1561, the Variata was designated as the \"amended\" edition. The Reuss\nConfession of 1567 contains the term \"unaltered Augsburg Confession.\" In\nits Epitome as well as in its Thorough Declaration the Formula of\nConcord speaks of \"the First Unaltered Augsburg Confession--_Augustana\nilla prima et non mutata Confessio._\" (777, 4; 851, 5.) The Preface to\nthe Formula of Concord repeatedly speaks of the Variata of 1540 as \"the\nother edition of the Augsburg Confession--_altera Augustanae\nConfessionis editio._\" (13 f.)\n\n31. Detrimental Consequences of Alterations.\n\nThe changes made in the Augsburg Confession brought great distress,\nheavy cares, and bitter struggles upon the Lutheran Church both from\nwithin and without. Church history records the manifold and sinister\nways in which they were exploited by the Reformed as well as the\nPapists; especially by the latter (the Jesuits) at the religious\ncolloquies beginning 1540, until far into the time of the Thirty Years'\nWar, in order to deprive the Lutherans of the blessings guaranteed by\nthe religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555. (Salig, _Gesch. d. A. K._, 1, 770\nff.; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1919, 218 ff.)\n\nOn Melanchthon's alterations of the Augsburg Confession the Romanists,\nas the Preface to the Book of Concord explains, based the reproach and\nslander that the Lutherans themselves did not know \"which is the true\nand genuine Augsburg Confession.\" (15.) Decrying the Lutherans, they\nboldly declared \"that not two preachers are found who agree in each and\nevery article of the Augsburg Confession, but that they are rent asunder\nand separated from one another to such an extent that they themselves no\nlonger know what is the Augsburg Confession and its proper sense.\"\n(1095.) In spite of the express declaration of the Lutherans at\nNaumburg, 1561, that they were minded to abide by the original Augsburg\nConfession as presented to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, 1530, the\nPapists and the Reformed did not cease their calumniations, but\ncontinued to interpret their declarations to mean, \"as though we [the\nLutherans] were so uncertain concerning our religion, and so often had\ntransfused it from one formula to another, that it was no longer clear\nto us or our theologians what is the Confession once offered to the\nEmperor at Augsburg.\" (11.)\n\nAs a result of the numerous and, in part radical changes made by\nMelanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, the Reformed also, in the course\nof time more and more, laid claim to the Variata and appealed to it over\nagainst the loyal Lutherans. In particular, they regarded and\ninterpreted the alteration which Melanchthon had made in Article X, Of\nthe Lord's Supper, as a correction of the original Augustana in\ndeference to the views of Calvinism. Calvin declared that he (1539 at\nStrassburg) had signed the Augustana \"in the sense in which its author\n[Melanchthon] explains it (_sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatur_).\" And\nwhenever the Reformed, who were regarded as confessionally related to\nthe Augsburg Confession (_Confessioni Augustanae addicti_), and as such\nshared in the blessings of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of\nWestphalia (1648), adopted, and appealed to, the Augustana, they\ninterpreted it according to the Variata.\n\nReferring to this abuse on the part of the Reformed and\nCrypto-Calvinists, the Preface to the Book of Concord remarks: \"To these\ndisadvantages [the slanders of the Romanists] there is also added that,\nunder the pretext of the Augsburg Confession [Variata of 1540], the\nteaching conflicting with the institution of the Holy Supper of the body\nand blood of Christ and also other corruptions were introduced here and\nthere into the churches and schools.\" (11. 17.)--Thus the changes made\nin the Augsburg Confession did much harm to the Lutheran cause.\nMelanchthon belongs to the class of men that have greatly benefited our\nChurch, but have also seriously harmed it. \"These fictions\" of the\nadversaries, says the Preface to the Book of Concord concerning the\nslanders based on Melanchthon's changes \"have deterred and alienated\nmany good men from our churches, schools, doctrine, faith, and\nconfession.\" (11.)\n\n32. Attitude toward Variata.\n\nJohn Eck was the first who, in 1541, at the religious colloquy of Worms,\npublicly protested against the Variata. But since it was apparent that\nmost of the changes were intended merely as reenforcements of the\nLutheran position against the Papists, and Melanchthon also declared\nthat he had made no changes in \"the matter and substance or in the\nsense,\" _i.e._, in the doctrine itself, the Lutherans at that time, as\nthe Preface to the Book of Concord shows, attached no further importance\nto the matter. The freedom with which in those days formal alterations\nwere made even in public documents, and the guilelessness with which\nsuch changes were received, appears, for example, from the translation\nof the Apology by Justus Jonas. However, not all Lutherans even at that\ntime were able to view Melanchthon's changes without apprehension and\nindifference. Among these was Elector John Frederick, who declared that\nhe considered the Augustana to be the confession of those who had signed\nit, and not the private property of Melanchthon.\n\nIn his admonition to Brueck of May 5, 1537, he says: \"Thus Master Philip\nalso is said to have arrogated to himself the privilege of changing in\nsome points the Confession of Your Electoral Grace and the other princes\nand estates, made before His Imperial Majesty at Augsburg, to soften it\nand to print it elsewhere [a reprint of the changed Latin octavo edition\nof 1531 had been published 1535 at Augsburg and another at Hagenau]\nwithout the previous knowledge and approval of Your Electoral Grace and\nof the other estates which, in the opinion of Your Electoral Grace, he\nshould justly have refrained from, since the Confession belongs\nprimarily to Your Electoral Grace and the other estates; and from it\n[the alterations made] Your Electoral Grace and the other related\nestates might be charged that they are not certain of their doctrine and\nare also unstable. Besides, it is giving an offense to the people.\" (_C.\nR._ 3, 365.) Luther, too, is said to have remonstrated with Melanchthon\nfor having altered the Confession. In his Introduction to the Augsburg\nConfession (Koenigsberg, 1577) Wigand reports: \"I heard from Mr. George\nRorarius that Dr. Luther said to Philip, 'Philip, Philip, you are not\ndoing right in changing Augustanam Confessionem so often for it is not\nyour, but the Church's book.'\" Yet it is improbable that this should\nhave occurred between 1537 and 1542, for in 1540 the Variata followed,\nwhich was changed still more in 1542, without arousing any public\nprotest whatever.\n\nAfter Luther's death, however, when Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations\nbecame apparent, and the Melanchthonians and the loyal Lutherans became\nmore and more opposed to one another, the Variata was rejected with\nincreasing determination by the latter as the party-symbol of the\nPhilippists. In 1560 Flacius asserted at Weimar that the Variata\ndiffered essentially from the Augustana. In the Reuss-Schoenburg\nConfession of 1567 the Variata was unqualifiedly condemned; for here we\nread: We confess \"the old, true, unaltered Augsburg Confession, which\nlater was changed, mutilated, misinterpreted, and falsified ... by the\nAdiaphorists in many places both as regards the words and the substance\n(_nach den Worten und sonst in den Haendeln_), which thus became a\nbuskin, _Bundschuh,_ pantoffle, and a Polish boot, fitting both legs\nequally well [suiting Lutherans as well as Reformed] or a cloak and a\nchangeling (_Wechselbalg_), by means of which Adiaphorists,\nSacramentarians, Antinomians, new teachers of works, and the like hide,\nadorn, defend, and establish their errors and falsifications under the\ncover and name of the Augsburg Confession, pretending to be likewise\nconfessors of the Augsburg Confession, for the sole purpose of enjoying\nwith us under its shadow, against rain and hail, the common peace of the\nEmpire, and selling, furthering, and spreading their errors under the\nsemblance of friends so much the more easily and safely.\" (Kolde,\n_Einleitung,_ 30.) In a sermon delivered at Wittenberg, Jacob Andreae\nalso opposed the Variata very zealously.\n\nThus the conditions without as well as within the Lutheran Church were\nsuch that a public declaration on the part of the genuine Lutherans as\nto their attitude toward the alterations of Melanchthon, notably in the\nVariata of 1540, became increasingly imperative. Especially the\ncontinued slanders, intrigues, and threats of the Papists necessitated\nsuch a declaration. As early as 1555, when the Peace of Augsburg was\nconcluded, the Romanists attempted to limit its provisions to the\nadherents of the Augustana of 1530. At the religious colloquy of Worms,\nin 1557, the Jesuit Canisius, distinguishing between a pure and a\nfalsified Augustana, demanded that the adherents of the latter be\ncondemned, and excluded from the discussions.\n\n33. Alterations in Editions of 1531, 1533, 1540.\n\nAs to the alterations themselves, the Latin text of the _editio\nprinceps_ of the Augsburg Confession of 1531 received the following\nadditions: sec. 3 in Article 13, sec. 8 in Article 18, and sec. 26 in\nArticle 26. Accordingly, these passages do not occur in the German text\nof the Book of Concord. Originally sec. 2 in the conclusion of Article\n21 read: \"_Tota_ dissensio est de paucis quibusdam abusibus,\" and sec. 3\nin Article 24: \"Nam ad hoc _praecipue_ opus est ceremoniis, ut doceant\nimperitos.\" The additions made to Articles 13 and 18 are also found in\nthe German text of the _editio princeps_. (_C. R._ 26, 279. 564.)\n\nIn the \"Approbation\" of the Leipzig theologians mentioned above we read:\nThe octavo edition of the Augustana and the Apology printed 1531 by\nGeorge Rauh, according to the unanimous testimony of our theologians,\ncannot be tolerated, \"owing to the many additions and other changes\noriginating from Philip Melanchthon. For if one compares the 20th\nArticle of the Augsburg Confession as well as the last articles on the\nAbuses: 'Of Monastic Vows' and 'Of Ecclesiastical Authority,' it will\nreadily be seen what great additions (_laciniae_) have been patched onto\nthis Wittenberg octavo edition of 1531. The same thing has also been\ndone with the Apology, especially in the article 'Of Justification and\nGood Works,' where often entire successive pages may be found which do\nnot occur in the genuine copies. Furthermore, in the declaration\nregarding the article 'Of the Lord's Supper,' where Paul's words, that\nthe bread is a communion of the body of Christ, etc., as well as the\ntestimony of Theophylact concerning the presence of the body of Christ\nin the Supper have been omitted. Likewise in the defense of the articles\n'Of Repentance,' 'Of Confession and Satisfaction,' 'Of Human\nTraditions,' 'Of the Marriage of Priests,' and 'Of Ecclesiastical\nPower,' where, again, entire pages have been added.\" (_L.c._ 8, 13; _C.\nR._ 27, 437.) In the German edition of the Augsburg Confession of 1533\nit was especially Articles 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 that were\nremodeled. These alterations, however, involve no doctrinal changes,\nwith the possible exception of Article 5, where the words \"where and\nwhen He will\" are expunged. (_C. R._ 26, 728.)\n\nAs to the Variata of 1540, however, the extent of the 21 doctrinal\narticles was here almost doubled, and quite a number of material\nalterations were made. Chief among the latter are the following: In\nArticle 5 the words, \"ubi et quando visum est Deo,\" are omitted. In the\n10th Article the rejection of the Reformed doctrine is deleted, and the\nfollowing is substituted for the article proper: \"De coena Domini\ndocent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi\nvescentibus in Coena Domini.\" (_C. R._ 26, 357.) The following sentences\nhave also given offense: \"Et cum hoc modo consolamur nos promissione seu\nEvangelio et erigimus nos fide, certo consequimur remissionem\npeccatorum, et _simul_ datur nobis Spiritus Sanctus.\" \"Cum Evangelium\naudimus aut cogitamus aut sacramenta tractamus et fide nos consolamur\n_simul_ est efficax Spiritus Sanctus.\" (354.) For the words of the 18th\nArticle: \"sed haec fit in cordibus, cum per Verbum Spiritus Sanctus\nconcipitur,\" the Variata substitutes: \"Et Christus dicit: Sine me nihil\npotestis facere. Efficitur autem spiritualis iustitia in nobis, cum\n_audiuvamur_ a Spiritu Sancto. Porro Spiritum Sanctum concipimus, cum\nVerbo Dei assentimur, ut nos fide in terroribus consolemur.\" (362.)\nToward the end of the same article we read: \"Quamquam enim externa opera\naliquo modo potest efficere humana natura per sese, ... verum timorem,\nveram fiduciam, patientiam, castitatem non potest efficere, nisi\nSpiritus Sanctus gubernet et _adiuvet_ corda nostra.\" (363.) In the 19th\nArticle the phrase \"non adiuvante Deo\" is erased, which, by the way,\nindicates that Melanchthon regarded these words as equivalent to those\nof the German text: \"so Gott die Hand abgetan,\" for else he would have\nweakened the text against his own interests. (363.) To the 20th Article\nMelanchthon added the sentence: \"Debet autem ad haec dona [Dei] accedere\nexercitatio nostra, quae et _conservat_ ea et meretur incrementum, iuxta\nillud: Habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus praeclare dixit: Dilectio meretur\nincrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur.\" (311.)\n\n34. Alterations Render Confession Ambiguous.\n\nTrue in making all these changes, Melanchthon did not introduce any\ndirect heresy into the Variata. He did, however, in the interest of his\nirenic and unionistic policy and dogmatic vacillations, render ambiguous\nand weaken the clear sense of the Augustana. By his changes he opened\nthe door and cleared the way, as it were, for his deviations in the\ndirection of Synergism, Calvinism (Lord's Supper), and Romanism (good\nworks are necessary to salvation). Nor was Melanchthon a man who did\nnot know what he was doing when he made alterations. Whenever he\nweakened and trimmed the doctrines he had once confessed, whether in his\n_Loci_ or in the Augustana, he did so in order to satisfy definite\ninterests of his own, interests self-evidently not subservient to, but\nconflicting with, the clear expression and bold confession of the old\nLutheran truth.\n\nKolde, referring in particular to the changes made in the 10th Article,\nsays: \"It should never have been denied that these alterations involved\nreal changes. The motives which actuated Melanchthon cannot be\ndefinitely ascertained, neither from his own expressions nor from\ncontemporary remarks of his circle of acquaintances\" [As late as 1575\nSelneccer reports that Philip of Hesse had asked Melanchthon to erase\nthe _improbatio_ of the 10th Article, because then also the Swiss would\naccept the Augustana as their confession]. \"A comparison with the\nWittenberg Concord of May, 1536 (_cum pane et vino vere et\nsubstantialiter adesse_--that the body and blood [of Christ] are really\nand substantially present with the bread and wine, _C. R._ 3, 75)\njustifies the assumption that by using the form: _cum pane et vino vere\nexhibeantur,_ he endeavored to take into account the existing agreement\nwith the South Germans (_Oberlaender_). However, when, at the same time,\nhe omits the words: _vere et substantialiter adesse,_ and the\n_improbatio,_ it cannot, in view of his gradually changed conception of\nthe Lord's Supper, be doubted that he sought to leave open for himself\nand others the possibility of associating also with the Swiss.\" (25.)\n\nAn adequate answer to the question what prompted Melanchthon to make his\nalterations will embrace also the following points: 1. Melanchthon's\nmania for changing and remodeling in general. 2. His desire, especially\nafter the breach between the Lutherans and the Papists seemed incurable,\nto meet and satisfy the criticism that the Augustana was too mild, and\nto reenforce the Lutheran position over against the Papists. 3.\nMelanchthon's doctrinal deviations, especially in Reformed and\nsynergistic directions.\n\n35. Variata Disowned by Lutheran Church.\n\nIt cannot be denied that during Luther's life and for quite a time after\nhis death the Variata was used by Lutherans without any public\nopposition and recognized as the Augsburg Confession. Martin Chemnitz,\nin his \"Iudicum de Controversiis quibusdam circa quosdam Augustanae\nConfessionis Articulos--Decision concerning Certain Controversies about\nSome Articles of the Augsburg Confession,\" printed 1597, says that the\nedition of 1540 was employed at the religious colloquies with the\nprevious knowledge and approval of Luther; in fact, that it was drawn up\nespecially for the Colloquy at Hagenau, which the opponents (Cochlaeus\nat Worms, Pighius at Regensburg) had taken amiss. \"Graviter tulerant,\"\nsays Chemnitz, \"multis articulis pleniori declaratione plusculum lucis\naccessisse, unde videbant veras sententias magis illustrari et Thaidis\nBabyloniae turpitudinem manifestius denudare--They took it amiss that\nmore light had been shed on many articles by a fuller explanation,\nwhence they perceived the true statements to be more fully illustrated\nand the shame of the Babylonian Thais to be more fully disclosed.\"\n(Mueller, _Einleitung,_ 72.)\n\nFurthermore, it is equally certain that on the part of the Lutheran\nprinces, the Variata was employed without any sinister intentions\nwhatever, and without the slightest thought of deviating even in the\nleast from the doctrine of the original Augustana, as has been falsely\nasserted by Heppe, Weber, and others. Wherever the Variata was adopted\nby Lutheran princes and theologians, it was never for the purpose of\nweakening the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in any point.\nMoreover, the sole reason always was to accentuate and present more\nclearly the contrast between themselves and the Papists; and, generally\nspeaking, the Variata did serve this purpose. True, Melanchthon at the\nsame time, no doubt planned to prepare the way for his doctrinal\ninnovations; but wherever such was the case he kept it strictly to\nhimself.\n\nThe complete guilelessness and good faith in which the Lutheran princes\nand theologians employed the Variata, and permitted its use appears\nfrom the Preface to the Book of Concord. For here they state: \"Therefore\nwe have decided in this writing to testify publicly, and to inform all,\nthat we wished neither then nor now in any way to defend, or excuse or\nto approve, as agreeing with the Gospel-doctrine, false and godless\ndoctrines and opinions which may be concealed under certain coverings of\nwords [in the Variata]. We, indeed, never received the latter edition\n[of 1540] in a sense differing in any part from the former which was\npresented [at Augsburg]. Neither do we judge that other useful writings\nof Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Regius, Pomeranus, etc.,\nshould be rejected and condemned, as far as in all things, they agree\nwith the norm which has been set forth in the Book of Concord.\" (17.)\n\nAccordingly, when the Variata was boldly exploited by the Romanists to\ncirculate all manner of slanders about the Lutherans; when it also\nbecame increasingly evident that the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists\nemployed the Variata as a cover for their false doctrine of the Lord's\nSupper; when, furthermore within the Lutheran Church the suspicion\ngradually grew into conviction that Melanchthon, by his alterations had\nindeed intended to foist doctrinal deviations upon the Lutheran Church;\nand when, finally, a close scrutiny of the Variata had unmistakably\nrevealed the fact that it actually did deviate from the original\ndocument not only in extent, but also with regard to intent, not merely\nformally, but materially as well,--all loyal Lutheran princes and\ntheologians regarded it as self-evident that they unanimously and\nsolemnly declare their exclusive adherence to the Augsburg Confession\nas presented to Emperor Charles at Augsburg, and abandon the Variata\nwithout delay. At Naumburg, in 1561, the Lutheran princes therefore,\nafter some vacillation, declared that they would adhere to the original\nAugsburg Confession and its \"genuine Christian declaration and norm,\"\nthe Smalcald Articles. Frederick III of the Palatinate alone withdrew,\nand before long joined the Calvinists by introducing the Heidelberg\nCatechism, thus revealing the spuriousness of his own Lutheranism.\n\nIt was due especially to the Crypto-Calvinists in Electoral Saxony and\nto the _Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum_ that the Variata retained a\ntemporary and local authority, until it was finally and generally\ndisowned by the Lutheran Church and excluded from its symbols by the\nadoption of the Formula of Concord. For here our Church pledges\nadherence to \"the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the\nEmperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet.\"\n(777, 4; 847, 5; 851, 5.) And in the Preface to the Book of Concord the\nprinces and estates declare: \"Accordingly, in order that no persons may\npermit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our adversaries spun\nout of their own minds, by which they boast that not even we are certain\nwhich is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both those\nwho are now among the living and posterity may be clearly and firmly\ntaught and informed what that godly Confession is which we and the\nchurches and schools of our realms at all times professed and embraced,\nwe emphatically testify that next to the pure and immutable truth of\nGod's Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone which\nwas presented to the Emperor Charles V, in the year 1530, at the famous\nDiet of Augsburg, this alone (we say), and no other.\" (15.) At the same\ntime the princes furthermore protest that also the adoption of the\nFormula of Concord did not make any change in this respect. For\ndoctrinally the Formula of Concord was not, nor was it intended to be, a\n\"new or different confession,\" _i.e._, different from the one presented\nto Emperor Charles V. (20.)\n\n\nV. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession.\n\n36. Papal Party Refusing Conciliation.\n\nAt the Diet of Augsburg, convened in order to restore the disturbed\nreligious peace, the Lutherans were the first to take a step towards\nreconciliation by delivering their Confession, June 25, 1530. In\naccordance with the manifesto of Emperor Charles, they now expected that\nthe papal party would also present its view and opinion, in order that\nthe discussions might thereupon proceed in love and kindness, as the\nEmperor put it. In the Preface to their Confession the Lutherans\ndeclared: \"In obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in\nthis matter of religion the Confession of our preachers and of\nourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and\nthe pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands,\ndukedoms, dominions and cities, and taught in our churches. And if the\nother Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, according to\nthe said imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in\nLatin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of religion, we,\nwith the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial\nMajesty, our most clement Lord, are prepared to confer amicably\nconcerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come\ntogether, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between\nus on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife,\nthe dissension, by God's help, may be done away and brought back to one\ntrue accordant religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do\nbattle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor of\nYour Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought to be conducted\naccording to the truth of God; and this is what, with most fervent\nprayers, we entreat of God.\" (39, 8.)\n\nThe Lutherans did not believe that the manifesto of the Emperor could be\nconstrued in any other way than that both parties would be treated as\nequals at the Diet. Not merely as a matter of good policy, but _bona\nfide,_ as honest Germans and true Christians, they clung tenaciously to\nthe words of the Emperor, according to which the Romanists, too, were to\nbe regarded as a party summoned for the trial, the Emperor being the\njudge. The Lutherans simply refused to take the word of the Emperor at\nanything less than par, or to doubt his good will and the sincerity of\nhis promise. The fact that from the very beginning his actions were in\napparent contravention of the manifesto was attributed by the Lutherans\nto the sinister influence of such bitter, baiting, and unscrupulous\ntheologians as Eck, Cochlaeus, and Faber, who, they claimed, endeavored\nto poison and incite the guileless heart of the Emperor. Thus the\nLutherans would not and could not believe that Charles had deceived\nthem,--a simple trust, which, however, stubborn facts finally compelled\nthem to abandon.\n\nThe Romanists, on the other hand, boasting before the Emperor that they\nhad remained with the true Christian faith, the holy Gospel, the\nCatholic Church, the bull of the Pope, and the Edict of Worms, refused\nwith equal tenacity to be treated as a party summoned for trial. June\n25, 1530, Elector John wrote to Luther: \"Thus we and the other princes\nand estates who are related to us in this matter had to consent to\nsubmit our opinion and confession of faith. Our opponents, however, as\nwe are told, declined to present theirs and decided to show to the\nEmperor that they adhered to the Edict [of Worms] and to the faith which\ntheir fathers had bequeathed to and bestowed upon them, and which they\nintended to adhere to even now; if, however the Pope or, in his place,\nthe Legate, together with His Imperial Majesty, would point out, and\nexpect them to adopt, a different and new faith, they would humbly hear\nthe Emperor's opinion.\" (Luther, St. L. 16, 758.)\n\nThus presupposing what they were summoned to prove at Augsburg, namely,\nthat the doctrine of the Pope was identical with the old Christian\nfaith, the Romanists declared a presentation of their views unnecessary.\nThe Lutherans, they maintained, were convicted apostates and rebels\nagainst Pope and Church, against Emperor and realm; sentence was not\nfirst to be pronounced upon them, but had been pronounced long ago, the\nDiet's duty merely being to confirm and execute it; hence, there was\nnothing else to be done by the Emperor than to attend to his office as\nwarden and protector of the Church, and, together with the princes and\nestates, to proceed against the heretics with drastic measures. Also in\nthe later discussions, conducted with a view of effecting a\nreconciliation, the Romanists refused to relinquish this position. From\nbeginning to end they acted as the accusers, judges, and henchmen of the\nLutherans. Nor was anything else to be expected, since, unlike the\nLutherans, they considered not God's Word, but the Pope the supreme\narbiter in religious matters. Thus from the very outset, the gulf\nbetween the two parties was such that it could not be bridged. Common\nground was lacking. On the one side conscience, bound by the Word of\nGod! On the other, blind subjection to human, papal authority! Also\nRomanists realized that this fundamental and irreconcilable difference\nwas bound to render futile all discussions. It was not merely his own\ndisgust which the papal historian expressed when he concluded his report\non the prolonged discussions at Augsburg: \"Thus the time was wasted with\nvain discussions.\" (Plitt, _Apologie,_ 43.)\n\n37. Further Success Not Hoped for by Luther.\n\nLuther regarded the public reading of the Confession as an unparalleled\ntriumph of his cause. Further results, such as a union with the\nRomanists, he did not expect. On July 9, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: _\"Quid\nsperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso?_ What can I hope of\nthe Emperor, even the best, when he is obsessed\" [by the papal\ntheologians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political toleration.\nIn the letter quoted he continues: \"But they [the Papists] must expect a\nsad, and we a happy issue. Not indeed, that there ever will be unity of\ndoctrine; for who can hope that Belial will be united with Christ?\nExcepting that perhaps marriage [of priests] and the two kinds [of the\nSacrament] be permitted (here too however, this adverb 'perhaps' is\nrequired, and perhaps too much 'perhaps'). But this I wish and earnestly\nhope for, that, the difference in doctrine being set aside, a political\nunion may be made. If by the blessing of Christ this takes place, enough\nand more than enough has been done and accomplished at this Diet. ...\nNow, if we obtain also the third thing, that we adjourn with worldly\npeace secured, then we shall have clearly defeated Satan in this year.\"\n(Enders, 8, 95; St. L. 16 927. 1666.)\n\nJuly 21, 1530, Luther wrote in a similar vein to Jonas: \"The fact that\nthese frogs [the papal theologians who wrote the Confutation] with their\ncroakings [_coaxitatibus_ = pasquinades against Luther, instead of\nanswers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor] chagrins me\nvery much in this great work in the most important matters. ... But this\nhappens to prove that I am a true prophet; for I have always said that we\nwork and hope in vain for a union in doctrine; it would be enough if we\ncould obtain worldly peace.\" (16, 927. 2324.) August 25, when the\nprolonged discussions of reconciliation were nearing their end, he wrote\nto Melanchthon: \"In sum, it does not please me at all that unity of\ndoctrine is to be discussed, since this is utterly impossible, unless\nthe Pope would abolish his entire popery. It would have sufficed if we\nhad presented to them the reasons for our faith and desired peace. But\nhow can we hope that we shall win them over to accept the truth? We have\ncome to hear whether they approve our doctrine or not, permitting them\nto remain what they are, only inquiring whether they acknowledge our\ndoctrine to be correct or condemn it. If they condemn it, what does it\navail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies?\nIf they acknowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of retaining\nthe old abuses?\" (16, 1404.)\n\nThough willing to yield to the Catholic party in all other matters,\nLuther refused to compromise the divine truth in any point or in any\nway. For this reason he also insisted that the Emperor should not be\nrecognized as judge and arbiter without qualification, but only with the\nproviso that his decision would not conflict with the clear Word of God.\nAccording to Luther, everybody, Pope and Emperor included, must submit\nto the authority of the Scriptures. In a letter of July 9, 1530 he wrote\nto the Elector: \"In the first place; Should His Imperial Majesty desire\nthat the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, since it\nwas not His Majesty's purpose to enter into lengthy discussions, I think\nYour Electoral Grace might answer that His Imperial Majesty's manifesto\npromises that he would graciously listen to these matters. If such was\nnot intended, the manifesto would have been needless, for His Imperial\nMajesty might have rendered his decision just as well in Spain without\nsummoning Your Electoral Grace to Augsburg at such great labor and\nexpense. ... In the second place: Should His Imperial Majesty insist\nthat the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters Your\nElectoral Grace may cheerfully answer Yes, the Imperial Majesty shall\ndecide these matters, and Your Electoral Grace would accept and suffer\neverything, provided only that His Imperial Majesty make no decision\nagainst the clear Scriptures, or God's Word. For Your Electoral Grace\ncannot put the Emperor above God, nor accept his verdict in opposition\nto God's Word.\" (16, 815.)\n\n38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor.\n\nBy their obstinate refusal to regard themselves as a party summoned, the\nRomanists from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor to\nmaintain the role of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had never\nreally intended to be. At any rate, though earnestly desirous of\nreligious peace, his actions throughout the Diet do not reveal a single\nserious effort at redeeming his promise and putting his beautiful words\ninto practise. Being bound to the Pope and the papal party both\nreligiously and politically, Charles did not require of the Romanists a\nfulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them by his manifesto. All\nthe concessions were to be made by the Lutherans. _Revoca!_--that was\nthe first and only word which Rome had hitherto spoken to Luther.\n\"Revoke and submit yourselves!\"--that, in the last analysis, was also\nthe demand of the Emperor at Augsburg with respect to the Lutheran\nprinces, both when he spoke in tones friendly and gentle and when he\nuttered severe and threatening words. Charles, it is true, desired\npeace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by universal blind submission\nto the Pope; not a peace by mutual understanding and concessions; least\nof all a peace by political religious tolerance, such as Luther desired,\nand which in our days is generally regarded as the outstanding feature\nof modern civilization, notably of Americanism. To force the Lutherans\ninto submission and obedience to the Pope, that was the real object of\nthe Emperor. And the political situation demanded that this be\naccomplished by peaceable and gentle means--if possible.\n\nSelf-evidently, in his endeavors to establish a Papal Peace, the\nEmperor, who was haunted and tormented by the fear that all efforts\nmight prove futile, was zealously seconded, encouraged, and prodded on\nby the papal theologians. To bring about a religious peace, such as the\nEmperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be an\never-memorable achievement, truly worthy of the Emperor: for the eyes of\nall Christendom were upon him, and he had staked his honor upon the\nsuccess of this glorious undertaking. June 3 the Father Confessor of the\nEmperor, Garsia, then at Rome, wrote to Charles: \"At present there is\nnothing so important in this life as that Your Majesty emerge victorious\nin the German affair. In Italy you will be accounted the best prince on\nearth if God should vouchsafe this grace unto us that the heresies which\nhave arisen in that nation be cured by your hand.\" (Plitt, 4.) June 6\nGarsia wrote: \"Gracious Lord! After the letters from the legate\n[Campegius, concerning the return of Christian II to the Roman Church,\nthe disagreement between Philip of Hesse and the Elector, etc.] had been\nread at to-day's Consistorial Meeting, almost all the cardinals said\nthat Your Majesty was the angel sent from heaven to restore Christendom.\nGod knows how much I rejoiced, and although the sun burned fiercely when\nI returned to my home, how patiently I bore it! I was not sensitive to\nit from sheer joy at hearing such sweet words about my master from those\nwho a year ago had maligned him. My chief comfort, however, was to\nbehold that they were right; for it seems as if God were performing\nmiracles by Your Majesty, and to judge by the beginning you have made in\ncuring this ailment, it is evident that we may expect the issue to prove\nfar more favorable than our sins merit.\" (II. 67.)\n\n39. Compulsion Advocated by Theologians.\n\nAll Romanists, the Emperor included, were of the opinion that the\nProtestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they differed\nsomewhat as to the means of accomplishing this purpose. Some demanded\nthat force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled that\nleniency be tried first. Campegius advised kindness at the beginning,\nand greater severity only in dealing with certain individuals, but that\nsharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At Rome\nforce was viewed as the \"true rhubarb\" for healing the breach,\nespecially among the common people. July 18 Garsia wrote to the Emperor:\n\"If you are determined to bring Germany back to the fold, I know of no\nother or better means than by presents and flattery to persuade those\nwho are most eminent in science or in the empire to return to our faith.\nOnce that is done, you must, in dealing with the remaining common\npeople, first of all publish your imperial edicts and Christian\nadmonitions. If they will not obey these, then the true rhubarb to cure\nthem is force. This alone cured Spain's rebellion against its king. And\nforce is what will also cure Germany's unfaithfulness to God, unless,\nindeed, divine grace should not attend Your Majesty in the usual\nmeasure. God would learn in this matter whether you are a faithful son\nof His, and should He so find, then I promise you that among all\ncreatures you will find no power sufficiently strong to resist you. All\nwill but serve the purpose of enabling you to obtain the crown of this\nworld.\" (42.)\n\nAmong the open advocates of force were Cochlaeus, Eck, Faber, and the\ntheologians and monks who flocked to Augsburg in large numbers about the\ntime the Augsburg Confession was read. They all considered it their\nprime duty to rouse the passions of the Emperor, as well as of the\nCatholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the Lutherans.\nTheir enmity was primarily directed against the Augustana, whose\nobjective and moderate tone had gained many friends even among the\nCatholics, and which had indirectly branded Eck and his compeers as\ndetractors and calumniators. For had not Duke William of Bavaria, after\nthe reading of the Confession, rebuked Eck, in the presence of the\nElector of Saxony, for having misrepresented the Lutheran doctrine to\nhim? The moderation of the Augustana, said these Romanists, was nothing\nbut the cunning of serpents, deception and misrepresentation, especially\non the part of the wily Melanchthon, for the true Luther was portrayed\nin the 404 theses of Eck. Cochlaeus wrote that the Lutherans were slyly\nhiding their ungodly doctrines in order to deceive the Emperor: \"astute\noccultari in illorum Confessione prava eorum dogmata, de quibus ibi\ntacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypocrisi loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisque\nprincipibus imponerent.\" (Laemmer, _Vortridentinische Theologie,_ 39.)\nThus the malice and fanaticism of the papal theologians and the monks\nrose in proportion as friendliness was shown the Lutherans by Catholic\nprinces and the Emperor. They feared that every approach toward the\nLutherans would jeopardize the _pax Pontificia._\n\nThe fanaticism of the papal theologians is frequently referred to by the\nLutherans. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: \"Sophists and monks are\ndaily streaming into the city, in order to inflame the hatred of the\nEmperor against us.\" (_C. R._ 2, 141.) June 27: \"Our Confession was\npresented last Saturday. The opponents are now deliberating upon how to\nanswer; they flock together, take great pains, and incite the princes,\nwho already have been sufficiently aroused. Eck vehemently demands of\nthe Archbishop of Mainz that the matter be not debated, since it has\nalready been condemned.\" (144.) June 29 Jonas wrote to Luther: \"Faber is\ngoaded on by furies and Eck is not a whit more sensible. Both insist in\nevery manner imaginable that the affair ought to be managed by force and\nmust not be heard.\" (154.) Melanchthon, July 8: \"By chance Eck and\nCochlaeus came to the legate [Campegius, with whom Melanchthon was\ndeliberating]. I heard them say, distinctly enough, I believe, that the\nopponents are merely deliberating upon how to suppress us by force.\"\n(175.) July 15: \"Repeatedly have I been with certain enemies who belong\nto that herd of Eck. Words fail me to describe the bitter, Pharisaical\nhatred I noticed there. They do nothing, they plan nothing else than how\nthey may incite the princes against us, and supply the Emperor with\nimpious weapons.\" (197.) The implacable theologians also succeeded in\nfanaticizing some of the princes and bishops, who gradually became more\nand more opposed to any kind of settlement by mutual understanding.\n(175.)\n\nThe chief exponent of force was Cochlaeus. In his _Expostulatio,_ which\nappeared at Augsburg in May, 1530, he argued that not only according to\npapal, but according to imperial law as well, which the Evangelicals\nalso acknowledged, and according to the Scriptures, heretics might, aye,\nmust be punished with death. The treatise concludes as follows: \"Thus it\nis established that obdurate heretics may be executed by every form of\nlaw. We, however, much prefer to have them return to the Church, be\nconverted, healed and live, and we beseech them to do so. _Constat\nigitur, haereticos pertinaces omni iure interimi posse. Nos tamen longe\nmagis optamus et precamur, ut redeuntes ad ecclesiam convertantur,\nsanentur et vivant._\" (Plitt, 1, 5.)\n\nNaturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled the\nemployment of compulsory measures; indeed, he could not await the hour\nwhen the order would be given to proceed against the heretics with fire\nand sword. He lamented, in bitter terms, the fact that the Emperor had\nnot made use of stern measures as soon as he arrived in Germany. For\nnow, said he, procrastination and the conciliatory demeanor of the\nEvangelicals, especially of Melanchthon and Brueck, had made it\nimpossible to rouse the Emperor to such a degree as the exigency of the\ncase demanded. (Plitt, 63.) Luther wrote: \"For that shameless gab and\nbloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief advisers, publicly\ndeclared in the presence of our people that if the Emperor had followed\nthe resolution made at Bononia, and, immediately on entering Germany,\nhad courageously attacked the Lutherans with the sword, and beheaded one\nafter another, the matter would have been easily settled. But all this\nwas prevented when he permitted the Elector of Saxony to speak and be\nheard through his chancellor.\" (St. L. 16, 1636.)\n\n40. Emperor Employs Mildness.\n\nWhile a number of the Catholic estates, incited by the theologians, were\nalso in favor of immediately resorting to brutal force, the Emperor, for\npolitical reasons, considered it more advisable to employ kindness.\nLauding the extreme affability and leniency of Charles, Melanchthon\nwrote to Luther, January 25: \"The Emperor greets our Prince very kindly;\nand I would that our people, in turn, were more complaisant towards him.\nI would ask you to admonish our Junior Prince by letter in this matter.\nThe Emperor's court has no one milder than himself. All others harbor a\nmost cruel hatred against us. _Caesar satis benigne salutat nostrum\nprincipem; ac velim vicissim nostros erga ipsum officiosiores esse. Ea\nde re utinam iuniorem principem nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipso\nCaesare mitius habet ipsius aula. Reliquii omnes crudelissime nos\noderunt_.\" (_C. R._ 2, 125.)\n\nThe reading of the Augustana strengthened this friendly attitude of\nCharles. Both its content and its conciliatory tone, which was not at\nall in harmony with the picture of the Lutherans as sketched by Eck,\ncaused him to be more kindly disposed toward Protestantism, and\nnourished his hope that religious peace might be attained by peaceable\nmeans. Other Catholic dignitaries and princes had been impressed in the\nsame manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: \"Many bishops are inclined\nto peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop [Stadion of\nAugsburg] is said to have declared in a private conversation, 'This [the\nConfession of the Lutherans] is the pure truth, we cannot deny it,' The\nBishop of Mainz is being praised very much for his endeavors in the\ninterest of peace. Likewise Duke Henry of Brunswick who extended a\nfriendly invitation to Philip to dine with him, and admitted that he was\nnot able to disprove the articles treating of both kinds, the marriage\nof priests, and the distinction of meats. Our men boast that, of the\nentire Diet, no one is milder than the Emperor himself. Such is the\nbeginning. The Emperor treats our Elector not only graciously, but most\nrespectfully. So Philip writes. It is remarkable how all are aglow with\nlove and good will toward the Emperor. It may happen, if God so wills,\nthat, as the first Emperor [Charles at Worms] was very hostile, so this\nlast Emperor [Charles at Augsburg] will be very friendly. Only let us\npray; for the power of prayer is clearly perceived.\" (St. L. 16, 882.)\nThe Emperor's optimism was, no doubt, due to the fact that, unlike his\ntheologians, he did not perceive and realize the impassable gulf fixed\nbetween Lutheranism and the Papacy, as appeared also from the Augustana,\nin which, however, the Emperor mistook moderation of tone for surrender\nof substance.\n\n41. Augustana Submitted to Catholic Party.\n\nFull of hope the Emperor, on June 26, immediately after its public\npresentation, submitted the Lutheran Confession to the Catholic estates\nfor deliberation. These, too, though not in the least inclined to\nabandon their arrogant attitude, seem to have given themselves over to\nthe delusion that the Lutherans could now be brought to recede from\ntheir position. Accordingly, their answer (Responsum) of June 27,\ncouched in conciliatory language, recommended as \"the humble opinion of\nthe electors and estates that the Imperial Roman Majesty would submit\nthis great and important matter to a number of highly learned, sensible,\nhonest, conciliating, and not spiteful persons, to deliberate on, and to\nconsider, the writing [the Augustana], as far as necessary, enumerating,\non the one hand, whatsoever therein was found to be in conformity and\nharmony with the Gospel, God's Word, and the holy Christian Church, but,\non the other hand, refuting with the true foundation of the Gospel and\nthe Holy Scripture and its doctrine, and bringing into true Christian\nunderstanding, such matters as were found to be against, and out of\nharmony with, the Gospel, the Word of God, and the Christian Church.\"\n(Laemmer, 32.) They recommended, however, that in this entire matter\nCampegius be consulted, and for that purpose be furnished with a copy of\nthe Lutheran Confession.\n\nThe Romanists furthermore resolved that the Lutherans be asked whether\nthey had any additional points to present, and, if so, to do this\nimmediately. The Lutherans, considering this a snare, declared, on July\n10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point to present\nthe chief articles which it is necessary to believe in order to be\nsaved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to emphasize such\nonly as burdened the consciences, lest the paramount questions be\nobscured; that they would let this [all that was enumerated in their\nConfession] suffice, and have included other points of doctrine and\nabuses which were not mentioned, that they would not fail to give an\nanswer from the Word of God in case their opponents should attack the\nConfession or present anything new. (Foerstemann, 2, 16. _C. R._ 2,\n181.) No doubt, the Papists felt that the Lutherans really should have\ntestified directly also against the Papacy, etc. This, too, was the\ninterpretation which Luther put on the inquiry of the Romanists. July\n21, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: But now I see what the questions aimed at\nwhether you had other articles to present. For Satan still lives and has\nnoticed very well that your Apology [Augustana] steps softly and has\npassed by the articles concerning purgatory, the adoration of the\nsaints, and especially Antichrist, the Pope. (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders,\n8, 133.)\n\nJuly 5 the Emperor accepted the opinion of the estates and appointed the\nconfutators. At the same time he declared with reference to the\nLutherans that he was the judge of the content of their writing\n(Augustana); that, in case they should not be satisfied with his\nverdict, the final decision must remain with the Council, but that\nmeanwhile the Edict of Worms would be enforced everywhere. (Laemmer, 34;\n_C. R._ 2, 175.) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indicated that\nthe Roman Confutation would bring his own final verdict, which no\nfurther discussions could modify, and that he would compel the Lutherans\nby force to observe the Edict of Worms if they refused to submit\nwillingly. The Catholic estates endorsed the Emperor's declaration, but\nadded the petition that, after the Confutation had been read, the\nLutherans be asked in all kindness to return and that, in case this\nremained fruitless, an attempt be made to bring about an agreement to be\nreached by a committee appointed by both parties. Evidently, the estates\nas well as the Emperor expected the Lutherans to yield and surrender.\nStill, for the present, they were willing and preferred to attain this\nend by mild and gentle means.\n\n42. Rabid Theologians Appointed as Confutators.\n\nCampegius, to whom the entire matter was entrusted, manipulated things\nin such a manner that the result was the very opposite of what the\nEmperor and estates had resolved upon. To be sure he made it appear as\nthough he were entirely neutral leaving everything to the discretion of\nthe German princes. He knew also how to hide his real sentiments from\nthe Lutherans. Jonas, for example reports that in his address of June 24\nCampegius had said nothing harsh or hateful (_nihil acerbe, nihil\nodiose_) against the Lutherans. Spalatin reports: \"Some one besought the\nLegate and Cardinal Campegius to assist in obtaining peace for the cause\nof the Gospel. To this he responded: Since the papal power was\nsuspicious to us the matter rested with the Emperor and the German\nprinces. Whatever they did would stand.\" (Koellner, _Symbolik,_ 403.)\nThus Campegius created the impression of absolute neutrality while in\nreality he was at the same time busy with secret intrigues against the\nLutherans.\n\nAmong the Confutators (Brueck mentions 19, Spalatin 20, others 22, still\nothers 24), selected by Campegius and appointed by the Emperor, were\nsuch rabid abusive and inveterate enemies of Luther as Eck, Faber,\nCochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slanderous tract against Luther's\nmarriage), Dietenberger etc. The first three are repeatedly designated\nas the true authors of the Confutation. In his _Replica ad Bucerum,_ Eck\nboasts: \"Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen unanimously to\nprepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I obeyed. _Augustae ab\nomnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui responsum pararem contra\nconfessionem Saxonicam, et parui._\" (Koellner, 407.) July 10 Brenz wrote\nto Myconius: \"Their leader (_antesignanus_) is that good man Eck. The\nrest are 23 in number. One might call them an Iliad [Homer's Iliad\nconsists of 24 books] of sophists.\" (_C. R._ 2, 180.) Melanchthon, too,\nrepeatedly designates Eck and Faber as the authors of the Confutation.\nJuly 14 he wrote to Luther: \"With his legerdemain (_commanipulatione_)\nEck presented to the Emperor the Confutation of our Confession.\" (193.)\nAugust 6: \"This Confutation is the most nonsensical of all the\nnonsensical books of Faber.\" (253.) August 8, to Myconius: \"Eck and\nFaber have worked for six entire weeks in producing the Confutation of\nour Confession.\" (260.) Hence also such allusions in Melanchthon's\nletters as \"confutatio Fabrilis,\" \"Fabriliter scripta,\" and in the\nApology: \"Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam hae\nineptiae excogitatae sunt ad eludendum ius naturae.\" (366, 10.) Brueck\nwas right when he said that some of the Confutators were \"purely\npartial, and altogether suspicious characters.\" (Koellner, 411.)\n\n43. Confutation Prepared.\n\nThe resolution which the Catholic estates passed June 27 was to the\neffect that the imperial answer to the Lutheran Confession be made \"by\nsober and not spiteful men of learning.\" The Emperor's Prolog to the\nConfutation, accordingly, designated the confutators as \"certain\nlearned, valiant, sensible, sober, and honorable men of many nations.\"\n(_C. R._ 27, 189.) At the same time they were told to couch their answer\nin winning, convincing, moderate, and earnest terms. The imperial\ninstruction read: \"To this end it is indeed good and needful that said\ndocument [the Augustana] be carefully considered and diligently studied\nby learned, wise, and sober persons, in order that they [the Lutherans]\nbe shown in all kindness (_durch gute Wege_) where they err, and be\nadmonished to return to the good way, likewise, to grant them whatsoever\nmay be serviceable and adapted to our holy Christian faith; and to set\nforth the errors, moderately and politely, with such good and holy\narguments as the matter calls for, to defend and prove everything with\nsuitable evangelical declarations and admonitions, proceeding from\nChristian and neighborly love; and at the same time to mingle therewith\nearnestness and severity with such moderation as may be likely to win\nthe five electors and princes, and not to destroy their hope or to\nharden them still more.\" (Koellner, 403)\n\nHowever, inspired by Campegius and goaded on by blind hatred, the\nConfutators employed their commission for the purpose of casting\nsuspicion on the Lutherans and inciting the Emperor against them. They\ndisregarded the imperial admonition for moderation, and instead of an\nobjective answer to the Augustana, they produced a long-winded\npasquinade against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit companion\npiece to the 404 theses of Eck--a general accusation against the\nProtestants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quotations from Luther,\nMelanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The insinuation lurking in\nthe document everywhere was that the Confession of the Lutheran princes\nwas in glaring contradiction to the real doctrine of their pastors. The\nsinister scheme of the Romanists, as the Elector in 1536 reminded the\nLutheran theologians, was to bring the princes in opposition to their\npreachers. (_C. R._ 3, 148.) The mildness and moderation of the\nAugustana, they openly declared, was nothing but subtle cunning of the\nsmooth and wily Melanchthon, who sought to hide the true state of\naffairs. In a book which Cochlaeus published against the Apology in 1534\nhe said that the open attacks of Luther were far more tolerable than the\nserpentine cunning and hypocrisy of Melanchthon (_instar draconis\ninsidiantis fraudes intendens_), as manifested in particular by his\ndemeanor toward Campegius at Augsburg in 1530. (Laemmer, 56; Salig, 1,\n376.) Thus the Roman Confutators disregarded their commission to refute\nthe Augustana, and substituted a caricature of Luther and his doctrines\ndesigned to irritate the Emperor.\n\n44. A Bulky, Scurrilous Document.\n\nThe Confutation, compiled by Eck and Faber from various contributions of\nthe Confutators, was ready by the 8th of July, and was presented to the\nEmperor on the 12th or 13th. The German translation was prepared by the\nBavarian Chancellor, Leonhard von Eck. July 10 Brenz had written: \"It is\nreported that they are preparing wagonloads of commentaries against our\nConfession.\" (_C. R._ 2, 180.) Spalatin reports that the Confutators\ndelivered to the Emperor \"a pile of books against Doctor Martin with\nmost scurrilous titles.\" The chief document was entitled: \"Catholic and,\nas it were, Extemporaneous Response concerning Certain Articles\nPresented in These Days at the Diet to the Imperial Majesty by the\nIllustrious Elector of Saxony and Certain Other Princes as well as Two\nCities. _Catholica et quasi extemporanea Responsio super nonnullis\narticulis Caesareae Maiestati hisce diebus in dieta imperiali Augustensi\nper Illustrem Electorem Saxoniae et alios quosdam Principes et duas\nCivitates oblatis._\" It was supplemented by nine other treatises on all\nmanner of alleged contradictions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptistic\nas well as other fruits of his teaching. (Laemmer, 37, _C. R._ 2, 197.)\nThe pasquinade with its supplements comprised no less than 351 folios,\n280 of which were devoted to the answer proper. Cochlaeus also\ndesignates it as \"very severe and extended, _acrior extensiorque._\" July\n14 Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutation\nwas \"long and filled with scurrilities.\" (193. 218.) July 15: \"I am\nsending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents have\npresented to the Emperor, from which you will see that the Confutation\nis supplemented by antilogs and other treatises in order to stir up\nagainst us the most gentle heart of the Emperor. Such are the stratagems\nthese slanderers (_sycophantae_) devise.\" (197.)\n\nThe effect of the Confutation on the Emperor, however, was not at all\nwhat its authors desired and anticipated. Disgusted with the miserable\nbulky botch, the Emperor convened the estates on July 15, and they\nresolved to return the bungling document to the theologians for\nrevision. Tone, method, plan, everything displeased the Emperor and\nestates to such an extent that they expunged almost one-third of it.\nIntentionally they ignored the nine supplements and demanded that\nreflections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely;\nmoreover, that the theologians confine themselves to a refutation of the\nAugustana. (Laemmer, 39.) Cochlaeus writes: \"Since the Catholic princes\nall desired peace and concord, they deemed it necessary to answer in a\nmilder tone, and to omit all reference to what the [Lutheran] preachers\nhad formerly taught and written otherwise than their Confession stated.\"\n(Koellner, 406.) In a letter to Brueck he declared that such coarse\nextracts and articles [with which the first draft of the Confutation\ncharged Luther] should not be mentioned in the reply to the Confession,\nlest any one be put to shame or defamed publicly. (Laemmer, 39.)\n\nIn his Annals, Spalatin reports: \"At first there were perhaps 280\nfolios. But His Imperial Majesty is said to have weeded out many folios\nand condensed the Confutation to such an extent that not more than\ntwelve folios remained. This is said to have hurt and angered Eck\nseverely.\" (St. L. 21a, 1539.) In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated July\n30, Melanchthon remarks sarcastically: \"Recently Eck complained to one\nof his friends that the Emperor had deleted almost the third part of his\ntreatise, and I suspect that the chief ornaments of the book were rooted\nout, that is, the glaring lies and the most stupid tricks, _insignia\nmendacia et sycophantiae stolidissimae._\" (_C. R._ 2, 241.) Brenz\nregarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the Augustana had\nperturbed the opponents, leaving them utterly helpless. July 15 he wrote\nto Isemann: \"Meanwhile nothing new has taken place in our midst, except\nthat I heard that the confession of the sophists was to-day returned by\nthe Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this for the reason that\nit was so confused, jumbled, vehement, bloodthirsty, and cruel\n(_confusa, incordita, violenta, sanguinolenta et crudelis_) that he was\nashamed to have it read before the Imperial Senate.... We experience\ndaily that we have so bewildered, stunned, and confused them that they\nknow not where to begin or to end.\" (198.) \"Pussyfooting\n(_Leisetreten_)!\"--such was the slogan at Augsburg; and in this\nMelanchthon was nowhere equaled. Privately also Cochlaeus elaborated a\nmilder answer to the Lutheran Confession. But even the friends who had\ninduced him to undertake this task considered his effort too harsh to be\npresented to the Emperor.\n\nThe first, rejected draft of the Confutation has been lost, with the\nsole exception of the second article, preserved by Cochlaeus. On the\ndifference between this draft and the one finally adopted, Plitt\ncomments as follows: \"The Confutation as read simply adopted the first\narticle of the Confession [Augustana] as in complete agreement with the\nRoman Church. The original draft also approved this article's appeal to\nthe Council of Nicaea, but added that now the Emperor should admonish\nthe confessing estates to accept everything else taught by the Catholic\nChurch, even though it was not verbally contained in the Scriptures, as,\nfor example, the Mass, Quadragesimal fasting, the invocation of the\nsaints, etc.; for the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity could be\nfound in the Scriptures just as little as that of the points mentioned,\nfurthermore, that he also call upon them to acknowledge said Synod of\nNicaea in all its parts, hence also to retain the hierarchical degrees\nwith their powers; that he admonish them to compel their preachers and\nteachers to retract everything which they had said and written against\nthat Synod, especially Luther and Melanchthon, its public defamers.\nRefusal of such retraction would invalidate their appeal to that Synod\nand prove it to be nothing but a means of deception. Finally they were\nto be admonished not to believe their teachers in anything which was\nagainst the declarations of the Church catholic. Such was the form in\nwhich the first draft of the Confutation was couched. Everywhere the\ntendency was apparent to magnify the differences, make invidious\ninferences, cast suspicion on their opponents, and place them in a bad\nlight with the Emperor and the majority. This was not the case in the\nanswer which was finally read.\" (37.)\n\n45. Confutation Adopted and Read.\n\nOnly after repeated revisions in which Campegius and the imperial\ncounselors Valdes and Granvella took part was an agreement reached\nregarding the form of the Confutation. July 30 the Emperor received the\nfourth revision and on August 1 he presented it to the bishops, princes,\nand estates for their opinion. There still remained offensive passages\nwhich had to be eliminated. A fifth revision was necessary before the\napproval of the Emperor and the estates was forthcoming. A Prolog and an\nEpilog were added according to which the Confutation is drawn up in the\nname of the Emperor. Thus the original volume was boiled down to a\ncomparatively small document. But to speak with Kolde, even in its final\nform the Confutation is \"still rather an accusation against the\nEvangelicals, and an effort to retain all the medieval church customs\nthan a refutation of the Augustana.\" (34.) August 6 Jonas wrote to\nLuther: \"The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen Maria informed us that they\nhad five times changed their Confutation, casting and recasting, minting\nand reminting it, and still there finally was produced nothing but an\nuncouth and confused conglomeration and a hodgepodge, as when a cook\npours different soups into one pot. At first they patched together an\nenormous volume, as Faber is known to be a verbose compiler; the book\ngrew by reason of the multitude of its lies and scurrilities. However,\nat the first revision the Emperor eliminated the third part of the book,\nso that barely twelve or sixteen folios remained, which were read.\" (St.\nL. 21a, 1539.)\n\nOn August 3, 1530, in the same hall in which the Augsburg Confession had\nbeen submitted thirty-eight days before, in the presence of all the\nestates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio,\nimmediately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Protestants, was read in\nthe German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary.\nHowever, the reading, too, proved to be a discreditable affair. Owing to\nthe great haste in which the German copy had been prepared, an entire\nportion had been omitted; the result was that the conclusion of Article\n24 as well as Articles 25 and 26 were not presented. Furthermore,\nSchweiss, overlooking the lines of erasure, read a part which had been\nstricken, containing a very bold deliverance on the sacrifice of the\nMass, in which they labored to prove from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin\nthat the word _facite_ in the institution of the Sacrament was\nsynonymous with \"sacrifice.\" (Kolde, 34.) August 6, 1530, Jonas wrote to\nLuther: The opponents presented their Confutation to the Emperor on July\n30, and on the 3d of August it was read in the presence of the Emperor\nand the estates, together with a Prolog and an Epilog of the Emperor.\n\"The reading also consumed two entire hours, but with an incredible\naversion, weariness, and disgust on the part of some of the more\nsensible hearers, who complained that they were almost driven out by\nthis utterly cold, threadbare songlet (_cantilena_), being extremely\nchagrined that the ears of the Emperor should be molested with such a\nlengthy array of worthless things masquerading under the name of\nCatholic doctrines.\" (St. L. 21a, 1539.) August 4 Brenz wrote to\nIsemann: \"The Emperor maintains neutrality; for he slept both when the\nAugustana and when the Confutation was read. _Imperator neutralem sese\ngerit; nam cum nostra confessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cum\nadversariorum responsio legeretur, iterum obdormivit in media negotii\nactione_.\" (_C. R._ 2, 245.)\n\nThe Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered to\nthe Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Emperor and the\nestates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlaeus reports that\ntoward the close of the Diet Charles authorized him and Eck to publish\nit, but that this was not done, because Duke George and the Emperor left\nAugsburg shortly after, and the printer also moved away. (Koellner,\n414.) All subsequent pleading and imploring, however, on the part of Eck\nand others, to induce the Emperor to publish the Confutation fell on\ndeaf ears. Evidently Charles no longer took any interest in a document\nthat had so shamefully shattered his fond ambition of reconciling the\nreligious parties. What appeared in print, early in 1531, was merely an\nextract prepared by Cochlaeus, entitled, _Summary of the Imperial\nAnswer,_ etc. The first Latin edition of the Confutation appeared as\nlate as 1573; the first German edition, in 1808. All previous German\nimpressions (also the edition of 1584) are translations of the Latin\nedition of 1573. (_C. R._ 27, 25. 82.) Concerning the German text of the\nConfutation Kolde remarks: \"Since changes were made even after it had\nbeen read, we have even less definite knowledge, respecting details, as\nto what was read than in the case of the Augustana.\" (35.) One may\ntherefore also speak of a Confutatio Variata. The doctrine of the\nConfutation does not differ essentially from that which was later on\naffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). However, says Kolde,\n\"being written by the German leaders of the Catholic party under the eye\nof the Papal Legate, and approved by the Emperor, the German bishops,\nand the Roman-minded princes, it [the Confutation] must be reckoned\namong the historically most important documents of the Roman Catholic\nfaith of that day.\"\n\n46. Confutation Denounced by Lutherans.\n\nIn the opinion of the Lutherans, the final draft of the Confutation,\ntoo, was a miserable makeshift. True, its tone was moderate, and, with\nfew exceptions, personal defamations were omitted. The arrangement of\nsubjects was essentially the same as in the Augustana. Still it was not\nwhat it pretended to be. It was no serious attempt at refuting the\nLutheran Confession, but rather an accumulation of Bible-texts,\narbitrarily expounded, in support of false doctrines and scholastic\ntheories. These efforts led to exegetical feats that made the\nConfutators butts of scorn and derision. At any rate, the Lutherans\nwere charged with having failed, at the public reading, to control their\nrisibilities sufficiently. Cochlaeus complains: \"During the reading many\nof the Lutherans indulged in unseemly laughter. _Quando recitata fuit,\nmulti e Lutheranis inepte cachinnabantur._\" (Koellner, 411.) If this did\nnot actually occur, it was not because the Confutators had given them no\ncause for hilarity.\n\n\"Altogether childish and silly\"--such is Melanchthon's verdict on many\nof their exegetical pranks. August 6 he wrote letter after letter to\nLuther, expressing his contempt for the document. \"After hearing that\nConfutation,\" says Melanchthon, \"all good people seem to have been more\nfirmly established on our part, and the opponents, if there be among\nthem some who are more reasonable, are said to be disgusted\n(_stomachari_) that such absurdities were forced upon the Emperor, the\nbest of princes.\" (_C. R._ 2, 252.) Again: Although the Emperor's\nverdict was very stern and terrible, \"still, the Confutation being a\ncomposition so very puerile, a most remarkable congratulation followed\nits reading. No book of Faber's is so childish but that this Confutation\nis still more childish.\" (253.) In another letter he remarked that,\naccording to the Confutation, in which the doctrine of justification by\nfaith was rejected, \"the opponents had no knowledge of religion\nwhatever.\" (253.)\n\nAugust 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: \"All things were written in the fashion\nof Cochlaeus, Faber, and Eck. Truly a most stupid comment, so that I am\nashamed of the Roman name, because in their whole Church they can find\nno men able to answer us heretics at least in a manner wise and\naccomplished. _Sed omnia conscripta erant Cochleice et Fabriliter et\nEccianice. Commentum sane stupidissimum, ut pudeat me Romani nominis,\nquod in sua religione non conquirant viros, qui saltem prudenter et\nornate nobis haereticis responderent._\" (245.) August 15 Luther\nanswered: \"We received all of your letters, and I praise God that he\nmade the Confutation of the adversaries so awkward and foolish a thing.\nHowever, courage to the end! _Verum frisch hindurch!_\" (Enders, 8, 190.)\n\n47. Luther on the Confutation.\n\nDerision increased when the Papists declined to publish the Confutation,\nor even to deliver a copy of it to the Lutherans for further inspection.\nThis refusal was universally interpreted as an admission, on the part of\nthe Romanists, of a guilty conscience and of being ashamed themselves of\nthe document. In his _Warning to My Beloved Germans,_ which appeared\nearly in 1531, Luther wrote as follows: \"But I am quite ready to believe\nthat extraordinary wisdom prompted them [the Papists at Augsburg] to\nkeep this rebuttal of theirs and that splendid booklet [Confutation] to\nthemselves, because their own conscience tells them very plainly that it\nis a corrupt, wicked, and frigid thing, of which they would have to be\nashamed if it were published and suffered itself to be seen in the light\nor to endure an answer. For I very well know these highly learned\ndoctors who have cooked and brewed over it for six weeks, though with\nthe ignorant they may be able to give the matter a good semblance. But\nwhen it is put on paper, it has neither hands nor feet, but lies there\nin a disorderly mass, as if a drunkard had spewed it up, as may be seen,\nin particular, in the writings of Doctor Schmid and Doctor Eck. For\nthere is neither rhyme nor rhythm in whatsoever they are compelled to\nput into writing. Hence they are more sedulous to shout and prattle.\nThus I have also learned that when our Confession was read, many of our\nopponents were astonished and confessed that it was the pure truth,\nwhich they could not refute from the Scriptures. On the other hand, when\ntheir rebuttal was read, they hung their heads, and showed by their\ngestures that they considered it a mean and useless makeshift as\ncompared with our Confession. Our people, however, and many other pious\nhearts were greatly delighted and mightily strengthened when they heard\nthat with all the strength and art which our opponents were then called\nupon to display, they were capable of producing nothing but this flimsy\nrebuttal, which now, praise God! a woman, a child, a layman, a peasant\nare fully able to refute with good arguments taken from the Scriptures,\nthe Word of Truth. And that is also the true and ultimate reason why\nthey refused to deliver [to the Lutherans a copy of] their refutation.\nThose fugitive evil consciences were filled with horror at themselves,\nand dared not await the answer of Truth. And it is quite evident that\nthey were confident, and that they had the Diet called together in the\nconviction that our people would never have the boldness to appear, but\nif the Emperor should only be brought to Germany in person, every one\nwould be frightened and say to them: Mercy, dear lords, what would you\nhave us do? When they were disappointed in this, and the Elector of\nSaxony was the very first to appear on the scene, good Lord, how their\nbreeches began to--! How all their confidence was confounded! What\ngathering together, secret consultations, and whisperings resulted! ...\nThe final sum and substance of it all was to devise ways and means\n(since our men were the first joyously and cheerfully to appear) how to\nkeep them from being heard [block the reading of the Augustana]. When\nalso this scheme of theirs was defeated, they finally succeeded in\ngaining the glory that they did not dare to hand over their futile\nrebuttal nor to give us an opportunity to reply to it! ... But some one\nmight say: The Emperor was willing to deliver the answer to our party\nprovided they would promise not to have it published nor its contents\ndivulged. That is true, for such a pledge was expected of our men. Here,\nhowever, every one may grasp and feel (even though he is able neither to\nsee nor hear) what manner of people they are who will not and dare not\npermit their matter to come to the light. If it is so precious a thing\nand so well founded in the Scriptures as they bellow and boast, why,\nthen, does it shun the light? What benefit can there be in hiding from\nus and every one else such public matters as must nevertheless be taught\nand held among them? But if it is unfounded and futile, why, then, did\nthey in the first resolution [of the Diet], have the Elector of\nBrandenburg proclaim and publish in writing that our Confession had been\nrefuted [by the Confutation] with the Scriptures and stanch arguments?\nIf that were true, and if their own consciences did not give them the\nlie, they would not merely have allowed such precious and well-founded\nRefutation to be read, but would have furnished us with a written copy,\nsaying: There you have it, we defy any one to answer it! as we did and\nstill do with our Confession. ... What the Elector of Brandenburg said\nin the resolution [read at the Diet], that our Confession was refuted\nwith the Scriptures and with sound arguments, is not the truth, but a\nlie. ... For this well-founded refutation [Confutation] has as yet not\ncome to light, but is perhaps sleeping with the old Tannhaeuser on Mount\nVenus (_Venusberg_).\" (St. L. 15, 1635.)\n\n\nVI. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession.\n\n48. Emperor Demands Adoption of Confutation.\n\nThe Confutation was written in the name of the Emperor. This is\nindicated by the title: \"Roman Imperial Confutation,\n_Roemisch-Kaiserliche Konfutation._\" (_C. R._ 21, 189.) And according to\nhis declaration of July 5, demanding that the Lutherans acknowledge him\nas judge, the Emperor, immediately before the reading, announced: The\nConfutation contained his faith and his verdict on the Confession of the\nLutherans; he demanded that they accept it; should they refuse to do so,\nhe would prove himself the warden and protector of the Church. In the\nEpilog the Emperor gave expression to the following thoughts: From this\nConfutation he saw that the Evangelicals \"in many articles agree with\nthe Universal and also the Roman Church, and reject and condemn many\nwicked teachings current among the common people of the German nation.\"\nHe therefore did not doubt that, having heard his answer to their\nConfession, they would square themselves also in the remaining points,\nand return to what, by common consent, had hitherto been held by all\ntrue believers. Should they fail to heed his admonition, they must\nconsider that he would be compelled to reveal and demean himself in this\nmatter in such manner as \"by reason of his office, according to his\nconscience, behooved the supreme warden and protector of the Holy\nChristian Church.\" (27, 228.) Immediately after the reading, Frederick,\nDuke of the Palatinate, declared in the name of the Emperor that the\nConfutation was the Emperor's answer to the Lutherans, the verdict he\nrendered against their Confession; and they were now called upon to\nrelinquish the articles of their Confession that were refuted in the\nConfutation, and to return to the Roman Church in unity of faith. (See\nthe reports of Brenz, Melanchthon, and the delegates from Nuernberg, _C.\nR._ 2, 245. 250. 253.) Thus the Emperor, who had promised to have the\ndeliberations carried on in love and kindness, demanded blind\nsubmission, and closed his demand with a threat. His manifesto was\nProtestant; his actions remained Papistical. In the estimation of the\nRomanists, the Emperor, by condescending to an extended reply to the\nLutheran Confession, had done more than his duty, and much more than\nthey had considered expedient. Now they rejoiced, believing that\neverything they wished for had been accomplished, and that there was no\nother way open for the Lutherans than to submit, voluntarily or by\ncompulsion.\n\nNaturally the attitude of the Emperor was a great disappointment to the\nLutherans, and it caused much alarm and fear among them. From the very\nbeginning they had declared themselves ready in the interest of peace,\nto do whatever they could \"with God and conscience.\" And this remained\ntheir position to the very last. They dreaded war, and were determined\nto leave no stone unturned towards avoiding this calamity. In this\ninterest even Philip of Hesse was prepared to go to the very limits of\npossibility. Melanchthon wrote: \"The Landgrave deports himself with much\nrestraint. He has openly declared to me that in order to preserve peace,\nhe would accept even sterner conditions, as long as he did not thereby\ndisgrace the Gospel.\" (_C. R._ 2, 254.) But a denial of God, conscience,\nand the Gospel was precisely what the Emperor expected. Hence the\nLutherans refer to his demands as cruel, impossible of fulfilment, and\nas a breach of promise. Outraged by the Emperor's procedure, and fearing\nfor his own safety, the Landgrave secretly left the Diet on August 6.\nWar seemed inevitable to many. The reading of the Confutation had\nshattered the last hopes of the Lutherans for a peaceful settlement.\nThey said so to each other, and wrote it to those at home, though not\nall of them in the lachrymose tone of the vacillating Melanchthon, who,\nfilled with a thousand fears was temporarily more qualified for\ndepriving others of their courage than for inspiring courage. (Plitt,\n24.)\n\n49. Sustained by Luther.\n\nIn these days of severe trials and sore distress the Lutherans were\nsustained by the comforting letters of Luther and the bracing\nconsciousness that it was the divine truth itself which they advocated.\nAnd the reading of the Confutation had marvelously strengthened this\nconviction. Brueck reports an eyewitness of the reading of the Augustana\nas saying: \"The greater portion among them [the Papists] is not so\nignorant as not to have seen long ago that they are in error.\" (Plitt,\n18.) Because of this conviction there was, as Melanchthon reported, a\n\"marvelous congratulation\" among the Lutherans after the reading of the\nConfutation. \"We stand for the divine truth, which God cannot but lead\nto victory, while our opponents are condemned by their own consciences,\"\n--such was the buoying conviction of the Lutherans. And in this the\npowerful letters of Luther strengthened the confessors at Augsburg. He\nwrote: \"This is the nature of our Christian doctrine, that it must be\nheld and grasped as certain and that every one must think and be\nconvinced: The doctrine is true and sure indeed and cannot fail. But\nwhoever falls to reasoning and begins to waver within himself, saying:\nMy dear friend, do you believe that it is true, etc.? such a heart will\nnever be a true Christian.\" (Plitt, 12.)\n\nConcerning the spiritual support which the confessors at Augsburg,\nnotably Melanchthon, received from Luther, Plitt remarks: \"What Luther\ndid during his solitary stay in the Castle at Coburg cannot be rated\nhigh enough. His ideal deportment during these days, so trying for the\nChurch, is an example which at all times Evangelical Christians may look\nup to, in order to learn from him and to emulate him. What he wrote to\nhis followers in order to comfort and encourage them, can and must at\nall times refresh and buoy up those who are concerned about the course\nof the Church.\" (24.) June 30 Veit Dietrich who shared Luther's solitude\nat Coburg, wrote to Melanchthon: \"My dear Philip, you do not know how\nconcerned I am for your welfare, and I beseech you for Christ's sake not\nto regard as vain the Doctor's [Luther's] letters to you. I cannot\nsufficiently admire that man's unique constancy, joy, confidence, and\nhope in these days of most sore distress. And daily he nourishes them by\ndiligent contemplation of the Word of God. Not a day passes in which he\ndoes not spend in prayer at least three hours, such as are most precious\nfor study. On one occasion I chanced to hear him pray. Good Lord, what a\nspirit, what faith spoke out of his words! He prayed with such reverence\nthat one could see he was speaking with God, and withal with such faith\nand such confidence as is shown by one who is speaking with his father\nand friend. I know, said he, that Thou art our Father and our God.\nTherefore I am certain that Thou wilt confound those who persecute Thy\nchildren. If Thou dost not do it, the danger is Thine as well as ours.\nFor the entire matter is Thine own. We were compelled to take hold of\nit; mayest Thou therefore also protect it, etc. Standing at a distance,\nI heard him praying in this manner with a loud voice. Then my heart,\ntoo, burned mightily within me, when he spoke so familiarly, so\nearnestly, and reverently with God, and in his prayer insisted on the\npromises in the Psalms, as one who was certain that everything he prayed\nfor would be done. Hence I do not doubt that his prayer will prove a\ngreat help in the desperately bad affair of this Diet. And you, my\nteacher, would do far better to imitate our father, the Doctor, also in\nthis point. For with your miserable cares and your weakling tears you\nwill accomplish nothing, but prepare a sad destruction for yourself and\nus all, who take pleasure in, and are benefited by nothing more than\nyour welfare.\" (_C. R._ 2, 158f.; St. L. 15, 929f.)\n\n50. Copy of Confutation Refused to Lutherans.\n\nSince the Confutation, in the manner indicated, had been presented as\nthe Emperor's final verdict upon the Augsburg Confession the Lutherans\nwere compelled to declare themselves. Accordingly, Chancellor Brueck at\nonce responded to the demand for submission made through the Palatinate\nafter the reading of the Confutation, saying: The importance of this\nmatter, which concerned their salvation, required that the Confutation\nbe delivered to the Lutherans for careful inspection and examination to\nenable them to arrive at a decision in the matter. The delegates from\nNuernberg reported, in substance: After the Confutation was read, Doctor\nBrueck answered: Whereas, according to their Confession, the Lutherans\nwere willing to do and yield everything that could be so done with a\ngood conscience, whereas, furthermore, according to the Confutation,\nsome of their [the Lutherans'] articles were approved, others entirely\nrejected, still others partly admitted to be right and partly\nrepudiated; and whereas the Confutation was a somewhat lengthy document:\ntherefore the Electors, princes, and cities deemed it necessary to scan\nthese articles more closely, the more so, because many writings were\nadduced in them that made it necessary to show to what intent, and if at\nall they were rightly quoted, and accordingly requested the Emperor,\nsince he had promised to hear both parties, to submit the Confutation\nfor their inspection. The Emperor answered: \"As it was now late and\ngrown dark, and since the matter was important, he would consider their\nrequest and reply to it later.\" Hereupon, according to the Nuernberg\ndelegates, \"the chancellor pleaded again and most earnestly that His\nImperial Majesty would consider this important and great affair as a\ngracious and Christian emperor ought to do, and not deny their prayer\nand petition, but deliver to them the document which had been read.\"\n(_C. R._ 2, 251.)\n\nNow, although the Romanists were in no way minded and disposed to submit\nthe Confutation to the Lutherans, they nevertheless did not consider it\nwise to refuse their petition outright and bluntly; for they realized\nthat this would redound to the glory neither of themselves nor of their\ndocument. The fanatical theologians, putting little faith in that sorry\nfabrication of their own, and shunning the light, at first succeeded in\nhaving a resolution passed declaring the entire matter settled with the\nmere reading. However in order to save their faces and to avoid the\nappearance of having refused the Confutation as well as \"the scorn and\nridicule on that account\" (as the Emperor naively put it), and \"lest any\none say that His Imperial Majesty had not, in accordance with his\nmanifesto, first dealt kindly with\" the Lutherans, the estates resolved\non August 4 to grant their request. At the same time, however, they\nadded conditions which the Lutherans regarded as dangerous, insinuating\nand impossible, hence rendering the Catholic offer illusory and\nunacceptable.\n\nAugust 5 the Emperor communicated the resolutions adopted by the\nCatholic estates to the Lutherans. According to a report of the\nNuernberg delegates the negotiations proceeded as follows: The Emperor\ndeclared that the Confutation would be forwarded to the Lutherans, but\nwith the understanding that they must come to an agreement with the\nCatholic princes and estates; furthermore that they spare His Imperial\nMajesty with their refutations and make no further reply and, above all,\nthat they keep this and other writings to themselves, nor let them pass\nout of their hands, for instance, by printing them or in any other way.\nHereupon Brueck, in the name of the Lutherans, thanked the Emperor, at\nthe same time voicing the request \"that, considering their dire\nnecessity, His Imperial Majesty would permit his Elector and princes to\nmake answer to the Confutation.\" Duke Frederick responded: The Emperor\nwas inclined to grant them permission to reply, but desired the answer\nto be \"as profitable and brief as possible,\" also expected them to come\nto an agreement with the Catholics, and finally required a solemn\npromise that they would not permit the document to pass out of their\nhands. Brueck answered guardedly: The Lutherans would gladly come to an\nagreement \"as far as it was possible for them to do so with God and\ntheir conscience;\" and as to their answer and the preservation of the\ndocument, they would be found \"irreprehensible.\" The Emperor now\ndeclared: \"The document should be delivered to the Lutherans in case\nthey would promise to keep it to themselves and not allow it to fall\ninto other hands; otherwise His Imperial Majesty was not minded to\nconfer with them any longer.\" Brueck asked for time to consider the\nmatter, and was given till evening. In his response he declined the\nEmperor's offer, at the same time indicating that an answer to the\nConfutation would be forthcoming nevertheless. The Lutherans, he said,\nfelt constrained to relinquish their petition, because the condition\nthat the document be kept in their hands had been stressed in such a\nmanner that they could not but fear the worst interpretation if it would\nnevertheless leak out without their knowledge and consent; still, they\noffered to answer the Confutation, since they had noted the most\nimportant points while it was read; in this case, however, they asked\nthat it be not charged to them if anything should be overlooked; at the\nsame time they besought the Emperor to consider this action of theirs as\ncompelled by dire necessity, and in no other light. (_C. R._ 2, 255ff.)\nIn the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon says: \"This [a copy of the\nConfutation] our princes could not obtain, except on the most perilous\nconditions, which it was impossible for them to accept.\" (99.)\n\n51. Lutherans on Roman Duplicity and Perfidy.\n\nThe duplicity and perfidy of the Emperor and the Romanists in their\ndealings with the Lutherans was characterized by Chancellor Brueck as\nfollows: \"The tactics of the opponents in offering a copy [of the\nConfutation] were those of the fox when he invited the stork to be his\nguest and served him food in a broad, shallow pan, so that he could not\ntake the food with his long bill. In like manner they treated the five\nelectors and princes, as well as the related cities, when they offered\nto accede to their request and submit a copy to them, but upon\nconditions which they could not accept without greatly violating their\nhonor.\" (Koellner, 419.) Over against the Emperor's demand of blind\nsubmission and his threat of violence, the Lutherans appealed to their\npure Confession, based on the Holy Scriptures, to their good conscience,\nbound in the Word of God, and to the plain wording of the imperial\nmanifesto, which had promised discussions in love and kindness. In an\nAnswer of August 9, _e.g._, they declared: The articles of the Augustana\nwhich we have presented are drawn from the Scriptures, and \"it is\nimpossible for us to relinquish them with a good conscience and peace of\nheart, unless we find a refutation founded on God's Word and truth, on\nwhich we may rest our conscience in peace and certainty.\" (Foerstemann,\n2, 185.) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon comments as follows\non the demand of the Romanists: \"Afterwards, negotiations for peace were\nbegun, in which it was apparent that our princes declined no burden,\nhowever grievous, which could be assumed without offense to conscience.\nBut the adversaries obstinately demanded that we should approve certain\nmanifest abuses and errors; and as we could not do this, His Imperial\nMajesty again demanded that our princes should assent to the\nConfutation. This our princes refused to do. For how could they, in a\nmatter pertaining to religion, assent to a writing which they had not\nbeen able to examine, especially as they had heard that some articles\nwere condemned in which it was impossible for them, without grievous\nsin, to approve the opinions of the adversaries?\" (99.)\n\nSelf-evidently the Lutherans also protested publicly that the procedure\nof the Romanists was in contravention of the proclamation of the Emperor\nas well as of his declaration on June 20, according to which both\nparties were to deliver their opinions in writing for the purpose of\nmutual friendly discussion. In the Answer of August 9, referred to above\nthey said: \"We understand His Imperial Majesty's answer to mean nothing\nelse than that, after each party had presented its meaning and opinion,\nsuch should here be discussed among us in love and kindness.\" Hence,\nthey said, it was in violation of this agreement to withhold the\nConfutation, lest it be answered. (Foerstemann, 2, 184f.) Luther\nexpressed the same conviction, saying: \"All the world was awaiting a\ngracious diet, as the manifesto proclaimed and pretended, and yet, sad\nto say, it was not so conducted.\" (St. L. 16, 1636.)\n\nThat the Romanists themselves fully realized that the charges of the\nLutherans were well founded, appears from the subterfuges to which they\nresorted in order to justify their violence and duplicity, notably their\nrefusal to let them examine the Confutation. In a declaration of August\n11 they stated \"that the imperial laws expressly forbid, on pain of loss\nof life and limb, to dispute or argue (_gruppeln_) about the articles of\nfaith in any manner whatever,\" and that in the past the edicts of the\nEmperor in this matter of faith had been despised, scorned, ridiculed,\nand derided by the Lutherans. (Foerstemann, 2, 190.) Such were the\nmiserable arguments with which the Romanists defended their treachery.\nLuther certainly hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the\nRomanists refused to deliver the Confutation \"because their consciences\nfelt very well that it was a corrupt, futile, and frigid affair, of\nwhich they would have to be ashamed in case it should become public and\nshow itself in the light, or endure an answer.\" (St. L. 16, 1635.)\n\n52. Original Draft of Apology.\n\nAugust 5 the Lutherans had declared to the Emperor that they would not\nremain indebted for an answer to the Confutation, even though a copy of\nit was refused them. They knew the cunning Romanists, and had prepared\nfor every emergency. Melanchthon, who, according to a letter addressed\nto Luther (_C. R._ 2, 254), was not present at the reading of the\nConfutation, writes in the Preface to the Apology: \"During the reading\nsome of us had taken down the chief points of the topics and arguments.\"\n(101.) Among these was Camerarius. August 4 the Nuernberg delegates\nreported to their senate that the Confutation comprising more than fifty\npages, had been publicly read on August 3, at 2 P.M., and that the\nLutherans had John Kammermeister \"record the substance of all the\narticles; this he has diligently done in shorthand on his tablet as far\nas he was able, and more than all of us were able to understand and\nremember, as Your Excellency may perceive from the enclosed copy.\" (_C.\nR._ 2, 250.)\n\nOn the basis of these notes the council of Nuernberg had a theological\nand a legal opinion drawn up, and a copy of the former (Osiander's\nrefutation of the Confutation) was delivered to Melanchthon on August 18\nby the Nuernberg delegates. Osiander specially stressed the point that\nthe demand of the Romanists to submit to the decision of the Church in\nmatters of faith must be rejected, that, on the contrary, everything\nmust be subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. (Plitt, 87.) In drawing up\nthe Apology, however, Melanchthon made little, if any, use of Osiander's\nwork. Such, at least, is the inference Kolde draws from Melanchthon's\nwords to Camerarius, September 20: \"Your citizens [of Nuernberg] have\nsent us a book on the same subject [answer to the Confutation], which I\nhope before long to discuss with you orally.\" (383.) There can be little\ndoubt that Melanchthon privately entertained the idea of writing the\nApology immediately after the reading of the Confutation. The\ncommission, however, to do this was not given until later; and most of\nthe work was probably done in September. For August 19 the Nuernberg\ndelegates reported that their \"opinion\" had been given to Melanchthon,\nwho as yet, however, had not received orders to write anything in reply\nto the Confutation, \"unless he is privately engaged in such\nundertaking.\" (_C. R._ 2, 289.)\n\nAt Augsburg the execution of the resolution to frame an answer to the\nConfutation had been sidetracked for the time being, by the peace\nparleys between the Lutherans and the Catholics, which began soon after\nthe Confutation was read and continued through August. But when these\nmiscarried, the Evangelical estates, on the 29th of August, took\nofficial action regarding the preparation of an Apology. Of the meeting\nin which the matter was discussed the Nuernberg delegates report: \"It\nwas furthermore resolved: 'Since we have recently declared before His\nMajesty that, in case His Majesty refused to deliver to us the\nConfutation of our Confession without restrictions [the aforementioned\nconditions] we nevertheless could not refrain from writing a reply to\nit, as far as the articles had been noted down during the reading, and\nfrom delivering it to His Imperial Majesty: we therefore ought to\nprepare ourselves in this matter, in order to make use of it in case of\nnecessity,' In this we, the delegates of the cities, also acquiesced.\n... I, Baumgaertner, also said: In case such a work as was under\ndiscussion should be drawn up, we had some opinions [the theological and\nthe legal opinions of the city of Nuernberg], which might be of service\nin this matter, and which we would gladly submit. Hereupon it was\nordered that Dr. Brueck and other Saxons be commissioned to draft the\nwriting.\" (321.) The assumption, therefore, that Melanchthon was the\nsole author of the first draft of the Apology is erroneous. In the\nPreface to the Apology he writes: \"They had, however, commanded me _and\nsome others_ to prepare an Apology of the Confession, in which the\nreasons why we could not accept the Confutation should be set forth to\nHis Imperial Majesty, and the objections made by the adversaries be\nrefuted.\" (101.) In the same Preface he says that he had originally\ndrawn up the Apology at Augsburg, \"_taking counsel_ with others.\" (101.)\nHowever, we do not know who, besides Brueck, these \"others\" were.\n\n53. Apology Presented, But Acceptance Refused.\n\nBy September 20 Melanchthon had finished his work. For on the same day\nhe wrote to Camerarius: \"The verdict [decision of the Diet] on our\naffair has not yet been rendered. ... Our Prince thought of leaving\nyesterday, and again to-day. The Emperor however, kept him here by the\npromise that he would render his decision within three days. ... Owing\nto the statements of evil-minded people, I am now remaining at home and\nhave in these days written the Apology of our Confession, which, if\nnecessary, shall also be delivered; for it will be opposed to the\nConfutation of the other party, which you heard when it was read. I\nhave written it sharply and more vehemently\" (than the Confession). (_C.\nR._ 2, 383.)\n\nBefore long, a good opportunity also for delivering this Apology\npresented itself. It was at the meeting of the Diet on September 22 when\nthe draft of a final resolution (_Abschied_) was read to the estates.\nAccording to this decision, the Emperor offered to give the Evangelicals\ntime till April 15, 1531, to consider whether or not they would unite\nwith the Christian Church, the Holy Father, and His Majesty \"in the\nother articles,\" provided however, that in the mean time nothing be\nprinted and absolutely no further innovations be made. The imperial\ndecision also declared emphatically that the Lutheran Confession had\nbeen refuted by the Confutation. The verdict claimed the Emperor \"had,\nin the presence of the other electors, princes, and estates of the holy\nempire, graciously heard the opinion and confession [of the Evangelical\nprinces], had given it due and thorough consideration, and had refuted\nand disproved it with sound arguments from the holy gospels and the\nScriptures.\" (Foerstemann, 2, 475.)\n\nSelf-evidently, the Lutherans could not let this Roman boast pass by in\nsilence. Accordingly, in the name of the Elector, Brueck arose to voice\ntheir objections, and, while apologizing for its deficiencies, presented\nthe Apology. In his protest, Brueck dwelt especially on the offensive\nwords of the imperial decision which claimed that the Augustana was\nrefuted by the Confutation. He called attention to the fact that the\nLutherans had been offered a copy only under impossible conditions; that\nthey had nevertheless, on the basis of what was heard during the\nreading, drawn up a \"counter-plea, or reply;\" this he was now holding in\nhis hands, and he requested that it be read publicly; from it every one\nmight learn \"with what strong, irrefutable reasons of Holy Scripture\"\nthe Augustana was fortified. (Foerstemann, 2, 479.) Duke Frederick took\nthe Apology, but returned it on signal from the Emperor, into whose ear\nKing Ferdinand had been whispering. Sleidan relates: \"Cumque hucusce\n[tr. note: sic] perventum esset, Pontanus apologiam Caesari defert; eam\nubi Fridericus Palatinus accepit, subnuente Caesare, cui Ferdinandus\naliquid ad aures insusurraverat, reddit.\" A similar report is found in\nthe annals of Spalatin. (Koellner, 422.)\n\nBy refusing to accept the Apology, the Emperor and the Romanists _de\nfacto_ broke off negotiations with the Lutherans; and the breach\nremained, and became permanent. September 23 the Elector left Augsburg.\nBy the time the second imperial decision was rendered, November 19, all\nthe Evangelical princes had left the Diet. The second verdict dictated\nby the intolerant spirit of the papal theologians, was more vehement\nthan the first. Confusing Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists,\nCharles emphasized the execution of the Edict of Worms; sanctioned all\ndogmas and abuses which the Evangelicals had attacked; confirmed the\nspiritual jurisdiction of the bishops; demanded the restoration of all\nabolished rites identified himself with the Confutation; and repeated\nthe assertion that the Lutheran Confession had been refuted from the\nScriptures. (Foerstemann, 2, 839f.; Laemmer, 49.)\n\nIn his _Gloss on the Alleged Imperial Edict_ of 1531, Luther dilates as\nfollows on the Roman assertion of having refuted the Augustana from the\nScriptures: \"In the first place concerning their boasting that our\nConfession was refuted from the holy gospels, this is so manifest a lie\nthat they themselves well know it to be an abominable falsehood. With\nthis rouge they wanted to tint their faces and to defame us, since they\nnoticed very well that their affair was leaky, leprous, and filthy, and\ndespite such deficiency nevertheless was to be honored. Their heart\nthought: Ours is an evil cause, this we know very well, but we shall say\nthe Lutherans were refuted; that's enough. Who will compel us to prove\nsuch a false statement? For if they had not felt that their boasting was\nlying, pure and simple, they would not only gladly, and without offering\nany objections, have surrendered their refutation as was so earnestly\ndesired, but would also have made use of all printing-presses to publish\nit, and heralded it with all trumpets and drums, so that such defiance\nwould have arisen that the very sun would not have been able to shine on\naccount of it. But now, since they so shamefully withheld their answer\nand still more shamefully hide and secrete it, by this action their evil\nconscience bears witness to the fact that they lie like reprobates when\nthey boast that our Confession has been refuted, and that by such lies\nthey seek not the truth, but our dishonor and a cover for their shame.\"\n(St. L. 16, 1668.)\n\n54. Apology Recast by Melanchthon.\n\nOwing to the fact that Melanchthon, immediately after the presentation\nof the Apology, resolved to revise and recast it, the original draft was\nforced into the background. It remained unknown for a long time and was\npublished for the first time forty-seven years after the Diet. Chytraeus\nembodied it in his _Historia Augustanae Confessionis,_ 1578, with the\ncaption, \"_Prima Delineatio Caesari Carolo Die 22. Septembris Oblata,\nsed Non Recepta_--The First Draft which was Offered to Emperor Charles\non September 22, but Not Accepted.\" The German and Latin texts are found\nin _Corp. Ref._ 27, 275ff. and 322. Following is the Latin title:\n\"Apologia Confessionis, 1530. Ps. 119: Principes persecuti sunt me\ngratis.\" The German title runs: \"Antwort der Widerlegung auf unser\nBekenntnis uebergeben.\" (245. 378.) Plitt says of the original Apology:\n\"It was well qualified to be presented to the Emperor, and, in form\nalso, far surpassed the Confutation of the Papists. Still the\nEvangelical Church suffered no harm when the Emperor declined to accept\nit. The opportunity for revision which was thus offered and fully\nexploited by Melanchthon, who was never able to satisfy himself,\nresulted in a great improvement. The Apology as it appeared the\nfollowing year is much riper, sharper in its rebuttal, and stronger in\nits argumentation.\" (88.)\n\nThe draft of the Apology presented at Augsburg concluded as follows: \"If\nthe Confutation had been forwarded to us for inspection we would perhaps\nhave been able to give a more adequate answer on these and additional\npoints.\" (_C. R._ 27, 378.) When, therefore, the Emperor had refused to\naccept it, Melanchthon determined to revise, reenforce, and augment the\ndocument. September 23 he left Augsburg in the company of the Elector;\nand already while _en route_ he began the work. In his _History of the\nAugsburg Confession,_ 1730, Salig remarks: \"Still the loss of the first\ncopy [of the Apology] does not seem to be so great, since we now possess\nthe Apology in a more carefully elaborated form. For while the Diet was\nstill in session, and also after the theologians had returned home,\nMelanchthon was constantly engaged upon it, casting it into an entirely\ndifferent mold, and making it much more extensive than it was before.\nWhen the theologians had returned to Saxony from the Diet, Melanchthon,\nin Spalatin's house at Altenburg, even worked at it on Sunday, so that\nLuther plucked the pen from his hand, saying that on this day he must\nrest from such work.\" (1, 377.) However, since the first draft was\npresented to the Emperor on September 22, and Melanchthon, together with\nthe Elector, left Augsburg on the following day, it is evident that he\ncould not have busied himself very much with the revision of the Apology\nat Augsburg. And that Luther, in the Altenburg incident, should have put\nespecial stress on the Sunday, for this neither Salig nor those who\nfollow him (_e.g._, Schaff, _Creeds,_ 1, 243) offer any evidence. In his\n_Seventeen Sermons on the Life of Luther,_ Mathesius gives the following\nversion of the incident: \"When Luther, returning home with his\ncompanions from Coburg, was visiting Spalatin, and Philip, constantly\nengrossed in thoughts concerning the Apology, was writing during the\nmeal, he arose and took the pen away from him [saying]: 'God can be\nhonored not alone by work, but also by rest and recreation; for that\nreason He has given the Third Commandment and commanded the Sabbath.'\"\n(243.) This report of Mathesius certainly offers no ground for a\nPuritanic explanation of the incident in Spalatin's home.\n\nOriginally Melanchthon does not seem to have contemplated a revision on\na very large scale. In the Preface, which was printed first, he merely\nremarks that he made \"some additions\" (_quaedam adieci_) to the Apology\ndrawn up at Augsburg. (101.) Evidently, at the time when he wrote this,\nhe had no estimate of the proportions the work, which grew under his\nhands, would finally assume. Before long also he obtained a complete\ncopy of the Confutation. It was probably sent to him from Nuernberg,\nwhose delegate had been able to send a copy home on August 28, 1530.\n(Kolde, 37.) Says Melanchthon in the Preface to the Apology: \"I have\nrecently seen the Confutation, and have noticed how cunningly and\nslanderously it was written, so that on some points it could deceive\neven the cautious.\" (101.) Eck clamored that the Confutation \"had gotten\ninto Melanchthon's hands in a furtive and fraudulent manner, _furtim et\nfraudulenter ad manus Melanchthonis eandem pervenisse._\" (Koellner,\n426.) The possession of the document enabled Melanchthon to deal in a\nreliable manner with all questions involved, and spurred him on to do\nmost careful and thorough work.\n\n55. Completion of Apology Delayed.\n\nOwing to the fact that Melanchthon spent much more time and labor on the\nwork than he had anticipated and originally planned, the publication of\nthe Apology was unexpectedly delayed. October 1, 1530, Melanchthon wrote\nto Camerarius: \"Concerning the word 'liturgy' [in the Apology] I ask you\nagain and again carefully to search out for me its etymology as well as\nexamples of its meaning.\" November 12, to Dietrich: \"I shall describe\nthem [the forms of the Greek mass] to Osiander as soon as I have\ncompleted the Apology, which I am now having printed and am endeavoring\nto polish. In it I shall fully explain the most important controversies,\nwhich, I hope, will prove profitable.\" (_C. R._ 2, 438.) In a similar\nstrain he wrote to Camerarius, November 18. (440.) January 1, 1531,\nagain to Camerarius: \"In the Apology I experience much trouble with the\narticle of Justification, which I seek to explain profitably.\" (470.)\nFebruary, 1531, to Brenz: \"I am at work on the Apology. It will appear\nconsiderably augmented and better founded. For this article, in which we\nteach that men are justified by faith and not by love, is treated\nexhaustively.\" (484.) March 7, to Camerarius: \"My Apology is not yet\ncompleted. It grows in the writing.\" (486.) Likewise in March, to\nBaumgaertner: \"I have not yet completed the Apology, as I was hindered,\nnot only by illness, but also by many other matters, which interrupted\nme, concerning the syncretism Bucer is stirring up.\" (485.) March 17, to\nCamerarius: \"My Apology is making slower progress than the matter calls\nfor.\" (488.) Toward the end of March, to Baumgaertner: \"The Apology is\nstill in press; for I am revising it entirely and extending it.\" (492.)\nApril 7, to Jonas: \"In the Apology I have completed the article on\nMarriage, in which the opponents are charged with many real crimes.\"\n(493.) April 8, to Brenz: \"We have almost finished the Apology. I hope\nit will please you and other good people.\" (494.) April 11, to\nCamerarius: \"My Apology will appear one of these days. I shall also see\nthat you receive it. At times I have spoken somewhat vehemently, as I\nsee that the opponents despise every mention of peace.\" (495.) Finally,\nin the middle of April, to Bucer: \"My Apology has appeared, in which, in\nmy opinion, I have treated the articles of Justification, Repentance,\nand several others in such a manner that our opponents will find\nthemselves heavily burdened. I have said little of the Eucharist.\"\n(498.)\n\nThese letters show that Melanchthon took particular pains with the\narticle of Justification, which was expanded more than tenfold. January\n31, he was still hard at work on this article. Kolde says: \"This was due\nto the fact that he suppressed five and one-half sheets [preserved by\nVeit Dietrich] treating this subject because they were not satisfactory\nto him, and while he at first treated Articles 4 to 6 together, he now\nincluded also Article 20, recasting anew the entire question of the\nnature of justification and the relation of faith and good works.\nIllness and important business, such as the negotiations with Bucer on\nthe Lord's Supper, brought new delays. He also found it necessary to be\nmore explicit than he had contemplated. Thus it came about that the work\ncould first appear, together with the Augustana, end of April, or, at\nthe latest, beginning of May.\" (37) According to the resolution of the\nDiet, the Lutherans were to have decided by April 15, 1531, whether they\nwould accept the Confutation or not. The answer of the Lutherans was the\nappearance, on the bookstalls, of the Augustana and the Apology, and a\nfew days prior, of Luther's \"Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict,\n_Glossen auf das vermeinte kaiserliche Edikt._\"\n\n56. German Translation by Jonas.\n\nThe Apology was written in Latin. The _editio princeps_ in quarto of\n1531 contained the German and the Latin texts of the Augsburg\nConfession, and the Latin text of the Apology. From the very beginning,\nhowever, a German translation was, if not begun, at least planned. But,\nthough announced on the title-page of the quarto edition just referred\nto, it appeared six months later, in the fall of 1531. It was the work\nof Justus Jonas. The title of the edition of 1531 reads: \"_Apologie der\nKonfession, aus dem Latein verdeutscht durch Justus Jonas, Wittenberg._\nApology of the Confession done into German from the Latin by Justus\nJonas, Wittenberg.\" For a time Luther also thought of writing a \"German\nApology.\" April 8, 1531, Melanchthon wrote to Brenz: \"_Lutherus nunc\ninstituit apologiam Germanicam._ Luther is now preparing a German\nApology.\" (_C. R._ 2, 494. 501.) It is, however, hardly possible that\nLuther was contemplating a translation. Koellner comments on\nMelanchthon's words: \"One can understand them to mean that Luther is\nworking on the German Apology.\" _Instituit,_ however, seems to indicate\nan independent work rather than a translation. Koestlin is of the\nopinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology of his own, because he\nwas not entirely satisfied with Melanchthon's. (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382.)\nHowever, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply to\nMelanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expressly\nconfessed himself, but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, _e.g._,\nthe 10th Article seems to endorse the concomitance doctrine. (_Lehre und\nWehre_ 1918, 385.) At all events, Luther changed his plan when Jonas\nbegan the translation of the new Apology.\n\nThe translation of Jonas is not a literal reproduction of the Latin\noriginal, but a version with numerous independent amplifications. Also\nMelanchthon had a share in this work. In a letter of September 26, 1531,\nhe says: \"They are still printing the German Apology, the improvements\nof which cost me no little labor.\" (_C. R._ 2, 542.) The deviations from\nthe Latin original therefore must perhaps be traced to Melanchthon\nrather than to Jonas. Some of them are due to the fact that the\ntranslation was based in part not on the text of the _editio princeps,_\nbut on the altered Latin octavo edition, copies of which Melanchthon was\nable to send to his friends as early as September 14. See, for example\nthe 10th Article, where the German text follows the octavo edition in\nomitting the quotation from Theophylact. The German text appeared also\nin a separate edition, as we learn from the letter of the printer Rhau\nto Stephen Roth of November 30, 1531: \"I shall send you a German\nApology, most beautifully bound.\" (Kolde, 39.) German translations\nadhering strictly to the text of the _editio princeps_ are of a much\nlater date.\n\n57. Alterations of Apology.\n\nMelanchthon, who was forever changing and improving, naturally could not\nleave the Apology as it read in the first edition. This applies to both\nthe German and the Latin text. He was thinking of the Latin octavo\nedition when he wrote to Brenz, June 7, 1531: \"The Apology is now being\nprinted, and I am at pains to make some points in the article of\nJustification clearer. It is an extremely great matter, in which we must\nproceed carefully that Christ's honor may be magnified.\" (2, 504.) The\nsame edition he had in mind when he wrote to Myconius, June 14, 1531:\n\"My Apology is now in press, and I am endeavoring to present the article\nof Justification even more clearly; for there are some things in the\nsolution of the arguments which are not satisfactory to me.\" (506.)\nAccordingly, this octavo edition, of which Melanchthon was able to send\na copy to Margrave George on September 14, revealed important\nalterations: partly improvements, partly expansions, partly deletions.\nThe changes in the 10th Article, already referred to, especially the\nomission of the quotation from Theophylact, attracted most attention.\nThe succeeding Latin editions likewise revealed minor changes. The\nApology accompanying the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, was\ndesignated by Melanchthon himself as \"_diligenter recognita,_ diligently\nrevised.\" (_C. R._ 26, 357. 419.)\n\nConcerning the German Apology, Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius on\nJanuary 1, 1533: \"I have more carefully treated the German Apology and\nthe article of Justification, and would ask you to examine it. If you\nhave seen my Romans [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans], you will\nbe able to notice how exactly and methodically I am endeavoring to\nexplain this matter. I also hope that intelligent men will approve it.\nFor I have done this in order to explain necessary matters and to cut\noff all manner of questions, partly false, partly useless.\" (_C. R._ 2,\n624.) About the same time he wrote to Spalatin: \"Two articles I have\nrecast entirely: Of Original Sin and Of Righteousness. I ask you to\nexamine them, and hope that they will profit pious consciences. For in\nmy humble opinion I have most clearly presented the doctrine of\nRighteousness and ask you to write me your opinion.\" (625.) Kolde says\nof this second revision of the German text of 1533: \"This edition, which\nMelanchthon described as 'diligently amended,' is much sharper in its\ntone against the Romanists than the first and reveals quite extensive\nchanges. Indeed, entire articles have been remodeled, such as those Of\nJustification and Good Works, Of Repentance. Of the Mass, and also the\nstatements on Christian perfection.\" (41.) These alterations in the\nLatin and German texts of the Apology, however, do not involve changes\nin doctrine, at least not in the same degree as in the case of the\nAugustana Variata of 1540. Self-evidently, it was the text of the first\nedition of the German as well as the Latin Apology that was embodied in\nthe Book of Concord.\n\n58. Purpose, Arrangement, and Character of Apology.\n\nThe aim of the Apology was to show why the Lutherans \"do not accept the\nConfutation,\" and to puncture the papal boast that the Augustana had\nbeen refuted with the Holy Scriptures. In its Preface we read:\n\"Afterwards a certain decree was published [by the Emperor], in which\nthe adversaries boast that they have refuted our Confession from the\nScriptures. You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology, from which you\nwill understand not only what the adversaries have judged (for we have\nreported in good faith), but also that they have condemned several\narticles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost, so far\nare they from overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures.\"\n(101.) The Apology is, on the one hand, a refutation of the Confutation\nand, on the other hand, a defense and elaboration of the Augustana,\npresenting theological proofs for the correctness of its teachings.\nHence constant reference is made to the Augsburg Confession as well as\nthe Confutation; and scholastic theology is discussed as well. On this\naccount also the sequence of the articles, on the whole, agrees with\nthat of the Augustana and the Confutation. However, articles treating of\nrelated doctrines are collected into one, _e.g._, Articles 4, 5, 6, and\n20. Articles to which the Romanists assented are but briefly touched\nupon. Only a few of them have been elaborated somewhat _e.g._, Of the\nAdoration of the Saints, Of Baptism, Of the Lord's Supper, Of\nRepentance, Of Civil Government. The fourteen articles, however, which\nthe Confutation rejected are discussed extensively, and furnished also\nwith titles, in the _editio princeps_ as well as in the Book of Concord\nof 1580 and 1584. In Mueller's edition of the Symbolical Books all\narticles of the Apology are for the first time supplied with numbers and\ncaptions corresponding with the Augsburg Confession.\n\nIn the Apology, just as in the Augsburg Confession, everything springs\nfrom, and is regulated by, the fundamental Lutheran principle of Law and\nGospel, sin and grace, faith and justification. Not only is the doctrine\nof justification set forth thoroughly and comfortingly in a particular\narticle, but throughout the discussions it remains the dominant note,\nits heavenly strain returning again and again as the _motif_ in the\ngrand symphony of divine truths--a strain with which the Apology also\nbreathes, as it were, its last, departing breath. For in its Conclusion\nwe read: \"If all the scandals [which, according to the Papists, resulted\nfrom Luther's teaching] be brought together, still the one article\nconcerning the remission of sins (that for Christ's sake, through faith,\nwe freely obtain the remission of sins) brings so much good as to hide\nall evils. And this, in the beginning [of the Reformation], gained for\nLuther not only our favor, but also that of many who are now contending\nagainst us.\" (451.)\n\nIn Kolde's opinion, the Apology is a companion volume, as it were, to\nMelanchthon's _Loci Communes,_ and a theological dissertation rather\nthan a confession. However, theological thoroughness and erudition do\nnot conflict with the nature of a confession as long as it is not mere\ncold intellectual reflection and abstraction, but the warm, living, and\nimmediate language of the believing heart. With all its thoroughness and\nerudition the Apology is truly edifying, especially the German version.\nOne cannot read without being touched in his inmost heart, without\nsensing and feeling something of the heart-beat of the Lutheran\nconfessors. Jacobs, who translated the Apology into English, remarks:\n\"To one charged with the cure of souls the frequent reading of the\nApology is invaluable; in many (we may say, in most) parts it is a book\nof practical religion.\" (_The Book of Concord_ 2, 41.) The Apology does\nnot offer all manner of theories of idle minds, but living testimonies\nof what faith, while struggling hotly with the devil and languishing in\nthe fear of death and the terrors of sin and the Law found and\nexperienced in the sweet Gospel as restored by Luther. In reading the\nApology, one can tell from the words employed how Melanchthon lived,\nmoved, and fairly reveled in this blessed truth which in opposition to\nall heathen work-righteousness teaches terrified hearts to rely solely\nand alone on grace. In his _History of Lutheranism_ (2, 206) Seckendorf\ndeclares that no one can be truly called a theologian of our Church who\nhas not diligently and repeatedly read the Apology or familiarized\nhimself with it. (Salig, 1, 375.)\n\n59. Moderate Tone of Apology.\n\nThe tone of the Apology is much sharper than that of the Augsburg\nConfession. The situation had changed; hence the manner of dealing with\nthe opposition also changed. The Romanists had fully revealed themselves\nas implacable enemies, who absolutely refused a peace on the basis of\ntruth and justice. In the Conclusion of the Apology we read: \"But as to\nthe want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is well known how\nthese matters first happened and who caused the division namely, the\nsellers of indulgences, who shamefully preached intolerable lies, and\nafterwards condemned Luther for not approving of those lies, and\nbesides, they again and again excited more controversies, so that Luther\nwas induced to attack many other errors. But since our opponents would\nnot tolerate the truth, and dared to promote manifest errors by force it\nis easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Surely, all the world, all\nwisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and his holy Word. But the\ndevil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against\nChrist to extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil\nwith his members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause\nof the schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously sought\npeace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not forced\nto blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of all men's\nhearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy in this\nawful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not been\nwilling to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon the\nsaving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ without our merit,\nthough Christ would be most foully blasphemed thereby.\" (451.)\n\nSuch being the attitude of the Romanists, there was no longer any reason\nfor Melanchthon to have any special consideration for these implacable\nopponents of the Lutherans and hardened enemies of the Gospel, of the\ntruth, and of religious liberty and peace. Reconciliation with Rome was\nout of the question. Hence he could yield more freely to his impulse\nhere than in the Augustana; for when this Confession was written an\nagreement was not considered impossible. In a letter of July 15, 1530,\ninforming Luther of the pasquinades delivered to the Emperor,\nMelanchthon declared: \"If an answer will become necessary, I shall\ncertainly remunerate these wretched, bloody men. _Si continget, ut\nrespondendum sit, ego profecto remunerabor istos nefarios viros\nsanguinum_.\" (_C. R._ 2, 197.) And when about to conclude the Apology, he\nwrote to Brenz, April 8, 1531: \"I have entirely laid aside the mildness\nwhich I formerly exercised toward the opponents. Since they will not\nemploy me as a peacemaker, but would rather have me as their enemy, I\nshall do what the matter requires, and faithfully defend our cause.\"\n(494.) But while Melanchthon castigates the papal theologians, he spares\nand even defends the Emperor.\n\nIn Luther's _Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict,_ of 1531, we read:\n\"I, Martin Luther, Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures and pastor of the\nChristians at Wittenberg, in publishing these Remarks, wish it to be\ndistinctly understood that anything I am writing in this booklet against\nthe alleged imperial edict or command is not to be viewed as written\nagainst his Imperial Majesty or any higher power, either of spiritual or\ncivil estate.... I do not mean the pious Emperor nor the pious lords,\nbut the traitors and reprobates (be they princes or bishops), and\nespecially that fellow whom St. Paul calls God's opponent (I should say\nGod's vicar), the arch-knave, Pope Clement, and his servant Campegius,\nand the like, who plan to carry out their desperate, nefarious roguery\nunder the imperial name, or, as Solomon says, at court.\" (16, 1666.)\nLuther then continues to condemn the Diet in unqualified terms. \"What a\ndisgraceful Diet,\" says he, \"the like of which was never held and never\nheard of, and nevermore shall be held or heard of, on account of his\ndisgraceful action! It cannot but remain an eternal blot on all princes\nand the entire empire, and makes all Germans blush before God and all\nthe world.\" But he continues exonerating and excusing the Emperor: \"Let\nno one tremble on account of this edict which they so shamefully invent\nand publish in the name of the pious Emperor. And should they not\npublish their lies in the name of a pious Emperor, when their entire\nblasphemous, abominable affair was begun and maintained for over six\nhundred years in the name of God and the Holy Church?\" (16, 1634.)\n\nIn a similar manner Melanchthon, too, treats the Emperor. He calls him\n\"_optimum imperatorem,_\" and speaks of \"the Emperor's most gentle\ndisposition, _mansuetissimum Caesaris pectus,_\" which Eck and his party\nwere seeking to incite to bloodshed. (_C. R._ 2, 197.) In the Preface he\nsays: \"And now I have written with the greatest moderation possible; and\nif any expression appears too severe, I must say here beforehand that I\nam contending with the theologians and monks who wrote the Confutation,\nand not with the Emperor or the princes, whom I hold in due esteem.\"\n(101.) In Article 23 Melanchthon even rises to the apostrophe: \"And\nthese their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,\nEmperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the king\nof modest face; for the saying appears concerning you: 'One modest in\nface shall reign everywhere').\" (363.)\n\nThe Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of truth and peace, were\nspared no longer. Upon them Melanchthon now pours out the lye of bitter\nscorn. He excoriates them as \"desperate sophists, who maliciously\ninterpret the holy Gospel according to their dreams,\" and as \"coarse,\nsluggish, inexperienced theologians.\" He denounces them as men \"who for\nthe greater part do not know whereof they speak,\" and \"who dare to\ndestroy this doctrine of faith with fire and sword,\" etc. Occasionally\nMelanchthon even loses his dignified composure. Article 6 we read: \"Quis\ndocuit illos asinos hanc dialecticam?\" Article 9: \"Videant isti asini.\"\nIn his book of 1534 against the Apology, Cochlaeus complains that the\nyouthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags,\ngodless sophists, worthless hypocrites, etc. In the margin he had\nwritten: \"Fierce and vicious he is, a barking dog toward those who are\nabsent, but to those who were present at Augsburg, Philip was more\ngentle than a pup. _Ferox et mordax est, latrator in absentes,\npraesentes erat Augustae omni catello blandior Philippus_.\" (Salig, 1,\n377.)\n\nOn this score, however, Cochlaeus and his papal compeers had no reason\nto complain, for they had proved to be past masters in vilifying and\nslandering the Lutherans, as well as implacable enemies, satisfied with\nnothing short of their blood and utter destruction. As a sample of their\nscurrility W. Walther quotes the following from a book written by Duke\nGeorge of Saxony: \"Er [Luther] ist gewiss mit dem Teufel besessen, mit\nder ganzen Legion, welche Christus von den Besessenen austrieb und\nerlaubte ihnen, in die Schweine zu fahren. Diese Legion hat dem Luther\nseinen Moenchschaedel hirnwuetig und wirbelsuechtig gemacht. Du\nunruhiger, treuloser und meineidiger Kuttenbube! Du bist allein der\ngroesste, groebste Esel und Narr, du verfluchter Apostat! Hieraus kann\nmaenniglich abnehmen die Verraeterei und Falschheit deines\nblutduerstigen Herzens, rachgierigen Gemuets und teuflischen Willens, so\ndu, Luther, gegen deinen Naechsten tobend, als ein toerichter Hund mit\noffenem Maul ohne Unterlass wagest. Du treuloser Bube und teuflischer\nMoench! Du deklarierter Mameluck and verdammter Zwiedarm, deren neun\neinen Pickharden gelten. Ich sage vornehmlich, dass du selbst der aller\nunverstaendigste Bacchant und zehneckichte Cornut und Bestia bist. Du\nmeineidiger, treuloser und ehrenblosser Fleischboesewicht! Pfui dich\nnun, du sakrilegischer, der ausgelaufenen Moenche und Nonnen, der\nabfaelligen Pfaffen und aller Abtruennigen Hurenwirt! Ei, Doktor\nSchandluther! Mein Doktor Erzesel, ich will dir's prophezeit haben, der\nallmaechtige Gott wird dir kuerzlich die Schanze brechen und deiner\nboshaftigsten, groebsten Eselheit Feierabend geben. Du Sauboze, Doktor\nSautrog! Doktor Eselsohr! Doktor Filzhut! Zweiundsiebzig Teufel sollen\ndich lebendig in den Abgrund der Hoelle fuehren. Ich will machen, dass\ndu als ein Hoellenhund sollst Feuer ausspruehen und dich endlich selbst\nverbrennen. Ich will dich dem wuetenigen Teufel und seiner Hurenmutter\nmit einem blutigen Kopf in den Abgrund der Hoelle schicken.\" (_Luthers\nCharakter,_ 148.)\n\nDespite the occasional asperity referred to, the Apology, as a whole, is\nwritten with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep the\ntrack as clear as possible for a future understanding. In the interest\nof unity, which he never lost sight of entirely, he was conservative and\nnot disposed needlessly to widen the existing gulf. In the Preface to\nthe Apology he declares: \"It has always been my custom in these\ncontroversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form of the\ncustomarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concord could\nbe reached the more readily. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far from\nthis custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this age still\nfarther from the opinions of the adversaries.\" (101.) This irenic\nfeature is perhaps most prominent in the 10th Article, Of the Lord's\nSupper, where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to the\northodoxy of the Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence,\nemphasizes the agreement in such a manner that he has been misunderstood\nas endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation.\n\n60. Symbolical Authority of Apology.\n\nThe great importance ascribed to the Apology appears both from its\nnumerous reprints and the strenuous endeavors of the opponents to oppose\nit with books, which, however, no one was willing to print. The\nreception accorded it by the Lutherans is described in a letter which\nLazarus Spengler sent to Veit Dietrich May 17: \"We have received the\nApology with the greatest joy and in good hope that it will be\nproductive of much profit among our posterity.\" Brenz declares it worthy\nof the canon [worthy of symbolical authority]: \"Apologiam, me iudice,\ncanone dignam\" (_C. R._ 2, 510), a phrase which Luther had previously\napplied to Melanchthon's _Loci._ The joy of the Lutherans was equaled\nonly by the consternation of their enemies. The appearance of the\nApology surprised and perturbed them. They keenly felt that they were\nagain discredited in the public opinion and had been outwitted by the\nLutherans. On November 19 Albert of Mayence sent a copy of the Apology\nto the Emperor in order to show him how the Catholic religion was being\ndestroyed while the Confutation remained unpublished. Cochlaeus\ncomplained that to judge from letters received, the Apology found\napproval even in Rome, whereas no printer could be found for Catholic\nreplies to the Apology. He wrote: \"Meantime, while we keep silence, they\nflaunt the Apology and other writings, and not only insult us, but cause\nour people and cities to doubt and to grow unstable in the faith.\"\n(Kolde, 40.)\n\nThe Apology, as revised and published by Melanchthon, was a private\nwork. His name, therefore, appeared on the title-page of the edition of\n1531, which was not the case with respect to the Confession and Apology\npresented at Augsburg. The latter were official documents, drawn up by\norder of the Lutheran princes and estates, while the revised Apology was\nan undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission.\nAccordingly, as he was not justified in publishing a work of his own\nunder the name of the princes, there was nothing else for him to do than\nto affix his own signature. In the Preface to the Apology he says: \"As\nit passed through the press, I made some additions. Therefore I give my\nname, so that no one can complain that the book has been published\nanonymously.\" (100.) Melanchthon did not wish to make any one beside\nhimself responsible for the contents of the revised Apology.\n\nBefore long, however, the Apology received official recognition. At\nSchweinfurt, 1532, in opposition to the Papists, the Lutherans appealed\nto the Augustana and Apology as the confession of their faith,\ndesignating the latter as \"the defense and explanation of the\nConfession.\" And when the Papists advanced the claim that the Lutherans\nhad gone farther in the Apology than in the Augustana, and, April 11,\n1532, demanded that they abide by the Augustana, refrain from making the\nApology their confession, and accordingly substitute \"Assertion\" for the\ntitle \"Apology,\" the Lutherans, considering the Apology to be the\nadequate expression of their faith, insisted on the original title.\nApril 17 they declared: \"This book was called Apology because it was\npresented to Caesar after the Confession; nor could they suffer its\ndoctrine and the Word of God to be bound and limited, or their preachers\nrestricted to teach nothing else than the letter of the Augsburg\nConfession, thus making it impossible for them to rebuke freely and most\nfully all doctrinal errors, abuses, sins, and crimes. _Nominatum fuisse\nApologiam scriptum illud, quod Caesari post Confessionem exhibitum sit,\nneque se pati posse, ut doctrina sua et Verbum Dei congustetur,\nimminuatur et concionatores astringantur, ut nihil aliud praedicent\nquam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis, neque libere et plenissime\nadversus omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina dicere\npossint._\" Hereupon the Romanists, on April 22, demanded that at least a\nqualifying explanation be added to the title Apology. Brueck answered on\nthe 23d: \"It is not possible to omit this word. The Apology is the\ncorrelate of the Confession. Still the princes and their associates do\nnot wish any articles taught other than those which have so far begun to\nbe discussed. _Omitti istud verbum non posse; Apologiam esse correlatum\nConfessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii articuli\ndocerentur quam huiusque tractari coepti sint_.\" (Koellner, 430.)\n\nIn his Letter of Comfort, 1533, to the Leipzig Lutherans banished by\nDuke George, Luther says: \"There is our Confession and Apology....\nAdhere to our Confession and Apology.\" (10, 1956.) Membership in the\nSmalcald League was conditioned on accepting the Apology as well as the\nAugustana. Both were also subscribed to in the Wittenberg Concord of\n1536. (_C. R._ 3, 76.) In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology (together with\nthe Augustana and the Appendix Concerning the Primacy of the Pope) was,\nby order of the Evangelical estates, subscribed by all of the\ntheologians present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of the\nLutheran Church. In 1539 Denmark reckoned the Apology among the books\nwhich pastors were required to adopt. In 1540 it was presented together\nwith the Augustana at Worms. It was also received into the various\n_corpora doctrinae._ The Formula of Concord adopts the Apology, saying:\n\"We unanimously confess this [Apology] also, because not only is the\nsaid Augsburg Confession explained in it as much as is necessary and\nguarded [against the slanders of the adversaries], but also proved by\nclear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture.\" (853, 6.)\n\n\nVII. Smalcald Articles and Tract concerning Power and Primacy of Pope.\n\n61. General Council Demanded by Lutherans.\n\nIn order to settle the religious controversy between themselves and the\nPapists, the Lutherans, from the very beginning, asked for a general\ncouncil. In the course of years this demand became increasingly frequent\nand insistent. It was solemnly renewed in the Preface of the Augsburg\nConfession. The Emperor had repeatedly promised to summon a council. At\nAugsburg he renewed the promise of convening it within a year. The Roman\nCuria, however, dissastisfied with the arrangements made at the Diet,\nfound ways and means of delaying it. In 1532, the Emperor proceeded to\nBologna, where he negotiated with Clement VII concerning the matter, as\nappears from the imperial and papal proclamations of January 8 and 10,\n1533, respectively. As a result, the Pope, in 1533, sent Hugo Rangon,\nbishop of Resz, to Germany, to propose that the council be held at\nPlacentia, Bologna, or Mantua. Clement, however, was not sincere in\nmaking this offer. In reality he was opposed to holding a council. Such\nwere probably also the real sentiments of his successor, Paul III. But\nwhen the Emperor who, in the interest of his sweeping world policy, was\nanxious to dispose of the religious controversy, renewed his pressure,\nPaul finally found himself compelled to yield. June 4 1536, he issued a\nbull convoking a general council to meet at Mantua, May 8, 1537.\nNothing, however, was said about the principles according to which it\nwas to be formed and by which it should be governed in transacting its\nbusiness. Self-evidently, then, the rules of the former councils were to\nbe applied. Its declared purpose was the peace of the Church through the\nextinction of heresy. In the Bull _Concerning the Reforms of the Roman\nCourt,_ which the Pope issued September 23, he expressly declared that\nthe purpose of the council would be \"the utter extirpation of the\npoisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy.\" (St. L. 16, 1914.) Thus the\nquestion confronting the Protestants was, whether they could risk to\nappear at such a council, and ought to do so, or whether (and how) they\nshould decline to attend. Luther, indeed, still desired a council. But\nafter 1530 he no longer put any confidence in a council convened by the\nPope, although, for his person, he did not refuse to attend even such a\ncouncil. This appears also from his conversation, November 7, 1535, with\nthe papal legate Peter Paul Vergerius (born 1497; accused of Lutheranism\n1546; deprived of his bishopric 1549; defending Protestantism after\n1550; employed by Duke Christoph of Wuerttemberg 1553; died 1564.)\nKoestlin writes: \"Luther relates how he had told the legate: 'Even if\nyou do call a council, you will not treat of salutary doctrine, saving\nfaith, etc., but of useless matters, such as laws concerning meats, the\nlength of priest's garments, exercises of monks, etc.' While he was thus\ndilating, says Luther, the legate, holding his head in his hand, turned\nto a near-by companion and said: 'He strikes the nail on the head,' The\nfurther utterances of Luther: 'We do not need a council for ourselves\nand our adherents, for we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine and\norder; Christendom, however, needs it, in order that those whom error\nstill holds captive may be able to distinguish between error and truth,'\nappeared utterly intolerable to Vergerius, as he himself relates. He\nregarded them as unheard-of arrogance. By way of answer, he asked,\nwhether, indeed the Christian men assembled from all parts of the world,\nupon whom, without doubt, the Holy Spirit descends, must only decide\nwhat Luther approved of. Boldly and angrily interrupting him Luther\nsaid: 'Yes, I will come to the council and lose my head if I shall not\ndefend my doctrine against all the world;' furthermore he exclaimed:\n'This wrath of my mouth is not my wrath, but the wrath of God.'\nVergerius rejoiced to hear that Luther was perfectly willing to come to\nthe council; for, so he wrote to Rome, he thought that nothing more was\nneeded to break the courage of the heretics than the certain prospect\nof a council, and at the same time he believed that in Luther's assent\nhe heard the decision of his master, the Elector, also. Luther declared\nthat it was immaterial to him where the council would meet, at Mantua,\nVerona, or at any other place. Vergerius continued: 'Are you willing to\ncome to Bologna?' Luther: 'To whom does Bologna belong?' Vergerius: 'To\nthe Pope.' Luther: 'Good Lord, has this town, too, been grabbed by the\nPope? Very well, I shall come to you there.' Vergerius: 'The Pope will\nprobably not refuse to come to you at Wittenberg either,' Luther: 'Very\nwell, let him come; we shall look for him with pleasure.' Vergerius: 'Do\nyou expect him to come with an army or without weapons?' Luther: 'As he\npleases, in whatsoever manner he may come, we shall expect him and shall\nreceive him.'--Luther and Bugenhagen remained with Vergerius until he\ndeparted with his train of attendants. After mounting, he said once more\nto Luther: 'See that you be prepared for the council.' Luther answered:\n'Yes, sir, with this my neck and head.'\" (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382 sq.)\n\n62. Luther's Views Regarding the Council.\n\nWhat Luther's attitude toward a general council was in 1537 is expressed\nin the Preface to the Smalcald Articles as follows: \"But to return to\nthe subject. I verily desire to see a truly Christian council, in order\nthat many matters and persons might be helped. Not that we need it, for\nour churches are now through God's grace, so enlightened and equipped\nwith the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge of\nthe various callings and of right works that we on our part ask for no\ncouncil, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from a\ncouncil. But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacant\nand desolate that one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishops\nnor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom nevertheless\nChrist has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with them\nas the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fear\nthat at some time he may send a council of angels upon Germany utterly\ndestroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him\nwith the council.\" (457.)\n\nFrom a popish council Luther expected nothing but condemnation of the\ntruth and its confessors. At the same time he was convinced that the\nPope would never permit a truly free, Christian council to assemble. He\nhad found him out and knew \"that the Pope would see all Christendom\nperish and all souls damned rather than suffer either himself or his\nadherents to be reformed even a little, and his tyranny to be limited.\"\n(455) \"For with them conscience is nothing, but money, honors, power,\nare everything.\" (455. 477.) The Second Part of his Articles Luther\nconcludes as follows: \"In these four articles they will have enough to\ncondemn in the council. For they cannot and will not concede to us even\nthe least point in one of these articles. Of this we should be certain,\nand animate ourselves with the hope that Christ, our Lord, has attacked\nHis adversary, and He will press the attack home both by His Spirit and\ncoming. Amen. For in the council we will stand not before the Emperor or\nthe political magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a\nmost gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly), but before\nthe Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely\nto condemn, to murder, and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we ought\nnot here to kiss his feet or to say, 'Thou art my gracious lord,' but as\nthe angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O\nSatan.\" (475.) Hence his Preface also concludes with the plaint and\nprayer: \"O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, and\ndeliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherents\nare done for, they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, who\nare poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly,\naccording to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost,\nwho liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever.\nAmen.\" (459.)\n\n63. Elector Opposed to Hearing Papal Legate.\n\nFrom the very beginning, Elector John Frederick was opposed to a\ncouncil. And the question which particularly engaged his attention was,\nwhether the Lutherans should receive and hear the papal legate who would\ndeliver the invitation. Accordingly, on July 24, the Elector came to\nWittenberg and through Brueck delivered four (five) articles to the\nlocal theologians and jurists for consideration with instructions to\nsubmit their answer in writing. (_C. R._ 3, 119.) August 1, Melanchthon\nwrote to Jonas: \"Recently the Prince was here and demanded an opinion\nfrom all theologians and jurists.... It is rumored that a\ncardinal-legate will come to Germany to announce the council. The Prince\nis therefore inquiring what to answer, and under what condition the\nsynod might be permitted.\" (106.) The articles which Brueck presented\ndealt mainly with the questions: whether, in view of the fact that the\nPope is a party to the issue and his authority to convene a council is\nquestioned, the legate should be heard, especially if the Emperor did\nnot send a messenger along with him, whether one would not already\nsubmit himself to the Pope by hearing the legate; whether one ought not\nto protest, because the Pope alone had summoned the council; and what\nshould be done in case the legate would summon the Elector as a party,\nand not for consultation, like the other estates. (119f.)\n\nIn the preparation of their answer, the Elector desired the Wittenberg\nscholars to take into careful consideration also his own view of the\nmatter, which he persistently defended as the only correct one. For this\npurpose he transmitted to them an opinion of his own on Brueck's\narticles referred to in the preceding paragraph. In it he maintained\nthat the papal invitation must be declined, because acceptance involved\nthe recognition of the Pope \"as the head of the Church and of the\ncouncil.\" According to the Elector the proper course for the Lutheran\nconfederates would be to inform the legate, immediately on his arrival\nin Germany, that they would never submit to the authority which the Pope\nhad arrogated to himself in his proclamation, since the power he assumed\nwas neither more nor less than abominable tyranny; that they could not\nconsider the Pope as differing from, or give him greater honor than, any\nother ordinary bishop; that, besides, they must regard the Pope as their\ngreatest enemy and opponent; that he had arranged for the council with\nthe sinister object of maintaining his antichristian power and\nsuppressing the holy Gospel, that there was no need of hearing the\nlegate any further, since the Pope, who was sufficiently informed as to\ntheir teaching, cared neither for Scripture nor for law and justice, and\nmerely wished to be their judge and lord; that, in public print, they\nwould unmask the roguery of the Pope, and show that he had no authority\nwhatever to convoke a council, but, at the same time, declare their\nwillingness to take part in, and submit their doctrine to, a free,\ncommon, Christian, and impartial council, which would judge according to\nthe Scriptures. Nor did the Elector fail to stress the point that, by\nattending at Mantua, the Lutherans would _de facto_ waive their former\ndemand that the council must be held on German soil. (99ff.)\n\n64. Elector Imbued with Luther's Spirit.\n\nEvidently, the Elector had no desire of engaging once more in diplomatic\njugglery, such as had been indulged in at Augsburg. And at Smalcald,\ndespite the opposing advice of the theologians, his views prevailed, to\nthe sorrow of Melanchthon, as appears from the latter's complaint to\nCamerarius, March 1, 1637. (_C. R._ 3, 293.) The Elector was thoroughly\nimbued with the spirit of Luther, who never felt more antagonistic\ntoward Rome than at Smalcald, although, as shown above, he was\npersonally willing to appear at the council, even if held at Mantua.\nThis spirit of bold defiance appears from the articles which Luther\nwrote for the convention, notably from the article on the Papacy and on\nthe Mass. In the latter he declares: \"As Campegius said at Augsburg that\nhe would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by\nthe help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes\nbefore I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be\nmade equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above\nHim. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one\nanother. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies\nin ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to\ndeath if they can.\" (465.) In the Pope, Luther had recognized the\nAntichrist; and the idea of treating, seeking an agreement, and making a\ncompromise with the enemy of his Savior, was intolerable to him. At\nSmalcald, while suffering excruciating pain, he declared, \"I shall die\nas the enemy of all enemies of my Lord Christ.\" When seated in the\nwagon, and ready to leave Smalcald, he made the sign of the cross over\nthose who stood about him and said: \"May the Lord fill you with His\nblessing and with hatred against the Pope!\" Believing that his end was\nnot far removed, he had chosen as his epitaph: \"Living, I was thy pest;\ndying, I shall be thy death, O Pope! _Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero\nmors tua, Papa!_\"\n\nThe same spirit of bold defiance and determination not to compromise the\ndivine truth in any way animated the Elector and practically all of the\nprinces and theologians at Smalcald, with, perhaps, the sole exception\nof Melanchthon. Koestlin writes: \"Meanwhile the allies at Smalcald\ndisplayed no lack of 'hatred against the Pope.' His letters, delivered\nby the legate, were returned unopened. They decidedly refused to take\npart in the council, and that in spite of the opinion of their\ntheologians, whose reasons Melanchthon again ardently defended. For, as\nthey declared in an explanation to all Christian rulers, they could not\nsubmit to a council which, according to the papal proclamation, was\nconvoked to eradicate the Lutheran heresy, would consist only of\nbishops, who were bound to the Pope by an oath, have as its presiding\nofficer the Pope, who himself was a party to the matter, and would not\ndecide freely according to the Word of God, but according to human and\npapal decrees. And from the legal standpoint they could hardly act\ndifferently. Theologians like Luther could have appeared even before\nsuch a council in order to give bold testimony before it. Princes,\nhowever, the representatives of the law and protectors of the Church,\ndared not even create the appearance of acknowledging its legality.\" (2,\n402.)\n\n65. Opinion of Theologians.\n\nAugust 6 the Wittenberg professors assembled to deliberate on Brueck's\narticles and the views of the Elector. The opinion resolved upon was\ndrawn up by Melanchthon. Its contents may be summarized as follows: The\nLutherans must not reject the papal invitation before hearing whether\nthe legate comes with a citation or an invitation. In case they were\ninvited like the rest of the princes to take part in the deliberations,\nand not cited as a party, this would mean a concession on the part of\nthe Pope, inasmuch as he thereby consented \"that the opinion of our\ngracious Lord [the Elector] should be heard and have weight, like that\nof the other estates.\" Furthermore, by such invitation the Pope would\nindicate that he did not consider these princes to be heretics. If the\nlegate were rebuffed the Romanists would proceed against the Lutherans\nas obstinate sinners (_contumaces_) and condemn them unheard, which, as\nis well known, would please the enemies best. The Lutherans would then\nalso be slandered before the Emperor as despisers of His Majesty and of\nthe council. Nor did the mere hearing of the legate involve an\nacknowledgment of the papal authority. \"For with such invitation [to\nattend the council] the Pope does not issue a command, nor summon any\none to appear before his tribunal, but before another judge, namely, the\nCouncil, the Pope being in this matter merely the commander of the other\nestates. By hearing the legate, therefore, one has not submitted to the\nPope or to his judgments.... For although the Pope has not the authority\nto summon others by divine law, nevertheless the ancient councils, as,\nfor example, that of Nicaea, have given him this charge, which external\nchurch regulation we do not attack. And although in former years, when\nthe empire was under one head some emperors convoked councils, it would\nbe in vain at present for the Emperor to proclaim a council, as foreign\nnations would not heed such proclamation. But while the Pope at present,\naccording to the form of the law has the charge to proclaim councils, he\nis thereby not made the judge in matters of faith, for even popes\nthemselves have frequently been deposed by councils. Pope John\nproclaimed the Council of Constance, but was nevertheless deposed by\nit.\" Accordingly the opinion continues: \"It is not for us to advise that\nthe council be summarily declined, neither do we consider this\nprofitable, for we have always appealed to a council. What manner of\nsuspicion, therefore, would be aroused with His Imperial Majesty and all\nnations if at the outset we would summarily decline a council, before\ndiscussing the method of procedure!\" And even if the Lutherans should be\ncited [instead of invited], one must await the wording of the citation,\n\"whether we are cited to show the reason for our teaching, or to hear\nourselves declared and condemned as public heretics.\" In the latter case\nit might be declined. In the former, however, the citation should be\naccepted, but under the protest \"that they had appealed to a free\nChristian council,\" and did not acknowledge the Pope as judge. \"And if\n(_caeteris paribus,_ that is, provided the procedure is correct\notherwise) the council is considered the highest tribunal, as it ought\nto be considered, one cannot despise the command of the person to whom\nthe charge is given to proclaim councils, whoever he may be. But if\nafterwards the proceedings are not conducted properly, one can then\njustly lodge complaint on that account.\" \"To proclaim a council is\nwithin the province of the Pope; but the judgment and decision belongs\nto the council.... For all canonists hold that in matters of faith the\ncouncil is superior to the Pope, and that in case of difference the\ncouncil's verdict must be preferred to that of the Pope. For there must\nbe a supreme court of the Church, _i.e._, the council.\" On account of\nthe place, however they should not refuse to appear. (_C. R._ 3,119.)\n\nIn their subsequent judgments the theologians adhered to the view that\nthe Protestants ought not to incur the reproach of having prevented the\ncouncil by turning down the legate. Luther says, in an opinion written\nat Smalcald, February, 1537: \"I have no doubt that the Pope and his\nadherents are afraid and would like to see the council prevented, but in\nsuch a manner as would enable them to boast with a semblance of truth\nthat it was not their fault, since they had proclaimed it, sent\nmessengers, called the estates, etc., as they, indeed, would brag and\ntrump it up. Hence, in order that we might be frightened and back out,\nthey have set before us a horrible devil's head by proclaiming a\ncouncil, in which they mention nothing about church matters, nothing\nabout a hearing, nothing about other matters, but solely speak of the\nextirpation and eradication of the poisonous Lutheran heresy, as they\nthemselves indicate in the bull _De Reformatione Curiae_ [of September\n23, 1536, St. L. 16 1913ff.]. Here we have not only our sentence which\nis to be passed upon us in the council but the appeal also with hearing,\nanswer, and discussion of all matters is denied us, and all pious,\nhonorable men who might possibly have been chosen as mediators are also\nexcluded. Moreover, these knaves of the devil are bent on doing their\npleasure, not only in condemning (for according to the said bull\nlaunched against us they want to be certain of that) but also in\nspeedily beginning and ordering execution and eradication, although we\nhave not yet been heard (as all laws require) nor have they, the\ncardinals, ever read our writing or learned its doctrine, since our\nbooks are proscribed everywhere, but have heard only the false writers\nand the lying mouths, having not heard us make a reply, although in\nGermany both princes and bishops know, also those of their party, that\nthey are lying books and rascals, whom the Pope, Italy, and other\nnations believe.... Hence they would like to frighten us into refusing\nit [the Council] for then they could safely say that we had prevented\nit. Thus the shame would not only cleave to us, but we would have to\nhear that, by our refusal, we had helped to strengthen such abominations\nof the Pope, which otherwise might have been righted.\" Such and similar\nreasons prompted Luther to declare that, even though he knew \"it would\nfinally end in a scuffle,\" he was not afraid of \"the lousy, contemptible\ncouncil,\" and would neither give the legate a negative answer, nor\n\"entangle himself,\" and therefore not be hasty in the matter. (St. L.\n16, 1997.) Even after the princes at Smalcald had resolved not to attend\nthe council, Luther expressed the opinion that it had been false wisdom\nto decline it; the Pope should have been left without excuse; in case it\nshould convene, the council would now be conducted without the\nProtestants.\n\n66. Elector's Strictures on Opinion of Theologians.\n\nElector John Frederick was not at all satisfied with the Wittenberg\nopinion of August 6. Accordingly, he informed the theologians assembled\nAugust 30 at Luther's house, through Brueck, that they had permitted\nthemselves to be unduly influenced by the jurists, had not framed their\nopinion with the diligence required by the importance of the matter, and\nhad not weighed all the dangers lurking in an acceptance of the\ninvitation to the council. If the Lutherans would be invited like the\nother estates, and attend, they must needs dread a repetition of the\ncraftiness attempted at Augsburg, namely, of bringing their princes in\nopposition to their preachers. Furthermore, in that case it would also\nbe considered self-evident that the Lutherans submit to the decision of\nthe majority in all matters. And if they refused, what then? \"On this\nwise we, for our part, would be lured into the net so far that we could\nnot, with honor, give a respectable account of our action before the\nworld. For thereupon to appeal from such decision of the council to\nanother would by all the world be construed against our part as\ncapriciousness pure and simple. At all events, therefore, the Lutherans\ncould accept the papal invitation only with a public protest, from which\nthe Pope and every one else could perceive in advance, before the\ncouncil convened, that the Lutherans would not allow themselves to be\nlured into the net of a papal council, and what must be the character of\nthe council to which they would assent.\" (_C. R._ 3, 147.)\n\nIn this Protest, which the Elector presented, and which Melanchthon\ntranslated into Latin, we read: \"By the [possible] acceptance [of the\ninvitation to the council] they [the Lutherans] assent to no council\nother than a general, free, pious, Christian, and impartial one; not to\none either which would be subject to, and bound by, papal prejudices\n(as the one promised by Clement VII), but to such a synod as will\nendeavor to bring godly and Christian unity within the Church by\nchoosing pious, learned, impartial, and unsuspected men for the purpose\nof investigating the religious controversies and adjudicating them from\nthe Word of God, and not in accordance with usage and human traditions,\nnor on the basis of decisions rendered by former synods that militate\nagainst the Word of God.\" (152. 157.)\n\n67. Counter-Council Disadvised.\n\nThe other matters which engaged the Elector's attention dealt primarily\nwith measures of defense, the convening of a counter-council\n(_Gegenkonzil_) and the preparation of articles which all would\nunanimously accept, and by which they proposed to stand to the\nuttermost. August 20 Brueck brought these points up for discussion. And\nin a \"memorandum\" which the Elector personally presented to the\ntheologians at Wittenberg on December 1, 1536, he expressed his opinion\nas follows: The Lutherans were not obligated to attend the council,\nneither would it be advisable. One could not believe or trust the\nopponents. Nothing but trickery, deception, harm, and destruction might\nbe expected. At the council the Lutheran doctrine would be condemned,\nand its confessors excommunicated and outlawed. To be sure, the Lutheran\ncause was in God's hands. And as in the past, so also in the future God\nwould protect it. Still they must not on this account neglect anything.\nLuther should therefore draw up articles from which he was determined\nnot to recede. After they had been subscribed by the Wittenbergers and\nby all Evangelical pastors at the prospective meeting [at Smalcald], the\nquestion might also be discussed whether the Lutherans should not\narrange for a counter-council \"a universal, free, Christian council,\"\npossibly at Augsburg. The proclamation for this council might be issued\n\"by Doctor Luther together with his fellow-bishops and ecclesiastics, as\nthe pastors.\" However, one might also consider whether this should not\npreferably be done by the princes and estates. In such an event,\nhowever, one had to see to it that the Emperor be properly informed, and\nthat the entire blame be saddled upon the Pope and his adherents, the\nenemies and opponents of our side. (141)\n\nThe seriousness with which the Elector considered the idea of a\ncounter-council appears from the details on which he entered in the\n\"memorandum\" referred to where he puts especial emphasis on the\nfollowing points: At this free, universal council the Lutherans were\nminded \"to set forth their doctrine and faith according to the divine,\nholy Scriptures.\" Every one, whether priest or layman, should be heard\nin case he wanted to present anything concerning this doctrine from the\nHoly Scriptures. A free, safe, Christian passport was to be given to\nall, even to the worst enemy, leaving it to his discretion when to come\nand go. Only matters founded in the Scriptures were to be presented and\ndiscussed at such council. Human laws, ordinances, and writings should\nunder no circumstances be listened to in matters pertaining to faith and\nconscience, nor be admitted as evidence against the Word of God.\n\"Whoever would submit such matters, should not be heard, but silence\nenjoined upon him.\" To the verdict of such a holy and Christian council\nthe Lutherans would be willing to submit their doctrine. (141.)\n\nThe theologians answered in an opinion of December 6, 1536, endorsing\nthe Protest referred to above, but disapproving the counter-council.\nConcerning the first point they advised that a writing be published and\nsent to the Emperor and all rulers in which the Lutherans were to\n\"request that ways and means be considered of adopting a lawful\nprocedure [at the council] promoting the true Christian unity of\nChristendom.\" Concerning the counter-council, however, they advised at\nall events not to hasten with it. For to convoke it would produce a\ngreat and terrible appearance of creating a schism, and of setting\noneself against all the world and contemplating taking the field soon.\nTherefore such great, apparent resistance should not be undertaken till\none intends to do something in the matter openly and in deed. Concerning\nthe defense, the Wittenberg theologians were of the opinion that it was\nthe right and duty of the princes to protect and defend their subjects\nagainst notorious injuries (if, for example, an attempt should be made\nto force upon them the Romish idolatry, or to rend asunder the marriages\nof their pastors), and also against the Emperor, even after the council\nhad condemned them as heretics. Luther signed this opinion with the\nfollowing words: \"I, too, Martin Luther, will help with my prayers and,\nif necessary, also with my fist.\" (126.)\n\n68. Articles Drafted by Luther.\n\nIn the memorandum of December 1 the Elector spoke of the articles Luther\nwas to frame as follows: Although, in the first place, it may easily be\nperceived that whatsoever our party may propose in such a [popish]\ncouncil as has been announced will have no weight with the opposition,\nmiserable, blinded, and mad men that they are, no matter how well it is\nfounded on Holy Scripture moreover, everything will have to be Lutheran\nheresy, and their verdict, which probably has already been decided and\nagreed upon, must be adopted and immediately followed by their proposed\nban and interdict [decree excommunicating and outlawing our party], it\nwill, nevertheless, be very necessary for Doctor Martin to prepare his\nfoundation and opinion from the Holy Scriptures, namely, the articles as\nhitherto taught, preached, and written by him, and which he is\ndetermined to adhere to and abide by at the council, as well as upon his\ndeparture from this world and before the judgment of Almighty God, and\nin which we cannot yield without becoming guilty of treason against God,\neven though property and life, peace or war, are at stake. Such articles\nhowever, as are not necessary, and in which for the sake of Christian\nlove, yet without offense against God and His Word, something might be\nyielded (though, doubtless, they will be few in number), should in this\nconnection also be indicated separately by said Doctor Martin. And when\nDoctor Martin has completed such work (which, if at all possible for the\nDoctor, must be done between the present date and that of the Conversion\nof St. Paul [January 25], at the latest), he shall thereupon present it\nto the other Wittenberg theologians, and likewise to some prominent\npreachers whose presence he should require to hear from them, at the\nsame time admonishing them most earnestly, and asking them whether they\nagreed with him in these articles which he had drawn up, or not, and\nthereupon, as they hoped for their souls salvation their sentiment and\nopinion be learned in its entirety, but not in appearance, for the sake\nof peace, or because they did not like to oppose the Doctor, and for\nthis reason would not fully open their hearts, and still, at a later\ntime would teach, preach, write, and make public something else or\nadvise the people against said articles, as some have in several\ninstances done before this. An agreement having been reached, the\narticles were to be subscribed by all and prepared in German and Latin.\nAt the prospective meeting [at Smalcald] they should be submitted to the\nreligious confederates for discussion and subscription. Hence, in the\ninvitation, every prince should be asked \"to bring with him two or three\ntheologians, in order that a unanimous agreement might be reached there,\nand no delay could be sought or pretended.\" (139.) Accordingly, the\nElector planned to have Luther draw up articles which were to be\naccepted by all, first at Wittenberg and then at Smalcald, without\ncompulsion and for no other reason than that they expressed their own\ninmost convictions. The situation had changed since 1530, and the\nElector desired a clearer expression, especially on the Papacy. Hence he\ndid not appoint Melanchthon, but Luther, to compose the articles. The\ntruth was to be confessed without regard to anything else.\n\nLuther had received the order to draw up these articles as early as\nAugust 20, 1536. September 3 Brueck wrote to the Elector on this matter:\n\"I also delivered to Doctor Martin the credentials which Your Electoral\nGrace gave to me, and thereupon also spoke with him in accordance with\nthe command of Your Electoral Grace. He promised to be obedient in every\nway. It also appears to me that he already has the work well in hand, to\nopen his heart to Your Electoral Grace on religion, which is to be, as\nit were, his testament.\" (147.) Luther, who at the time thought that his\nend would come in the near future, had no doubt used such an expression\nhimself. His articles were to be his testament. In the preface to the\narticles he touched upon it once more, saying: \"I have determined to\npublish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die before\nthere will be a council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaves\nwho flee the light and shun the day take such wretched pains to delay\nand hinder the council), those who live and remain after my demise may\nbe able to produce my testimony and confession in addition to the\nConfession which I previously issued, whereby up to this time I have\nabided, and by God's grace will abide.\" (455.)\n\nThe Elector seems also to have enjoined silence on Luther with respect\nto the articles until they had been approved at Wittenberg. For in his\nletter to Spalatin, of December 15, 1536, Luther wrote: \"But you will\nkeep these matters [his journey to Wittenberg to discuss the articles]\nas secret as possible, and pretend other reasons for your departure.\n_Sed haec secreta teneas quantum potes, et finge alias causas abeundi._\"\n(St. L. 21b, 2135.) December 11 the Elector again called attention to\nthe articles, desiring that Amsdorf, Agricola, and other outside\ntheologians be called to Wittenberg at his expense to take part in the\ndiscussion. Shortly after, Luther must have finished the articles. The\nnumerous changes and improvements appearing in the original manuscript,\nwhich is still preserved in the Heidelberg library, show how much time\nand labor he spent on this work. Concluding his articles, Luther says:\n\"These are the articles on which I must stand, and, God willing, shall\nstand even to my death; and I do not know how to change or to yield\nanything in them. If any one wishes to yield anything, let him do it at\nthe peril of his conscience.\" (501, 3.)\n\nToward the close of the year Luther submitted the draft to his\ncolleagues, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melanchthon, and those who had\ncome from abroad, Spalatin, Amsdorf, and Agricola. After thorough\ndiscussion it was adopted by all with but few changes, _e.g._ regarding\nthe adoration of the saints, concerning which Luther had originally said\nnothing. (Kolde, 44.) Spalatin reports that all the articles were read,\nand successively considered and discussed. The Elector had spoken also\nof points in which a concession might be possible. In the discussion at\nWittenberg, Spalatin mentioned as such the question whether the\nEvangelicals, in case the Pope would concede the cup to them, should\ncease preaching against the continuance of the one kind among the\nPapists; furthermore, what was to be done with respect to ordination and\nthe adiaphora. Luther had not entered upon a discussion of these\nquestions, chiefly, perhaps, because he was convinced that the council\nwould condemn even the essential articles. (Compare Melanchthon's\nletter of August 4, 1530, to Campegius, _C. R._ 2, 246.) After the\narticles had been read and approved, Spalatin prepared a copy (now\npreserved in the archives at Weimar), which was signed by the eight\ntheologians present, by Melanchthon, however, with the limitation that\nthe Pope might be permitted to retain his authority \"iure humano,\" \"in\ncase he would admit the Gospel.\" Perhaps Melanchthon, who probably would\notherwise have dissimulated, felt constrained to add this stricture on\naccount of the solemn demand of the Elector that no one should hide any\ndissent of his, with the intention of publishing it later. (_C. R._ 3,\n140)\n\n69. Articles Endorsed by Elector.\n\nWith these first subscriptions, Luther sent his articles to the Elector\non January 3, 1537, by the hand of Spalatin. In the accompanying letter\nof the same date he informed the Elector that he had asked Amsdorf,\nEisleben [Agricola], and Spalatin to come to Wittenberg on December 28\nor the following days. \"I presented the articles which I had myself\ndrawn up according to the command of Your Electoral Grace and talked\nthem over with them for several days, owing to my weakness, which\nintervened (as I think, by the agency of Satan); for otherwise I had\nexpected to deliberate upon them no longer than one day. And herewith I\nam sending them, as affirmed with their signatures, by our dear brother\nand good friend, Magister George Spalatin, to deliver them to Your\nElectoral Grace, as they all charged and asked me so to do. At the same\ntime, since there are some who, by suspicion and words, insinuate that\nwe parsons (_Pfaffen_), as they call us, by our stubbornness desire to\njeopardize you princes and lords, together with your lands and people,\netc., I very humbly ask, also in the name of all of us, that by all\nmeans Your Electoral Grace would reprimand us for this. For if it would\nprove dangerous for other humble people, to say nothing of Your\nElectoral Grace, together with other lords, lands, and people, we would\nmuch rather take it upon ourselves alone. Accordingly, Your Electoral\nGrace will know well how far and to what extent you will accept these\narticles, for we would have no one but ourselves burdened with them,\nleaving it to every one whether he will, or will not, burden also\nhimself with them.\" (St. L. 21b, 2142.)\n\nIn his answer of January 7, 1537, the Elector expressed his thanks to\nLuther for having drawn up the articles \"in such Christian, true, and\npure fashion,\" and rejoiced over the unanimity of his theologians. At\nthe same time he ordered Chancellor Brueck to take steps toward having\nthe most prominent pastors of the country subscribe the articles, \"so\nthat these pastors and preachers, having affixed their names, must abide\nby these articles and not devise teachings of their own, according to\ntheir own opinion and liking, in case Almighty God would summon Doctor\nMartin from this world, which rests with His good will.\" (Kolde, 45.) In\nthe letter which the Elector sent to Luther, we read: \"We give thanks to\nAlmighty God and to our Lord Christ for having granted you health and\nstrength to prepare these articles in such Christian, true, and pure\nfashion; also that He has given you grace, so that you have agreed on\nthem with the others in Christian, also brotherly and friendly unity....\nFrom them we also perceive that you have changed your mind in no point,\nbut that you are steadfastly adhering to the Christian articles, as you\nhave always taught, preached, and written, which are also built on the\nfoundation, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom the gates of\nhell cannot prevail, and who shall also remain in spite of the Pope, the\ncouncil, and its adherents. May Almighty God, through our Lord Christ,\nbestow His grace on us all, that with steadfast and true faith we abide\nby them, and suffer no human fear or opinion to turn us therefrom!...\nAfter reading them over for the second time we can entertain no other\nopinion of them, but accept them as divine, Christian, and true, and\naccordingly shall also confess them and have them confessed freely and\npublicly before the council, before the whole world, and whatsoever may\ncome, and we shall ask God that He would vouchsafe grace to our brother\nand to us, and also to our posterity, that steadfastly and without\nwavering we may abide and remain in them.\" (21b, 2143.)\n\n70. Melanchthon's Qualified Subscription.\n\nIn his letter to Luther the Elector made special reference also to the\nqualified subscription of Melanchthon. \"Concerning the Pope,\" he said,\n\"we have no hesitation about resisting him most vehemently. For if, from\ngood opinion, or for the sake of peace, as Magister Philip suggests, we\nshould suffer him to remain a lord having the right to command us, our\nbishops, pastors, and preachers, we would expose ourselves to danger and\nburden (because he and his successors will not cease in their endeavors\nto destroy us entirely and to root out all our posterity), for which\nthere is no necessity, since God's Word has delivered and redeemed us\ntherefrom. And if we, now that God has delivered us from the Babylonian\ncaptivity, should again run into such danger and thus tempt God, this\n[subjection to the Pope] would, by a just decree of God, come upon us\nthrough our wisdom, which otherwise, no doubt, will not come to pass.\"\n(2145.) Evidently, the Elector, though not regarding Melanchthon's\ndeviation as a false doctrine, did not consider it to be without danger.\n\nAt the beginning of the Reformation, Luther had entertained similar\nthoughts, but he had long ago seen through the Papacy, and abandoned\nsuch opinions. In the Smalcald Articles he is done with the Pope and his\nsuperiority, also by human right. And this for two reasons: first,\nbecause it would be impossible for the Pope to agree to a mere\nsuperiority _iure humano,_ for in that case he must suffer his rule and\nestate to be overturned and destroyed together with all his laws and\nbooks; in brief, he cannot do it; in the second place, because even such\na purely human superiority would only harm the Church. (473, 7. 8.)\nMelanchthon, on the other hand, still adhered to the position which he\nhad occupied in the compromise discussions at Augsburg, whence, _e.g._,\nhe wrote to Camerarius, August 31, 1530 \"Oh, would that I could, not\nindeed fortify the domination, but restore the administration of the\nbishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when the\necclesiastical body has been disorganized. I see that afterwards there\nwill arise a much more intolerable tyranny [of the princes] than there\never was before.\" (_C. R._ 2, 334.) At Smalcald, however, his views met\nwith so little response among the princes and theologians that in his\n\"Tract on the Primacy of the Pope\" he omitted them entirely and followed\nLuther's trend of thought. March 1, 1537, Melanchthon himself wrote\nconcerning his defeat at the deliberations of the theologians on the\nquestion in which articles concessions might be made in the interest of\npeace, saying that the unlearned and the more vehement would not hear of\nconcessions, since the Lutherans would then be charged with\ninconsistency and the Emperor would only increase his demands. (_C. R._\n3, 292.) Evidently then, even at that time Melanchthon was not entirely\ncured of his utopian dream.\n\n\"If the Pontiff would admit the Gospel, _si pontifex evangelium\nadmitteret._\" A. Osiander remarked: \"That is, if the devil would become\nan apostle.\" In the Jena edition of Luther's works Melanchthon's phrase\nis commented upon as follows: \"And yet the Pope with his wolves, the\nbishops, even now curses, blasphemes, and outlaws the holy Gospel more\nhorribly than ever before, raging and fuming against the Church of\nChrist and us poor Christians in most horrible fashion, both with fire\nand sword, and in whatever way he can, like a real werwolf, [tr. note:\nsic!] aye, like the very devil himself.\" (6, 557b.) The same comment is\nfound in the edition of the Smalcald Articles prepared 1553 by Stolz\nand Aurifaber, where the passage begins: \"O quantum mutatus ab illo [the\nformer Melanchthon]!\" (Koellner, 448. 457.) Carpzov remarks pertinently:\n\"This subscription [of Melanchthon] is not a part of the Book of Concord\n[it does not contain the doctrine advocated by the Book of Concord], nor\nwas it approved by Luther; moreover, it was later on repudiated by\nPhilip himself.\" (_Isagoge_ 823. 894.)\n\n71. Luther's Articles Sidetracked at Smalcald.\n\nIt was a large and brilliant assembly, especially of theologians, which\nconvened at Smalcald in February, 1537. Luther, too, was present. On\nJanuary 7 the Elector had written: \"We hope that our God will grant you\ngrace, strength, and health that you may be able to make the journey to\nSmalcald with us, and help us to right, and bring to a good issue, this\n[matter concerning the Pope] and other matters.\"\n\nAs stated above, the Elector's plan was to elevate Luther's articles to\na confession officially recognized and subscribed to by all Lutheran\nprinces, estates, and theologians. Accordingly, on February 10, at the\nfirst meeting held at Smalcald, Chancellor Brueck moved that the\ntheologians deliberate concerning the doctrine, so that, in case the\nLutherans would attend the council, they would know by what they\nintended to stand, and whether any concessions were to be made, or, as\nBrueck put it, whether anything good [perhaps a deliverance on the\nPapacy] should be adopted, or something should be conceded.\n\nSelf-evidently, Brueck had Luther's articles in mind, although it cannot\nbe proved that he directly and expressly mentioned them or submitted\nthem for discussion and adoption. Perhaps, he felt from the very\nbeginning that the Elector would hardly succeed with his plans as\nsmoothly and completely as anticipated. For Luther, desiring to clear\nthe track for the whole truth in every direction, the Reformed as well\nas the Papistic, both against the \"false brethren who would be of our\nparty\" (Preface to Sm. Art. 455, 4), as well as against the open\nenemies, had in his articles so sharpened the expressions employed in\nthe Wittenberg Concord of 1536 concerning the Lord's Supper that the\nassent of Philip of Hesse and the attending South German delegates and\ntheologians (Bucer, Blaurer, Wolfart, etc.) was more than doubtful.\nLuther's letter to the adherents of Zwingli, December 1, 1537, shows\nthat he did not at all desire unnecessarily to disturb the work of union\nbegun by the Wittenberg Concord. (St. L. 17, 2143.) Still, he at the\nsame time endeavored to prevent a false union resting on\nmisunderstanding and self-deception. And, no doubt, his reformulation of\nthe article on the Lord's Supper was intended to serve this purpose.\nBesides, owing to a very painful attack of gravel, Luther was not able\nto attend the sessions, hence could not make his influence felt in a\ndecisive manner as desired by the Elector.\n\nThis situation was exploited by Melanchthon in the interest of his\nattitude toward the Zwinglians, which now was much more favorable than\nit had been at Augsburg, 1530. From the very outset he opposed the\nofficial adoption of Luther's articles. He desired more freedom with\nregard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was offered by\nLuther's articles. The first appears from his subscription. Concerning\nthe article of the Lord's Supper, however, which the Strassburgers and\nothers refused to accept, Melanchthon does not seem to have voiced any\nscruples during the deliberations at Wittenberg. Personally he may even\nhave been able to accept Luther's form, and this, too, more honestly\nthan Bucer did at Smalcald. For as late as September 6, 1557, he wrote\nto Joachim of Anhalt: \"I have answered briefly that in doctrine all are\nagreed, and that we all embrace and retain the Confession with the\nApology and Luther's confession written before the Synod of Mantua.\n_Respondi breviter, consensum esse omnium de doctrina: amplecti nos\nomnes et retinere Confessionem cum Apologia et confessione Lutheri\nscripta ante Mantuanam Synodum._\" (_C. R._ 9, 260.) But, although\nMelanchthon, for his person, accepted Luther's article on the Lord's\nSupper, he nevertheless considered it to be dangerous to the Concord\nwith the Southern Germans and to the Smalcald League. Privately he also\nmade known his dissatisfaction in no uncertain manner. And in so doing,\nhe took shelter behind Philip of Hesse, who, as at Augsburg, 1530, still\ndesired to have the Zwinglians regarded and treated as weak brethren.\n\nKolde relates: \"On the same day (February 10) Melanchthon reported to\nthe Landgrave: 'One article, that concerning the Sacrament of the Holy\nSupper, has been drawn up somewhat vehemently, in that it states that\nthe bread is the body of the Lord which Luther at first did not draw up\nin this form, but, as contained in the [Wittenberg] Concord, namely,\nthat the body of the Lord is given with the bread, and this was due to\nPomeranus, for he is a vehement man and a coarse Pomeranian. Otherwise\nhe [Melanchthon] knew of no shortcoming or complaint in all the\narticles.' ... 'He also said' (this the Landgrave reports to Jacob Sturm\nof Strassburg as an expression of Melanchthon) 'that Luther would hear\nof no yielding or receding, but declared: This have I drawn up; if the\nprinces and estates desired to yield anything, it would rest with them,'\netc. The estates, Melanchthon advised, might therefore in every way\ndeclare that they had adopted the Confession and the Concord, and were\nminded to abide by them. At the same time he promised to demand at the\nprospective deliberation of the theologians, 'that the article of the\nSacrament be drawn up as contained in the Concord. 'Melanchthon's\nassertion that Bugenhagen influenced Luther's formulation of the article\non the Lord's Supper is probably correct. At any rate, it can be proved\nthat Luther really changed the article. For a glance at the original\nmanuscript shows that he had at first written, in conformity with the\nConcord, 'that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and\nwine,' but later on changed it to read: 'that the bread and wine of the\nLord's Supper are the true body and blood of Christ.'\" (48.) Melanchthon\nwas diplomatic enough to hide from the Landgrave his strictures on\nLuther's articles about the Pope, knowing well that in this point he\ncould expect neither approval nor support.\n\n72. Articles Not Discussed in Meeting of League.\n\nAs the Southern Germans regarded Luther's formulation of the article on\nthe Lord's Supper with disfavor, the Landgrave found little difficulty\nin winning over (through Jacob Sturm) the delegates of Augsburg and Ulm\nto Melanchthon's view of declaring adherence only to the Confession and\nthe Wittenberg Concord. Already on February 11 the cities decided to\n\"decline on the best grounds\" the Saxon proposition. Following were the\nreasons advanced: It was not necessary at present to enter upon the\nproposition, since the council would make slow progress, as the Emperor\nand the King of France were not yet at peace. They had not understood\nthis (the adoption of the Saxon proposition) to be the purpose of the\ninvitation to bring scholars with them. They had a confession, the\nAugustana, presented to the Emperor. It was also to be feared that\ndeliberations on the question whether any concessions should be made,\nmight lead to a division; nor would this remain concealed from the\nPapists. If the Elector desired to present some articles, he might\ntransmit them, and they, in turn, would send them to their superiors\nfor inspection. (Kolde, _Analecta,_ 296.)\n\nIn the afternoon of February 11 the princes according to the report of\nthe Strassburgers, expressed their satisfaction with the resolution of\nthe cities. At the same time they declared that they were not minded to\nmake any concessions to the Papists, nor to dispute about, or question,\nanything in the Confession or the Wittenberg Concord, \"but merely to\nreview the Confession, not to change anything against its contents and\nsubstance, nor that of the Concord, but solely to enlarge on the Papacy,\nwhich before this, at the Diet, had been omitted in order to please His\nImperial Majesty and for other reasons;\" that such was the purpose of\nthe deliberation for which the scholars had been summoned; and that this\nwas not superfluous, since \"they were all mortal, and it was necessary\nthat their posterity be thoroughly informed as to what their doctrine\nhad been, lest others who would succeed to their places accept something\nelse.\" The report continues: \"The cities did not object to this.\" (296.)\nAccording to this report, then, Luther's articles were neither discussed\nnor adopted at the official meeting of the princes and estates belonging\nto the Smalcald League. Without mentioning them, they declared in their\nfinal resolution: Our scholars have \"unanimously agreed among themselves\nin all points and articles contained in our Confession and Apology,\npresented at the Diet of Augsburg, excepting only that they have\nexpanded and drawn up more clearly than there contained _one article,_\nconcerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome.\" (Koellner, 468.) Koestlin\nremarks: \"Since the princes decided to decline the council absolutely,\nthey had no occasion to discuss Luther's articles.\" (2, 403.)\n\n73. Meeting of Theologians.\n\nAt Smalcald the first duty imposed upon the scholars and theologians was\nonce more to discuss the Augustana and the Apology carefully, and to\nacknowledge both as their own confessions by their signatures. Thereupon\nthey were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on the Papacy. The\nStrassburg delegates report: \"It has also come to pass that the scholars\nreceived orders once more to read the articles of the Confession and to\nenlarge somewhat on the Papacy, which they did.\" (Kolde, _Analecta,_\n298.) However, since neither the Augustana nor its Apology contained an\narticle against the Papacy, the demand of the princes could only be\nsatisfied by a special treatise, the \"Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu\nPapae,\" which Melanchthon wrote and completed by February 17, whereupon\nit was immediately delivered to the princes.\n\nThe princes had furthermore ordered the theologians, while reviewing and\ndiscussing the Augustana (and its Apology), to reenforce its doctrine\nwith additional proofs. Owing to lack of time and books, this was not\ncarried out. February 17 Osiander reports to the Nuernberg preachers:\n\"We are enjoying good health here, although we traveled in stormy\nweather and over roads that offered many difficulties, and are living\nunder a constantly beclouded sky, which unpleasantries are increased by\ntroublesome and difficult questions in complicated matters.... The first\nbusiness imposed on us by the princes embraces two things: first, to\nfortify the Confession and the Apology with every kind of argument from\nthe Holy Scriptures, the fathers, councils, and the decrees of the\nPopes; thereupon, diligently to discuss in detail everything concerning\nthe Primacy, which was omitted in the Confession because it was odious.\nThe latter we completed so far to-day that we shall immediately deliver\na copy to the princes. The former, however will be postponed to another\ntime and place, since it requires a longer time, as well as libraries,\nwhich are lacking here.\" (_C. R._ 3, 267.)\n\nThe discussion of the Confession was also to serve the purpose of\nobtaining mutual assurance whether they were all really agreed in\ndoctrine. This led to deliberations on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper\nas well as on the question what concessions might be made to the\nRomanists. According to a report of Melanchthon, March 1, the\ntheologians were to discuss the doctrines, not superficially, but very\nthoroughly, in order that all disagreement might be removed, and a\nharmonious and complete system of doctrines exist in our churches. They\nwere to review the Confession in order to learn whether any one\ndeviated in any article or disapproved of anything. But Melanchthon\nremarks that this object was not reached, since the special request had\nbeen voiced not to increase the disagreement by any quarrel and thus to\nendanger the Smalcald League. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) In a second letter of\nthe same date he says that a real doctrinal discussion had never come to\npass, partly because Luther's illness prevented him from taking part in\nthe meetings, partly because the timidity of certain men [the Landgrave\nand others] had prevented an exact disputation lest any discord might\narise. (296.) March 3 he wrote to Jonas in a similar vein saying that\nthe reports of violent controversies among the theologians at Smalcald\nwere false. For although they had been in consultation with one another\nfor the purpose of discovering whether all the theologians in attendance\nthere agreed in doctrine the matter had been treated briefly and\nincidentally. (298.)\n\nAs far as the Lord's Supper is concerned Melanchthon's report concerning\nthe superficial character of the doctrinal discussions is little if at\nall exaggerated. He himself was one of those timid souls of whom he\nspoke having from the beginning done all he could not only to bar\nLuther's articles from the deliberations but also to prevent any\npenetrating discussion of the Lord's Supper. Assent to the Wittenberg\nConcord was considered satisfactory although all felt, and believed to\nknow, that some of the Southern Germans did not agree with the loyal\nLutherans in this matter. Of the attending theologians who were under\nsuspicion Bucer, Blaurer, Fagius, Wolfart, Fontanus, and Melander, only\nthe first two took part in the deliberations. (292.) March 1 Melanchthon\nwrote to Camerarius: \"Bucer spoke openly and clearly of the Mystery [the\nLord's Supper] affirming the presence of Christ. He satisfied all of our\nparty also those who are more severe. Blaurer, however, employed such\ngeneral expressions as, that Christ was present. Afterward he added\nseveral more ambiguous expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly;\nbut since we did not desire to arouse any very vehement quarrel, I\nterminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement was\nrestored among all others, while he [Blaurer] did not seem to\ncontradict. I know that this is weak but nothing else could be done at\nthis time, especially since Luther was absent, being tortured by very\nsevere gravel pains.\" (292.)\n\nThis agrees with the report Veit Dietrich made to Foerster, May 16,\nstating: At the first meeting of the committee of the theologians they\ncompleted the first nine articles of the Augustana. Blaurer, Wolfart,\nand some others of those who were doctrinally under suspicion (_nobis\nsuspecti de doctrina_) were present. \"However, when the article of the\nLord's Supper was to be discussed on the following day, the meeting was\nprevented, I do not know by whom. It is certain that the princes, too,\ndesired another meeting, because they feared a rupture of the [Smalcald]\nAlliance, if any doctrinal difference should become evident, which,\nhowever, would occur if the matter were thoroughly discussed. Since the\ndisputation was prevented, we were commissioned to write on the Power of\nthe Pope in order to have something to do. Report had it that Blaurer\ndid not approve the Concord of Wittenberg; certainly, he asked Philip\nfor expressions of the Fathers (which are now in my possession), in\norder to be better furnished with arguments. This prompted Pomeranus and\nAmsdorf again to convene the theologians against Melanchthon's will.\nThen the Lord's Supper was discussed. Bucer indeed satisfied all.\nBlaurer, however, while speaking vaguely of the other matters,\nnevertheless publicly attacked the statement that the ungodly do not\nreceive the body of Christ.\" Wolfart declared that he was present at the\nConcord made at Wittenberg, and had approved it. It was unpleasant for\nhim [Dietrich] when hereupon Stephanus Agricola and then Wolfart\nrehashed some old statements, _vetera quaedam dicta._ (370.)\n\n74. Luther's Articles Subscribed.\n\nAs to the articles of Luther, Veit Dietrich reports that they were\nprivately circulated at Smalcald and read by all. They were also to be\nread at the meeting of the theologians on February 18. (_C. R._ 3, 371.)\nAs a matter of fact, however, neither a public reading nor a real\ndiscussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Strassburg delegates\nreport: \"Doctor Martin Luther has also drawn up some special articles,\nwhich he purposed to send to the council on his own accord, copies of\nwhich we have designated with W.\" The Strassburgers, then, were in\nposition to send home a copy of these articles. Furthermore Osiander\nrelates in a letter dated February 17: \"Besides this, Luther has also\nwritten articles at Wittenberg, short indeed, but splendid and keen\n(_illustres et argutos_), in which everything is summed up in German\nwherefrom we cannot recede in the council without committing sacrilege.\nTo-morrow we shall read them publicly in our meeting, in order that any\none who wishes to add anything to them may present this in the presence\nof all. They will also, as I hope, deliberate on the [Wittenberg]\nConcord in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. I regard Bucer as\nbeing sincerely one of us; Blaurer, however, by no means. For Philip\ntells of his having remarked that he was not able to agree with us.\"\n(268.) On February 18, however, Luther was taken ill and an official,\npublic reading and discussion of his articles did not take place on this\nday nor, as already stated, at a later date.\n\nLuther's articles, however, were nevertheless adopted at Smalcald,\nthough not by the South Germans. When all other business had been\ntransacted, they were presented for voluntary subscription. Bugenhagen\nhad called the theologians together for this purpose. He proposed that\nnow all those who wished (_qui velint_) should sign the articles Luther\nhad brought with him. Hereupon Bucer declared that he had no commission\nto do this. However, in order to obliterate the impression that he\ndeclined to subscribe because of doctrinal differences, he added that he\nknew nothing in Luther's articles which might be criticized. Blaurer of\nConstance, Melander of Hesse, and Wolfart of Augsburg followed his\nexample in declaring that they had no commission to sign the articles.\nIn order not to endanger the Smalcald League, Bugenhagen, as appears\nfrom his proposition refrained from urging any one to sign. This was\nalso the position of the other theologians.\n\nVeit Dietrich reports: \"Bucer was the first to say that he had no orders\nto sign. He added, however, that he knew of nothing in these articles\nthat could be criticized, but that his magistrates had reasons for\ninstructing him not to sign them. Afterwards Blaurer, Dionysius\nMelander, and your Boniface [Wolfart of Augsburg] said the same [that\nthey had not been authorized by their superiors to sign]. The thought\ncame to me immediately why Bucer, who taught correctly, should have been\nthe first to refuse his signature, since it was certain that the others,\nBlaurer and if you will, also your man, would not subscribe because they\ndid not approve of the dogma of the Lord's Supper. This would have led\nto an open doctrinal schism, which the Elector, Ernst of Lueneburg, and\nthe Counts of Anhalt would, under no circumstances, have tolerated among\nthe confederates. But, since Bucer did not subscribe, it was not\nnecessary to dispute about the doctrine. When we saw this, I was also\npleased that Luther's articles received no attention [in the official\nsubscription], and that all subscribed merely to the Augustana and the\nConcord. And there was no one who refused to do this.\" (371.)\n\nWhile thus Bucer, Fagius, Wolfart, Blaurer, and Fontanus refused to\naffix their signatures, the attending loyal Lutheran theologians\nendorsed Luther's articles all the more enthusiastically. And while the\nsignatures affixed to the Augustana and the Apology total 32, including\nthe suspected theologians, 44 names appear under Luther's articles.\nAmong these is found also the abnormal subscription of Melander of\nHesse: \"I subscribe to the Confession, the Apology, and the Concord in\nthe matter of the Eucharist,\" which is probably to be interpreted as a\nlimitation of Luther's Article of the Lord's Supper.\n\nAlthough, therefore, the subscription of the Smalcald Articles lacked\nthe official character and was not by order of the Smalcald League as\nsuch, it nevertheless is in keeping with the actual facts when the\nFormula of Concord refers to Luther's Articles as \"subscribed at that\ntime [1537] by the chief theologians.\" (777, 4; 853, 7.) All true\nLutheran pastors assembled at Smalcald recognized in Luther's articles\ntheir own, spontaneous confession against the Papists as well as against\nthe Zwinglians and other enthusiasts.\n\n75. Endorsed by Princes and Estates.\n\nThe Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord makes the further\nstatement that the Smalcald Articles were to be delivered in the Council\nat Mantua \"in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes.\" (853, 7.)\nEvidently this is based on Luther's Preface to the Smalcald Articles\nwritten 1538, in which he says concerning his Articles: \"They have also\nbeen accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has been\nresolved that, in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be so\nbold as seriously and in good faith, without lying and cheating to hold\na truly free Christian Council (as, indeed, he would be in duty bound to\ndo), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession of\nour Faith.\" (455.)\n\nKolde and others surmise that Luther wrote as he did because, owing to\nhis illness, he was not acquainted with the true situation at Smalcald.\nTschackert, too, takes it for granted that Luther, not being\nsufficiently informed, was under the erroneous impression that the\nprinces and estates as well as the theologians had adopted, and\nsubscribed to, his articles. (300. 302.) Nor has a better theory of\nsolving the difficulty hitherto been advanced. Yet it appears very\nimprobable. If adopted, one must assume that Luther's attention was\nnever drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit his\nassertion to stand in the following editions of the Smalcald Articles,\nbut repeats it elsewhere as well. In an opinion written 1541 he writes:\n\"In the second place, I leave the matter as it is found in the articles\nadopted at Smalcald; I shall not be able to improve on them; nor do I\nknow how to yield anything further.\" (St. L. 17, 666.)\n\nThe Elector, too, shared Luther's opinion. In a letter of October 27,\n1543, he urged him to publish in Latin and German (octavo), under the\ntitle, Booklet of the Smalcald Agreement--_Buechlein der geschehenen\nSchmalkaldischen Vergleichung,_ the \"Articles of Agreement,\nVergleichungsartikel,\" on which he and Melanchthon had come to an\nagreement in 1537, at Smalcald, with the other allied estates, scholars,\nand theologians. (St. L. 21b, 2913.) October 17, 1552, immediately after\nhe had obtained his liberty, the Elector made a similar statement. (_C.\nR._ 7, 1109.) Nor did Spalatin possess a knowledge in this matter\ndiffering from that of Luther and the Elector. He, too, believed that\nnot only the theologians, but the princes and estates as well, with the\nexception of Hesse, Wuerttemberg, Strassburg, etc., had subscribed to\nLuther's articles. (Kolde, 51.)\n\nEvidently, then, Luther's statement was generally regarded as being\nsubstantially and approximately correct and for all practical purposes\nin keeping, if not with the exact letter and form at least with the real\nspirit of what transpired at Smalcald and before as well as after this\nconvention. It was not a mere delusion of Luther's, but was generally\nregarded as agreeing with the facts, that at Smalcald his articles were\nnot only subscribed by the theologians, but adopted also by the Lutheran\nprinces and estates, though, in deference to the Landgrave and the South\nGerman cities, not officially and by the Smalcald League as such.\n\n76. Symbolical Authority of Smalcald Articles.\n\nThe importance attached to the Smalcald Articles over against the\nReformed and Crypto-Calvinists appears from a statement made by the\nElector of Saxony, October 17, 1552 (shortly after his deliverance from\ncaptivity), in which he maintained that the Lutheran Church could have\nbeen spared her internal dissensions if every one had faithfully abided\nby the articles of Luther. He told the Wittenberg theologians that\nduring his captivity he had heard of the dissensions and continued\ncontroversies, \"which caused us no little grief. And we have therefore\noften desired with all our heart that in the churches of our former\nlands and those of others no change, prompted by human wisdom, had been\nundertaken nor permitted in the matters [doctrines] as they were held\nduring the life of the blessed Doctor Martin Luther and during our rule,\nand confirmed at Smalcald, in the year 1537, by all pastors and\npreachers of the estates of the Augsburg Confession then assembled at\nthat place. For if this had been done, no doubt, the divisions and\nerrors prevailing among the teachers of said Confession, together with\nthe grievous and harmful offenses which resulted therefrom, would, with\nthe help of God, have been avoided.\" (_C. R._ 7, 1109.)\n\nIn the Prolegomena to his edition of the Lutheran Confessions, Hase\nremarks concerning the symbolical authority of Luther's articles: \"The\nformula of faith, drawn up by such a man, and adorned with such names,\nimmediately enjoyed the greatest authority. _Fidei formula a tali viro\nprofecta talibusque nominibus ornata maxima statim auctoritate\nfloruit._\" To rank among the symbolical books, Luther's articles\nrequired a special resolution on the part of the princes and estates as\nlittle as did his two catechisms; contents and the Reformer's name were\nquite sufficient. Voluntarily the articles were subscribed at Smalcald.\nOn their own merits they won their place of honor in our Church. In the\nsituation then obtaining, they voiced the Lutheran position in a manner\nso correct and consistent that every loyal Lutheran spontaneously gave\nand declared his assent. In keeping with the changed historical context\nof the times, they offered a correct explanation of the Augsburg\nConfession, adding thereto a declaration concerning the Papacy, the\nabsence of which had become increasingly painful. They struck the\ntimely, logical, Lutheran note also over against the Zwinglian and\nBucerian [Reformed and Unionistic] tendencies. Luther's articles offered\nquarters neither for disguised Papists nor for masked Calvinists. In\nbrief they gave such a clear expression to genuine Lutheranism that\nfalse spirits could not remain in their company. It was the recognition\nof these facts which immediately elicited the joyful acclaim of all true\nLutherans. To them it was a recommendation of Luther's articles when\nBucer, Blaurer, and others, though having subscribed the Augsburg\nConfession, refused to sign them. Loyal Lutherans everywhere felt that\nthe Smalcald Articles presented an up-to-date touchstone of the pure\nLutheran truth, and that, in taking their stand on them, their feet were\nplanted, over against the aberrations of the Romanists as well as the\nZwinglians, on ground immovable.\n\nIn the course of time, the esteem in which Luther's articles were held,\nrose higher and higher. Especially during and after the controversies on\nthe Interim, as well as in the subsequent controversies with the\nCrypto-Calvinists, the Lutherans became more and more convinced that the\nSmalcald Articles and not the Variata, contained the correct exposition\nof the Augsburg Confession. At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, the\nElector, by his delegates, sent word to Melanchthon \"to stand by the\nConfession and the Smalcald Agreement [Smalcald Articles] in word and in\nsense.\" The delegates answered that Philip would not yield anything\n\"which was opposed to the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement,\" as he\nhad declared that \"he would die rather than yield anything against his\nconscience.\" (_C. R._ 4, 292.) In an opinion of 1544 also the\ntheologians of Hesse, who at Smalcald had helped to sidetrack Luther's\narticles put them on a par with the Augustana. At Naumburg in 1561,\nwhere Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and the Crypto-Calvinists\nendeavored to undermine the authority of Luther, Duke John Frederick of\nSaxony declared that he would abide by the original Augustana and its\n\"true declaration and norm,\" the Smalcald Articles.\n\nFaithful Lutherans everywhere received the Smalcald Articles into their\n_corpora doctrinae._ In 1567 the Convention of Coswig declared them to\nbe \"the norm by which controversies are to be decided, _norma decidendi\ncontroversias_.\" Similarly, the Synod of Moelln, 1559. In 1560 the\nministerium of Luebeck and the Senate of Hamburg confessionally accepted\nthe Articles. Likewise, the Convention of Lueneburg in 1561, and the\ntheologians of Schleswig-Holstein in 1570. The Thorough Declaration\ncould truthfully say that the Smalcald Articles had been embodied in the\nconfessional writings of the Lutheran Church \"for the reason that these\nhave always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimously\naccepted meaning of our churches and, moreover, have been subscribed at\nthat time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have held\nsway in all evangelical churches and schools.\" (855, 11.)\n\n77. Editions of Smalcald Articles.\n\nIn 1538 Luther published his Articles, which _editio princeps_ was\nfollowed by numerous other editions, two of them in the same year. In\nthe copy of the Articles which Spalatin took at Wittenberg the title\nreads: \"Opinion concerning the Faith, and What We Must Adhere to\nUltimately at the Future Council. _Bedenken des Glaubens halben, und\nworauf im kuenftigen Konzil endlich zu beharren sei._\" The _editio\nprinceps_ bears the title: \"Articles which were to be Delivered on\nBehalf of Our Party at the Council of Mantua, or Where Else It Would\nMeet. _Artikel, so da haetten aufs Konzilium zu Mantua, oder wo es\nwuerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen._\" These\ntitles designate the purpose for which the articles were framed by order\nof the Elector. In the edition of 1553, published by John Stolz and John\nAurifaber, Luther's Articles are designated as \"prepared for the Diet of\nSmalcald in the year 1537, _gestellt auf den Tag zu Schmalkalden Anno\n1537._\" Says Carpzov: \"They are commonly called Smalcald Articles after\nthe place where they were composed [an error already found in Brenz's\nletter of February 23, 1537, appended to the subscriptions of the \"Tract\non the Power and Primacy of the Pope\" (529). See also Formula of Concord\n777, 4; 853, 7], as well as solemnly approved and subscribed since the\narticles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants at\nSmalcald a town in the borders of Saxony and Ducal Hesse, and selected\nfor the convention of the Protestants for the reason that the\nindividuals who had been called thither might have an easy and safe\napproach.\" (_Isagoge,_ 769.)\n\nThe text of the Smalcald Articles, as published by Luther, omits the\nfollowing motto found in the original: \"This is sufficient doctrine for\neternal life. As to the political and economic affairs, there are enough\nlaws to trouble us, so that there is no need of inventing further\ntroubles much more burdensome. Sufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof. _His satis est doctrinae pro vita aeterna. Ceterum in politia\net oeconomia satis est legum, quibus vexamur, ut non sit opus praeter\nhas molestias fingere alias quam miserrimas [necessarias]. Sufficit diei\nmalitia sua._\" (Luther, Weimar 50, 192. St. L. 16 1918.) Apart from all\nkinds of minor corrections, Luther added to the text a Preface (written\n1538) and several additions, some of them quite long, which, however,\ndid not change the sense. Among these are sec. 5, secs. 13 to 15, and\nsecs. 25-28 of the article concerning the Mass; secs. 42-45 concerning\nthe False Repentance of the Papists; secs. 3-13 about Enthusiasm in the\narticle concerning Confession. The editions of 1543 and 1545 contained\nfurther emendations. The German text of Luther's first edition of 1538\nwas received into the Book of Concord, \"as they were first framed and\nprinted.\" (853, 7.) The first Latin translation by Peter Generanus\nappeared in 1541, with a Preface by Veit Amerbach (later on Catholic\nProfessor of Philosophy at Ingolstadt). In 1542 it was succeeded by an\nemended edition. In the following year the Elector desired a\nLatin-German edition in octavo. The Latin translation found in the Book\nof Concord of 1580 was furnished by Selneccer; this was revised for the\nofficial Latin Concordia of 1584.\n\n78. Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.\n\nMelanchthon's \"Tract Concerning the Power and Primacy of the Pope,\n_Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu Papae,_\" presents essentially the\nsame thoughts Luther had already discussed in his article \"Of the\nPapacy.\" Melanchthon here abandons the idea of a papal supremacy _iure\nhumano,_ which he had advocated at Augsburg 1530 and expressed in his\nsubscription to Luther's articles, and moves entirely in the wake of\nLuther and in the trend of the Reformer's thoughts. The Tract was\nwritten not so much from his own conviction as from that of Luther and\nin accommodation to the antipapal sentiment which, to his grief, became\nincreasingly dominant at Smalcald. (_C. R._ 3, 270. 292f. 297.) In a\nletter to Jonas, February 23, he remarks, indicating his accommodation\nto the public opinion prevailing at Smalcald: \"I have written this\n[Tract] somewhat sharper than I am wont to do.\" (271. 292.) Melanchthon\nalways trimmed his sails according to the wind; and at Smalcald a\ndecidedly antipapal gale was blowing. He complains that he found no one\nthere who assented to his opinion that the papal invitation to a council\nought not be declined. (293.) It is also possible that he heard of the\nElector's criticism of his qualified subscription to Luther's articles.\nAt all events, the Tract amounts to a retraction of his stricture on\nLuther's view of the Papacy. In every respect, Smalcald spelled a defeat\nfor Melanchthon. His policy toward the South Germans was actually\nrepudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic subscriptions to Luther's\narticles, foreshadowing, as it were, the final historical outcome, when\nPhilippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord. And his\nown Tract gave the _coup de grace_ to his mediating policy with regard\nto the Romanists. For here Melanchthon, in the manner of Luther, opposes\nand denounces the Pope as the Antichrist, the protector of ungodly\ndoctrine and customs, and the persecutor of the true confessors of\nChrist, from whom one must separate. The second part of the Tract,\n\"Concerning the Power and the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, _De Potestate\net Iurisdictione Episcoporum,_\" strikes an equally decided note.\n\nThe Tract, which was already completed by February 17, received the\napproval of the estates, and, together with the Augustana and the\nApology, was signed by the theologians upon order of the princes. (_C.\nR._ 3, 286.) Koellner writes: \"Immediately at the convention Veit\nDietrich translated this writing [the Tract] into German, and (as\nappears from the fact that the Weimar theologians in 1553 published the\ndocument from the archives with the subscriptions) this German\ntranslation was, at the convention, presented to, and approved by, the\nestates as the official text, and subscribed by the theologians.\" (464.)\nBrenz's letter appended to the subscriptions shows that the signing did\nnot take place till after February 23, perhaps the 25th of February. For\non the 26th Melanchthon and Spalatin refer to it as finished.\n\nWith reference to the Concord of 1536, let it be stated here that,\nalthough mentioned with approval by the theologians and also included in\nBrenz's and Melander's subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, the\nprinces and estates nevertheless passed no resolution requiring its\nsubscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declared\nthat they would abide by the Wittenberg Concord. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) Veit\nDietrich's remark to Foerster, May 16, 1537, that only the Augustana and\nthe Concord were signed at Smalcald, is probably due to a mistake in\nwriting. (372.)\n\n79. Authorship of Tract.\n\nThe Tract first appeared in print in 1540. A German translation,\npublished 1541, designates it as \"drawn up by Mr. Philip Melanchthon and\ndone into German by Veit Dietrich.\" (_C. R._ 23 722.) In the edition of\nthe Smalcald Articles by Stolz and Aurifaber, 1553, the Tract is\nappended with the caption: \"Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the\nPope, Composed by the Scholars. Smalcald, 1537.\" In the Jena edition of\nLuther's Works the Smalcald Articles are likewise followed by the Tract\nwith the title: \"Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope,\nComposed by the Scholars in the Year 37 at Smalcald and Printed in the\nYear 38.\" (6, 523.) This superscription gave rise to the opinion that\nthe German was the original text. At any rate, such seems to have been\nthe belief of Selneccer, since he incorporated a Latin translation,\nbased on the German text, into the Latin edition of his Book of Concord,\nprivately published 1580. Apart from other errors this Latin version\ncontained also the offensive misprint referred to in our article on the\nBook of Concord. In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted by\nthe original text of Melanchthon. The subtitle, however, remained:\n\"Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregatos Conscriptus.\"\n\nTo-day it is generally assumed that by 1553 it was universally forgotten\nboth that Melanchthon was the author of the Tract, and that it was\noriginally composed in Latin. However, it remains a mystery how this\nshould have been possible--only twelve years after Dietrich had published\nthe Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as its\nauthor, and states that the German text is a translation. The evidence\nfor Melanchthon's authorship which thus became necessary was furnished\nby J. C. Bertram in 1770. However, before him Chytraeus and Seckendorf,\nin 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon's authorship. Be it\nmentioned as a curiosity that the Papist Lud. Jac. a St. Carolo\nmentioned a certain \"Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germanus, Lutheranus\" as\nthe author of the Tract. In the Formula of Concord and in the Preface to\nthe Book of Concord the Tract is not enumerated as a separate\nconfessional writing, but is treated as an appendix to the Smalcald\nArticles.\n\n80. A Threefold Criticism.\n\nOn the basis of the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, Kolde,\nfollowed by others believes himself justified in offering a threefold\ncriticism. In the first place, he opines that Luther's Articles are\n\"very improperly called 'Smalcald Articles.'\" However, even if Luther's\nArticles were not officially adopted by the Smalcald League as such,\nthey were nevertheless, written for the Convention of Smalcald, and were\nthere signed by the assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers and\nprivately adopted also by most of the princes and estates. For Luther's\nArticles then, there is and can be no title more appropriate than\n\"Smalcald Articles.\" Tschackert remarks: \"Almost all [all, with the\nexception of the suspected theologians] subscribed and thereby they\nbecame weighty and important for the Evangelical churches of Germany;\nand hence it certainly is not inappropriate to call them 'Smalcald\nArticles,' even though they were written at Wittenberg and were not\npublicly deliberated upon at Smalcald.\" (302.)\n\n\"It is entirely unhistorical,\" Kolde continues in his strictures, \"to\ndesignate Melanchthon's Tract, which has no connection with Luther's\nArticles, as an 'Appendix' to them when in fact it was accepted as an\nappendix of the Augustana and Apology.\" (50.) It is a mistake,\ntherefore, says Kolde, that the Tract is not separately mentioned in the\nBook of Concord, nor counted as a separate confessional writing. (53.)\nLikewise Tschackert: \"On the other hand, it is a mistake to treat\nMelanchthon's Tract as an appendix to the Smalcald Articles, as is done\nin the Book of Concord. The signatures of the estates have rather given\nit an independent authority in the Church.\" (302.) However, there is\nmuch more of a connection between Luther's Articles and the Tract than\nKolde and Tschackert seem to be aware of. Luther's Articles as well as\nthe Tract were prepared for the Convention at Smalcald. Both were there\nsigned by practically the same Lutheran theologians. The fact that in\nthe case of the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily rather\nenhances and does not in the least diminish, their importance. Both\nalso, from the very beginning, were equally regarded as Lutheran\nconfessional writings. The Tract, furthermore, follows Luther's\nArticles also in substance, as it is but an acknowledgment and\nadditional exposition of his article \"Of the Papacy.\" To be sure, the\nTract must not be viewed as an appendix to Luther's Articles, which,\nindeed, were in no need of such an appendix. Moreover, both the Articles\nand the Tract may be regarded as appendices to the Augsburg Confession\nand the Apology. Accordingly, there is no reason whatever why, in the\nBook of Concord, the Tract should not follow Luther's Articles or be\nregarded as closely connected with it, and naturally belonging to it.\nKoellner is right when he declares it to be \"very appropriate\" that the\nTract is connected and grouped with the Smalcald Articles. (469.)\n\nFinally, Kolde designates the words in the title \"composed,\n_conscriptus,_ by the scholars\" as false in every respect. Likewise\nTschackert. (303.) The criticism is justified inasmuch as the expression\n\"composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus,_ by the scholars\" cannot very\nwell be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. But\neven this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degree\nassumed by Kolde and Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes and\nestates did not order Melanchthon, but the theologians, to write the\ntreatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was presented in\ntheir name. Koellner writes: \"It is certainly a splendid testimony for\nthe noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Elector\nshould know of, and partly disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, and\nstill entrust him with the composition of this very important document\n[the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon so\nsplendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and\nthe interests of the party without infringing upon his own conviction.\"\n\"Seckendorf also,\" Koellner adds \"justly admires this unusual\nphenomenon.\" (471.) However, Koellner offers no evidence for the\nsupposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the\ncomposition of the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburg\ndelegates, the princes declared that \"the scholars\" should peruse the\nConfession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues: \"The\nscholars received orders ... to enlarge somewhat on the Papacy which\n_they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector\nand the princes.\" (Kolde, _Anal.,_ 297.) This is corroborated by\nMelanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March 1, 1537: \"We\nreceived orders (_iussi sumus_) to write something on the Primacy of\nPeter or the Roman Pontiff.\" (_C. R._ 3, 292.) February 17 Osiander\nreported: \"The first business imposed on _us_ by the princes was ...\ndiligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confession\nbecause it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties _we_ have\nto-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to the\nprinces.\" (3, 267.) These statements might even warrant the conclusion\nthat the theologians also participated, more or less in the drawing up\nof the Tract, for which however, further evidence is wanting. Nor does\nit appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit Dietrich's\nassertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: \"Orders were given to write\nabout the power of the Pope the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiastical\njurisdiction. Philip alone performed this very well.\" (3, 370.) However,\nentirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that the\ntheologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it was\ndelivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrants\nus to speak of the document as \"The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald\"\nwith the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which Melanchthon\ndrew up on August 6, 1536, is entitled: \"The First Proposal of the\nWittenberg Scholars concerning the Future Council.\" (_C. R._ 3, 119.)\n\n\nVIII. Luther's Efforts at Restoring Catechetical Instruction.\n\n81. Modern Researches Respecting Luther's Catechisms.\n\nBesides G. v. Zezschwitz (_System der christlichkirchlichen Katechetik,_\n3 volumes, 1862 to 1874) and numerous other contemporary and later\nstudents, G. Buchwald, F. Cohrs, and O. Albrecht have, since the middle\nof the past century, rendered no mean service by their researches\npertaining to Luther's Catechisms. Buchwald edited the three series of\nsermons on the Five Chief Parts which Luther delivered in 1528, pointed\nout their important bearing on his Catechisms, and shed new light on\ntheir origin by discovering and exploiting the Stephan Roth\ncorrespondence. He published the results of his labors in 1894 under the\ntitle, \"The Origin of the Two Catechisms of Luther and the Foundation of\nthe Large Catechism. _Die Entstehung der beiden Katechismen Luthers und\ndie Grundlage des Grossen Katechismus._\" F. Cohrs enriched this\ndepartment of knowledge by his articles in the third edition of Herzog's\n_Realenzyklopaedie,_ and especially by his five-volume work on _The\nEvangelical Catechism; Attempts Prior to Luther's Enchiridion,_ in\n_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica,_ 1900 to 1907. In 1905 O. Albrecht was\nentrusted with the preparation of Luther's Catechisms for the Weimar\nCritical Edition of Luther's Complete Works. He also contributed the\nextensive historical sections of the first of the three parts of Vol.\n30, where the Catechisms are treated.\n\nThis first part of 826 pages, which appeared in 1910, represents the\nlatest important research work on the origin of Luther's Catechisms. In\nits preface R. Drescher says: \"The writings of 1529 to 1530, in their\ntotality were a difficult mountain, and it gives us particular joy\nfinally to have surmounted it. And the most difficult and laborious part\nof the way, at least in view of the comprehensive treatment it was to\nreceive, was the publication of the Large and the Small Catechism,\nincluding the three series of Catechism Sermons. ... The harvest which\nwas garnered fills a large volume of our edition.\"\n\n82. Meaning of the Word Catechism.\n\nThe term _catechismus_ (catechism), like its related terms, _catechesis,\ncatechizari, catechumeni,_ was common in the ancient Church. In his\n_Glossarium,_ Du Cange defines it as \"_institutio puerorum etiam recens\nnatorum, ante quam baptizentur_--the instruction of children, also those\nrecently born, before their baptism.\" The synonymous expression,\n_catechesis,_ he describes as \"_institutio primorum fidei Christianae\nrudimentorum, de quibus kateceseis suas scripsit S. Cyrillus\nJerusolymitanus_--instruction in the first rudiments of the Christian\nfaith, about which St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his catechizations.\" (2,\n222f.) Also Luther was acquainted with this usage in the ancient Church.\nHe began his Catechism sermon of November 30, 1528, with the words:\n\"These parts which you heard me recite the old Fathers called catechism,\n_i.e._, a sermon for children which children should know and all who\ndesire to be Christians.\" (Weimar 30, 1, 57.) At first Luther seems to\nhave employed the term but seldom; later on, however, especially after\n1526, more frequently. Evidently he was bent on popularizing it. Between\nthe Preface and the Decalog of the first Wittenberg book edition of the\nSmall Catechism we find the title, \"A Small Catechism or Christian\nTraining--_Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht._\" No doubt,\nLuther added the explanation \"christliche Zucht\" because the word\ncatechism had not yet become current among the people. May 18, 1528, he\nbegan his sermon with the explanation: \"_Catechismus dicitur instructio_\n--Catechism is instruction\"; likewise the sermon of September 14:\n\"Catechism, _i.e._, an instruction or Christian teaching,\" the sermon of\nNovember 30: \"Catechism, _i.e._, a sermon for children.\" In the Preface\nto his Small Catechism he again explains the term as \"Christian\ndoctrine.\" Thus Luther endeavored to familiarize the people with the\nword catechism.\n\nThe meaning of this term, however, is not always the same. It may\ndesignate the act of instructing, the subject-matter or the doctrine\nimparted, a summary thereof, the text of the traditional chief parts, or\na book containing the catechismal doctrine, text, or text with\nexplanation. Luther used the word most frequently and preferably in the\nsense of instruction. This appears from the definitions quoted in the\npreceding paragraph, where catechism is defined as \"sermon,\"\n\"instruction,\" \"Christian training,\" etc. \"You have the catechism\" (the\ndoctrine), says Luther, \"in small and large books.\" Bugenhagen defines\nthus: \"Katechismus, dat is, christlike underrichtinge ut den teyn\ngebaden Gades.\" In the Apology, Melanchthon employs the word catechism\nas identical with _kathechesis puerorum,_ instruction of the young in\nthe Christian fundamentals. (324, 41.) \"Accordingly,\" says O. Albrecht,\n\"catechism means elementary instruction in Christianity, conceived,\nfirst, as the act; then, as the material for instruction; then, as the\ncontents of a book, and finally, as the book itself.\" This usage must be\nborne in mind also where Luther speaks of his own Catechisms. \"German\nCatechism\" means instruction in, or preaching on, the traditional chief\nparts in the German language. And while \"Enchiridion\" signifies a book\nof small compass, the title \"Small Catechism\" (as appears from the old\nsubtitle: \"Ein kleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht\") means\ninstruction in the chief parts, proceeding with compact brevity, and, at\nthe same time, these parts themselves together with the explanations\nadded. (W. 30, 1, 454. 539.) As the title of a book the word catechism\nwas first employed by Althamer in 1528, and by Brenz as the subtitle of\nhis \"Questions\" (_Fragestuecke_). A school-book written by John Colet in\nthe beginning of the sixteenth century bears the title \"_Catechyzon,_\nThe Instructor.\" (456.)\n\nNot every kind of Christian instruction, however, is called catechism by\nLuther. Whenever he uses the word, he has in mind beginners, children,\nand unlearned people. In his \"German Order of Worship, _Deutsche\nMesse,_\" of 1526, he writes: \"Catechism is an instruction whereby\nheathen who desire to become Christians are taught and shown what they\nmust believe, do, not do, and know in Christianity, hence the name\ncatechumens was given to pupils who were accepted for such instruction\nand who learned the Creed previous to their baptism.\" (19, 76.) In his\nsermon of November 30, 1528: \"The Catechism is a sermon for children,\nwhich the children and all who desire to be Christians must know.\nWhoever does not know it cannot be numbered among the Christians. For if\nhe does not know these things, it is evident that God and Christ mean\nnothing to him.\" (30, 1, 57.) In his sermon of September 14: \"This\n[catechism] is preaching for children, or, the Bible of the laity, which\nserves the plain people. Whoever, then, does not know these things, and\nis unable to recite them and understand them, cannot be considered a\nChristian. It is for this reason, too, that it bears the name catechism,\n_i.e._, instruction and Christian teaching, since all Christians at the\nvery least should know this much. Afterward they ought to learn more of\nthe Scriptures. Hence, let all children govern themselves accordingly,\nand see that they learn it.\" (27.) May 18 Luther began his sermon thus:\n\"The preaching of the Catechism was begun that it might serve as an\ninstruction for children and the unlearned. ... For every Christian must\nnecessarily know the Catechism. Whoever does not know it cannot be\nnumbered among the Christians.\" (2.) In the short Preface to the Large\nCatechism: \"This sermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an\ninstruction for children and the simpleminded. Hence, of old it was\ncalled in Greek catechism, _i.e._, instruction for children, what every\nChristian must needs know, so that he who does not know this could not\nbe numbered with the Christians nor be admitted to any Sacrament.\"\n(CONC. TRIGL., 575, 1; 535, 11.)\n\n83. Chief Parts of Catechism.\n\nIn Luther's opinion the elementary doctrines which form the subject-\nmatter of the Catechism are comprised in the three traditional parts:\nDecalog, Creed, and Lord's Prayer. These he considered to be the gist of\nthe doctrine every one must learn if he would be regarded and treated as\na Christian. \"Those who are unwilling to learn it,\" says Luther, \"should\nbe told that they deny Christ and are no Christians; neither should they\nbe admitted to the Sacraments, accepted as sponsors at Baptism, nor\nexercise any part of Christian liberty.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 535, 11.) Of\ncourse, Luther considered these three parts only a minimum, which,\nhowever, Christians who partake of the Lord's Supper should strive to\nexceed, but still sufficient for children and plain people. (575, 5.)\nEven in his later years, Luther speaks of the first three parts as the\nCatechism proper.\n\nHowever, probably in consequence of the controversy with the\nEnthusiasts, which began in 1524, Luther soon added as supplements the\nparts treating of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Confession. In the\nLarge Catechism, where Baptism and the Lord's Supper appear as\nappendices, Luther emphasizes the fact that the first three parts form\nthe kernel of the Catechism, but that instruction in Baptism and the\nLord's Supper must also be imparted. \"These\" (first three), says he,\n\"are the most necessary parts, which one should first learn to repeat\nword for word. ... Now, when these three parts are apprehended, it\nbehooves a person also to know what to say concerning our Sacraments,\nwhich Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood of\nChrist, namely, the text which Matthew and Mark record at the close of\ntheir gospels, when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent them\nforth.\" (579, 20.) Luther regarded a correct knowledge of Baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper not only as useful, but as necessary. Beginning his\nexplanation of the Fourth Chief Part, he remarks: \"We have now finished\nthe three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we\nhave yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which\nalso every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief\ninstruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although,\nalas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given.\" (733, 1.)\nThus Luther materially enlarged the Catechism. True, several prayer- and\nconfession-books, which appeared in the late Middle Ages, also treat of\nthe Sacraments. As for the people, however, it was considered sufficient\nfor laymen to be able to recite the names of the seven Roman sacraments.\nHence Luther, in the passage cited from the Large Catechism, declares\nthat in Popery practically nothing of Baptism and the Lord's Supper was\ntaught, certainly nothing worth while or wholesome.\n\n84. Parts Inherited from Ancient Church.\n\nThe text of the first three chief parts, Luther considered a sacred\nheirloom from the ancient Church. \"For,\" says he in his Large Catechism,\n\"the holy Fathers or apostles have thus embraced in a summary the\ndoctrine life, wisdom, and art of Christians, of which they speak and\ntreat, and with which they are occupied.\" (579, 19.) Thus Luther, always\nconservative, did not reject the traditional catechism, both bag and\nbaggage, but carefully distinguished between the good, which he\nretained, and the worthless, which he discarded. In fact, he no more\ndreamt of foisting a new doctrine or catechism on the Christian Church\nthan he ever thought of founding a new church. On the contrary, his sole\nobject was to restore the ancient Apostolic Church, and his catechetical\nendeavors were bent on bringing to light once more, purifying,\nexplaining, and restoring, the old catechism of the fathers.\n\nIn his book _Wider Hans Worst,_ 1541, Luther says: \"We have remained\nfaithful to the true and ancient Church; aye, we are the true and\nancient Church. You Papists, however, have apostatized from us, _i.e._,\nfrom the ancient Church, and have set up a new church in opposition to\nthe ancient Church.\" In harmony with this view, Luther repeatedly and\nemphatically asserted that in his Catechism he was merely protecting and\nguarding an inheritance of the fathers, which he had preserved to the\nChurch by his correct explanation. In his _German Order of Worship_ we\nread: \"I know of no simpler nor better arrangement of this instruction\nor doctrine than the arrangement which has existed since the beginning\nof Christendom, _viz._, the three parts, Ten Commandments, Creed, and\nthe Lord's Prayer.\" (W. 19, 76.) In the ancient Church the original\nparts for catechumens and sponsors were the _Symbolum_ and the\n_Paternoster,_ the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer. To these the\nTen Commandments were added as a formal part of doctrine only since the\nthirteenth century. (30, 1, 434.) The usual sequence of these parts was:\nLord's Prayer, Apostles' Creed, and, wherever it was not supplanted by\nother matter, the Decalog. It was with deliberation then, that Luther\nsubstituted his own objective, logical order.\n\nIn his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's\nPrayer,_ 1520 Luther speaks as follows of the three traditional parts,\nwhich God preserved to the Church in spite of the Papacy: \"It did not\ncome to pass without the special providence of God, that, with reference\nto the common Christian, who cannot read the Scriptures, it was\ncommanded to teach and to know the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord's\nPrayer which three parts indeed thoroughly and completely embrace all\nthat is contained in the Scripture and may ever be preached, all also\nthat a Christian needs to know, and this, too, in a form so brief and\nsimple that no one can complain or offer the excuse that it is too much,\nand that it is too hard for him to remember what is essential to his\nsalvation. For in order to be saved, a man must know three things:\nFirst, he must know what he is to do and leave undone. Secondly, when he\nrealizes that by his own strength he is unable to do it and leave it\nundone, he must know where he may take, seek, and find that which will\nenable him to do and to refrain. Thirdly, he must know how he may seek\nand obtain it. Even as a sick man needs first of all to know what\ndisease he has, what he may or may not do, or leave undone. Thereupon he\nneeds to know where the medicine is which will help him, that he may do\nand leave undone like a healthy person. Fourthly, he must desire it,\nseek and get it, or have it brought to him. In like manner the\ncommandments teach a man to know his disease, that he may see and\nperceive what he can do and not do, leave and not leave, and thus\nperceive that he is a sinner and a wicked man. Thereupon the Creed holds\nbefore his eyes and teaches him where to find the medicine, the grace\nwhich will help him become pious, that he may keep the commandments, and\nshows him God and His mercy as revealed and offered in Christ. Fifthly,\nthe Lord's Prayer teaches him how to ask for, get and obtain it, namely,\nby proper, humble, and comforting prayer. These three things comprise\nthe entire Scriptures.\" (W. 7, 204.) It was things such as the chief\nparts of the Catechism that Luther had in mind when he wrote against the\nfanatics, 1528: \"We confess that even under the Papacy there are many\nChristian blessings aye, all Christian blessings, and thence they have\ncome to us: the true Holy Scriptures, true Baptism, the true Sacrament\nof the Altar, true keys for the forgiveness of sins, the true office of\nthe ministry, the true catechism, such as the Lord's Prayer, the Ten\nCommandments the Articles of Faith, etc.\" (26, 147.) Luther's meaning\nis, that in the midst of antichristendom and despite the Pope, the text\nof the three chief parts was, among other things, preserved to the\nChurch.\n\n85. Service Rendered Catechism by Luther.\n\nThe fact that the text of the three chief parts existed long before\nLuther does not detract from the service which he rendered the\nCatechism. Luther's work, moreover, consisted in this, 1. that he\nbrought about a general revival of the instruction in the Catechism of\nthe ancient Church; 2. that he completed it by adding the parts treating\nof Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Supper; 3. that he purged its\nmaterial from all manner of papal ballast; 4. that he eliminated the\nRomish interpretation and adulteration in the interest of\nwork-righteousness; 5. that he refilled the ancient forms with their\ngenuine Evangelical and Scriptural meaning. Before Luther's time the\nstudy of the Catechism had everywhere fallen into decay. There were but\nfew who knew its text, and when able to recite it, they did not\nunderstand it. The soul of all Christian truths, the Gospel of God's\nfree pardon for Christ's sake, had departed. Concerning \"the three parts\nwhich have remained in Christendom from of old\" Luther said that \"little\nof it had been taught and treated correctly.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 575, 6.)\n\nIn his _Warning to My Dear Germans,_ of 1531, he enlarges on the same\nthought as follows; \"Thanks to God, our Gospel has produced much and\ngreat good. Formerly no one knew what was Gospel, what Christ, what\nBaptism, what Confession, what Sacrament, what faith, what spirit, what\nflesh, what good works, what the Ten Commandments, what the Lord's\nPrayer, what praying, what suffering, what comfort, what civil\ngovernment, what matrimony, what parents, what children, what lords,\nwhat servant, what mistress what maid, what devil, what angel, what\nworld, what life, what death, what sin, what right, what forgiveness of\nsin, what God, what bishop, what pastor, what Church, what a Christian,\nwhat the cross. Sum, we knew nothing of what a Christian should know.\nEverything was obscured and suppressed by the papal asses. For in\nChristian matters they are asses indeed, aye, great, coarse, unlearned\nasses. For I also was one of them and know that in this I am speaking\nthe truth. And all pious hearts who were captive under the Pope, even as\nI, will bear me out that they would fain have known one of these things,\nyet were not able nor permitted to know it. We knew no better than that\nthe priests and monks alone were everything; on their works we based our\nhope of salvation and not on Christ. Thanks to God, however, it has now\ncome to pass that man and woman, young and old, know the Catechism, and\nhow to believe, live, pray, suffer, and die; and that is indeed a\nsplendid instruction for consciences, teaching them how to be a\nChristian and to know Christ.\" (W. 30, 3, 317.)\n\nThus Luther extols it as the great achievement of his day that now every\none knew the Catechism, whereas formerly Christian doctrine was unknown\nor at least not understood aright. And this achievement is preeminently\na service which Luther rendered. He revived once more the ancient\ncatechetical parts of doctrine, placed them in the proper Biblical\nlight, permeated them with the Evangelical spirit, and explained them in\nconformity with the understanding of the Gospel which he had gained\nanew, stressing especially the _finis historiae_ (the divine purpose of\nthe historical facts of Christianity, as recorded in the Second\nArticle), the forgiveness of sins not by works of our own, but by grace,\nfor Christ's sake.\n\n86. Catechetical Instruction before Luther.\n\nIn the Middle Ages the Lord's Prayer and the Creed were called the chief\nparts for sponsors (_Patenhauptstuecke_), since the canons required\nsponsors to know them, and at Baptism they were obligated to teach these\nparts to their godchildren. The children, then, were to learn the Creed\nand the Lord's Prayer from their parents and sponsors. Since the\nCarolingian Epoch these regulations of the Church were often repeated,\nas, for example, in the _Exhortation to the Christian Laity_ of the\nninth century. From the same century dates the regulation that an\nexplanation of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer should be found in every\nparish, self-evidently to facilitate preaching and the examination in\nconfession. In confession, which, according to the Lateran Council,\n1215, everybody was required to make at least once a year, the priests\nwere to inquire also regarding this instruction and have the chief parts\nrecited. Since the middle of the thirteenth century the Creed, the\nLord's Prayer, together with the Benedicite, Gratias, Ave Maria, Psalms,\nand other matter, were taught also in the Latin schools, where probably\nLuther, too, learned them. In the _Instruction for Visitors,_\nMelanchthon still mentions \"der Kinder Handbuechlein, darin das\nAlphabet, Vaterunser, Glaub' und andere Gebet' innen stehen--Manual for\nChildren, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and\nother prayers,\" as the first schoolbook. (W. 26, 237.) After the\ninvention of printing, chart-impressions with pictures illustrating the\nCreed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments came into the\npossession also of some laymen. The poorer classes, however, had to\ncontent themselves with the charts in the churches, which especially\nNicolaus of Cusa endeavored to introduce everywhere. (Herzog's\n_Realenzyklopaedie_ 10, 138.) They were followed by confessional\nbooklets, prayer-booklets, and also by voluminous books of devotion.\nApart from other trash, these contained confessional and communion\nprayers instructions on Repentance, Confession, and the Sacrament of\nthe Altar; above all, however, a mirror of sins, intended as a guide for\nself-examination, on the basis of various lists of sins and catalogs of\nvirtues, which supplanting the Decalog were to be memorized.\nSelf-evidently, all this was not intended as a schoolmaster to bring\nthem to Christ and to faith in the free grace of God, but merely to\nserve the interest of the Romish penances, satisfactions, and\nwork-righteousness. Says Luther in the Smalcald Articles: \"Here, too,\nthere was no faith nor Christ, and the virtue of the absolution was not\ndeclared to him, but upon his enumeration of sins and his self-abasement\ndepended his consolation. What torture, rascality, and idolatry such\nconfession has produced is more than can be related.\" (485, 20.) The\nchief parts of Christian doctrine but little taught and nowhere\ncorrectly taught,--such was the chief hurt of the Church under the\nPapacy.\n\nIn the course of time, however, even this deficient and false\ninstruction gradually fell into decay. The influence of the Latin\nschools was not very far-reaching, their number being very small in\nproportion to the young. Public schools for the people did not exist in\nthe Middle Ages. As a matter of fact not a single synod concerned itself\nspecifically with the instruction of the young. (_H. R._ 10, 137.) At\nhome, parents and sponsors became increasingly indifferent and\nincompetent for teaching. True, the reformers of the fourteenth and\nfifteenth centuries did attempt to elevate the instruction also in the\nCatechism. Geiler's sermons on the Lord's Prayer were published. Gerson\nadmonished: \"The reformation of the Church must begin with the young,\"\nand published sermons on the Decalog as models for the use of the\nclergy. John Wolf also urged that the young be instructed, and\nendeavored to substitute the Decalog for the prevalent catalogs of sins.\nThe Humanists John Wimpheling, Erasmus, and John Colet (who wrote the\n_Catechyzon,_ which Erasmus rendered into Latin hexameters) urged the\nsame thing. Peter Tritonius Athesinus wrote a similar book of\ninstruction for the Latin schools. However, all of these attempts proved\nineffectual, and even if successful, they would have accomplished little\nfor truly Christian instruction, such as Luther advocated, since the\nreal essence of Christianity, the doctrine of justification, was unknown\nto these reformers.\n\nThus in the course of time the people, and especially the young, grew\nmore and more deficient in the knowledge of even the simplest Christian\ntruths and facts. And bishops and priests, unconcerned about the ancient\ncanons, stolidly looked on while Christendom was sinking deeper and\ndeeper into the quagmire of total religious ignorance and indifference.\nWithout fearing contradiction, Melanchthon declared in his Apology:\n\"Among the adversaries there is no catechization of the children\nwhatever, concerning which even the canons give commands. ... Among the\nadversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain], during the entire\nyear no sermons are delivered, except in Lent.\" (325, 41.)\n\n87. Medieval Books of Prayer and Instruction.\n\nConcerning the aforementioned Catholic books of prayer and edification\nwhich, during the Middle Ages, served the people as catechisms, Luther,\nin his Prayer-Booklet of 1522 (which was intended to supplant the Romish\nprayer-books), writes as follows: \"Among many other harmful doctrines\nand booklets which have seduced and deceived Christians and given rise\nto countless superstitions, I do not consider as the least the\nprayer-booklets, by which so much distress of confessing and enumerating\nsins, such unchristian folly in the prayers to God and His saints was\ninculcated upon the unlearned, and which, nevertheless, were highly\npuffed with indulgences and red titles, and, in addition, bore precious\nnames, one being called _Hortulus Animae,_ the other _Paradisus Animae,_\nand so forth. They are in sore need of a thorough and sound reformation,\nor to be eradicated entirely, a sentence which I also pass on the\nPassional or Legend books, to which also a great deal has been added by\nthe devil.\" (W. 10, 1, 375.)\n\nThe _Hortulus Animae,_ which is mentioned even before 1500, was widely\ncirculated at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It embraced all\nforms of edifying literature. Sebastian Brandt and Jacob Wimpheling\nhelped to compile it. The _Paradisus Animae_ had the same contents, but\nwas probably spread in Latin only. The _Hortulus Animae_ contains very\ncomplete rosters of sins and catalogs of virtues for \"confessing and\nenumerating sins.\" Among the virtues are listed the bodily works of\nmercy (Matt. 25, 35) and the seven spiritual works of mercy: to instruct\nthe ignorant, give counsel to the doubtful, comfort the afflicted,\nadmonish sinners, pardon adversaries suffer wrong, and forgive the\nenemies. Among the virtues were counted the seven gifts of the Holy\nGhost: wisdom, understanding, ability, kindness, counsel, strength, and\nfear. Furthermore the three divine virtues: faith, hope and charity. The\nfour cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. The\neight beatitudes according to Matt. 5, 3ff. The twelve counsels:\npoverty, obedience, chastity, love of enemies, meekness, abundant mercy,\nsimplicity of words, not too much care for temporal things, correct\npurpose and simplicity of deeds, harmony of doctrine and works, fleeing\nthe cause of sin, brotherly admonition. Finally also the seven\nsacraments. The list of sins contains the nine foreign sins, the six\nsins against the Holy Ghost, the four sins that cry to God for\nvengeance, the five senses the Ten Commandments, and the seven mortal\nsins: pride, covetousness, unchastity, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.\nEach of these mortal sins is again analyzed extensively. The Weimar\nedition of Luther's Works remarks: \"If these catalogs were employed for\nself-examination, confusion, endless torment, or complete\nexternalization of the consciousness of sin was bound to result. We can\ntherefore understand why the Reformer inveighs against this 'enumerating\nof sins.'\" (10, 2, 336.)\n\nThe _Hortulus Animae_ also shows how Luther was obliged to purge the\nCatechism from all manner of \"unchristian follies,\" as he calls them.\nFor the entire book is pervaded by idolatrous adoration of the saints.\nAn acrostic prayer to Mary addresses her as _mediatrix, auxiliatrix,\nreparatrix, illuminatrix, advocatrix._ In English the prayer would read\nas follows: \"O Mary, thou mediator between God and men, make of thyself\nthe medium between the righteous God and me, a poor sinner! O Mary, thou\nhelper in all anguish and need, come to my assistance in all\nsufferrings, and help me resist and strive against the evil spirits and\novercome all my temptations and afflictions. O Mary, thou restorer of\nlost grace to all men, restore unto me my lost time, my sinful and\nwasted life! O Mary, thou illuminator, who didst give birth to the\neternal Light of the whole world, illumine my blindness and ignorance,\nlest I, poor sinner that I am, enter the darkness of eternal death. O\nMary, thou advocate of all miserable men, be thou my advocate at my last\nend before the stern judgment of God, and obtain for me the grace and\nthe fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ! Amen.\" Another prayer calls Mary\nthe \"mighty queen of heaven, the holy empress of the angels, the one who\nstays divine wrath.\" A prayer to the eleven thousand virgins reads as\nfollows: \"O ye, adorned with chastity, crowned with humility, clad with\npatience, covered with the blossoms of virtue, well polished with\nmoderation--O ye precious pearls and chosen virgin maids, help us in the\nhour of death!\"\n\nWith this idolatry and saint-worship silly superstition was combined. In\norder to be efficacious, a certain prayer prescribed in the _Hortulus_\nmust be spoken not only with \"true contrition and pure confession,\" but\nalso \"before a figure which had appeared to St. Gregory.\" Whoever offers\na certain prayer \"before the image of Our Lady in the Sun\" \"will not\ndepart this life unshriven, and thirty days before his death will see\nthe very adorable Virgin Mary prepared to help him.\" Another prayer is\ngood \"for pestilence\" when spoken \"before the image of St. Ann;\" another\nprayer to St. Margaret profits \"every woman in travail;\" still another\npreserves him who says it from \"a sudden death.\" All of these promises\nhowever, are far surpassed by the indulgences assured. The prayer before\nthe apparition of St. Gregory obtains 24,600 years and 24 days of\nindulgence: another promises \"indulgence for as many days as our Lord\nJesus Christ received wounds during His passion, _viz._ 5,475.\" Whoever\nprays the Bridget-prayers not only obtains indulgence for himself, but\n15 souls of his kin are thereby delivered from purgatory, 15 sinners\nconverted, and 15 righteous \"confirmed and established in their good\nstanding.\" (W. 10, 2, 334.)\n\nAlso in the chart booklets for the Latin schools of the Middle Ages the\nAve Maria and Salve Regina played an important part.--Such were the\nbooks which, before Luther, were to serve the people as catechisms, or\nbooks of instruction and prayer. In them, everything, even what was\nright and good in itself, such as the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the\nDecalog, was made to serve Romish superstition and work-righteousness.\nHence one can easily understand why Luther demanded that they be either\nthoroughly reformed or eradicated.\n\nIndeed, the dire need of the Church in this respect was felt and\nlamented by none sooner and more deeply than Luther. Already in his\ntract _To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,_ 1520, he\ncomplained that Christian instruction of the young was being neglected.\nHe writes: \"Above all, the chief and most common lesson in the higher\nand lower schools ought to be the Holy Scriptures and for the young\nboys, the Gospel. Would to God every city had also a school for girls,\nwhere the little maids might daily hear the Gospel for an hour, either\nin German or in Latin! Truly, in the past the schools and convents for\nmen and women were founded for this purpose, with very laudable\nChristian intention, as we read of St. Agnes and other saints. There\ngrew up holy virgins and martyrs, and Christendom fared very well. But\nnow it amounts to nothing more than praying and singing. Ought not,\nindeed, every Christian at the age of nine or ten years know the entire\nholy Gospel, in which his name and life is written? Does not the spinner\nand the seamstress teach the same handicraft to her daughter when she is\nstill young? But now even the great men, the learned prelates and\nbishops, do not know the Gospel. How unjustly do we deal with the poor\nyouth entrusted to us, failing, as we do, to govern and instruct them!\nWhat a severe reckoning will be required of us because we do not set\nbefore them the Word of God! For unto them is done as Jeremiah says,\nLam. 2, 11. 12: 'Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled,\nmy liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter\nof my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the\nstreets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine?\nwhen they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their\nsoul was poured out into their mothers' bosom.' But we do not see the\nwretched misery, how the young people, in the midst of Christendom, now\nalso languish and perish miserably for lack of the Gospel, in which they\nshould always be instructed and drilled.\" (W. 6, 461; E. 21, 349.)\n\n88. Church Visitation Reveals Deplorable Ignorance.\n\nThe Saxon Visitation brought to light such a total decay of all\nChristian knowledge and of Christian instruction as even Luther had not\nanticipated. Aside from other evils (clergymen cohabiting with their\ncooks, addicted to drink, or even conducting taverns, etc.), the people,\nespecially in the villages, were found to be grossly ignorant of even\nthe simplest rudiments of Christian doctrine and most unwilling to learn\nanything, while many pastors were utterly incompetent to teach.\nAccording to the official records, one priest, who enjoyed a great\nreputation as an exorcist, could not even recite the Lord's Prayer and\nthe Creed fluently. (Koestlin, _Martin Luther,_ 2, 41.) Luther took part\nin the visitation of the Electoral circuit from the end of October till\nafter the middle of November, 1528, and again from the end of December,\n1528, till January, 1529, and on April 26, 1529, at Torgau, he, too,\nsigned the report on visitation. When Luther therefore describes the\ndecay of instruction in Popery, he speaks from personal experience.\nAbout the middle of January, 1529, he wrote to Spalatin: \"Moreover,\nconditions in the congregations everywhere are pitiable, inasmuch as the\npeasants learn nothing, know nothing, never pray, do nothing but abuse\ntheir liberty, make no confession, receive no communion, as if they had\nbeen altogether emancipated from religion. They have neglected their\npapistical affairs (ours they despise) to such extent that it is\nterrible to contemplate the administration of the papal bishops.\"\n(Enders 7, 45.) The intense heartache and mingled feelings which came\nover Luther when he thought of the ignorance which he found during the\nvisitation, are described in the Preface to the Small Catechism as\nfollows: \"The deplorable miserable condition which I discovered lately\nwhen I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare this\nCatechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form.\nMercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people,\nespecially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian\ndoctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable, and\nincompetent to teach. Nevertheless, all maintain that they are\nChristians, all have been baptized and receive the holy Sacrament. Yet\nthey cannot recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten\nCommandments, they live like dumb brutes and irrational swine; and yet\nnow that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all\nliberty like experts. O ye bishops! what will ye ever answer to Christ\nfor having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment\ndischarged your office? May all misfortune flee you! You command the\nSacrament in one form and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same\ntime you do not care in the least whether the people know the Lord's\nPrayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God.\nWoe, woe, unto you forever!\" (533, 1ff.)\n\nTo these experiences made during the visitation, Luther also refers when\nhe says in the Short Preface to the Large Catechism: \"For I well\nremember the time, indeed, even now it is a daily occurrence that one\nfinds rude old persons who knew nothing and still know nothing of these\nthings, and who, nevertheless, go to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and\nuse everything belonging to Christians, notwithstanding that those who\ncome to the Lord's Supper ought to know more and have a fuller\nunderstanding of all Christian doctrine than children and new scholars.\"\n(575, 5.) In his \"Admonition to the Clergy\" of 1530, Luther describes\nthe conditions before the Reformation as follows: \"In brief, preaching\nand teaching were in a wretched and heart-rending state. Still all the\nbishops kept silence and saw nothing new, although they are now able to\nsee a gnat in the sun. Hence all things were so confused and wild, owing\nto the discordant teaching and the strange new opinions, that no one was\nany longer able to know what was certain or uncertain, what was a\nChristian or an unchristian. The old doctrine of faith in Christ, of\nlove, of prayer, of cross, of comfort in tribulation was entirely\ntrodden down. Aye, there was in all the world no doctor who knew the\nentire Catechism, that is, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and\nthe Creed, to say nothing of understanding and teaching it, as now, God\nbe praised, it is being taught and learned, even by young children. In\nsupport of this statement I appeal to all their books, both of\ntheologians and jurists. If a single part of the Catechism can be\ncorrectly learned therefrom, I am ready to be broken upon the wheel and\nto have my veins opened.\" (W. 30, 1, 301.)\n\nMelanchthon, Jonas, Brenz, George of Anhalt, Mathesius, and many others\ndraw a similar picture of the religious conditions prevailing in\nGermany, England, and other lands immediately prior to the Reformation.\nTo be sure, Papists, particularly Jesuits, have disputed the accuracy\nand truth of these descriptions from the pen of Luther and his\ncontemporaries. But arrayed against these Romish apologetes is also the\ntestimony of Papists themselves. In his _Catholicus Catechismus,_\npublished at Cologne, 1543, Nausea writes: \"I endeavored to renew the\ninstruction, once well known among all churches, which, however, not\nonly recently, but long ago (I do not know to whose stupidity,\nnegligence, or ignorance this was due) was altogether forgotten, not\nwithout lamentable loss to the catholic religion. _Veterem illam\ncatechesin, per omnes quondam ecclesias percelebrem non modo tum, sed et\nante pridem, nescio quorum vel socordia vel negligentia vel ignorantia,\nnon sine poenitenda catholicae religionis iactura prorsus in oblivionem\ncoeptam repetere coepi_.\" (W. 30, 1, 467.) Moreover, when Romanists\ndispute Luther's assertions, they refer to the one point only, that\nreligious instruction (as conceived by Catholics) had not declined in\nthe measure claimed by Luther. As to the chief point in Luther's\nassertion, however, _viz._, the correct Evangelical explanation of the\nCatechism, which, in Luther's opinion, is essential to all truly\nChristian instruction, the Catholic Church has always been utterly\ndevoid of it not only prior to the Reformation, but also after it, and\ndown to the present day. True, even during the Reformation some Papists\nwere incited to greater zeal in preaching and teaching. It was a\nreaction against the Reformation of Luther, who must be regarded as the\nindirect cause also of the formal improvement in the instruction of the\nyoung among the Romanists. To maintain their power, bishops and priests\nwere compelled to resume and cultivate it. This revival, however, meant\nonly an intensified instruction in the old work-righteousness, and\ntherefore was the very opposite of the instruction which Luther desired\nand advocated. In the Apology, Melanchthon, after charging the Papists\nwith totally neglecting the instruction of the young, continues: \"A few\namong them now also begin to preach of good works. But of the knowledge\nof Christ, of faith, of the consolation of consciences they are unable\nto preach anything, moreover, this blessed doctrine, the precious holy\nGospel, they call Lutheran.\" (326, 44.)\n\n89. Luther Devising Measures to Restore Catechism.\n\nFully realizing the general decay of Christian training, Luther at once\ndirected all his efforts toward bringing about a change for the better.\nAnd well aware of the fact that the future belongs to the rising\ngeneration, the instruction of the common people, and particularly of\nthe young, became increasingly an object of his especial concern. If the\nChurch, said he, is to be helped, if the Gospel is to be victorious, if\nthe Reformation is to succeed, if Satan and Antichrist are to be dealt a\nmortal blow, a blow from which they will not recover, it must be done\nthrough the young. For every cause which is not, or cannot be made, the\ncause of the rising generation, is doomed from the very outset. \"This is\nthe total ruin of the Church,\" said Luther as early as 1516; \"for if\never it is to flourish again, one must begin by instructing the young.\n_Haec est enim ecclesiae ruina tota; si enim unquam debet reflorere,\nnecesse est ut a puerorum institutione exordium fiat._\" (W. 1, 494.)\nFor, apart from being incapable of much improvement, the old people\nwould soon disappear from the scene. Hence, if Christianity and its\nsaving truths were to be preserved to the Church, the children must\nlearn them from earliest youth.\n\nIn his Large Catechism Luther gave utterance to these thoughts as\nfollows: \"Let this, then, be said for exhortation, not only for those of\nus who are old and grown, but also for the young people, who ought to be\nbrought up in the Christian doctrine and understanding. For thereby the\nTen Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer might be the more\neasily inculcated upon our youth, so that they would receive them with\npleasure and earnestness, and thus would practise them from their youth\nand accustom themselves to them. For the old are now well-nigh done for,\nso that these and other things cannot be attained, unless we train the\npeople who are to come after us and succeed us in our office and work,\nin order that they also may bring up their children successfully, that\nthe Word of God and the Christian Church may be preserved. Therefore let\nevery father of a family know that it is his duty, by the injunction and\ncommand of God, to teach these things to his children, or have them\nlearn what they ought to know.\" (773, 85.)\n\nA thorough and lasting revival of the Catechism can be hoped for only\nthrough the young--such were Luther's convictions. Accordingly he\nimplored and adjured pastors and parents not to refuse their help in\nthis matter. In the Preface to his Small Catechism we read: \"Therefore I\nentreat you all for God's sake, my dear sirs and brethren, who are\npastors or preachers, to devote yourselves heartily to your office, to\nhave pity on the people who are entrusted to you, and to help us\ninculcate the Catechism upon the people, especially upon the young.\"\n(533, 6.) And as he earnestly admonished the pastors, so he also\ntenderly invited them to be faithful in this work. He was firmly\nconvinced that nothing except the Gospel, as rediscovered and preached\nby himself, was able to save men. How, then, could he remain silent or\nabandon this work because of the hatred and ungratefulness of men! It\nwas this new frame of mind, produced by the Gospel, to which Luther\nappealed in the interest of the Catechism. \"Therefore look to it, ye\npastors and preachers,\" says he, concluding the Preface to his Small\nCatechism. \"Our office is now become a different thing from what it was\nunder the Pope; it is now become serious and salutary. Accordingly it\nnow involves much more trouble and labor, danger and trials, and in\naddition thereto secures but little reward and gratitude in the world.\nBut Christ Himself will be our reward if we labor faithfully.\" (539,\n26.)\n\nAt the same time Luther also took proper steps toward giving the\npreachers frequent opportunity for Catechism-work. Since 1525 Wittenberg\nhad a regulation prescribing quarterly instruction in the Catechism by\nmeans of special sermons. The _Instruction for Visitors,_ of 1527,\ndemanded \"that the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith, and the\nLord's Prayer be steadily preached and expounded on Sunday afternoons.\n... And when the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Creed have\nbeen preached on Sundays in succession, matrimony, and the sacraments of\nBaptism and the Lord's Supper shall also be preached diligently. In this\ninterest the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Articles of\nFaith shall be recited word for word, for the sake of the children and\nother simple and ignorant folk.\" (W. 26, 230.) November 29, 1528, in an\nadmonition to attend these Catechism-sermons, Luther proclaimed from the\npulpit: \"We have ordered, as hitherto has been customary with us, that\nthe first principles and the fundamentals of Christian knowledge and\nlife be preached four times each year, two weeks in each quarter four\ndays per week, at 10 A.M.\" (W. 27, 444; 29, 146.) In Luther's sermon of\nNovember 27, 1530, we read: \"It is our custom to preach the Catechism\nfour times a year. Therefore attend these services, and let the children\nand the rest of the household come.\" (32, 209.) September 10, 1531,\nLuther concluded his sermon with the following admonition: \"It is the\ncustom, and the time of the Catechism-sermons is at hand. I admonish you\nto give these eight days to your Lord and permit your household and\nchildren to attend, and you yourself may also come and profit by this\ninstruction. No one knows as much as he ought to know. For I myself am\nconstrained to drill it every day. You know that we did not have it\nunder the Papacy. Buy while the market is at the door; some day you will\nbehold the fruit. We would, indeed, rather escape the burden, but we do\nit for your sakes.\" (34, 2, 195.)\n\n90. Cooperation of Parents Urged by Luther.\n\nIn order to bring the instruction of the young into vogue, Luther saw\nthat church, school, and home must needs cooperate. The home especially\nmust not fail in this. Accordingly, in his admonitions, he endeavored to\ninterest the fathers and mothers in this work. He was convinced that\nwithout their vigorous cooperation he could achieve but little. In his\n_German Order of Worship,_ 1526, we read: \"For if the parents and\nguardians of the young are unwilling to take such pains with the young,\neither personally or through others, Catechism [catechetical\ninstruction] will never be established.\" (W. 19, 76.) In this he was\nconfirmed by the experiences he had while on his tour of visitation. If\nthe children were to memorize the Catechism and learn to understand it,\nthey must be instructed and questioned individually, a task to which the\nChurch was unequal, and for the accomplishment of which also the small\nnumber of schools was altogether inadequate. Parents, however, were able\nto reach the children individually. They had the time and opportunity,\ntoo, morning, noon, and evening, at the table, etc. Furthermore, they\nhad the greatest interest in this matter, the children being their own\nflesh and blood. And they, in the first place, were commanded by God to\nprovide for the proper training of their children. The fathers and\nmothers, therefore, these natural and divinely appointed teachers of the\nchildren, Luther was at great pains to enlist for the urgent work of\ninstructing the young. They should see that the children and servants\ndid not only attend the Catechism-sermons in church, but also memorized\nthe text and learned to understand it. The Christian homes should again\nbecome home-churches, home-schools, where the house-fathers were both\nhouse-priests and house-teachers performing the office of the ministry\nthere just as the pastors did in the churches.\n\nWith ever-increasing energy Luther, therefore, urged the parents to\nstudy the Catechism in order to be able to teach it to their children.\nIn his sermons on the Ten Commandments, 1516, he admonishes them to\nbring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. \"But\nalas,\" he exclaims, \"how has not all this been corrupted! Nor is it to\nbe wondered at, since the parents themselves have not been trained and\neducated.\" In a sermon of 1526: \"Here are two doctrines, Law and Gospel.\nOf them we preach frequently, but very few there are who take it to\nheart. I hear that many are still so ignorant that they do not know the\nTen Commandments nor are able to pray. It plainly shows that they are\naltogether careless. Parents ought to see what their children and family\nare doing. In the school at home they should learn these three. I hear\nthat in the city, too, there are wicked people. We cannot enter the\nhomes; parents, masters, and mistresses ought to be sufficiently skilled\nto require their children and servants to say the prayers before\nretiring. But they do not know any themselves. What, then, avails it\nthat we do a great deal of preaching concerning the kingdom of Christ? I\nthought conditions had improved. I admonish you master--for it is your\nduty--to instruct the servants, the mistress, the maids, and the\nchildren; and it is publicly preached in church for the purpose that it\nmay be preached at home.\" (W. 20 485.)\n\nIn his sermon of September 14, 1528, Luther declares that the Catechism\nis the laymen's Bible, which every one must know who wishes to be\nconsidered a Christian and to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. He then\nproceeds: \"Hence all children should behave accordingly, and learn. And\nyou parents are bound to have your children learn these things. Likewise\nyou lords, take pains that your family, etc. Whoever does not know these\nthings does not deserve any food. These five points are a brief summary\nof the Christian doctrine. When the question is put, 'What is the First\nCommandment?' every one should be able to recite: 'Namely this,'\" etc.\n(W. 30, 1, 27.) Exhorting the people to attend the Catechism-services,\nLuther declared November 29, 1528: \"Think not, ye housefathers, that you\nare freed from the care of your household when you say: 'Oh, if they are\nunwilling to go [to Catechism instruction], why should I force them? I\nam not in need of it.' You have been appointed their bishop and\nhouse-pastor; beware lest you neglect your duty toward them!\" (27, 444.)\nOn the following day, beginning the sermons he had announced Luther\nsaid: \"Therefore I have admonished you adults to have your children and\nyour servants, attend it [the Catechism-sermon], and also be present\nyourselves; otherwise we shall not admit you to Holy Communion. For if\nyou parents and masters will not help us we shall accomplish little by\nour preaching. If I preach an entire year, the household comes, gapes at\nthe walls and windows of the church, etc. Whoever is a good citizen is\nin duty bound to urge his people to learn these things; he should refuse\nthem food unless, etc. If the servants complain, slam the door on them.\nIf you have children, accustom them to learn the Ten Commandments, the\nSymbol, the Paternoster, etc. If you will diligently urge them, they\nwill learn much in one year. When they have learned these things, there\nare everywhere in the Scriptures fine passages which they may learn\nnext; if not all, at least some. For this reason God has appointed you a\nmaster, a mistress, that you may urge your household to do this. And\nthis you are well able to accomplish: that they pray in the morning and\nevening, before and after meals. In this way they would be brought up in\nthe fear of God. I am no idle prattler: I ask you not to cast my words\nto the winds. I would not think you so rude if I did not daily hear it.\nEvery housefather is a priest in his own house, every housemother is a\npriestess; therefore see that you help us to perform the office of the\nministry in your homes as we do in church. If you do, we shall have a\npropitious God, who will defend us from all evil. In the Psalm [78, 5]\nit is written: 'He appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our\nfathers, that they should make them known to their children.'\" (30, 1,\n57.) In the same sermon: \"Able teachers are necessary because of the\ngreat need, since parents do not concern themselves about this. But each\nmaster and mistress must remember that they are priests and priestesses\nover Hans and Gretchen,\" their sons and daughters.\n\nIn the same way Luther urges this matter in his Catechisms. For here we\nread: \"Therefore it is the duty of every father of a family to question\nand examine his children and servants at least once a week and to\nascertain what they know of it [the Catechism], or are learning, and, if\nthey do not know it, to keep them faithfully at it.\" (575, 4.) \"Likewise\nevery head of a household is obliged to do the same with respect to his\ndomestics, man-servants and maid-servants, and not to keep them in his\nhouse if they do not know these things and are unwilling to learn them.\nFor a person who is so rude and unruly as to be unwilling to learn these\nthings is not to be tolerated; for in these three parts everything that\nwe have in the Scriptures is comprehended in short, plain and simple\nterms.\" (577, 17.) \"Therefore let every father of a family know that it\nis his duty, by the injunction and command of God, to teach these things\nto his children, or have them learn what they ought to know. For since\nthey are baptized and received into the Christian Church, they should\nalso enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serve\nus and be useful to us; for they must all indeed help us to believe,\nlove, pray, and fight against the devil.\" (773, 87.)\n\nIn confession and before visitors, housefathers were also to render\naccount of the manner in which they discharged these duties. In his\nsermon of July 11, 1529, Luther said: \"You will therefore instruct your\nchildren and servants according to this Catechism.... For you have the\nCatechism in small and large books; therefore study it. You had the\nvisitors, and you have furthermore those who will examine you\nhousefathers and your household, that they may see how you have\nimproved.... You should have given money and property for it; yet you\nneglect it when it is offered freely; therefore you housefathers ought\nto be diligent students of this preaching, that as you learn you may\ninstruct, _discendo doceatis._\" (W. 29, 472; 30, 1, 121.)\n\n91. German Services with German Catechism.\n\nWith great emphasis Luther advocated diligent Catechism instruction in\nhis _Deutsche Messe_ (German Mass, _i.e._, German Service or German\nOrder of Worship), which he completed toward the end of 1525 and\npublished in 1526. Luther issued this Service \"because German masses and\nservices are everywhere insisted upon.\" The demand was made especially\nin the interest of the unlearned and the children, for whose benefit,\naccording to Luther, all such measures were adopted. \"For,\" says he, \"we\ndo not at all establish such orders for those who are already [advanced]\nChristians. ... But we are in need of such orders for the sake of those\nwho are still to become Christians or to grow stronger. Just as a\nChristian does not need Baptism, the Word, and Sacrament as a Christian,\nsince he already has everything, but as a sinner. Chiefly, however, this\nis done for the sake of the unlearned and the young people, who should\nand must be exercised daily and brought up in the Scriptures, the Word\nof God, that they may become accustomed to the Scripture, skilled,\nfluent, and at home in it, in order that they may be able to defend\ntheir faith, and in time teach others and help to increase the kingdom\nof Christ. For their sake one must read, sing, preach, write, and\ncompose. And if it would help and promote this aim, I would have all\nbells rung, all organs played, and everything that is capable of giving\nsound to sound forth. For the Catholic services are so damnable because\nthey [the Papists] made laws, works, and merits of them, thereby\nsmothering faith, and did not adapt them to the young and unlearned, to\nexercise them in the Scriptures, in the Word of God, but themselves\nclung to them [as works], regarding them as beneficial and necessary for\nsalvation to themselves, that is the devil.\"\n\nWhile Luther, in his _German Worship,_ as well as in other places,\nfavors also Latin masses, yet he demands that \"for the sake of the\nunlearned laity\" German services be introduced. And since the unlearned\ncould be truly served only by instruction in the fundamental truths of\nChristianity, the Catechism, according to Luther, was to constitute a\nchief part in these services. \"Very well,\" says he, \"in God's name!\nFirst of all a clear, simple plain, good Catechism is needed in the\nGerman service. Catechism, however, is an instruction whereby heathen\nwho desire to become Christians are taught and instructed in what they\nmust believe, do, not do, and know concerning Christianity. Pupils who\nwere accepted for such instruction and learned the faith before being\nbaptized were therefore called catechumens. Nor do I know how to present\nthis instruction, or teaching, in a form more simple than it already has\nbeen presented since the beginning of Christianity, and hitherto\nretained, to wit, the three parts: the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and\nthe Lord's Prayer. These three parts contain in simple and brief form\neverything that a Christian must know. And since as yet we have no\nspecial congregation (_weil man noch keine sonderliche Gemeinde hat_),\nthis instruction must proceed in the following manner, by preaching from\nthe pulpit at various times or daily, as necessity demands, and by\nrepeating and reading it to the children and servants at home in the\nhouses morning and evening (if one would make Christians of them). Yet\nnot only so that they memorize the words or recite them, as was done\nhitherto, but by questioning them part for part, and having them state\nin their answer what each part means and how they understand it. If all\nparts cannot be asked at one time, take one, the next day another. For\nif the parents or guardians are unwilling to take such pains with the\nyoung, either personally or through others the Catechism will never be\nestablished.\" (19, 76.) German Catechism in German services--such, then,\nwas the slogan which Luther now sounded forth with ever-increasing\nemphasis.\n\n92. Luther Illustrating Method of Procedure.\n\nAccording to Luther's _German Worship,_ pastors were to preach the\nCatechism on Mondays and Tuesdays. To insure the desired results\n(memorizing and understanding the text), the children should be\nquestioned, especially at home by the parents. Exemplifying such\ncatechization, Luther writes: \"For so shall they be asked: 'What do you\npray?' Answer: 'The Lord's Prayer,' What do you mean by saying: 'Our\nFather who art in heaven?' Answer: 'That God is not an earthly, but a\nheavenly Father, who would make us rich and blessed in heaven,' 'What\ndoes \"Hallowed be Thy name\" mean?' Answer: 'That we should honor God's\nname and not use it in vain, lest it be profaned,' 'How, then, is it\nprofaned and desecrated?' Answer: 'When we who are regarded as His\nchildren lead wicked lives, teach and believe what is wrong,' And so\nforth, what God's kingdom means; how it comes; what God's will is, what\ndaily bread, etc. Likewise also of the Creed: 'What do you believe?'\nAnswer: 'I believe in God the Father,' etc. Thereupon part for part, as\nleisure permits, one or two at a time. Thus: 'What does it mean to\nbelieve in God the Father Almighty?' Answer: 'It means that the heart\ntrusts Him entirely, and confidently looks to Him for all grace, favor,\nhelp, and comfort, here and hereafter,' 'What does it mean to believe\nin Jesus Christ, His Son?' Answer: 'It means that the heart believes we\nshould all be lost eternally if Christ had not died for us,' etc. In\nlike manner one must also question on the Ten Commandments, what the\nfirst, the second, the third and other commandments mean. Such questions\nyou may take from our Prayer-Booklet, where the three parts are briefly\nexplained, or you may formulate others yourself, until they comprehend\nwith their hearts the entire sum of Christian knowledge in two parts, as\nin two sacks, which are faith and love. Let faith's sack have two\npockets; into the one pocket put the part according to which we believe\nthat we are altogether corrupted by Adam's sin, are sinners and\ncondemned, Rom. 5, 12 and Ps. 51, 7. Into the other pocket put the part\ntelling us that by Jesus Christ we have all been redeemed from such\ncorrupt, sinful, condemned condition, Rom. 5, 18 and John 3, 16. Let\nlove's sack also have two pockets. Into the one put this part, that we\nshould serve, and do good to, every one, even as Christ did unto us,\nRom. 13. Into the other put the part that we should gladly suffer and\nendure all manner of evil.\" (19, 76.)\n\nIn like manner passages of Scripture were also to be made the child's\nproperty, as it were; for it was not Luther's idea that instruction\nshould cease at the lowest indispensably necessary goal (the\nunderstanding of the text of the chief parts). In his _German Order of\nWorship_ he goes on to say: \"When the child begins to comprehend this\n[the text of the Catechism], accustom it to carry home passages of\nScripture from the sermons and to recite them to the parents at the\ntable, at meal-time, as it was formerly customary to recite Latin, and\nthereupon to store the passages into the sacks and pockets, as one puts\n_pfennige,_ and _groschen,_ or _gulden_ into his pocket. Let the sack of\nfaith be, as it were, the gulden sack. Into the first pocket let this\npassage be put, Rom. 5: 'By one man's disobedience many were made\nsinners': and Ps. 51: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did\nmy mother conceive me,' Those are two Rheinish gulden in the pocket. The\nother pocket is for the Hungarian gulden, such as this passage, Rom. 5:\n'Christ was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our\njustification:' again, John 1: 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh\naway the sin of the world,' That would be two good Hungarian gulden in\nthe pocket. Let love's sack be the silver sack. Into the first pocket\nbelong the passages of well-doing, such as Gal. 5: 'By love serve one\nanother'; Matt. 25: 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least\nof these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' That would be two silver\ngroschen in the pocket. Into the other pocket this passage belongs,\nMatt. 5: 'Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you for My sake;' Heb.\n12: 'For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth: He scourgeth every son whom\nHe receiveth.' Those are two Schreckenbergers [a coin made of silver\nmined from Schreckenberg] in the pocket.\" (19, 77f.)\n\nBelieving that understanding, not mere mechanical memorizing, of the\nCatechism is of paramount import, Luther insisted that the instruction\nmust be popular throughout. Preachers and fathers are urged to come down\nto the level of the children and to prattle with them, in order to bring\nthe Christian fundamentals home even to the weakest and simplest. In his\n_German Mass_ Luther concludes the chapter on instruction as follows:\n\"And let no one consider himself too wise and despise such child's play.\nWhen Christ desired to train men He had to become a man. If we are to\ntrain children, we also must become children with them. Would to God\nthat such child's play were carried on well; then we should in a short\ntime see a great wealth of Christian people, and souls growing rich in\nthe Scriptures and the knowledge of God until they themselves would give\nmore heed to these pockets as _locos communes_ and comprehend in them\nthe entire Scriptures; otherwise they come daily to hear the preaching\nand leave again as they came. For they believe that the object is merely\nto spend the time in hearing, no one intending to learn or retain\nanything. Thus many a man will hear preaching for three, four years and\nstill not learn enough to be able to give account of his faith in one\nparticular, as I indeed experience every day. Enough has been written in\nbooks. True, but not all of it has been impressed on the hearts.\" (19,\n78.)\n\n93. Value Placed on Memorizing.\n\nModern pedagogs have contended that Luther's method of teaching the\nCatechism unduly multiplies the material to be memorized, and does not\nsufficiently stress the understanding. Both charges, however, are\nwithout any foundation. As to the first, it is true that Luther did not\nput a low estimate on the memorizing of the Catechism. In the Large\nCatechism he says: \"Therefore we must have the young learn the parts\nwhich belong to the Catechism or instruction for children well, and\nfluently and diligently exercise themselves in them and keep them\noccupied with them. Hence it is the duty of every father of a family to\nquestion and examine his children and servants at least once a week, and\nto ascertain what they know of it, or are learning, and, if they do not\nknow it, to keep them faithfully at it.\" (575, 3f.) Again: \"These are\nthe most necessary parts which one should first learn to repeat word for\nword, and which our children should be accustomed to recite daily when\nthey arise in the morning, when they sit down to their meals, and when\nthey retire at night; and until they repeat them, they should be given\nneither food nor drink.\" (577, 15.)\n\nAccording to the Preface to the Small Catechism, the teacher is to abide\nwith rigid exactness by the text which he has once chosen and have the\nchildren learn it verbatim. \"In the first place,\" says Luther, \"let the\npreacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts\nand forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the\nSacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he\ninculcates all the time, year after year. For young and simple people\nmust be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise they\neasily become confused when the teacher to-day teaches them thus, and in\na year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus\nall effort and labor will be lost. Also our blessed fathers understood\nthis well; for they all used the same form of the Lord's Prayer, the\nCreed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should teach the\nyoung and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a\nsyllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in\nanother. Hence, choose whatever form you please, and adhere to it\nforever. But when you preach in the presence of learned and intelligent\nmen, you may exhibit your skill and may present these parts in as varied\nand intricate ways and give them as masterly turns as you are able. But\nwith the young people stick to one fixed, permanent form and manner, and\nteach them, first of all, these parts, namely, the Ten Commandments, the\nCreed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so\nthat they, too, can repeat it in the same manner after you and commit it\nto memory.\" (533, 7ff.) Thus Luther indeed placed a high value on exact\nmemorizing of the Catechism.\n\nAs to the quantity of memorizing, however, Luther did not demand more\nthan even the least gifted were well able to render. He was satisfied if\nthey knew, as a minimum, the text of the first three chief parts and the\nwords of institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (579, 22. 25.)\nThat was certainly not overburdening even a weak memory. Luther was\nright when he declared in his _Short Form of the Ten Commandments,_ of\n1520: In the three chief parts everything \"is summed up with such\nbrevity and simplicity that no one can complain or offer the excuse that\nit is too much or too hard for him to remember what he must know for his\nsalvation.\" (W. 7, 204.)\n\nSelf-evidently, it was not Luther's opinion that instruction or\nmemorizing should end here. In the Preface to the Small Catechism he\nsays: \"In the third place, after you have thus taught them this Short\nCatechism, then take up the Large Catechism, and give them also a richer\nand fuller knowledge. Here explain at length every commandment,\npetition, and part with its various works, uses, benefits, dangers, and\ninjuries as you find these abundantly stated in many books written about\nthese matters.\" (535, 17.) Then, as Luther often repeats, Bible-verses,\nhymns, and Psalms were also to be memorized and explained. Nor did he\nexclude the explanation of the Small Catechism from the material for\nmemorizing. For this very reason he had written the Small Catechism in\nquestions and answers, because he wished to have it learned, questioned,\nand recited from memory. \"However,\" says Luther in the Large Catechism\n\"for the common people we are satisfied with the three parts, which have\nremained in Christendom from of old.\" (575, 5.) As far, then, as the\nmaterial for memorizing is concerned, Luther certainly did not demand\nmore than even the least gifted were well able to render.\n\n94. Memorizing to Serve Understanding.\n\nThe second charge, that Luther attached no special importance to the\nunderstanding of what was memorized, is still more unfounded. The fact\nis that everywhere he was satisfied with nothing less than correct\nunderstanding. Luther was a man of thought, not of mere sacred formulas\nand words. To him instruction did not mean mere mechanical memorizing,\nbut conscious, personal, enduring, and applicable spiritual\nappropriation. Says he: \"However, it is not enough for them to\ncomprehend and recite these parts according to the words only, but the\nyoung people should also be made to attend the preaching, especially\nduring the time which is devoted to the Catechism, that they may hear it\nexplained, and may learn to understand what every part contains, so as\nto be able to recite it as they have heard it, and, when asked, may give\na correct answer, so that the preaching may not be without profit and\nfruit.\" (579, 26.) In the Preface to the Small Catechism, Luther\ninstructs the preachers: \"After they [the children] have well learned\nthe text then teach them the sense also, so that they know what it\nmeans.\" (535, 14.) Correct understanding was everything to Luther.\nSermons in the churches and catechizations at home were all to serve\nthis purpose.\n\nIn the same interest, _viz._, to enrich the brief text of the Catechism\nand, as it were, quicken it with concrete perceptions, Luther urged the\nuse of Bible-stories as illustrations. For the same reason he added\npictures to both of his Catechisms. His _Prayer-Booklet_ contained as\nits most important part the text and explanation of the Catechism and,\nin addition, the passional booklet, a sort of Bible History. To this\nLuther remarks: \"I considered it wise to add the ancient passional\nbooklet [augmented by Luther] to the Prayer-Booklet, chiefly for the\nsake of the children and the unlearned, who are more apt to remember the\ndivine histories if pictures and parables are added, than by mere words\nand teaching, as St. Mark testifies, that for the sake of the simple\nChrist, too, preached to them only in parables.\" (W. 10, 2, 458.)\nIndeed, Luther left no stone unturned to have his instruction\nunderstood. On words and formulas, merely memorized, but not\nappropriated intellectually, he placed but little value.\n\nMemorizing, too, was regarded by Luther not as an end in itself, but as\na means to an end. It was to serve the explanation and understanding.\nAnd its importance in this respect was realized by Luther much more\nclearly than by his modern critics. For when the text is safely\nembedded, as it were, in the memory, its explanation is facilitated, and\nthe process of mental assimilation may proceed all the more readily. In\nthis point, too, the strictures of modern pedagogs on Luther's Catechism\nare therefore unwarranted. Where Luther's instructions are followed, the\nmemory is not overtaxed, and the understanding not neglected.\n\nThe instruction advocated by Luther differed fundamentally from the\nmechanical methods of the Middle Ages. He insisted on a thorough mental\nelaboration, by means of sermons, explanations, questions and answers,\nof the material memorized, in order to elevate it to the plane of\nknowledge. With Luther we meet the questions: \"What does this mean? What\ndoes this signify? Where is this written? What does it profit?\" He\nengages the intellect. The _Table of Christian Life_ of the Middle Ages,\nwhich \"all good Christians are in duty bound to have in their houses,\nfor themselves, their children, and household,\" is regarded by Cohrs as\na sort of forerunner of Luther's Small Catechism. \"At the same time,\nhowever,\" Cohrs adds, \"it clearly shows the difference between the\ndemands made by the Church of the Middle Ages and the requirements of\nthe Evangelical Church; yonder, numerous parts without any word of\nexplanation, sacred formulas, which many prayed without an inkling of\nthe meaning; here, the five chief parts, in which the emphasis is put on\n'What does this mean?'\" (Herzog, _R._ 10, 138.)\n\nIt was due to the neglect of Christian teaching that Christendom had\nfallen into decay. Force on the part of the popes and priests and blind\nsubmission on the part of the people had supplanted instruction and\nconviction from the Word of God. Hence the cure of the Church, first of\nall, called for an instructor in Christian fundamentals. And just such a\ncatechist Luther was, who made it his business to teach and convince the\npeople from the Bible. Indeed, in his entire work as a Reformer, Luther\nconsistently appealed to the intellect, as was strikingly demonstrated\nin the turmoil which Carlstadt brought about at Wittenberg. Instruction\nwas the secret, was the method, of Luther's Reformation. In the Preface\nto the Small Catechism he says that one cannot and must not force any\none to believe nor drive any one to partake of the Sacrament by laws,\nlest it be turned into poison, that is to say, lest the very object of\nthe Gospel, which is spontaneous action flowing from conviction, be\ndefeated. (539, 24; 535, 13.)\n\n95. Manuals Preceding Luther's Catechism.\n\nWhen Luther, in his _German Order of Worship,_ sounded the slogan:\nGerman services with German instruction in Christian fundamentals! he\ndid not lose sight of the fact that this required certain helps for both\nparents and preachers. A book was needed that would contain not only the\ntext to be memorized, but also necessary explanations. Accordingly, in\nhis _German Order of Worship,_ Luther referred to his _Prayer-Booklet_\nas a help for instruction. However, the _Brief Form of the Ten\nCommandments,_ etc., incorporated in the _Prayer-Booklet,_ was not\nadapted for children and parents, as it was not drawn up in questions\nand answers. To the experienced teacher it furnished material in\nabundance, but children and parents had need of a simpler book.\nHardeland says: \"It is certain that Luther in 1526 already conceived the\nideal catechism to be a brief summary of the most important knowledge\n[in questions and answers], adapted for memorizing and still\nsufficiently extensive to make a thorough explanation possible, at once\nconfessional in its tone, and fitted for use in divine service.\"\n(_Katechismusgedanken_ 2.) But if Luther in 1526 had conceived this\nidea, it was not carried out until three years later.\n\nHowever, what Luther said on teaching the Catechism by questions and\nanswers, in the _German Order of Worship,_ was reprinted repeatedly\n(probably for the first time at Nuernberg) under the title: \"Doctor\nMartin Luther's instruction how to bring the children to God's Word and\nservice, which parents and guardians are in duty bound to do, 1527.\"\nThis appeal of Luther also called forth quite a number of other\nexplanations of the Catechism. Among the attempts which appeared before\nLuther's Catechisms were writings of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Eustasius\nKannel, John Agricola, Val. Ickelsamer, Hans Gerhart, John Toltz, John\nBader, Petrus Schultz, Caspar Graeter, Andr. Althamer, Wenz. Link, Conr.\nSam, John Brenz, O. Braunfels, Chr. Hegendorfer, Caspar Loener, W.\nCapito, John Oecolampad, John Zwick, and others. The work of Althamer,\nthe Humanist and so-called Reformer of Brandenburg-Ansbach, was the\nfirst to bear the title \"Catechism.\" As yet it has not been ascertained\nwhether, or not, Luther was acquainted with these writings. Cohrs says:\n\"Probably Luther followed this literature with interest, and possibly\nconsulted some of it; the relationship is nowhere close enough to\nexclude chance; still the frequent allusions must not be overlooked; as\nyet it cannot be simply denied that Luther was influenced by these\nwritings.\" On the other hand, it has been shown what an enormous\ninfluence Luther exercised on that literature, especially by his _Brief\nForm_ and his _Prayer-Booklet._ \"In fact,\" says Cohrs, \"Luther's\nwritings can be adduced as the source of almost every sentence in most\nof these books of instruction.\" (W. 30, 1, 474.) Evidently, Luther's\nappeal of 1526 had not fallen on deaf ears.\n\n96. Luther's Catechetical Publications.\n\nLuther not only stirred up others to bring the Catechism back into use,\nbut himself put his powerful shoulder to the wheel. From the very\nbeginning he was, time and again, occupied with reading the text of the\nCatechism to the people, and then explaining it in sermons. From the end\nof June, 1516, to Easter, 1517, he preached on the Ten Commandments and\nthe Lord's Prayer. (W. 1, 394; 2, 74; 9, 122.) In 1518 the explanation\nof the Ten Commandments appeared in print: \"_Decem Praecepta\nWittenbergensi Praedicata Populo._ The Ten Commandments Preached to the\nPeople of Wittenberg.\" (1, 398. 521.) Oecolampadius praised the work,\nsaying that Luther had here \"taken the veil from the face of Moses.\"\nSebastian Muenster said: Luther explains the Ten Commandments \"in such a\nspiritual, Christian, and Evangelical way, that its like cannot be\nfound, though many teachers have written on the subject.\" (1, 394.)\nAgricola published Luther's sermons on the Lord's Prayer at the\nbeginning of 1518 with some additions of his own, which fact induced\nLuther to publish them himself. April 5, 1519, his _Explanation of the\nLord's Prayer in German_ appeared in print. It was intended for the\nplain people, \"not for the learned.\" (2, 81 to 130.) July 2, 1519, the\nHumanist Beatus Rhenanus wrote to Zwingli that he would like to see this\nexplanation of the Lord's Prayer offered for sale throughout all\nSwitzerland, in all cities, markets, villages, and houses. Mathesius\nreports: \"At Venice Doctor Martin's Lord's Prayer was translated into\nItalian, his name being omitted. And when the man saw it from whom the\npermission to print it was obtained, he exclaimed: Blessed are the hands\nthat wrote this, blessed the eyes that see it, and blessed will be the\nhearts that believe this book and cry to God in such a manner.\" (W. 2,\n75.) This work passed through many editions. In 1520 it appeared in\nLatin and Bohemian, and as late as 1844 in English. March 13, 1519,\nLuther wrote to Spalatin: \"I am not able to turn the Lord's Prayer\n[Explanation of the Lord's Prayer in German of 1518] into Latin, being\nbusy with so many works. Every day at evening I pronounce the\ncommandments and the Lord's Prayer for the children and the unlearned,\nthen I preach.\" (Enders 1, 449.) Thus Luther preached the Catechism,\nand at the same time was engaged in publishing it.\n\nThe _Brief Instruction How to Confess,_ printed 1519, was also\nessentially an explanation of the Ten Commandments. It is an extract\nfrom Luther's Latin work, _Instructio pro Confessione Peccatorum,_\npublished by Spalatin. Luther recast this work and published it in\nMarch, 1520, entitled: _Confitendi Ratio._ (W. 2, 59. 65.) As a late\nfruit of his _Explanation of the Lord's Prayer in German_ there\nappeared, in 1519, the _Brief Form for Understanding and Praying the\nLord's Prayer_ which explains it in prayers. (6, 11-19.) In 1519 there\nappeared also his _Short and Good Explanation Before Oneself and Behind\nOneself_ (\"vor sich und hinter sich\") a concise explanation how the\nseven petitions must be understood before oneself (\"vor sich\"), _i.e._,\nbeing ever referred to God, while many, thinking only of themselves, put\nand understand them behind themselves (\"hinter sich\"). (6, 21. 22.)\nJune, 1520, it was followed by the _Brief Form of the Ten Commandments,\nthe Creed, the Lord's Prayer,_ a combination of the revised _Brief\nExplanation of the Ten Commandments,_ of 1518, and the _Brief Form for\nUnderstanding the Lord's Prayer,_ of 1519, with a newly written\nexplanation of the Creed. With few changes Luther embodied it in his\n_Prayer-Booklet,_ which appeared for the first time in 1522. Here he\ncalls it a \"simple Christian form and mirror to know one's sins, and to\npray.\" The best evidence of the enthusiastic reception of the\n_Prayer-Booklet_ are the early editions which followed hard upon each\nother, and the numerous reprints during the first years. (10, 2,\n350-409.) In 1525 Luther's sermons on Baptism, Confession, and the\nLord's Supper were also received into the _Prayer-Booklet,_ and in 1529\nthe entire Small Catechism.\n\nAfter his return from the Wartburg, Luther resumed his Catechism labors\nwith increased energy. March 27 Albert Burer wrote to Beatus Rhenanus:\n\"Luther intends to nourish the weak, whom Carlstadt and Gabriel aroused\nby their vehement preaching, with milk alone until they grow strong. He\ndaily preaches the Ten Commandments.\" At Wittenberg special attention\nwas given to the instruction of the young, and regular Catechism-sermons\nwere instituted. In the spring of 1521 Agricola was appointed catechist\nof the City Church, to instruct the young in religion. Lent 1522 and\n1523, Luther also delivered Catechism-sermons, Latin copies of which\nhave been preserved. In the same year Bugenhagen was appointed City\nPastor, part of his duties being to deliver sermons on the Catechism,\nsome of which have also been preserved.\n\nMaundy Thursday, 1523, Luther announced that instead of the Romish\nconfession, abolished during the Wittenberg disturbances, communicants\nwere to announce for communion to the pastor and submit to an\nexamination in the Catechism. As appears from Luther's _Formula Missae_\nof this year, the pastor was to convince himself whether they were able\nto recite and explain the words of institution by questioning them on\nwhat the Lord's Supper is, what it profits, and for what purpose they\ndesired to partake of it. (12, 215. 479.) To enable the people to\nprepare for such examination, Luther (or Bugenhagen, at the instance of\nLuther) published a few short questions on the Lord's Supper, culled\nfrom one of Luther's sermons. This examination became a permanent\ninstitution at Wittenberg. In a sermon on the Sacrament of 1526, Luther\nsays: \"Confession, though it serve no other purpose, is a suitable means\nof instructing the people and of ascertaining what they believe, how\nthey learn to pray, etc., for else they live like brutes. Therefore I\nhave said that the Sacrament shall be given to no one except he be able\nto give an account of what he receives [in the Sacrament] and why he is\ngoing. This can best be done in confession.\" (19, 520.)\n\nFurthermore, on Sundays, after the sermon, the Catechism was read to the\npeople, a custom which likewise became a fixture in Wittenberg.\nAccording to a small pamphlet of 1526, entitled, \"What Shall be Read to\nthe Common People after the Sermon?\" it was the text of the five chief\nparts that was read. (Herz., _R._ 10, 132.) These parts came into the\nhands of the people by means of the _Booklet for Laymen and Children,_\nof 1525, written probably by Bugenhagen. He also reorganized the\nWittenberg school which the fanatics had dissolved; and, self-evidently,\nthere, too, Catechism instruction was not lacking. In a similar way\nreligious instruction of the young was begun at other places, as\nappears, for example, from the _Opinions on Reformation_ by Nicolaus\nHausmann (Zwickau), of 1523 and 1525. Melanchthon's _Instructions for\nVisitors_ (Articuli de quibus egerunt per visitatores), drawn up in\n1527, and used in the visitation of 1528 and 1529 as the guide by which\npastors were examined, and pointing out what they should be charged to\ndo, provide, above all, for Catechism-preaching on every Sunday, and\ngive instructions for such sermons. (_C. R._ 26, 9. 48.)\n\nThus Luther's strenuous efforts at establishing the Catechism were\ncrowned with success. In the Apology of 1530 Melanchthon declares\ntriumphantly: \"Among the opponents there is no Catechism, although the\ncanons require it. Among us the canons are observed, for pastors and\nministers instruct the children and the young in God's Word, publicly\nand privately.\" (526, 41.)\n\n97. Immediate Forerunners of Luther's Catechisms.\n\nLuther's entire pastoral activity was essentially of a catechetical\nnature and naturally issued in his two Catechisms, which, more than any\nother of his books, are the result of his labor in the congregation.\nThree writings, however, must be regarded as their direct precursors,\n_viz._, the _Short Form of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the\nLord's Prayer,_ of 1520, the _Booklet for Laymen and Children,_ of 1525,\nand the three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528, delivered in\nBugenhagen's absence. True, they are not yet real catechisms, but they\npaved the way for them. The _Short Form_ is a summary and explanation of\nthe three traditional chief parts. In the preface to this work, Luther\nexpresses himself for the first time on the value and the coherence of\nthese parts, which he considered to be the real kernel of the Catechism.\nIn the _Short Form_ he also abandoned the traditional division of the\nCreed into twelve parts, choosing, instead, the threefold division of\nthe later Small Catechism. In 1522 he embodied the _Short Form_ into his\n_Prayer-Booklet,_ in consequence of which it was given extended\ncirculation. It has been called Luther's first catechism, and Luther\nhimself regarded it so for in his _German Order of Worship_ he\nrecommends its use for catechetical instruction. In it are summed up\nLuther's catechetical efforts since 1516.\n\nThe _Booklet for Laymen and Children_ appeared at Wittenberg in 1525, at\nfirst in Low German (_Ein Boekeschen vor de leyen unde Kinder_), but\ndone into High German in the same year. Though Bugenhagen is probably\nits author, no doubt, the book was written at the suggestion and under\nthe influence of Luther, parts of whose earlier explanations it\ncontains, and who also since 1526, made use of it in his public\nservices. Besides the three traditional parts, it offered for the first\ntime also those on Baptism (without the baptismal command) and on the\nLord's Supper. The wording of the text was practically the same as that\nof Luther's Enchiridion. Several prayers, later found in Luther's\nEnchiridion, were also added. Hence the _Booklet for Laymen and\nChildren_ is properly considered a forerunner of Luther's Catechisms.\n\nThe three series of Catechism-sermons of 1528 must be considered the\nlast preparatory work and immediate source of the explanation of the\nCatechisms. Luther delivered the first series May 18 to 30; the second,\nfrom September 14 to 25; the third, from November 30 to December 19.\nEach series treats the same five chief parts. We have these sermons in a\ntranscript which Roerer made from a copy (_Nachschrift_); the third\nseries also in a copy by a South German. In his _Origin of the\nCatechism,_ Buchwald has shown how Luther's Large Catechism grew out of\nthese sermons of 1528. In his opinion, Luther, while engaged on the\nLarge Catechism, \"had those three series of sermons before him either in\nhis own manuscript or in the form of a copy (_Nachschrift_).\" This\nexplains the extensive agreement of both, apparent everywhere.\n\nLuther himself hints at this relation; for said sermons must have been\nbefore him when he began the Large Catechism with the words: \"This\nsermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an instruction for\nchildren and the simple-minded.\" (575, 1.) This was also Roerer's view,\nfor he calls the Large Catechism \"Catechism preached by D. M.,\" a title\nfound also in the second copy (_Nachschrift_) of the third series:\n_Catechism Preached by Doctor Martin Luther._ In the conclusion of the\nfirst edition of the Large Catechism, Luther seems to have made use also\nof his sermon on Palm Sunday, 1529, and others, and in the _Short\nExhortation to Confession,_ which was appended to the second edition, of\nthe sermon of Maundy Thursday, 1529, and others. Some historians,\nhowever, have expressed the opinion that the relationship might here be\nreversed. The substance of the sermon-series is essentially that also of\nthe Large Catechism. In form the Catechism differs from the sermons by\nsumming up in each case what is contained in the corresponding three\nsermons and by giving in German what the copies of the sermons offer in\na mixture of Latin and German (principally Latin, especially in the\nfirst series).\n\nFollowing is a sample of the German-Latin form in which Roerer preserved\nthese sermons: \"Zaehlet mir her illos, qui reliquerunt multas divitias,\nwie reiche Kinder sie gehabt haben; du wirst finden, dass ihr Gut\nzerstoben und zerflogen ist, antequam 3. et 4. generatio venit, so ist's\ndahin. Die Exempel gelten in allen Historien. Saul 1. fuit bonus etc. Er\nmusste ausgerottet werden, ne quidem uno puello superstite, quia es\nmusste wahr bleiben, quod Deus hic dicit. Sed das betreugt uns, dass er\nein Jahr oder 20 regiert hat, et fuit potens rex, das verdreusst uns ut\ncredamus non esse verum. Sed verba Dei non mentiuntur, et exempla\nostendunt etc. Econtra qui Verbo Dei fidunt, die muessen genug haben\netc., ut David, qui erat vergeucht [verjagt] und verscheucht ut avicula;\ntamen mansit rex. Econtra Saul. Sic fit cum omnibus piis. Ideo nota bene\n1. praeceptum, i.e., debes ex tota corde fidere Deo et praeterea nulli\naliae rei, sive sit potestas etc., ut illis omnibus utaris, ut sutor\nsubula etc., qui tantum laborat cum istis suis instrumentis. Sic utere\nbonis et donis; sie sollen dein Abgott nicht sein, sed Deus.\" (30, 1,\n29.) The three series of sermons of 1528, therefore, were to the\nexplanation of Luther's Catechisms what the _Booklet for Laymen_ was to\nthe text.\n\n98. Catechism of Bohemian Brethren.\n\nThe assertion has been made that Luther, in his Small Catechism,\nfollowed the Children's Questions of the Bohemian Brethren which at that\ntime had been in use for about sixty years. This catechism, which was\nnot clear in its teaching on the Lord's Supper, came to the notice of\nLuther 1520 in Bohemian or Latin, and 1523 in German and Bohemian. In\nhis treatise, _Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament of the Holy\nBody of Christ,_ 1523, Luther remarks: \"A book has been circulated by\nyour people [the Bohemian Brethren] in German and Bohemian which aims to\ngive Christian instruction to the young. Among other things the\nstatement is made that [the presence of] Christ in the Sacrament is not\na personal and natural one, and that He must not be adored there, which\ndisquiets us Germans very much. For without doubt it is known to you\nhow, through the delegates you sent to me, I requested you to make this\nparticular article clear in a separate booklet. For by word of mouth I\nheard them confess that you hold unanimously that Christ is truly in the\nSacrament with His flesh and blood as it was born of Mary and hung on\nthe cross, as we Germans believe. That booklet has now been sent to me\nby Mr. Luca in Latin. Still, in this article it has not yet been made as\npure and clear as I should like to have seen it. Hence I did not have it\ntranslated into German nor printed as I promised, fearing I might not\nrender the obscure words correctly, and thus fail to give your meaning\ncorrectly. For it may be regarded as a piece of good luck if one has hit\nupon an exact translation, even if the passage is very clear and\ncertain, as I daily experience in the translations I am making. Now,\nthat this matter may come to an end, and that the offense of the German\nbooklet which you have published may be removed, I shall present to you\nand everybody, as plainly and as clearly as I am able to do, this\narticle as we Germans believe it, and as one ought to believe according\nto the Gospel. There you may see whether I have stated correctly what\nyou believe or how much we differ from one another. Perhaps my German\nlanguage will be clearer to you than your German and Latin is to me.\"\n(11, 431.) Luther, then, was familiar with the catechism of the\nBohemians, which contained, besides the chief parts of the ancient\nChurch, also the doctrine of the Sacraments. This, therefore, may have\nsuggested to him the idea of publishing a small book for children with\nquestions and answers, which would also contain the parts of Baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper. Such at least is the opinion of Cohrs, Kolde,\nKoestlin, Kawerau, and Albrecht. (W. 30, 1, 466.) But we have no sure\nknowledge of this. At any rate, it is not likely that it was the book of\nthe Bohemian Brethren which prompted Luther to embody the Sacraments in\nhis Catechism. The further assertion of Ehrenfeuchter, Moenckeberg, _et\nal._ that Luther in his Table of Duties followed the Bohemian Brethren,\nis incorrect, since the Table of Duties appeared much later in their\ncatechism.\n\n\nIX. The Small and the Large Catechism of Luther.\n\n99. Luther Beginning Work on Catechisms.\n\nLuther first mentioned the plan of publishing a catechism in a letter of\nFebruary 2, 1525, to Nicolaus Hausmann. He informs him: \"Jonas and\nEisleben [Agricola] have been instructed to prepare a catechism for\nchildren. I am devoting myself to the Postil [last part of the Winter\nPostil] and to Deuteronomy, where I have sufficient work for the\npresent.\" (Enders, 5, 115.) In a letter of March 26, 1525, also to\nHausmann, Luther repeats: \"The Catechism, as I have written before, has\nbeen given to its authors, _ist seinen Verfassern aufgetragen worden._\"\n(144.) However, when Jonas and Agricola (who soon moved from Wittenberg\nto Eisleben) failed, Luther resolved to undertake the work himself,\nwhich, according to his letter of February 2, he had declined merely for\nthe reason that he was already sufficiently burdened. The execution of\nhis plan, however, was deferred. September 27, 1525, he wrote to\nHausmann: \"I am postponing the Catechism, as I would like to finish\neverything at one time in one work.\" (246.) The same letter shows what\nLuther meant. For here he speaks of the reformation of the parishes and\nof the introduction of uniform ceremonies. Evidently, then, he at that\ntime desired to publish the Catechism together with a visitation tract,\nsuch as Melanchthon wrote in 1527. Besides, his _Prayer-Booklet,_\ncontaining the \"Brief Form,\" as well as the _Booklet for Laymen and\nChildren,_ offered a temporary substitute for the contemplated\nCatechism. The deplorable conditions, however, which the Saxon\nvisitation brought to light would not permit him to tarry any longer.\n\"The deplorable, miserable condition,\" says Luther in the Preface to his\nSmall Catechism, \"which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor,\nhas forced and urged me to prepare this Catechism, or Christian\ndoctrine, in this small, plain, simple form.\" (535, 1.) Thus the Small\nCatechism sprang, as it were, directly from the compassion Luther felt\nfor the churches on account of the sad state of destitution to which\nthey had been brought, and which he felt so keenly during the\nvisitation. However, Luther's statements in the _German Order of\nWorship_ concerning the catechetical procedure in question and answer\nquoted above show that the thought of such a Catechism did not first\noccur to him at this time. Still it was the visitation that added the\ndecisive impulse to put the idea into immediate execution. Besides, it\nwas a time in which Luther was entirely engrossed in the Catechism,\nhaving preached in 1528 on the five chief parts no less than three\ntimes. Thus the harvest was at hand. In January, 1529, according to his\nown letters, Luther was engaged in this work, having probably begun\nabout the close of 1528. He was able to make rapid progress, since ample\nmaterial was at his command.\n\nThe old moot question which of the two Catechisms appeared first was\ndecided when Buchwald discovered the Stephan Roth letters, which show\nthat the Small Catechism appeared in chart form in January and March,\n1529, while the first Wittenberg book edition appeared in May, after the\nLarge Catechism had meanwhile come off the press in April. From the fact\nthat Luther simply called his Large Catechism \"German Catechism\" one may\ninfer that he began work on this first, and that, when writing the\ntitle, he had not yet begun the Small Catechism nor planned it\ndefinitely; but not, that Luther completed the Large Catechism first. On\nthe other hand, from the title \"Small Catechism\" one can only infer that\nLuther, when he wrote thus, had already begun to write, and was working\non, the Large Catechism, but not, that the Small Catechism appeared\nlater than the large. Albrecht: \"One may certainly speak of a small book\nbefore the appearance of a large book of similar kind, if the latter has\nbeen definitely planned, worked out at the same time, and is almost\ncompleted.\" (W. 30, 1, 569.)\n\n100. Tables Published First.\n\nJanuary 15, 1529, Luther wrote to Martin Goerlitz: \"_Modo in parando\ncatechismo pro rudibus paganis versor._ I am now busy preparing the\nCatechism for the ignorant heathen\" (not \"peasants,\" for in his _German\nOrder of Worship,_ Luther says: \"Catechism is an instruction by means of\nwhich heathen who desire to become Christians are taught\"). It was\nformerly asserted that the expression \"_pro rudibus paganis_\" showed\nthat Luther here meant the Small Catechism. Appealing to the statement\nin the Preface to the Large Catechism: \"This sermon is designed and\nundertaken that it might be an instruction for children and the\nsimple-minded,\" Koellner was the first one to assert that Luther's\nphrase of January 15 referred to the Large Catechism. In this he was\nfollowed by Cohrs, Enders, and others. (Enders, 7, 44.) However,\naccording to the usage of the word catechism described above, the\nstatement quoted does not preclude that Luther, when writing thus, was\nengaged on both Catechisms. And such indeed was the case. For on January\n20, 1529, Roerer, the Wittenberg proofreader, wrote to Roth: \"Nothing\nnew has appeared. I believe that the Catechism as preached by D. M. for\nthe unlettered and simple will be published for the coming Frankfurt\nmass. Yet, while writing this, I glance at the wall of my dwelling, and\nfixed to the wall I behold tables embracing in shortest and simplest\nform Luther's Catechism for children and the household, and forthwith I\nsend them to you as a sample, so that by the same messenger they may be\nbrought to you immediately. _Iam novi nihil in lucem prodiit; ad\nnundinas credo Francofurdenses futuras Catechismus per D. M. praedicatus\npro rudibus et simplicibus edetur. Hoc vero scribens inspicio parietem\naestuarioli mei, affixas parieti video tabulas complecententes\nbrevissime simul et crasse catechismum Lutheri pro pueris et familia,\nstatim mitto pro exemplari, ut eodem tabellario iam ad te perferantur._\"\n(W. 30, 1, 428; Enders, 7, 44.)\n\nThis letter of January 20 is the first time that both of Luther's\nCatechisms are mentioned together and distinguished from each other. By\ncatechism Roerer means the text of the five chief parts which Luther put\nat the head of his Large Catechism. \"_Catechismus per D. M.\npraedicatus_\" designates the explanation of this text as comprised in\nLuther's three series of sermons of 1528 and summed up in the Large\nCatechism. From this preached and later on so-called Large Catechism,\nwhich appeared in April, entitled \"German Catechism,\" Roerer\ndistinguishes \"tables, summing up Luther's Catechism in shortest and\nsimplest form for children and the household.\" He means the series of\ncharts containing the first three chief parts, which Luther considered\nthe Catechism _par excellence_. And at the time when Roerer spoke of\nthe prospective publication of the Large Catechism for the Frankfurt\nmass, these tables were already hanging on his wall.\n\nAlbrecht comments: \"For the moment Roerer had not remembered the very\ninteresting novelty, which had already appeared in the first tables of\nthe later so-called Small Catechism. However, a glance at the wall of\nhis room reminded him of it. And from a letter of his dated March 16 we\nmust infer that they were the three charts containing the Ten\nCommandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer with Luther's\nexplanation. These he calls 'tables which in shortest and simplest form\nembrace Luther's Catechism for the children and the household,' Thus he\nwrote in view of the superscription: 'As the head of the family should\nteach them in a simple way to his household,' without implying a\ndifference between the expression _pro pueris et familia_ and the\npreceding _pro rudibus et simplicibus,_ since the former are included in\nthe latter. The difference between the two works is rather indicated by\nthe words _brevissime simul et crasse._ But at the same time their inner\nconnection is asserted, for by sending the tables _pro exemplari,_ he\ncharacterizes them as a model or sample of Luther's manner of treating\nthe Catechism. They are the _catechismus Lutheri,_ that is, the\naforementioned _catechismus per D. M. praedicatus_ in its shortest form\nand draft (conceived as an extract of the sermons or of the Large\nCatechism). He thought that this sample would indicate what was to be\nexpected from the forthcoming larger work.\" (W. 30, 1, 429.)\n\nWhen, therefore, Luther wrote on January 15: \"Modo in parando\ncatechismo pro rudibus paganis versor,\" he was engaged on both\nCatechisms, and had proceeded far enough to enable him to send the first\ntables of the Small Catechism to the printer. Buchwald remarks regarding\nthe letter of January 20 that Roerer probably had just received the\ntables from the press. However, Roerer's letter to Roth of February 12,\n1529, shows that already about a month ago he had sent the \"tables of\nthe Catechism\" (evidently the same to which he referred January 20) to\nSpalatin. Accordingly, these tables were forwarded about January 12. The\nfollowing remark in the Church Order for Schoenewald in the district of\nSchweinitz: \"First to pronounce for the people the Ten Commandments, the\nCreed and the Lord's Prayer, thereupon to explain them in the most\nsimple way, _as published [each] on a printed table,_\" takes us back\nstill a few days more. For the visitation in the district of Schweinitz,\nin which Luther took part, was held January 7 to 9, the time from which\nalso the Schoenewald Church Order dates. At this visitation, therefore,\neven prior to January 7, Luther himself distributed the first series of\ntables, comprising the first three chief parts, of his Small Catechism.\nCohrs opines that Luther sent this series to the printer about Christmas\n1528 at the latest. However, it does not appear why the printing should\nhave consumed three to four weeks Seb. Froeschels however, is mistaken\nwhen he declares in his book on the _Priesthood of Christ,_ 1565, that,\nat a table conversation of 1528, Luther had advised Hans Metsch\nconstantly to have with him a good small catechism, such as the one he\nhad written. Knaake surmises that 1528 is a misprint; it should be 1538.\n(W. 30, 1, 430f.)\n\n101. Completion of Catechisms Delayed.\n\nIt was almost two months after the first table-series had appeared\nbefore the second was published. This delay is accounted for by Luther's\nillness and his being burdened with other work, especially with his book\nagainst the Turk. March 3 he wrote to Hausmann: \"By reason of Satan's\nafflictions I am almost constantly compelled to be a sick well man (_als\nGesunder krank zu sein_), hence I am much hindered in writing and other\nwork.\" (Enders, 7, 61.) However, in the same letter Luther informed his\nimpatiently waiting friend: \"The Catechism is not completed, my dear\nHausmann, but it will be completed shortly.\" Enders remarks that this\nrefers to the Large Catechism. However, it harmonizes best with Luther's\nusage and with the facts if the words are understood as referring to\nboth Catechisms. \"Shortly,\" Luther had written, and on March 16 Roerer,\naccording to his letter of this date, forwarded \"the tables of\nConfession, the German Litany, the tables of the Sacrament of Baptism\nand of the blood of Christ.\" Roerer calls them a novelty, _recens\nexcussa,_ recently printed, from which it appears that the _tabulae\ncatechismum Lutheri brevissime simul et crasse complectentes,_ to which\nhe referred on January 20, did not contain the Sacraments. Thus, then,\nthe five chief parts, Decalog, Creed, Lord's Prayer, Baptism, and Lord's\nSupper were completed by March 16, 1529. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise, but\nwithout further ground for their assumption, that the table with the\nBenedicite and the Gratias was issued together with the first series in\nJanuary. At the latest, however, the prayers appeared with the second\nseries. For March 7, 1529, Levin Metzsch wrote to Roth, evidently\nreferring to Luther's tables: \"I am herewith also sending to you the\nBenedicite and the Gratias, also the Morning and Evening Prayers,\ntogether with the Vice of Drunkenness.\" (W. 30, 1, 432.) The exact time\nwhen Luther composed the Table of Duties is not known. And the first\nevidence we have of the Small Catechism's appearing in book form is\nRoerer's letter of May 16, 1529, saying that he is sending two copies of\nthe Small Catechism, the price of which, together with other books, is\ntwo groschen. (432.) The necessary data are lacking to determine how\nlong Luther's manuscript was ready before it was printed, and before the\nprinted copies were distributed.\n\nAs to the large Catechism, it was not completed when the second table\nseries appeared in March. In a letter, the date of which must probably\nbe fixed about the end of March, Roerer says: \"The Turk is not yet\nentirely struck off; neither the Catechism.\" April 23, however, the\nLarge Catechism was on the market, for on this day Roerer wrote: \"I am\nsending three copies of the Catechism.\" It was the Large Catechism; for\nthe price of each copy was two groschen, whereas on May 16, 1529, Roerer\nhad sent two copies of the Small Catechism and other books for two\ngroschen. (432.) The Large Catechism probably had appeared several weeks\nbefore April 23. Albrecht: \"Even if all [of Luther's] sermons from Palm\nSunday to Maundy Thursday, 1529, are considered preliminary works,\naccording to which the last paragraphs of the Large Catechism were\nelaborated, we can assume that its appearance in the beginning or the\nfirst half of April, 1529, was possible. To be sure, the printing must\nthen have been advanced so far before Holy Week that the rest could be\nfinished speedily on the basis of the manuscript delivered immediately\nafter the sermons of Monday and Maundy Thursday had been preached.[\"]\n\nThis theory fits in with the facts that John Lonicer of Marburg had\nalready completed his Latin translation on May 15, 1529 (although,\naccording to the title-page, it first appeared in September), and that\nRoerer in a letter of April 23 merely mentions the Large Catechism in\npassing, without designating it as an important novelty. Stephen Roth,\nthe recipient of the letter, spent some time at Wittenberg during April,\nand probably purchased his first copy there; so Roerer refers to copies\nwhich were ordered subsequently. (482.)\n\nWhile thus the Small Catechism in chart form was completed and published\nbefore the Large Catechism, the former succeeded the latter in book\nform. However, though completed after the Small Catechism, it can be\nshown that the beginning and perhaps even part of the printing of the\nLarge Catechism dates back to 1528, thus preceding in this respect even\nthe Charts of January 9. If the short Preface to the Large Catechism, as\nwell as the exhortation at the beginning: \"Let the young people also\ncome to the preaching, that they hear it explained and learn to\nunderstand it,\" etc., had been written after the 9th of January, Luther\nwould probably have mentioned the Tables, just as he refers to the Large\nCatechism in the Preface to the Small Catechism, which was written about\nthe end of April or the beginning of May. (535, 17.) Since, however,\nLuther makes no such indication, these paragraphs of the Large Catechism\nwere, no doubt, composed before January, 1529. (575, 1; 579, 26.) The\nsame inference may be drawn from the fact that, in the explanation of\nthe First Commandment, the wording of the conclusion of the Ten\nCommandments shows a number of variations from its wording in the Small\nCatechism, whereas its wording at the close of the explanation of the\ncommandments is in conformity with it. (588, 30; 672, 320.)\n\n102. Similarity and Purpose of Catechisms.\n\nAs great as is the dissimilarity between Luther's two Catechisms, on the\none hand, so great, on the other, is the similarity. If one did not know\nthat the Large Catechism was begun before the Small, and that both\noriginated in the sermons of 1528, he might either view the Large\nCatechism as a subsequent expansion of the Small, or the latter as a\nsummary of the former. Yet neither the one nor the other is the case. If\nthe Large Catechism influenced the Small, so also the latter the former.\nAlbrecht says: \"It is more probable that the Small Catechism influenced\nthe Large Catechism than _vice versa._\" (W. 30, 1, 558.) At all events,\nthe second table-series could not have been extracted from the Large\nCatechism as such, since the latter was only completed after March 25,\nwhereas these tables were published already on March 16. The Small\nCatechism has been characterized as \"a small basketful of ripe fruit\ngathered from that tree\" [the Large Catechism]. In substance that is\ntrue, since both originate from the same source, the sermons of 1528.\nAlready Roerer calls attention to this similarity, when in the\naforementioned letter, he designates the Large Catechism as\n\"_Catechismus per D. M. praedicatus,_\" and then describes the Small\nCatechism as \"_tabulae complectentes brevisissime simul et crasse\ncatechismum Lutheri pro pueris et familia._\" Both treat of the same five\nchief parts; the explanation of both presupposes the knowledge of the\ntext of these parts, both owe their origin to the doctrinal ignorance,\nuncovered particularly in the Saxon visitation; and the purpose of both\nis the instruction of the plain people and the young. Indeed, it was not\nfor scholars, but for the people that Luther lived, labored, and\ncontended. \"For,\" says he in his _German Mass,_ \"the paramount thing is\nto teach and lead the people.\" (W. 19, 97.)\n\nAbove all, Luther endeavored to acquaint the \"dear youth\" with the\nsaving truths, not merely for their own sakes, but in the interest of\nfuture generations as well. He desired to make them mature Christians,\nable to confess their faith and to impart instruction to their children\nlater on. In particular, the two Catechisms were to serve the purpose of\nproperly preparing the children and the unlearned for the Holy\nEucharist, as appears from the Preface to the Small Catechism and from\nthe last paragraphs of the Large (536, 21ff.; 760, 39ff.); for both end\nin admonitions diligently to partake of the Lord's Supper. The Sacrament\nof the Altar, in Luther's estimation, is the goal of all catechetical\ninstruction. For this reason he added to the ancient chief parts those\nof Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Supper.\n\nAccordingly, both Catechisms, though in various respects, are intended\nfor all: people, youth, parents, preachers, and teachers. It is not\ncorrect to say that Luther wrote his Large Catechism only for scholars,\nand the other only for the unlearned. He desired to instruct all, and,\nat the same time, enable parents and pastors to teach. According to\nLuther, it is the duty of every Christian to learn constantly, in order\nalso to be able to teach others in turn. If any one, said he, really no\nlonger needed the Catechism for himself, he should study it nevertheless\nfor the sake of the ignorant. Nor did Luther exempt himself from such\nstudy. In the Long Preface to the Large Catechism we read: \"But for\nmyself I say this: I am also a doctor and preacher, yea, as learned and\nexperienced as all those may be who have such presumption and security;\nyet I do as a child who is being taught the Catechism, and every\nmorning, and whenever I have time, I read and say, word for word the Ten\nCommandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, etc. And I must\nstill read and study daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, but\nmust remain a child and pupil of the Catechism, and am glad so to\nremain.\" (569, 7.)\n\nApril 18, 1530, Luther repeated this in a sermon as follows: \"Whoever is\nable to read, let him, in the morning, take a psalm or some other\nchapter in the Bible and study it for a while. For that is what I do.\nWhen I rise in the morning, I pray the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the\nLord's Prayer, and also a psalm with the children. I do so because I\nwish to remain familiar with it, and not have it overgrown with mildew,\nso that I know it.\" (W. 32, 65.) In a sermon of November 27, of the same\nyear, Luther warns: \"Beware lest you become presumptuous, as though,\nbecause you have heard it often, you knew enough of the Catechism. For\nthis knowledge ever desires us to be its students. We shall never finish\nlearning it, since it does not consist in speech, but in life. ... For I\nalso, D. M., doctor and preacher, am compelled day by day to pray and to\nrecite the words of the Decalog, the Symbol, and the Lord's Prayer as\nchildren are wont to do. Hence you need not be ashamed; for much fruit\nwill result.\" (209.)\n\n103. Particular Purpose of Large Catechism.\n\nIn his sermons of 1529 Luther declared repeatedly that his purpose was\nto instruct the plain people and the children in those things which he\nregarded as the minimum every Christian ought to know. (30, 1, 2. 27.\n57.) And he did not abandon this purpose when he condensed his sermons\ninto the Large Catechism. Accordingly, he begins it with the words:\n\"This sermon is designed and undertaken that it might be an instruction\nfor children and the simple-minded.\" (575, 1.) Again: \"For the reason,\nwhy we exercise such diligence in preaching the Catechism so often is\nthat it may be inculcated on our youth, not in a high and subtile\nmanner, but briefly and with the greatest simplicity, so as to enter the\nmind readily and be fixed in the memory.\" (581, 27.) Hence Roerer also\ncharacterized the Large Catechism as \"_Catechismus per D. M. praedicatus\npro rudibus et simplicibus._\" Many expressions of the Large Catechism\nalso point to the fact that everything was here intended for the young\nand the common people. For example: \"All this I say that it may be well\nimpressed upon the young.\" (621, 140.) \"But now for young scholars let\nit suffice to indicate the most necessary points.\" (681, 12.) \"But to\nexplain all these single points separately belongs not to brief sermons\nfor children, but rather to the ampler sermons that extend throughout\nthe entire year.\" (687, 32.) Thus Luther aimed to serve the people and\nthe children also by his Large Catechism. Not, indeed, that it was to be\ngiven into the hands of the children (the Small Catechism served that\npurpose), but that preachers, teachers, and parents were to use it with\na view to teaching them by example how to expound the articles of the\nChristian doctrine for the simple-minded.\n\nIn particular, the Large Catechism was to enable the less educated\npastors in the villages and in the country to do justice to their sacred\nduty. The instructions of the visitors called for regular\nCatechism-sermons. For this purpose Luther sought to furnish the\npreachers with material. From the Large Catechism they were to learn how\nto deliver simple, plain sermons on the five chief parts. In the longer\nPreface Luther therefore directs his admonition \"to all Christians, but\nespecially to all pastors and preachers, that they should daily exercise\nthemselves in the Catechism, which is a short summary and epitome of the\nentire Holy Scriptures, and that they may always teach the same.\" And\nwhy? Luther explains: \"We have no slight reasons for treating the\nCatechism so constantly, and for both desiring and beseeching others to\nteach it, since we see to our sorrow that many pastors and preachers are\nvery negligent in this, and slight both their office and this teaching;\nsome from great and high art, but others from sheer laziness and care\nfor their paunches,\" etc. (567.)\n\nMinisters, according to Luther, were to study the Catechism for their\nown instruction and edification as well as in the interest of their\noffice. Hence he concludes his Preface, saying: \"Therefore I again\nimplore all Christians, especially pastors and preachers, not to be\ndoctors too soon, and imagine that they know everything (for imagination\nand cloth unshrunk fall far short of the measure), but that they daily\nexercise themselves well in these studies and constantly treat them;\nmoreover, that they guard with all care and diligence against the\npoisonous infection of such security and vain imagination, but steadily\nkeep on reading, teaching, learning, pondering, and meditating, and do\nnot cease until they have made a test and are sure that they have taught\nthe devil to death, and have become more learned than God Himself and\nall His saints.\" (573, 19; 535, 17.)\n\nFrom the Large Catechism, therefore, pastors were to learn how to preach\nthe fundamental Christian truths. \"To be sure,\" says Albrecht, \"Luther\ndid not make it as easy for the pastors as was later done by Osiander\nand Sleupner in the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons,_ where the individual\nsermons are exactly marked off, the form of address to the children is\nretained, and, in each instance, a short explanation, to be memorized,\nis added to the longer explanation.\" (W. 30, 1, 478.)--That it was\nLuther's purpose to have his Large Catechism serve also parents appears\nfrom the instructions at the beginning and the end of it. (574, 17; 772,\n87.)\n\n104. Special Purpose of Small Catechism.\n\nThe Large Catechism was to serve all; the same applies to the Small\nCatechism. But above all it was to be placed into the hands of the\nchildren, who were to use and to memorize it at home, and to bring it\nwith them for instruction in the church. Buchwald and Cohrs surmise that\nLuther published the second table series during Lent with special\nreference to \"grown people.\" However, Luther was accustomed to direct\nhis admonition to partake of the Lord's Supper diligently also to\nchildren, and that, too, to children of comparatively tender years. In\nhis sermon of March 25, 1529, he says: \"This exhortation ought not only\nto move us older ones, but also the young and the children. Therefore\nyou parents ought to instruct and educate them in the doctrine of the\nLord: the Decalog, the Creed, the Prayer, and the Sacraments. Such\nchildren ought also to be admitted to the Table that they may be\npartakers\" [of the Lord's Supper]. (W. 30, 1, 233.) In his sermon of\nDecember 19, 1528, we read: \"Hence, you parents and heads of families,\ninvite your subordinates to this Sacrament, and we shall demand an\naccount of you if you neglect it. If you will not go yourselves, let the\nyoung go; we are much concerned about them. When they come, we shall\nlearn, by examining them how you instruct them in the Word as\nprescribed. Hence, do come more frequently to the Sacrament, and also\nadmonish your children to do so when they have reached the age of\ndiscretion. For in this way we want to learn who are Christians, and who\nnot. If you will not do so, we shall speak to you on the subject. For\neven though you older people insist on going to the devil, we shall\nstill inquire about your children. Necessity: because sin, the devil,\nand death are ever present. Benefit: because the remission of sins and\nthe Holy Spirit are received.\" (121f.) The tender age at which the young\nwere held to partake of the Lord's Supper appears from Bugenhagen's\npreface to the Danish edition of the Enchiridion of 1538, where he says\n\"that after this confession is made, also the little children of about\neight years or less should be admitted to the table of Him who says:\n'Suffer the little children to come unto Me,'\" (433.) The conjecture,\ntherefore, that the tables of Confession and the Sacraments were not\nintended for children, but specifically for adults, is without\nfoundation. In all its parts the Small Catechism was intended to serve\nthe children.\n\nWhen the first table appeared, it bore the superscription: \"The Ten\nCommandments, as _the head of the family_ should teach them in a simple\nway to his household.\" Similar to this were the titles of the remaining\ncharts. And these superscriptions were permitted to stand when Luther\npublished the Enchiridion in book form. The book edition, therefore, as\nwell as the chart edition, was to render services also to parents, who\nwere to take upon themselves a large part of the work in teaching the\nyoung. But how were they to do it, in view of the fact that many of them\ndid not know the Catechism themselves? This had occurred also to Luther.\nHe realized that, besides the Large Catechism, parents were in need of a\ntext-book containing questions and answers, adapted for catechizing the\nchildren on the meaning of each part of the Catechism. This, too, was\nthe reason why the Small Catechism was rapidly completed before the\nLarge, which had been begun first. Luther intended parents to use it\nfirst of all for their own instruction and edification, but also for the\npurpose of enabling them to discharge their duty by their children and\nhousehold.\n\n105. Small Catechism Intended Also for Pastors.\n\nThat Luther intended his Small Catechism as a help also for pastors was,\nin so many words, stated on the title-page of the first book edition.\nFor, surprising as it may seem, here he mentions neither the parents nor\nthe children, but solely the \"ordinary pastors and preachers.\" The\nPreface also is addressed to \"all faithful, pious pastors and\npreachers,\" and it shows in detail how they were to make use of the\nbook. Evidently, then, the book edition was intended to render special\nservices also to preachers. The reason, however, was not, as has been\nsurmised, because it embodied the booklet on Marriage (the booklet on\nBaptism was added in the second edition); for the Preface, which is\naddressed to the preachers, does not even mention it. The pastors,\nmoreover, were especially designated on the title-page as the recipients\nof the Enchiridion, inasmuch as they were to employ it in their\nreligious instruction and catechetical sermons, in order to imbue the\nyoung with its contents. The expression \"ordinary pastors and preachers\"\nreferred primarily to the plain preachers in the villages, where no\nproperly regulated school system existed, and where, at best, the sexton\nmight assist the pastor in seeing to it that the Catechism was\nmemorized. Albrecht: \"When Luther prepared both Catechisms at the same\ntime and with reference to each other, he evidently desired their\nsimultaneous use, especially on the part of the plain pastors, who in\nthe Small Catechism possessed the leading thoughts which were to be\nmemorized, and in the Large Catechism their clear and popular\nexplanation.\" (W. 30, 1, 548.)\n\nLuther's intention was to make the Small Catechism the basis of\ninstruction in the church as well as in the homes; for uniform\ninstruction was required to insure results. Having, therefore, placed\nthe Catechism into the hands of the parents, Luther could but urge that\nit be introduced in the churches, too. He also showed them how to use\nit. On June 11, 1529, for instance, he expounded the First Article after\nhe had read the text and the explanation of the Small Catechism. (549.)\nThis the pastors were to imitate, a plan which was also carried out. The\ncharts were suspended in the churches; the people and children were wont\nto bring the book edition with them to church; the preachers read the\ntext, expounded it, and had it recited. The Schoenewald Church Order\nprescribed that the pastor \"first pronounce for the people\" the text of\nthe chief parts, and then expound it as on Luther's charts. (549.)\n\n106. A Book Also for Schools and Teachers.\n\nWhen planning and writing his Small Catechism, Luther self-evidently did\nnot overlook the schools and the schoolteachers. The first booklet of\nthe charts for the Latin schools of the Middle Ages contained the abc;\nthe second, the first reading-material, _viz._, the Paternoster, Ave\nMaria, and the Credo; the third, the Benedicite, Gratias, and similar\nprayers. Albrecht writes: \"We may surmise that Luther, when composing\nthe German tables and combining them in a book, had in mind the old\nchart-booklets. This view is supported by the fact that in it he\nembodied the prayers, the Benedicite and Gratias, and probably also by\nthe title Enchiridion, which, besides the titles 'Handbooklet' or 'The\nChildren's Handbooklet' was applied to such elementary books.\" (W. 30,\n1, 546.) In the _Instruction for the Visitors_ we read: \"A certain day,\neither Saturday or Wednesday, shall be set aside for imparting to the\nchildren Christian instruction. ... Hereupon the schoolteacher shall\nsimply and correctly expound at one time the Lord's Prayer, at another\nthe Creed, at another the Ten Commandments, etc.\" (W. 26, 238.) In these\nschools Luther's Small Catechism served as text-book. From 1529 until\nthe beginning of the eighteenth century Sauermann's Latin translation\n(_Parvus Catechismus pro Pueris in Schola_) was employed in the Latin\nschools of Saxony. In the German schools the German Enchiridion was used\nas the First Reader. Hence, the Marburg reprint of the first Wittenberg\nedition of the Catechism begins with the alphabet, and makes it a point\nto mention this fact on its title-page.\n\nDown to the present day no other book has become and remained a\nschoolbook for religious instruction to such an extent as Luther's Small\nCatechism. And rightly so; for even Bible History must be regarded as\nsubordinate to it. The assertion of modern educators that instruction in\nBible History must precede instruction in Luther's Catechism rests on\nthe false assumption that Luther's Catechism teaches doctrines only. But\nthe truth is that it contains all the essential facts of salvation as\nwell, though in briefest form, as appears particularly from the Second\nArticle, which enumerates historical facts only. The Small Catechism is\n\"the Laymen's Bible, _der Laien Biblia,_\" as Luther called it in a\nsermon of September 14, 1528, an expression adopted also by the Formula\nof Concord. (777, 5.) Luther's Enchiridion presents both the facts of\nsalvation and their divine interpretation. The picture for which the\nSmall Catechism furnishes the frame is Christ, the historical Christ, as\nglorified by the Holy Spirit particularly in the writings of the Apostle\nPaul. In the Lutheran Church the Small Catechism, therefore, deserves to\nbe and always to remain what it became from the first moment of its\npublication: the book of religious instruction for home, school, and\nchurch; for parents, children, teachers, and preachers, just as Luther\nhad planned and desired.\n\n107. Titles of Large Catechism.\n\n\"_Deutsche Katechismus,_ German Catechism,\" was the title under which\nthe Large Catechism first appeared, and which Luther never changed. In\nthe Preface to the Small Catechism he used the expression \"Large\nCatechism,\" having in mind his own Catechism, though not exclusively, as\nthe context shows. (534, 17.) Yet this was the natural title since the\nshorter Catechism was from the beginning known as the \"Small Catechism.\"\nAnd before long it was universally in vogue. The Church Order for\nBrueck, of 1530, designates the Large Catechism as \"the Long Catechism.\"\nIn the catalog of his writings of 1533, which Luther prefaced, but did\nnot compile, it is called \"Large Catechism, _Catechismus Gross._\"\nLikewise in the _Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum._ The Articles of the\nVisitors in Meiszen, 1533, first employed the designation \"The Large and\nSmall Catechisms.\" The Church Order for Gera of the same year also\ndistinguishes: \"The Large Catechism and the Small Catechism.\" The\nEisfeld Order of 1554 distinguishes: \"The Small Catechism of Luther\" and\n\"The Large Catechism of Luther.\" In his treatise on the Large Catechism\nof 1541, Spangenberg first employed the new form as a title: \"The Large\nCatechism and Children's Instruction of Dr. M. Luther.\"\n\nThe title of the Low German edition of 1541 runs: \"De Grote Katechismus\nDuedesch.\" The Latin translation by Obsopoeus of 1544 is entitled\n\"Catechismus Maior.\" The Index of the Wittenberg complete edition of\nLuther's Works of 1553 has \"Der grosse Katechismus,\" while the Catechism\nitself still bears the original title, \"Deutscher Katechismus.\" The Jena\nedition of 1556 also has the original title, but paraphrases in the\nIndex: \"_Zweierlei Vorrede, gross und klein, D. M. L. auf den\nKatechismum, von ihm gepredigt Anno 1529._ Two Prefaces, large and\nsmall, of Dr. M. L. to the Catechism, preached by him in the year 1529.\"\nSince 1570, the _Corpora Doctrinae_ give the title, \"The Large\nCatechism, German. _Der Grosse Katechismus, deutsch._\" So also the Book\nof Concord of 1580. In the Leipzig edition and in Walch's the word\n\"deutsch\" is omitted. (W. 30, 1, 474f.)\n\n\"German Catechism,\" corresponding to the title \"German Mass,\" means\nGerman preaching for children, German instruction in the fundamental\ndoctrines of Christianity. Luther wrote \"German Mass\" in order to\ndistinguish it from the Latin, which was retained for many years at\nWittenberg beside the German service (this is also what Wolfgang\nMusculus meant when he reported in 1536 that in Wittenberg services were\nconducted predominantly in papistic fashion, _ad morem papisticum_). So\nalso \"German Catechism\" is in contrast to the Latin instruction in the\nchurches and especially in the schools. Concerning the latter we read,\n_e.g._, in the instruction of the visitors: \"The boys shall also be\ninduced to speak Latin, and the schoolteachers shall, as far as\npossible, speak nothing but Latin with them.\" (26, 240.) Ever since the\nearly part of the Middle Ages the Latin Credo, Paternoster, etc., had\nbeen regarded and memorized as sacred formulas, the vernacular being\npermitted only rarely, and reluctantly at that. Also in the Lutheran\nChurch the Latin language was not immediately abolished. A number of\nEvangelical catechisms, antedating Luther's, were written in, and\npresuppose the use of, the Latin language, for example, Melanchthon's\n_Enchiridion,_ Urerius's _Paedagogia,_ Agricola's _Elementa Pietatis,_\netc. The Brunswick Liturgy of 1528, drafted by Bugenhagen, prescribed\nthat on Saturday evening and early on Sunday morning the chief parts of\nthe Catechism be read in Latin in the churches \"on both galleries,\nslowly, without chanting (_sine tono_), alternately (_ummeschicht_).\"\nThe Wittenberg Liturgy provided: \"Before the early sermon on Sundays or\non festival-days the boys in the choir, on both sides, shall read the\nentire Catechism in Latin, verse by verse, without ornamental tone\n(_sine tono distincto_).\" (477.) Accordingly, when Luther began to\npreach on the chief parts in German, he was said to conduct \"German\nCatechism.\" And since German services with German instruction were\ninstituted by Luther in the interest of the unlearned and such as were\nunable to attend the Latin schools, the term \"German Catechism\" was\nequivalent to popular instruction in religion. That Luther's Catechism,\nalso in point of racy language, was German to the core, appears from the\nfrequent use of German words and expressions which, in part, have since\nbecome obsolete. (Mueller, _Symb. Buecher,_ 857--860.)\n\n108. Editions of Large Catechism.\n\nThe first edition (quarto) of the Large Catechism, of which Roerer\nforwarded copies on April 23, 1529, contains, as text, the Commandments,\nthe Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the words of institution of the\nSacraments. The text is preceded by a Brief Preface, which, however,\nLuther, considering it a part of the Catechism, did not designate and\nsuperscribe as such. Some instructions and admonitions are inserted\nbetween the Catechism-text, which is followed by the detailed\nexplanation. Such is the form in which the Large Catechism first\nappeared, and which, in the main, it also retained. The second edition\n(also in quarto and from the year 1529) reveals numerous textual\ncorrections and adds a longer section to the Lord's Prayer, _viz._,\nparagraphs 9 to 11: \"at the risk of God's wrath.... seek His grace.\"\n(699.) This addition, though not found in the German Book of Concord of\n1580, was received into the official Latin Concordia of 1584.\nFurthermore, the second edition of 1529 adds the \"Short Admonition to\nConfession;\" hence the sub-title: \"Increased by a New Instruction and\nAdmonition to Confession.\" This addition, however, was embodied in\nneither the German nor the Latin Concordia. In the Seventh Commandment\nthe second edition of 1529 omits the words \"with whom [arch-thieves]\nlords and princes keep company\" (644, 230), which, according to\nAlbrecht, was due to a timid proof-reader. Numerous marginal notes,\nbriefly summarizing the contents, were also added to this edition and\nretained in the Latin Concordia of 1584. Furthermore, it contained 24\nwoodcuts, the first three of which were already used in Melanchthon's\nfragmentary Catechism sermons of 1528, for which book probably also the\nremaining cuts were originally intended. Albrecht remarks: \"Let it\nremain undecided whether the cuts, which Melanchthon probably was first\nto select for his catechism sermons of 1528, were received into the\nedition of 1529 (which Luther corrected) upon a suggestion of the\nprinter Rhau, or Bugenhagen, or Luther himself.\" (W. 30, 1, 493.)\n\nTwo Latin as well as a Low German translation (by Bugenhagen) also\nappeared in 1529. The Low German edition, printed by Rhau, seems to have\npaved the way in using the aforementioned pictures. Of the Latin\ntranslations, one was prepared by Lonicer and printed at Marburg, while\nthe other, by Vicentius Obsopoeus, rector of the school at Ansbach, was\nprinted at Hagenau. After making some changes, which were not always\nimprovements, Selneccer embodied the latter in the Latin Concordia,\nadding the longer Preface from the Frankfurt edition of 1544. In the\nLarge Catechism this new Preface is found for the first time in Rhau's\nquarto edition of 1530. Literal allusions to Luther's letter of June 30,\n1530, to J. Jonas have given rise to the assumption that it was written\nat Castle Coburg. (Enders, 8, 47. 37.) In the Jena edition of Luther's\nWorks, the Dresden edition of the Book of Concord of 1580, the Magdeburg\nedition of 1580, the Heidelberg folio edition of 1582, and the Latin\nedition of 1580, this longer Preface follows the shorter. However, since\nthe shorter Preface forms part of the Catechism itself, the longer\nPreface ought to precede it, as is the case in the official Latin\nConcordia of 1584. In the Low German edition of 1531 Bugenhagen defends\nthe expressions, criticized by some: I believe \"an Gott, an Christum\" in\nthe Low German edition of 1529, instead of \"in Gott, in Christum.\" (W.\n30, 1, 493.) In Rhau's edition of 1532 and 1535 the morning and evening\nprayers are added, probably only as fillers. The changes in Rhau's\nedition of 1538, styling itself, \"newly corrected and improved,\" consist\nin linguistic improvements and some additions and omissions. Albrecht\nbelieves that most, but not all, of these changes were made by Luther\nhimself, and that the omissions are mostly due to inadvertence.\n\n109. Title of Small Catechism.\n\nLuther seems to have published the chart catechism of January, 1529,\nwithout any special title, though Roerer, from the very first, calls it\na catechism. In the first Wittenberg book edition, however, one finds\ninserted, between the Preface and the Decalog, the superscription: \"_Ein\nkleiner Katechismus oder christliche Zucht._ A Small Catechism or\nChristian Discipline.\" This may have been the title of the charts, since\nit would hardly have been introduced for the book edition, where it was\nentirely superfluous, the title-page designating it as \"The Small\nCatechism for the Ordinary Pastors and Preachers.\" Likewise it cannot be\nproved that the opening word on the title-page of this first book\nedition was \"Enchiridion,\" since this edition has disappeared without a\ntrace, and the only remaining direct reprint does not contain the word\n\"Enchiridion.\" All subsequent editions however, have it.\n\nThe word \"Enchiridion\" is already found in the writings of Augustine,\nand later became common. In his Glossary, Du Cange remarks: \"This name\n[Enchiridion] St. Augustine gave to a most excellent little work on\nfaith, hope, and charity, which could easily be carried in the hand, or,\nrather, ought continually to be so carried, since it contained the\nthings most necessary for salvation.\" (3, 265.) The Erfurt\n_Hymn-Booklet_ of 1524 was called \"Enchiridion or Handbooklet, very\nprofitable for every Christian to have with him for constant use and\nmeditation.\" In 1531 Luther praised the Psalter, saying: \"It may be\ncalled a little Bible, wherein all that is found in the entire Bible is\nmost beautifully and briefly summed up and has been made and prepared\nto be a splendid Enchiridion, or Handbook.\" (E. 63, 28.) The\n_Instruction for Visitors_ calls the primer \"the handbooklet of the\nchildren, containing the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and\nother prayers.\" In 1523 Melanchthon had published such a book, entitled\n\"Enchiridion.\" Thus Enchiridion denotes a book of pithy brevity, an\nelementary book. The various Church Orders employ the word in a similar\nsense. (W. 30, 1, 540.)\n\n110. Editions of Small Catechism.\n\nAt Wittenberg, George Rhau printed the Large Catechism and Michel\nSchirlentz the Small Catechism (the chart impressions of which must be\nconsidered the first edition). In the Preface to the Small Catechism,\nLuther speaks of \"these tables\" and \"the form of these tables,\" thus\nreferring to the chief parts, which were already printed on placards.\nHowever, since \"table\" also denotes a list, the term could be applied\nalso to the chief parts in book form. It was nothing new to employ\ntables (\"_Zeddeln,\" i.e._, placards printed on one side) in order to\nspread the parts of the Catechism in churches, homes, and schools. In\n1518 Luther published his \"Ten Commandments with a brief exposition of\ntheir fulfilment and transgression,\" on placards. Of the charts of the\nSmall Catechism only a Low German copy has as yet been discovered. It\ncontains Luther's Morning and Evening Prayers, a reduced reproduction of\nwhich is found in the Weimar Edition of Luther's Works. (30, 1, 241.)\nThe book editions soon took their place beside the charts. It seems (but\nhere the traces are rather indefinable) that the first three tables were\nsummed up into a booklet as early as January or February, 1529. At\nHamburg, Bugenhagen published the charts, which he had received till\nthen, as a booklet, in Low German. It contained the five chief parts and\nthe Benedicite and Gratias. Shortly after the first Wittenberg book\nedition had reached him Bugenhagen translated the Preface and had it\nprinted as a supplement.\n\nShortly after the completion of the Large Catechism Luther made\narrangements to have the Small Catechism appear in book form. May 16\nRoerer sent two copies of the _Catechismus Minor._ But, as stated above,\nall copies of this edition were completely used up. The edition has been\npreserved in three reprints only, two of which appeared at Erfurt and\none at Marburg. Th. Harnack published the one Erfurt and the Marburg\nreprint, and H. Hartung the other Erfurt reprint in separate facsimile\neditions. Evidently these reprints appeared before the second\nWittenberg edition of June, 1529, was known at Erfurt and Marburg. In\nestimating their value, however, modern scholars are not agreed as to\nwhether they represent three direct or one direct and two indirect\nreprints. Albrecht is of the opinion that only one of the three may be\nlooked upon as a direct reprint. Judging from these reprints, the\noriginal edition was entitled: \"_Der kleine Katechismus fuer die\ngemeinen Pfarrherrn und Prediger._ The Small Catechism for Ordinary\nPastors and Preachers.\" Aside from the five chief parts, it contained\nthe Preface, the Morning and Evening Prayers, the Table of Duties, and\nthe Marriage Booklet. On the other hand, these reprints omit not only\nthe word Enchiridion, but also the question, \"How can bodily eating and\ndrinking do such great things?\" together with its answer. Now, in case\nall three should be direct reprints, the omitted question and answer\nevidently were not contained in the first Wittenberg edition either. On\nthe other hand, if only one of them is a direct reprint, the mistake\nmust be charged to the original Wittenberg impression or to the reprint.\nThat the omission is an error, probably due to the printer, appears from\nthe fact that the omitted question and answer were already found on the\ncharts; for the Hamburg book edition of the charts in Low German has\nthem, as also Stifel's written copies of the charts. (W. 30, 1, 573.)\n\nOf the Wittenberg editions which followed the _editio princeps,_ those\nof 1529, 1531, and 1542 deserve special mention. The first appeared\nunder the title: \"Enchiridion. The Small Catechism for the Ordinary\nPastors and Preachers, enlarged and improved.\" On the 13th of June this\nedition was completed, for Roerer reports on this date: \"Parvus\nCatechismus sub iucudem iam tertio revocatus est et in ista postrema\neditione adauctus.\" (Kolde _l.c._, 60.) Roerer designates this edition\nas the third, probably because two imprints had been made of the _editio\nprinceps._ According to a defective copy, the only one preserved, this\nedition adds to the contents of the _editio princeps_ the word\nEnchiridion in the title, the Booklet of Baptism, A Brief Form of\nConfessing to the Priest, for the Simple, and the Litany. The fifth\nchief part has the question: \"How can bodily eating and drinking do such\ngreat things?\" In the Lord's Prayer, however, the explanation of the\nintroduction is still lacking. This emended edition of 1529 furthermore\nhad the pictures, for the first time as it seems. The booklets on\nMarriage and Baptism were retained, as additions, in all editions of the\nSmall Catechism published during the life of Luther, and in many later\neditions as well. As yet, however, it has not been proved directly that\nsuch was intended and arranged for by Luther himself.\n\nAlso in the succeeding editions Luther made various material and\nlinguistic changes. In the edition of 1531 he omitted the Litany, and\nfor the \"Short Form of Confession\" he substituted an instruction in\nconfession, which he inserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts,\nunder the caption, \"How the Unlearned Shall be Taught to Confess.\" The\nLord's Prayer was complemented by the addition of the Introduction and\nits explanation, and the number of cuts was increased to 23. This\nedition of 1531, of which but one copy (found in the Bodleiana of\nOxford) is in existence, shows essentially the form in which the\nEnchiridion was henceforth regularly printed during and after Luther's\nlife. (W. 30, 1, 608.) The editions of 1537 reveal several changes in\nlanguage, especially in the Bible-verses, which are made to conform to\nLuther's translation. In the edition of 1542 the promise of the Fourth\nCommandment appears for the first time, and the Table of Duties is\nexpanded. The Bible-verses referring to the relation of congregations to\ntheir pastors were added, and the verses setting forth the relation of\nsubjects to their government were considerably augmented. Hence the\ntitle: \"Newly revised and prepared, _aufs neue uebersehen und\nzugerichtet._\" Probably the last edition to appear during Luther's life\nwas the one of 1543, which, however, was essentially a reprint of the\nedition of 1542.\n\nKnaake declared that all the editions which we possess \"must be\nattributed to the enterprise of the book dealers,\" and that one cannot\nspeak of a direct influence of Luther on any of these editions. In\nopposition to this extreme skepticism, Albrecht points out that, for\ninstance, the insertion of the explanation of the Introduction to the\nLord's Prayer and the new form of confession, as well as its insertion\nbetween Baptism and the Lord's Supper, could not have taken place\n\"without the direct cooperation of Luther.\"\n\n111. Translations and Elaborations of Small Catechism.\n\nTwo of the Latin translations of the Small Catechism date back to 1529.\nThe first was inserted in the _Enchiridion Piarum Precationum,_ the\nLatin translation of Luther's _Prayer-Booklet,_ which appeared toward\nthe end of August, 1529. Roerer met with great difficulties in editing\nthe book. August, 1529, he wrote: \"You may not believe me if I tell you\nhow much trouble I am having with the Latin _Prayer-Booklet_ which is\nnow being printed. Somebody else, it is true, translated it from German\ninto Latin, but I spent much more labor in this work than he did.\" (W.\n30, 1, 588.) We do not know who the translator was to whom Roerer\nrefers. It certainly was not Lonicer, the versatile Humanist of Marburg\nwho at that time had completed the Large Catechism with a Preface dated\nMay 15, 1529. Kawerau surmises that it was probably _G. Major._\nEvidently Luther himself had nothing to do with this translation. This\nCatechism is entitled: _Simplicissima et Brevissima Catechismi\nExpositio._ Almost throughout the question form was abandoned. In 1532 a\nrevised form of this translation appeared, entitled: _Nova Catechismi\nBrevioris Translatio._ From these facts the theory (advocated also by v.\nZezschwitz and Knaake) has been spun that the Small Catechism sprang\nfrom a still shorter one, which was not throughout cast in questions and\nanswers, and offered texts as well as explanations in a briefer form.\nThis would necessitate the further inference that the Preface to the\nSmall Catechism was originally written in Latin. All of these\nsuppositions, however, founder on the fact that the charts as we have\nthem in the handwriting of Stifel are in the form of questions and\nanswers. The _Prayer-Booklet_ discarded the form of questions and\nanswers, because its object was merely to reproduce the contents of\nLuther's Catechism for such as were unacquainted with German.\n\nThe second Latin translation of 1529 was furnished by John Sauermann,\nnot (as v. Zezschwitz and Cohrs, 1901, in Herzog's _R. E._, 10, 135,\nassume) the Canon of Breslau, who died 1510, but probably Johannes\nSauermann of Bambergen, who matriculated at Wittenberg in the winter\nsemester of 1518. (W. 30, 1, 601.) Sauermann's translation was intended\nas a school edition of the Small Catechism. First came the alphabet,\nthen followed the texts: Decalog, Creed, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the\nLord's Supper. Luther's Preface, the Litany, and the Booklets of\nMarriage and Baptism were omitted as not adapted for school use. The\nchapter on Confession, from the second Wittenberg book edition was\ninserted between the fourth and fifth chief parts. The note to the\nBenedicite was put into the text with the superscription \"Scholion\"\n(instead of the incorrect \"Scholia\" of the German edition, found also in\nthe Book of Concord). \"Paedagogus\" was substituted for \"head of the\nfamily (_Hausvater_).\" The word \"Haustafel\" remained untranslated. The\nwords of the Third Petition, \"so uns den Namen Gottes nicht heiligen und\nsein Reich nicht kommen lassen wollen,\" are rendered: \"quae nobis nomen\nDei non _sanctificent_ regnumque eius ad nos pervenire non sinant.\"\n\nIn the Preface, dated September 19, 1529, \"Johannes Sauromannus\" writes:\n\"Every one is of the opinion that it is clearly the best thing from\nearly youth carefully and diligently to instruct the boys in the\nprinciples of Christian piety. And since I believe that of all the\nelementary books of the theologians of this age none are better adapted\nfor this purpose than those of Dr. Martin Luther, I have rendered into\nLatin the booklet of this man which is called the Small Catechism,\nhoping that it might be given to the boys to be learned as soon as they\nenter the Latin school.\" At the same time Sauermann declares that his\ntranslation was published \"by the advice and order (_consilio ac iussu_)\nof the author [Luther] himself.\" (30, 1, 673.) One cannot doubt,\ntherefore, that Sauermann's translation received Luther's approval. And\nbeing in entire conformity with the _Instruction for Visitors,_ of 1528,\nfor the Latin city schools, the book was soon in general use. In 1556\nMichael Neander speaks of it as \"the common Latin version, hitherto\nused in all schools.\" (603.) The Latin Concordia of 1584 contains\nSauermann's version, essentially, though not literally. The Preface,\nwhich Sauermann had not translated, is taken over from the\n_Prayer-Booklet._ The part On Confession was newly translated from the\nGerman edition of the Catechism of 1531. The textual changes which were\nmade in Sauermann's translation for the Concordia of 1584 \"show that he\nwas careful and usually felicitous, and are partly to be explained as\ncombinations of the first and second Latin translations.\" (604.)\n\nWhen, in 1539, Justus Jonas translated the Nuernberg _Sermons for\nChildren,_ he made a third Latin translation of the Small Catechism. He\ncalls it \"this my Latin translation, not carefully finished indeed, but\nnevertheless rendered in good faith.\" (627.) This Latin text obtained\nspecial importance since it was immediately done into English, Polish,\nand Icelandic. In 1560 Job Magdeburg furnished a fourth Latin version.\nConcerning the translations into Greek, Hebrew, and other languages see\nWeimar Edition of Luther's Complete Works (10, 1, 718f.)\n\nAmong the earliest elaborations of the Small Catechism was the Catechism\nof Justus Menius, 1532, and the Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533.\nBoth exploit Luther's explanations without mentioning his name. At the\nsame time some changing, abbreviating, polishing, etc., was done, as\nLuther's text was considered difficult to memorize. Albrecht says of\nMenius's emendations: \"Some of his formal changes are not bad; most of\nthem, however are unnecessary. The entire book finally serves the\npurpose of bringing to light the surpassing merit of the real\nLuther-Catechism.\" (617.) The same verdict will probably be passed on\nall the substitute catechisms which have hitherto appeared. John\nSpangenberg's Small Catechism of 1541, which was widely used, is, as he\nhimself says, composed \"from the Catechism of our beloved father, Dr.\nMartin, and those of others.\" It contains Luther's Catechism mainly as\nchanged by Menius. The Nuernberg _Children's Sermons,_ which embodied\nalso the pictures of Luther's Catechism and received a wide circulation,\nwere written by Osiander and Sleupner in 1532, and printed at Nuernberg,\n1533. They contain almost complete the five chief parts of Luther's\nSmall Catechism as concluding sentences of the individual sermons, but\nin original minting, with abbreviations, additions, and other changes,\nwhich, however, are not nearly as marked as those of Menius. These\nchanges were also made to facilitate memorizing. Between Baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper was found the doctrinal part on the Office of the\nKeys, which in this or a similar form was, after Luther's death,\nappended to or inserted in, the Small Catechism as the sixth or fifth\nchief part, respectively.\n\n112. The Part \"Of Confession.\"\n\nThe Small Catechism did not spring from Luther's mind finished and\ncomplete at one sitting. Originally he considered the first three chief\nparts as constituting the Catechism. Before long, however, he added the\nparts of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These five parts are for the\nfirst time mentioned in the _German Order of Worship,_ and printed\ntogether in the Booklet for Laymen and Children. The Introduction to the\nLarge Catechism also offers no more. The chart and book editions added\nas real parts of the Catechism (the Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism\ncannot be viewed as such) the Benedicite and Gratias, the Morning and\nEvening Prayers, the Table of Duties, and Confession. It is the last of\nthese parts which played a peculiar role in the history of the Small\nCatechism. Albrecht writes: \"In the textual history of the Small\nCatechism, Confession (besides the Table of Duties) is the most restless\nand movable part. In the Low German editions since 1531 and 1534 it is\nfound after the Lord's Supper as a sort of sixth chief part. In\nindividual instances it is entirely omitted. On the other hand, in\nelaborations of the Catechism, notably in the Nuernberg\nCatechism-sermons, it is supplanted by the Office of the Keys, and in\nlater prints also combined with it or otherwise recast.\" (W. 30, 1,\n607.)\n\nAs for Luther, evidently, as soon as he began to work on the Catechism,\nhe planned to include also a part on Confession. Among the charts there\nwere already those which dealt with Confession. In fact, Luther must\nhave here treated this part at comparative length. For Roerer reports\nthat the price of the Confession charts was three pfennige, whereas the\nprice of the Sacrament charts was two pfennige. Yet nothing of\nConfession was embodied in the first book edition of the Small\nCatechism. The first edition also of the Large Catechism had no part\ntreating of Confession. But the second Wittenberg edition, of 1529\nappeared \"augmented with a new instruction and admonition concerning\nConfession.\" Likewise the \"augmented and improved\" Small Catechism of\n1529, superscribed, \"Enchiridion,\" contained a \"Short Form how the\nUnlearned shall Confess to the Priest. _Eine kurze Weise zu beichten\nfuer die Einfaeltigen, dem Priester._\" This Form was not to serve the\npastor in admonishing, etc., but Christians when going to confession.\nPossibly it was one of the charts which Roerer, March 16, mentioned as\nnovelties. The addition of this part was, no doubt, caused by Luther\nhimself. This is supported by the fact that Sauermann's translation,\nwhich appeared by Luther's \"advice and order,\" also contained it. And\nwhile in the German book edition it was found in the Appendix, following\nthe Booklet on Baptism, Sauermann inserted it between Baptism and the\nLord's Supper with the superscription: \"How schoolmasters ought in\nsimplest manner to teach their boys a brief form of confession. _Quo\npacto paedagogi suos pueros brevem confitendi rationem simplicissime\ndocere debeant._\" Evidently this, too, was done with Luther's approval\n(_auctoris consilio et iussu_). \"Thus Luther at that time already,\" says\nAlbrecht, \"selected this place for Confession and retained it later on,\nwhen [1531] he furnished another form of confession for the Catechism\nwhich to him seemed more appropriate.\" The gradual insertion of a new\nchief part (of Confession and Absolution) between Baptism and the Lord's\nSupper was therefore entirely according to Luther's mind; indeed, it had\nvirtually been carried out by him as early as 1529.\n\nThe original part Of Confession, however, was no catechetical and\ndoctrinal part in the proper sense of the word, but purely a liturgical\nformula of Confession, even the Absolution being omitted. It merely\ncontained two confessions similar to the forms found in the Book of\nConcord, page 552, sections 21 to 23. Hence Luther, in the edition of\n1531, replaced it with a catechetico-liturgical form entitled, \"How the\nUnlearned Should be Taught to Confess.\" It is identical with the one\nfound in the Book of Concord of 1580, save only that the original\ncontained the words, \"What is Confession? Answer,\" which are omitted in\nthe German Concordia. Luther placed the part Of Confession between\nBaptism and the Lord's Supper, thereby actually making this the fifth\nand the Lord's Supper the sixth chief part. And when later on (for in\nLuther's editions the chief parts are not numbered) the figures were\nadded, Confession could but receive the number 5, and the Lord's Supper,\n6. Thus, then, the sequence of the six parts, as found in the Book of\nConcord, was, in a way, chosen by Luther himself.\n\n113. Office of the Keys and Christian Questions.\n\nThe three questions on the Office of the Keys in the fifth chief part\nform the most important and independent addition to Luther's Small\nCatechism. However, they are not only in complete agreement with\nLuther's doctrine of Absolution, but, in substance, also contained in\nwhat he himself offered in the part Of Confession. For what Luther says\nin paragraphs 26 to 28 in a liturgical form is expressed and explained\nin the three questions on the Office of the Keys in a doctrinal and\ncatechetical form. Not being formulated by Luther, however, they were\nnot received into the Book of Concord. In the Nuernberg _Text-Booklet_\nof 1531 they are placed before Baptism. Thence they were taken over into\nthe Nuernberg _Children's Sermons_ of 1533 as a substitute for Luther's\nform of Confession. Andrew Osiander, in the draft of his Church Order of\n1531, in the article on \"Catechism and the Instruction of Children,\"\nadded as sixth to the five chief parts: \"Of the Keys of the Church, or\nthe Power to Bind and to Unbind from Sins,\" quoting as Bible-verse the\npassage: \"The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples,\" etc. Brenz, though\nnot, as frequently assumed, the author of the Nuernberg Catechism, also\ncontributed toward introducing and popularizing this part of the\nCatechism. In his Questions of 1535 and 1536, which appeared in the\nAppendix to the Latin translation of Luther's Large Catechism, he\noffered an original treatment to the Keys of Heaven, as the sixth chief\npart, on the basis of Matt. 16, 19; Luke 19, 16; John 20, 22f.\nThirty-six years after the first publication of Luther's Catechisms,\nMathesius, in his _Sermons on the Life of Luther,_ also speaks of six\nchief parts of catechetical instruction; but he enumerates Absolution as\nthe part between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, hence as the fifth chief\npart of the Catechism.\n\nAs to the Christian Questions for Those Who Intend to Go to the\nSacrament, it was claimed very early that Luther was the author. They\nwere first published in 1549, and a number of separate impressions\nfollowed. After 1558 they are usually found in the appendix to the Small\nCatechism. The Note, \"These questions and answers,\" etc., designating\nLuther as the author, first appeared in an edition of 1551. Together\nwith this note, the Questions are found in an undated Wittenberg edition\nof the Small Catechism, which appeared about 1560, containing pictures\ndated 1551. Referring to this edition, the Wittenberg proof-reader,\nChristopher Walther, in a polemical writing (1566) against Aurifaber,\nasserted that the Questions were not written by Luther, but by John Lang\nof Erfurt (+ 1548). The question at issue has not yet been decided. For\nwhile the contents of the Questions reproduce, from beginning to end,\nLuther's thoughts, and the last answers are almost literally taken from\nthe Large Catechism, we have no evidence that Luther compiled them; but,\non the other hand, also no convincing proof against this. Claus Harms\nand Koellner asserted that Luther is the author of the Questions, while\nKliefoth and Loehe declared it as probable.--The Introduction to the Ten\nCommandments, \"I the Lord, thy God,\" and the Doxology, at the close of\nthe Lord's Prayer, were added after Luther's death.\n\n114. The Table of Duties--Haustafel.\n\nThe eighth and last chart of the Catechism differed from the preceding\nones in that it was superscribed: \"Table of Duties (Haustafel),\nConsisting of Certain Passages of Scripture for Various Holy Orders and\nStations. Whereby These are to be Admonished, as by a Special Lesson,\nRegarding Their Office and Service.\" The exact time when Luther drew up\nthis Table is not known. The latest date to which its composition can be\nassigned is the end of April or the beginning of May, 1529. It may,\nhowever, be questioned whether it was published at all as a placard. The\ntwo groups of passages: \"What the Hearers Owe to Their Pastors,\" and:\n\"What Subjects Owe to Their Government,\" are probably not from Luther.\nFollowing are the grounds supporting this view: 1. They are not\ncontained in the German editions but appeared for the first time in the\nLatin translation. 2. Their superscriptions differ in form from those of\nthe other groups. 3. They adduce quite a number of Bible-verses, and\nrepeat some already quoted, _e.g._, 1 Tim. 2, 1, Rom. 13, 1. The German\nBook of Concord omitted these passages, while the Latin Concordia of\n1580 and 1584 embodied them. Albrecht writes: \"The Table of Duties is an\noriginal part of the Catechism, bearing a true Lutheran stamp. But it\nwas old material worked over, as is the case almost throughout the Small\nCatechism.\" \"The oft-repeated assertion, however, that the Table of\nDuties was borrowed from the catechism of the Waldensians or Bohemian\nBrethren, is not correct. For this Table is not found in the Catechism\nof the Brethren of 1522, with which Luther was acquainted, but first in\nGyrick's Catechism of 1554, in which Lutheran material is embodied also\nin other places.\" (W. 30, 1, 645.)\n\nThe confession books of the Middle Ages, however, which classified sins\naccording to the social estates, and especially John Gerson's tract (_De\nModo Vivendi Omnium Fidelium_ reprinted at Wittenberg 1513), which\ntreated of the offices of all sorts of lay-people in every station of\nlife, may have prompted Luther to draw up this Table. But, says\nAlbrecht, \"it certainly grew under his hand into something new and\ncharacteristic. The old material is thoroughly shortened, sifted,\nsupplemented, newly arranged, recast. While Gerson's tract throughout\nbears the stamp of the Middle Ages, Luther's Table of Duties, with its\nappeal to the Scriptures alone, its knowledge of what is a 'holy\nestate,' its teaching that, as divine ordinances, civil government and\nthe household (when embraced by the common order of Christian love) are\nequally as holy as the priesthood, reveals the characteristic marks of\nthe Reformer's new ideal of life, which, rooting in his faith, and\nopposed to the hierarchy and monkery of the Middle Ages, as well as to\nthe fanaticism of the Anabaptists, became of far-reaching importance for\nthe entire moral thought of the succeeding centuries.\" (647.)\n\nGrimm's Lexicon defines \"Haustafel\" as \"_der Abschnitt des Katechismus,\nder ueber die Pflichten des Hausstandes handelt,_ that section of the\nCatechism which treats of the duties of the household.\" This verbal\ndefinition, suggested by the term, is too narrow, since Luther's\n\"Haustafel\" is designed \"for various holy orders and estates,\"\nmagistrates and pastors included. Still, the term is not on this account\ninappropriate. Table (_Tafel, tabula_) signifies in general a roster, a\nlist, or index of leading points, with or without reference to the chart\nform. And such a table suspended in the home and employed in the\ninstruction of the home congregation, is properly termed \"Haustafel.\"\nAgreeably to this, Andreas Fabricius, in 1569, called the \"Haustafel\" a\ndomestic table of works, _tabula operum domestica._ Daniel Kauzmann, in\nhis _Handbook_ (16 sermons on the Catechism) of 1569, says: \"It is\ncalled 'Haustafel' of the Christians because every Christian should\ndaily view it and call to mind therefrom his calling, as from a table\nwhich portrays and presents to every one what pertains to him. It\nteaches all the people who may be in a house what each one ought to do\nor to leave undone in his calling.\" (642.)\n\nIn his _Catechismus Lutheri_ of 1600 Polycarp Leyser offers the\nfollowing explanation: \"Why are these passages called a table? Beyond\ndoubt this is due to the fact that, from of old, good ordinances have\nbeen written and graven on tables. So did God, who prescribed His Law to\nthe Jews in ten commandments on two tables. Similarly Solon wrote the\nlaws of Athens on tables. The Romans also had their law of twelve tables\nbrought from Athens. And so, when the government to-day issues certain\ncommands, it is customary to suspend them on tables, as also princes and\nlords suspend on tables their court rules. But why is it called\n'Haustafel' when it also treats of preachers and the government? The\nreason for this is given by St. Paul, I Tim. 3, where he calls the\nChurch a house of the living God. For as the housefather in a large\nhouse summons his servants and prescribes to each one what he is to do,\nso God is also wont to call into certain stations those who have been\nreceived into His house by Holy Baptism, and to prescribe to them in\nthis table how each one in his calling shall conduct himself.\" (641.)\n\nConcerning the purpose of the Table of Duties, Albrecht remarks: \"If I\nam correct, Luther, by these additions, would especially inculcate that\nChristianity, the essence of which is set forth in the preceding chief\nparts, must daily be practised.\" That is certainly correct, for the\nCatechism must not only be learned, but lived. And the Table of Duties\nemphasizes the great truth, brought to light again by Luther, that\nChristianity does not consist in any peculiar form of life; as Romish\npriests, monks, and nuns held, who separated themselves from the world\noutwardly, but that it is essentially faith of the heart, which,\nhowever, is not to flee into cloisters and solitudes but courageously\nand cheerfully to plunge into practical life with its natural forms and\nrelations as ordained by Creation, there to be tried as well as\nglorified. In his _Admonition to the Clergy,_ 1530, Luther says:\n\"Furthermore, by such abominable doctrine all truly good works which God\nappointed and ordained were despised and utterly set at naught [by the\nPapists]. For instance, lord, subject, father, mother, son, daughter,\nservant, maid were not regarded as good works, but were called\nworldliness, dangerous estates, and lost works.\" (W. 30, 2, 291.) The\nTable of Duties is a protest against such perverted views. For here\nLuther considers not only the calling of preachers and teachers, but\nalso all those of government and subjects, of fathers, mothers, and\nchildren, of masters and servants, of mistresses and maids, of employees\nand employers, as \"holy orders and estates,\" in which a Christian may\nlive with a good conscience, and all of which the Catechism is to\npermeate with its truths. \"Out into the stream of life with the\nCatechism you have learned!\" Such, then, is the admonition which, in\nparticular, the Table of Duties adds to the preceding parts of the\nCatechism.\n\n115. Symbolical Authority of Catechisms.\n\nThe symbolical authority of Luther's Catechisms must be distinguished\nfrom the practical use to which they were put in church, school, and\nhome. As to his doctrine, Luther knew it to be the pure truth of the\ndivine Word. Hence he could not but demand that every one acknowledge\nit. Self-evidently this applies also to the doctrinal contents of the\nCatechisms. Luther, however, did not insist that his Catechisms be made\nthe books of instruction in church, school, and home; he only desired\nand counseled it. If for the purpose of instruction the form of his\nSmall Catechism did not suit any one, let him, said Luther, choose\nanother. In the Preface to the Small Catechism he declared: \"Hence,\nchoose whatever form you think best, and adhere to it forever.\" Again,\n\"Take the form of these tables or some other short, fixed form of your\nchoice, and adhere to it without the change of a single syllable.\"\nSelf-evidently Luther is here not speaking of the doctrine of the\nCatechism, but of the form to be used for instruction. And with respect\nto the latter he makes no demands whatever. However, the contents of\nthese books and the name of the author sufficed to procure for them the\nwidest circulation and the most extensive use. Everywhere the doors of\nchurches, schools, and homes were opened to the writings of Luther.\n\nThe tables had hardly been published when catechism instruction already\ngenerally was given according to Luther's Explanation. The church\nregulations, first in Saxony, then also in other lands, provided that\nLuther's Small Catechism be memorized word for word, and that preaching\nbe according to the Large Catechism. The Church Order of Henry the\nPious, 1539, declares: \"There shall not be taught a different catechism\nin every locality, but one and the same form, as presented by Dr. Martin\nLuther at Wittenberg, shall be observed everywhere.\" In 1533 the\nministers of Allstaedt were ordered \"to preach according to Luther's\nLarge Catechism.\" (Kolde, 63.) The authority of the Catechisms grew\nduring the controversies after Luther's death, when the faithful\nLutherans appealed to the Smalcald Articles and especially to Luther's\nCatechisms. The Lueneburg Articles of 1561 designate them, together with\nthe Smalcald Articles, as the correct \"explication and explanation\" of\nthe true sense of the Augustana. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum_ of\n1564 declares that \"the sum of Christian and evangelical doctrine is\npurely and correctly contained in Luther's Catechisms.\" Their authority\nas a genuinely Lutheran norm of doctrine increased when the Reformed of\nGermany, in 1563, made the Heidelberg Catechism their particular\nconfession.\n\nLike the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms achieved their\nsymbolical authority by themselves, without resolutions of princes\nestates, and theologians. The Thorough Declaration of the Formula of\nConcord is merely chronicling actual facts when it adopts the Catechisms\nfor this reason: \"because they have been unanimously approved and\nreceived by all churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and have\nbeen publicly used in churches, schools, and homes, and, moreover,\nbecause the Christian doctrine from God's Word is comprised in them in\nthe most correct and simple way, and, in like manner, is explained, as\nfar as necessary for simple laymen.\" (852, 8.) The Epitome adds: \"And\nbecause such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their\nsouls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther as\nthey are included in Luther's works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein\neverything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy\nScripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his\nsalvation.\" (777, 5.)\n\n116. Enemies and Friends of Small Catechism.\n\nIn recent times liberal German theologians, pastors, and teachers have\nendeavored to dislodge Luther's Small Catechism from its position in\nchurch, school, and home. As a rule, these attacks were made in the name\nof pedagogy; the real cause, however, were their liberal dogmatical\nviews. The form was mentioned and assailed, but the contents were meant.\nAs a sample of this hostility we quote the pedagog, philologian, and\nhistorian Dr. Ludwig Gurlitt (_Die Zukunft,_ Vol. 17, No. 6, p.222): \"At\nthe beginning of the sixteenth century,\" he says, \"a monk eloped from a\ncloister and wrote a religious book of instruction for the German\nchildren. At the time it was a bold innovation, the delight of all\nfreethinkers and men of progress, of all who desired to serve the\nfuture. This book, which will soon celebrate its five-[four-]hundredth\nanniversary, is still the chief book of instruction for German children.\nTrue, its contents already are so antiquated that parents reject almost\nevery sentence of it for themselves; true, the man of today understands\nits language only with difficulty--what of it, the children must gulp\ndown the moldy, musty food. How we would scoff and jeer if a similar\nreport were made about the school system of China! To this Lutheran\nCatechism, which I would best like to see in state libraries only, are\nadded many antiquated hymns of mystical turgidity, which a simple youth,\neven with the best will does not know how to use. All outlived! Faith in\nthe Bible owes its existence only to the tough power and law of inertia.\nIt is purely mechanical thinking and speaking which the schoolmaster\npreaches to them and pounds into them. We continue thus because we are\ntoo indolent to fight, or because we fear an enlightened people.\"\n\nThe best refutation of such and similar aspersions is a reference to the\nenormous circulation which Luther's Small Catechism has enjoyed, to its\ncountless editions, translations, elaborations, and its universal use in\nchurch, school, and home for four centuries. Thirty-seven years after\nthe publication of Luther's Catechisms, Mathesius wrote: \"Praise God it\nis said that in our times over one hundred thousand copies have been\nprinted and used in great numbers in all kinds of languages in foreign\nlands and in all Latin and German schools.\" And since then, down to the\npresent day, millions and millions of hands have been stretched forth to\nreceive Luther's catechetical classic. While during the last four\ncenturies hundreds of catechisms have gone under, Luther's Enchiridion\nis afloat to-day and is just as seaworthy as when it was first launched.\nA person, however, endowed with an average measure of common sense will\nhardly be able to believe that the entire Lutheran Church has, for four\ncenturies, been so stupid as would have been the case if men of Dr.\nGurlitt's stripe had spoken only half the truth in their criticisms.\n\nMoreover, the number of detractors disappears in the great host of\nfriends who down to the present day have not tired of praising the\nCatechisms, especially the Enchiridion. They admire its artistic and\nperfect form; its harmonious grouping, as of the petals of a flower, the\nmelody and rhythm of its language, notably in the explanation of the\nSecond Article, its clarity, perspicuity, and popularity; its\nsimplicity, coupled with depth and richness of thought; the absence of\npolemics and of theological terminology, etc. However, with all this and\nmany other things which have been and might be said in praise of the\nCatechism, the feature which made it what it truly was, a Great Deed of\nthe Reformation, has not as yet been pointed out. Luther Paulinized,\nEvangelicalized, the Catechism by properly setting forth in his\nexplanations the _finis historiae,_ the blessed meaning of the great\ndeeds of God, the doctrine of justificaiton. Indeed, also Luther's\nCatechism is, in more than one way, conditioned by its times, but in its\nkernel, in its doctrine, it contains, as Albrecht puts it, \"timeless,\nnever-aging material. For in it pulsates the heartbeat of the primitive\nChristian faith, as witnessed by the apostles, and experienced anew by\nthe Reformer.\" (648.) This, too, is the reason why Luther's Enchiridion\nis, indeed, as G. v. Zezschwitz remarks, \"a booklet which a theologian\nnever finishes learning, and a Christian never finishes living.\"\n\n117. Evaluation of Small Catechism.\n\nLuther himself reckoned his Catechisms among his most important books.\nIn his letter to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, he writes: \"I am quite\ncold and indifferent about arranging my books, for, incited by a\nSaturnine hunger, I would much rather have them all devoured, _eo quod\nSaturnina fame percitus magis cuperem eos omnes devoratos._ For none do\nI acknowledge as really my books, except perhaps _De Servo Arbitrio_ and\nthe Catechism.\" (Enders, 11, 247.) Justus Jonas declares: \"The Catechism\nis but a small booklet, which can be purchased for six pfennige but six\nthousand worlds could not pay for it.\" He believed that the Holy Ghost\ninspired the blessed Luther to write it. Mathesius says \"If in his\ncareer Luther had produced and done no other good thing than to give his\ntwo Catechisms to homes, schools, and pulpits, the entire world could\nnever sufficiently thank or repay him for it.\" J. Fr. Mayer: \"_Tot res\nquot verba. Tot utilitates, quot apices complectens. Pagellis brevis,\nsed rerum theologicarum amplitudine incomparabilis._ As many thoughts as\nwords; as many uses as there are characters in the book. Brief in pages,\nbut incomparable in amplitude of theological thoughts.\"\n\nIn his dedicatory epistle of 1591, to Chemnitz's _Loci,_ Polycarp Leyser\nsays: \"That sainted man, Martin Luther, never took greater pains than\nwhen he drew up into a brief sum those prolix expositions which he\ntaught most energetically in his various books.... Therefore he composed\nthe Short Catechism, which is more precious than gold or gems, in which\nthe pure doctrine of the prophets and apostles (_prophetica et\napostolica doctrinae puritas_) is summed up into one integral doctrinal\nbody, and set forth in such clear words that it may justly be considered\nworthy of the Canon (for everything has been drawn from the canonical\nScriptures). I can truthfully affirm that this very small book contains\nsuch a wealth of so many and so great things that, if all faithful\npreachers of the Gospel during their entire lives would do nothing else\nin their sermons than explain aright to the common people the secret\nwisdom of God comprised in those few words and set forth from the divine\nScriptures the solid ground upon which each word is built they could\nnever exhaust this immense abyss.\"\n\nLeopold von Ranke, in his _German History of the Time of the\nReformation,_ 1839, declares: \"The Catechism which Luther published in\n1529, and of which he said that he, old Doctor though he was, prayed it,\nis as childlike as it is deep, as comprehensible as it is unfathomable,\nsimple, and sublime. Blessed is the man who nourishes his soul with it,\nwho adheres to it! He has imperishable comfort in every moment: under a\nthin shell the kernel of truth, which satisfies the wisest of the wise.\"\n\nLoehe, another enthusiastic panegyrist of Luther, declares: \"The Small\nLutheran Catechism can be read and spoken throughout with a praying\nheart; in short, it can be prayed. This can be said of no other\ncatechism. It contains the most definitive doctrine, resisting every\nperversion, and still it is not polemical--it exhales the purest air of\npeace. In it is expressed the manliest and most developed knowledge, and\nyet it admits of the most blissful contemplation the soul may wish for.\nIt is a confession of the Church, and of all, the best known, the most\nuniversal, in which God's children most frequently meet in conscious\nfaith, and still this universal confession speaks in a most pleasing\npersonal tone. Warm, hearty, childlike, yet it is so manly, so\ncourageous, so free the individual confessor speaks here. Of all the\nconfessions comprised in the Concordia of 1580, this is the most\nyouthful, the clearest, and the most penetrating note in the harmonious\nchime, and, withal, as rounded and finished as any. One may say that in\nit the firmest objectiveness appears in the garb of the most pleasing\nsubjectiveness.\"\n\nSchmauk writes: \"The Small Catechism is the real epitome of Lutheranism\nin the simplest, the most practical, the most modern and living, and, at\nthe same time, the most radical form. It steers clear of all obscure\nhistorical allusions; it contains no condemnatory articles, it is based\non the shortest and the oldest of the ecumenical symbols. It is not a\nwork for theologians, but for every Lutheran; and it is not nearly as\nlarge as the Augsburg Confession.\" (_Conf. Prin.,_ 696.)\n\nMcGiffert says: \"In 1529 appeared his [Luther's] Large and Small\nCatechisms, the latter containing a most beautiful summary of Christian\nfaith and duty, wholly devoid of polemics of every kind, and so simple\nand concise as to be easily understood and memorized by every child. It\nhas formed the basis of the religious education of German youth ever\nsince. Though preceded by other catechisms from the pen of this and that\ncolleague or disciple, it speedily displaced them all, not simply\nbecause of its authorship, but because of its superlative merit, and has\nalone maintained itself in general use. The versatility of the Reformer\nin adapting himself with such success to the needs of the young and\nimmature is no less than extraordinary. Such a little book as this it is\nthat reveals most clearly the genius of the man.\" (_Life of Luther,_\n316.)\n\nO. Albrecht writes: \"Reverently adhering to the churchly tradition and\npermeating it with the new understanding of the Gospel, such are the\ncharacteristics of Luther's Catechisms, especially the Small Catechism.\"\n\"On every page new and original features appear beside the traditional\nelements.\" \"The essential doctrinal content of the booklet is thoroughly\noriginal; in it Luther offered a carefully digested presentation of the\nessence of Christianity, according to his own understanding as the\nReformer, in a manner adapted to the comprehension of children--a\nsimple, pithy description of his own personal Christian piety, without\npolemics and systematization, but with the convincing power of\nexperienced truth.\" (W. 30, 1, 647.)--Similar testimonies might easily\nbe multiplied and have been collected and published repeatedly.\n\nThe best praise, however, comes from the enemy in the form of imitation\nor even verbal appropriation. Albrecht says: \"Old Catholic catechetes,\nand not the worst, have not hesitated to draw on Luther's Large\nCatechism. If one peruses the widely spread catechism of the Dominican\nmonk John Dietenberger, of 1537 (reprinted by Maufang in his work on the\nCatholic Catechisms of the sixteenth century, 1881), one is frequently\nedified and delighted by the diligence with which, besides older\nmaterial, Luther's Large and Small Catechisms, as well as the Nuernberg\nCatechism-sermons of 1533, have been exploited\" (W. 30, 1, 497.)\n\n118. Literary Merit of Small Catechism.\n\nMoenckeberg remarks: The Small Catechism betrays \"the imperfection of\nthe haste in which it had to be finished.\" As a matter of fact, however,\nLuther, the master of German, paid much attention also to its language\nin order, by pithy brevity and simple, attractive form, to make its\nglorious truths the permanent property of the children and unlearned who\nmemorized it. In his publication \"_Zur Sprache und Geschichte des\nKleinen Katechismus Luthers,_ Concerning the Language and History of\nLuther's Small Catechism,\" 1909, J. Gillhoff writes: \"Here, if ever,\narose a master of language, who expressed the deepest mysteries in\nsounds most simple. Here, if ever, there was created in the German\nlanguage and spirit, and in brief compass, a work of art of German\nprose. If ever the gods blessed a man to create, consciously or\nunconsciously, on the soil of the people and their needs, a perfect work\nof popular art in the spirit of the people and in the terms of their\nspeech, to the weal of the people and their youth throughout the\ncenturies, it was here. The explanation of the Second Article is one of\nthe chief creations of the home art of German poetry. And such it is,\nnot for the reason that it rises from desert surroundings, drawing\nattention to itself alone, but because it sums up and crowns the\ncharacter of the book throughout.\" (16.)\n\nSpeaking in particular of the Second Article, Bang, in 1909, said in his\nlecture \"_Luthers Kleiner Katechismus, ein Kleinod der Volksschule_\n--Luther's Small Catechism, a Jewel of the Public Schools\": \"The\nCatechism is precious also for the reason that Luther in the\nexplanations strikes a personal, subjective, confessional note. When at\nhome I read the text of the Second Article in silence, and then read\nLuther's explanation aloud, it seems to me as if a hymn rushing\nheavenward arises from the lapidary record of facts. It is no longer the\nlanguage of the word, but of the sound as well. The text reports\nobjectively, like the language of a Roman, writing tables of law. The\nexplanation witnesses and confesses subjectively. It is Christianity\ntransformed into flesh and blood. It sounds like an oath of allegiance\nto the flag. In its ravishing tone we perceive the marching tread of the\nmyriads of believers of nineteen centuries; we see them moving onward\nunder the fluttering banner of the cross in war, victory, and peace. And\nwe, too, by a power which cannot be expressed in words, are drawn into\nthe great, blessed experience of our ancestors and champions. Who would\ndare to lay his impious hands on this consecrated, inherited jewel, and\nrob the coming generations of it?!\" (20.)\n\n\nX. The Smalcald War and the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims.\n\n119. Bulwark of Peace Removed.\n\nLuther died on the day of Concordia, February 18, 1546. With him peace\nand concord departed from the Lutheran Church. His death was everywhere\nthe signal for action against true Lutheranism on the part of both its\navowed enemies and false brethren. As long as that hero of faith and\nprayer was still living, the weight of his personal influence and\nauthority proved to be a veritable bulwark of peace and doctrinal purity\nagainst the enemies within as well as without the Church. Though enemies\nseeking to devour had been lurking long ago, the powerful and commanding\npersonality of Luther had checked all forces making for war from without\nand for dissension from within. The Emperor could not be induced to\nattack the Lutherans. He knew that they would stand united and strong as\nlong as the Hero of the Reformation was in their midst. Nor were the\nfalse brethren able to muster up sufficient courage to come out into the\nopen and publish their errors while the voice of the lion was heard.\n\nBut no sooner had Luther departed than strife began its distracting\nwork. War, political as well as theological, followed in the wake of his\ndeath. From the grave of the fallen hero a double specter began to loom\nup. Pope and Emperor now joined hands to crush Protestantism by brute\nforce as they had planned long ago. The result was the Smalcald War. The\nsecret enemies which Lutheranism harbored within its own bosom began\nboldly to raise their heads. Revealing their true colors and coming out\nin the open with their pernicious errors, they caused numerous\ncontroversies which spread over all Germany (Saxony, the cradle of the\nReformation, becoming the chief battlefield), and threatened to undo\ncompletely the blessed work of Luther, to disrupt and disintegrate the\nChurch, or to pervert it into a unionistic or Reformed sect. Especially\nthese discreditable internal dissensions were a cause of deep\nhumiliation and of anxious concern to all loyal Lutherans. To the\nRomanists and Reformed, however, who united in predicting the impending\ncollapse of Lutheranism, they were a source of malicious and triumphant\nscoffing and jeering. A prominent theologian reported that by 1566\nmatters had come to such a pass in Germany that the old Lutheran\ndoctrine was publicly proclaimed only in relatively few places. In the\nPalatinate public thanks were rendered to God in the churches that also\nElectoral Saxony was now about to join them. The Jesuits insisted that,\nhaving abandoned the doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper,\nthe Lutherans were no longer genuine Lutherans and hence no more\nentitled to the privileges guaranteed by the Peace of Augsburg (1555).\nThat the final result of this turmoil, political as well as theological,\nproved a blessing to the Lutheran Church must be regarded and ever\ngratefully remembered as a special grace and a remarkable favor of\nAlmighty God.\n\n120. Luther Foretold Coming Distress.\n\nThough fully conscious of the gravity of the political and theological\nsituation, and convinced that war and dissensions were bound to come,\nLuther was at the same time confident that it would not occur during his\nlife. With respect to the coming war he said: \"With great earnestness I\nhave asked God, and still pray daily, that He would thwart their [the\nPapists'] plan and suffer no war to come upon Germany during my life.\nAnd I am confident that God surely hears such prayer of mine, and I know\nthat there will be no war in Germany as long as I shall live.\" (St. L.\n9, 1856.) In his Commentary on the Book of Genesis he wrote: \"It is a\ngreat consolation when he says (Is. 57, 1) that the righteous are taken\naway from the evil to come. Thus we, too, shall die in peace before\nmisfortune and misery overtake Germany.\" (St. L. 1, 1758.)\n\nLuther spoke frequently also of the impending doctrinal dissensions. As\nearly as 1531 he declared that the Gospel would abide only a short time.\n\"When the present pious, true preachers will be dead,\" said he, \"others\nwill come who will preach and act as it pleases the devil.\" (8, 72.) In\n1546 he said in a sermon preached at Wittenberg: \"Up to this time you\nhave heard the real, true Word; now beware of your own thoughts and\nwisdom. The devil will kindle the light of reason and lead you away\nfrom the faith, as he did the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians.... I see\nclearly that, if God does not give us faithful preachers and ministers,\nthe devil will tear our church to pieces by the fanatics\n(_Rottengeister_), and will not cease until he has finished. Such is\nplainly his object. If he cannot accomplish it through the Pope and the\nEmperor, he will do it through those who are [now] in doctrinal\nagreement with us.... Therefore pray earnestly that God may preserve\nthe Word to you, for things will come to a dreadful pass.\" (12, 1174.\n437.)\n\nReading the signs of the times, Melanchthon also realized that Luther's\nprophecies would be fulfilled. His address to the students of Wittenberg\nUniversity, on February 19, 1546, in which he announced the death of\nLuther, concludes: \"_Obiit auriga et currus Israel._ He is dead, the\nchariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof, who guided the Church in\nthis last old age of the world. For the doctrine of the forgiveness of\nsins and of faith in the Son of God was not discovered by human\nsagacity, but revealed by God through this man. Let us therefore love\nhis memory and his teaching, and may we be all the more humble and\nponder the terrible calamity and the great changes which will follow\nthis misfortune.\" (_C. R._ 6, 59.)\n\nNor were these prophecies of Luther mere intuitions or deductions based\non general reflections only. They were inductions from facts which he\nhad not failed to observe at Wittenberg, even in his immediate\nsurroundings. Seckendorf relates that Luther, when sick at Smalcald in\n1537, told the Elector of Saxony that after his death, discord would\nbreak out in the University of Wittenberg and that his doctrine would be\nchanged. (_Comm. de Lutheranismo_ 3, 165.) In his Preface to Luther's\nTable Talk, John Aurifaber reports that Luther had frequently predicted\nthat after his death his doctrine would wane and decline because of\nfalse brethren, fanatics, and sectarians, and that the truth, which in\n1530 had been placed on a pinnacle at Augsburg, would descend into the\nvalley, since the Word of God had seldom flourished more than forty\nyears in one place. (Richard, _Conf. Hist_., 311.) Stephanus Tucher, a\nfaithful Lutheran preacher of Magdeburg, wrote in 1549: \"Doctor Martin\nLuther, of sainted memory, has frequently repeated before many\ntrustworthy witnesses, and also before Doctor Augustine Schurf, these\nwords: 'After my death not one of these [Wittenberg] theologians will\nremain steadfast.'\" Tucher adds: \"This I have heard of Doctor Augustine\nSchurf not once, but frequently. Therefore I also testify to it before\nChrist, my Lord, the righteous Judge,\" etc. (St. L. 12, 1177; Walther,\n_Kern und Stern,_ 7.)\n\nIt was, above all, the spirit of indifferentism toward false doctrine,\nparticularly concerning the Lord's Supper, which Luther observed and\ndeplored in his Wittenberg colleagues: Melanchthon, Bugenhagen,\nCruciger, Eber, and Major. Shortly before his last journey to Eisleben\nhe invited them to his house, where he addressed to them the following\nsolemn words of warning: They should \"remain steadfast in the Gospel;\nfor I see that soon after my death the most prominent brethren will fall\naway. I am not afraid of the Papists,\" he added, \"for most of them are\ncoarse, unlearned asses and Epicureans; but our brethren will inflict\nthe damage on the Gospel; for 'they went out from us, but they were not\nof us' (1 John 2, 19); they will give the Gospel a harder blow than did\nthe Papists.\" About the same time Luther had written above the entrance\nto his study: \"Our professors are to be examined on the Lord's Supper.\"\nWhen Major, who was about to leave for the colloquy at Regensburg,\nentered and inquired what these words signified, Luther answered: \"The\nmeaning of these words is precisely what you read and what they say; and\nwhen you and I shall have returned, an examination will have to be held,\nto which you as well as others will be cited.\" Major protested that he\nwas not addicted to any false doctrine. Luther answered: \"It is by your\nsilence and cloaking that you cast suspicion upon yourself. If you\nbelieve as you declare in my presence, then speak so also in the church,\nin public lectures, in sermons, and in private conversations, and\nstrengthen your brethren, and lead the erring back to the right path,\nand contradict the contumacious spirits; otherwise your confession is\nsham pure and simple, and worth nothing. Whoever really regards his\ndoctrine, faith and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remain\nin the same stall with such as teach, or adhere to, false doctrine; nor\ncan he keep on giving friendly words to Satan and his minions. A teacher\nwho remains silent when errors are taught, and nevertheless pretends to\nbe a true teacher, is worse than an open fanatic and by his hypocrisy\ndoes greater damage than a heretic. Nor can he be trusted. He is a wolf\nand a fox, a hireling and a servant of his belly, and ready to despise\nand to sacrifice doctrine, Word, faith, Sacrament, churches, and\nschools. He is either a secret bedfellow of the enemies or a skeptic and\na weathervane, waiting to see whether Christ or the devil will prove\nvictorious; or he has no convictions of his own whatever, and is not\nworthy to be called a pupil, let alone a teacher; nor does he want to\noffend anybody, or say a word in favor of Christ, or hurt the devil and\nthe world.\" (Walther, 39f.)\n\n121. Unfortunate Issue of Smalcald War.\n\nAll too soon the predictions of Luther, and the fears expressed by\nMelanchthon and others, were realized. June 26, 1546, four months after\nLuther's death, Pope and Emperor entered into a secret agreement to\ncompel the Protestants by force of arms to acknowledge the decrees of\nthe Council of Trent, and to return to the bosom of the Roman Church.\nThe covenant provided that, \"in the name of God and with the help and\nassistance of His Papal Holiness, His Imperial Majesty should prepare\nhimself for war, and equip himself with soldiers and everything\npertaining to warfare against those who objected to the Council, against\nthe Smalcald League, and against all who were addicted to the false\nbelief and error in Germany, and that he do so with all his power and\nmight in order to bring them back to the old [papal] faith and to the\nobedience of the Holy See.\" The Pope promised to assist the Emperor with\n200,000 Krontaler, more than 12,000 Italian soldiers, and quite a number\nof horsemen. He furthermore permitted the Emperor to appropriate, for\nthe purpose of this war, one half of the total income of the church\nproperty in Spain and 500,000 Krontaler from the revenue of the Spanish\ncloisters.\n\nWhile the Emperor endeavored to veil the real purpose of his\npreparations, the Pope openly declared in a bull of July 4, 1546: \"From\nthe beginning of our Papacy it has always been our concern how to root\nout the weeds of godless doctrines which the heretics have sowed\nthroughout Germany.... Now it has come to pass that, by the inspiration\nof the Holy Ghost, our dearest son in Christ, Charles, the Roman\nEmperor, has decided to employ the sword against these enemies of God.\nAnd for the protection of religion we intend to promote this pious\nenterprise with all our own and the Roman Church's possessions.\nAccordingly, we admonish all Christians to assist in this war with their\nprayers to God and their alms, in order that the godless heresy may be\nrooted out and the dissension removed.... To each and all who do these\nthings we grant the most complete indulgence and remission of all their\nsins.\" (St. L. 17, 1453ff. Walther, 10.)\n\nThe Smalcald War, so called because it was directed against the Smalcald\nLeague, was easily won by the Emperor. Among the causes of this\nunfortunate issue were the neutral attitude of Joachim II of Brandenburg\nand of other Lutheran princes, and especially the treachery of the\nambitious and unscrupulous Maurice, Duke of Saxony and nephew of Elector\nJohn Frederick of Saxony, who, in order to gain the Electorate of\nSaxony, had made a secret agreement with the Emperor according to which\nhe was to join his forces with those of the Emperor against the\nLutherans. The decisive battle was fought at Muehlberg on the Elbe,\nApril 24, 1547. It proved to be a crushing defeat for the Protestants.\nThe Elector himself was taken captive, treated as a rebel, and sentenced\nto death. The sentence was read to him while he was playing chess with\nhis fellow-captive, Duke Ernest of Lueneburg. John Frederick answered,\nhe did not believe that the Emperor would deal so severely with him; if,\nhowever, he were in earnest, they should let him know that he might\norder his affairs with his wife and children. He then calmly turned to\nthe Duke, saying: \"Let us continue the game; it's your move.\" (Jaekel,\n_G. d. Ref._ l, 114.) The day after the battle at Muehlberg, Torgau fell\ninto the hands of the Emperor; and when he threatened to execute the\nElector, having already erected a scaffold for this purpose, Wittenberg,\ntoo, though well protected by 5,000 soldiers, signed a capitulation on\nMay 19, in order to save the Elector's life. On the 23d of May,\nWittenberg was occupied by the Emperor. Here Charles, when standing at\nthe grave of Luther, and urged to have the body of \"the heretic\"\nexhumed, spoke the memorable words that he was warring not with the\ndead, but with the living. The death-sentence was rescinded, but, apart\nfrom other cruel conditions forced upon the Elector, he was compelled to\nresign in favor of Maurice and promise to remain in captivity as long as\nthe Emperor should desire. His sons were granted the districts of\nWeimar, Jena, Eisenach, and Gotha. Philip of Hesse surrendered without\nstriking a blow, and was likewise treacherously held in captivity and\nhumiliated in every possible way by the Emperor. The imperial\nplenipotentiaries had assured the Landgrave that he would not be\nimprisoned. Afterwards, however, the words in the document, \"not any\nbodily captivity--_nit eenige Leibesgefangenschaft,_\" were fraudulently\nchanged by Granvella to read, \"not eternal captivity--_nit ewige\nLeibesgefangenschaft_\" (Marheineke, _G. d. Deut. Ref._ 4, 438.) The sons\nof the Landgrave remained in possession of his territory. Thus all of\nSouthern and, barring a few cities, also all of Northern Germany was\nconquered by Charles. Everywhere the Lutherans were at the tender mercy\nof the Emperor, whose undisputed power struck terror into all Germany.\n\n122. The Augsburg Interim.\n\nThe first step to reduce the Lutherans to obedience to the Pope was the\nso-called Augsburg Interim. It was proclaimed by the Emperor at Augsburg\non May 15, 1548, as the law of the Empire under the title: \"Der\nroemischen kaiserlichen Majestaet Erklaerung wie es der Religion halben\nim heiligen Reich bis zu Austrag des gemeinen Concilii gehalten werden\nsoll.\" The people were also forbidden to teach, write, or preach against\nthe document. The Interim had been prepared by the papal bishops Julius\nPflug and Michael Helding and the court-preacher of Elector Joachim of\nBrandenburg, John Agricola, a man with whom Luther had, already since\n1540, refused to have any further intercourse owing to his insincerity\nand duplicity. \"I go forth as the Reformer of all Germany,\" Agricola\nboasted when he left Berlin to attend the Diet at Augsburg, which was to\nopen September 1, 1547. After the Diet he bragged that in Augsburg he\nhad flung the windows wide open for the Gospel; that he had reformed the\nPope and made the Emperor a Lutheran, that a golden time had now\narrived, for the Gospel would be preached in all Europe; that he had not\nonly been present, but had presided at the drafting of the Interim; that\nhe had received 500 crowns from the Emperor and 500 from King Ferdinand,\netc. (Preger, _M. Flacius Illyricus,_ 1, 119.)\n\nThe document, prepared at the command of the Emperor, was called Interim\nbecause its object was to regulate the church affairs until the\nreligious controversy would be finally settled by the Council of Trent,\nto the resolutions of which the Lutherans were required to submit. It\nwas, however, essentially papal. For the time being, indeed, it\npermitted Protestant clergymen to marry, and to celebrate the Lord's\nSupper in both kinds, but demanded the immediate restoration of the\nRomish customs and ceremonies, the acknowledgment of papal supremacy\n_iure divino,_ as well as the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the\nadoption of articles in which the doctrines were all explained in the\nsense of the Catholic dogmas, and in which truth and falsehood, in\ngeneral, were badly mingled. Transubstantiation, the seven sacraments,\nand other papal errors were reaffirmed, while Lutheran tenets, such as\nthe doctrine of justification by faith alone, were either denied or\nomitted. And from the fact that this Interim was nevertheless condemned\nby the Pope and the Romanists, who demanded an unqualified, blind, and\nunconditional submission, the Lutherans could infer what they were to\nexpect after consenting to these interimistic provisions. The general\nconviction among Catholics as well as Protestants was that the Interim\nwas but the first step to a complete return to Romanism. Indeed, soon\nafter its promulgation, the Catholic Electors of Mainz and Koeln\nendeavored to rob the Lutherans also of the use of the cup and of the\nmarriage of the priests. The Elector of Mainz declared all such\nmarriages void and their children bastards. (Jaekel, 162.)\n\nIn the most important point, the doctrine of justification, the Augsburg\nInterim not only omitted the _sola fide,_ but clearly taught that\njustification embraces also renewal. When God justifies a man, the\nInterim declared, He does not only absolve him from his guilt, but also\n\"makes him better by imparting the Holy Ghost, who cleanses his heart\nand incites it through the love of God which is shed abroad in his\nheart.\" (Frank, _Theologie d. Konkordienformel,_ 2, 80.) A man \"is\nabsolved from the guilt of eternal damnation and renewed through the\nHoly Spirit and thus an unjust man becomes just.\" (143.) Again: \"This\nfaith obtains the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which the love of God is\nshed abroad in our hearts; and after this has been added to faith and\nhope, we are truly justified by the infused righteousness which is in\nman; for this righteousness consists in faith, hope, and love.\" (81.)\n\nIn Southern Germany, Charles V and his Italian and Spanish troops,\nemploying brute force, succeeded in rigidly enforcing the Interim\noutwardly and temporarily. Free cities rejecting it were deprived of\ntheir liberties and privileges. Constance, having fallen after a heroic\ndefense, was annexed to Austria. Magdeburg offered the longest\nresistance and was outlawed three times. Defiantly its citizens\ndeclared: \"We are saved neither by an Interim nor by an Exterim, but by\nthe Word of God alone.\" (Jaekel 1, 166.) Refractory magistrates were\ntreated as rebels. Pastors who declined to introduce the Interim were\ndeposed, some were banished, others incarcerated, still others even\nexecuted. In Swabia and along the Rhine about four hundred ministers\nwere willing to suffer imprisonment and banishment rather than conform\nto the Interim. They were driven into exile with their families, and\nsome of them were killed. When Jacob Sturm of Augsburg presented his\ngrievances to Granvella, the latter answered: \"If necessary, one might\nproceed against heretics also with fire.\" \"Indeed,\" Sturm retorted, \"you\nmay kill people by fire, but even in this way you cannot force their\nfaith.\" (165.) Bucer and Fagius, preachers in Augsburg, left for\nEngland. Musculus was deposed because he had preached against the\nInterim. Osiander was compelled to leave Nuernberg, Erhard Schnepf,\nWuerttemberg. Among the fugitives eagerly sought throughout Germany by\nthe imperial henchmen was Brenz in Schwaebisch-Hall, the renowned\ntheologian of Wuerttemberg, who spoke of the Interim only as \"Interitus,\nRuin.\" (_C. R._ 7, 289.) The tombstone of Brenz bears the inscription:\n\"_Voce, stylo, pietate, fide, ardore probatus_--Renowned for his\neloquence, style, piety, faithfulness, and ardor.\" (Jaekel, 164.) A\nprize of 5,000 gulden was offered for the head of Caspar Aquila, who was\none of the first to write against the Interim. (Preger 1, 12.) Of\ncourse, by persecuting and banishing their ministers, the Emperor could\nnot and did not win the people. Elector Frederick II of the Palatinate\nconsented to introduce the Interim. But even in Southern Germany the\nsuccess of the Emperor was apparent rather than real. The churches in\nAugsburg, Ulm, and other cities stood empty as a silent protest against\nthe Interim and imperial tyranny.\n\nIn Northern Germany the Emperor met with more than a mere passive\nresistance on the part of the people as well as the preachers. The\nInterim was regarded as a trap for the Lutherans. The slogan ran: \"There\nis a rogue behind the Interim! _O selig ist der Mann, Der Gott vertrauen\nkann Und willigt nicht ins Interim, Denn es hat den Schalk hinter ihm_!\"\nThe Interim was rejected in Brunswick, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg,\nGoslar, Bremen, Goettingen, Hannover, Einbeck, Eisleben, Mansfeld,\nStolberg, Schwarzburg, Hohenstein, Halle, etc. Joachim of Brandenburg\nendeavored to introduce it, but soon abandoned these efforts. At a\nconvent of 300 preachers assembled in Berlin for the purpose of\nsubscribing to the Interim, an old minister whose name was Leutinger,\narose and declared in the presence of Agricola, the coauthor of the\nInterim: \"I love Agricola, and more than him I love my Elector; but my\nLord Jesus Christ I love most,\" and saying this, he cast the document\nhanded him for subscription into the flames of the fire burning in the\nhearth. Before this, Margrave Hans, of Kuestrin, had flung away the pen\nhanded him for the subscription of the infamous document, saying: \"I\nshall never adopt this poisonous concoction, nor submit to any council.\nRather sword than pen; blood rather than ink!\"\n\nThe three Counts of Mansfeld, Hans Jorge, Hans Albrecht, and Hans\nErnest, declared in a letter of August 20, 1548, to the Emperor: \"Most\ngracious Emperor and Lord! As for our government, the greater part of\nthe people are miners, who have not much to lose and are easily induced\nto leave. Nor are they willing to suffer much coercion. Yet the welfare\nof our whole government depends upon them. Besides, we know that, if we\nshould press the matter, all of the preachers would leave, and the\nresult would be a desolation of preaching and of the Sacraments. And\nafter losing our preachers, our own lives and limbs would not be safe\namong the miners, and we must needs expect a revolt of all the people.\"\n(Walther 19f.) Thus the Interim before long became a dead letter\nthroughout the greater part of Germany.\n\n123. Attitude of John Frederick toward Interim.\n\nIn order to obtain his liberty, the vacillating Philip of Hesse, though\nhe had declined to submit to the resolutions of the Council of Trent,\ndeclared himself willing to adopt the Interim. \"It is better,\" he is\nreported to have said, \"to hear a mass than to play cards,\" etc. (Jaekel\n1, 130. 162.) Special efforts were also made by the Emperor to induce\nJohn Frederick to declare his submission to the Council and to sanction\nthe Interim. But the Elector solemnly protested that this was impossible\nfor him. All attempts to induce him to abandon his religious convictions\nmet with quiet but determined resistance. One of the cruel conditions\nunder which the Emperor was willing to rescind the death-sentence passed\non the Elector was, that he should consent to everything the Emperor or\nthe Council would prescribe in matters of religion. But the Elector\ndeclared: \"I will rather lose my head and suffer Wittenberg to be\nbattered down than submit to a demand that violates my conscience.\n_Lieber will ich meinen Kopf verlieren und Wittenberg zusammenschiessen\nlassen, als eine Forderung eingehen, die mein Gewissen verletzt._\" (1,\n116.) Through Granvella the Emperor promised the Elector liberty if he\nwould sign the Interim. But again the Elector declared decidedly that\nthis was impossible for him.\n\nIn a written answer to the Emperor the ex-Elector declared, boldly\nconfessing his faith: \"I cannot refrain from informing Your Majesty that\nsince the days of my youth I have been instructed and taught by the\nservants of God's Word, and by diligently searching the prophetic and\napostolic Scriptures I have also learned to know, and (this I testify as\nin the sight of God) unswervingly to adhere in my conscience to this,\nthat the articles composing the Augsburg Confession, and whatever is\nconnected therewith, are the correct, true, Christian, pure doctrine,\nconfirmed by, and founded in, the writings of the holy prophets and\napostles, and of the teachers who followed in their footsteps, in such a\nmanner that no substantial objection can be raised against it.... Since\nnow in my conscience I am firmly persuaded of this, I owe this\ngratefulness and obedience to God, who has shown me such unspeakable\ngrace, that, as I desire to obtain eternal salvation and escape eternal\ndamnation, I do not fall away from the truth of His almighty will which\nHis Word has revealed to me, and which I know to be the truth. For such\nis the comforting and also the terrible word of God: 'Whosoever\ntherefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My\nFather which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him\nwill I also deny before My Father which is in heaven,' If I should\nacknowledge and adopt the Interim as Christian and godly, I would have\nto condemn and deny against my own conscience, knowingly and\nmaliciously, the Augsburg Confession, and whatever I have heretofore\nheld and believed concerning the Gospel of Christ, and approve with my\nmouth what I regard in my heart and conscience as altogether contrary\nto the holy and divine Scriptures. This, O my God in heaven, would\nindeed be misusing and cruelly blaspheming Thy holy name,... for which I\nwould have to pay all too dearly with my soul. For this is truly the sin\nagainst the Holy Ghost concerning which Christ says that it shall never\nbe forgiven, neither in this nor in the world to come, _i.e._, in\neternity.\" (Walther, 16.)\n\nThe Emperor was small enough to punish the heroic refusal and bold\nconfession of the Elector by increasing the severity of his\nimprisonment. For now he was deprived of Luther's writings and even of\nthe Bible. But the Elector, who drew the line of submission at his\nconscience and faith, declared, \"that they were able indeed to deprive\nhim of the books, but could not tear out of his heart what he had\nlearned from them.\" And when Musculus and the Lutheran preachers of\nAugsburg whom the Emperor had banished because of their refusal to\nintroduce the Interim, took leave of the Elector, the latter said:\n\"Though the Emperor has banished you from the realm, he has not banished\nyou from heaven. Surely, God will find some other country where you may\npreach His Word.\" (Jaekel. 164.)\n\n124. Melanchthon's Attitude toward the Interim.\n\nIn the beginning, Melanchthon, too, assumed an attitude of defiance over\nagainst the Augsburg Interim. Especially among his friends and in his\nprivate letters he condemned it. In several letters, also to Elector\nMaurice, he and his Wittenberg colleagues declared that they disapproved\nof the document, and that the doctrine must not be denied, changed, nor\nfalsified. (_C. R._ 6, 874. 954.) April 25, 1548 he wrote to Camerarius\nthat the Interim corrupted the truth in the doctrine of justification,\nand that he was unable to assent to its sophisms. (878. 900.) April 29,\n1548: \"The manifest facts teach that efforts at conciliation with our\npersecutors are vain. Even though some kind of concord is patched up,\nstill a peace will be established such as exists between wolves and\nlambs. _Etiam cum sarcitur concordia qualiscumque, tamen pax\nconstituitur, qualis est inter lupos et agnos._\" (_C. R._ 6, 889; Frank\n4, 90.) In a letter to Christian, King of Denmark (June 13, 1548), he\nsaid that the Interim \"confirmed and reestablished many papal errors and\nabuses,\" and that the \"abominable book would cause many dissensions in\nthe German nation.\" (_C. R._ 6, 923.) June 20 he wrote with reference to\nthe Interim: \"I shall not change the doctrine of our churches, nor\nassent to those who do.\" (946.) July 31, to the Margrave John of\nBrandenburg: \"As for my person I do not intend to approve of this book,\ncalled Interim, for which I have many weighty reasons, and will commend\nmy miserable life to God, even if I am imprisoned or banished.\" (7, 85.)\nIn a letter of August 10 he speaks of the corruptions \"which are found\nin the Augsburg sphinx,\" and declares that he is determined faithfully\nto guard the doctrine of the Gospel. (97.) August 13, 1548, he wrote to\nMedler: \"Brenz, Nopus [Noppius], Musculus, learned, pious, and most\ndeserving men, have been driven from their churches, and I hear that\neverywhere others are being expelled from other places,--and Islebius\n[Agricola] is shouting that this is the way to spread the Gospel.\"\n(102.)\n\nIn a criticism of the Augsburg Interim published in the beginning of\nJuly, 1548, Melanchthon declared: \"Although war and destruction are\nthreatened, it is, nevertheless, our duty to regard the Word of God as\nhigher; that is to say, we must not deny what we know to be the truth of\nthe Gospel.\" On November 10, 1548, he said before a convention of\ntheologians: \"Remember that you are the guardians of truth, and consider\nwhat has been entrusted to you for preservation by God through the\nprophets and the apostles, and, last of all, through Dr. Luther. If that\nman were still living, the misfortune of a change of doctrine would not\nbe threatening us; but now that there is no one who is clothed with the\nauthority which he had, now that there is no one who warns as he was\nwont to do, and many are accepting error for truth, the churches are\nbrought to ruin, the doctrine heretofore correctly transmitted is\ndistorted, idolatrous customs are established, fear, doubt, and strife\nare reigning everywhere.\" (Walther, 21.)\n\nHowever, though Melanchthon disapproved of the imperial Interim, he was\nafraid to antagonize it openly and unflinchingly. Yet it was just such a\npublic and decided testimony that was needed, and everywhere expected of\nMelanchthon; for he was generally regarded as the logical and lawful\nsuccessor of Luther and as the theological leader of the Church. July\n22, 1548, Aquila wrote: \"What shall I say of the arch-knave Eisleben,\nAgricola? He said: 'The Interim is the best book and work making for\nunity in the whole Empire and for religious agreement throughout all\nEurope. For now the Pope is reformed, and the Emperor is a Lutheran,'\"\nImploring Melanchthon to break his silence and sound the public warning,\nAquila continues: \"Thou holy man, answer and come to our assistance,\ndefend the Word and name of Christ and His honor (which is the highest\ngood on earth) against that virulent sycophant Agricola, who is an\nimpostor.\" (7, 78.)\n\nSuch were the sentiments of loyal Lutherans everywhere. But Melanchthon,\nintimidated by threats of the Emperor, and fearing for his safety,\nturned a deaf ear to these entreaties. While the captive Elector was\ndetermined to die rather than submit to the Interim, and while hundreds\nof Lutheran ministers were deposed, banished, imprisoned, and some of\nthem even executed because of their devotion to the truth, Melanchthon\nwas unwilling to expose himself to the anger of the Emperor. And before\nlong his fear to confess and his refusal to give public testimony to the\ntruth was followed by open denial. At the behest of Elector Maurice he\nconsented to elaborate, as a substitute for the Augsburg Interim, a\ncompromise document--the so-called Leipzig Interim.\n\n125. Melanchthon and the Leipzig Interim.\n\nAfter the victory of the Emperor and the proclamation of the Augsburg\nInterim, Maurice, the new-fledged Elector, found himself in a dilemma.\nCharles V urged him to set a good example in obeying and enforcing the\nInterim. Indebted as he was to the Emperor for his Electorate, he, to\nsome extent, felt bound to obey him also in religious matters. At the\nsame time, Maurice was personally not at all in agreement with the\nradical Augsburg Interim and afraid of forfeiting the sympathies of both\nhis old and new subjects on account of it. Nor did he fail to realize\nthe difficulties he would encounter in enforcing it. Accordingly, he\nnotified the Emperor on May 18 that he was not able to introduce the\nInterim at present. Soon after, he commissioned the Wittenberg and\nLeipzig theologians to elaborate, as a substitute for the Augsburg\nInterim, a compromise, more favorable and acceptable to his subjects. At\nthe preliminary discussions, especially at Pegau and Celle, the\ntheologians yielded, declaring their willingness to submit to the will\nof the Emperor with respect to the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies\nand to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and bishops if they would\ntolerate the true doctrine. (Preger 1, 40.) The final upshot of it all\nwas the new Interim, a compromise document, prepared chiefly by\nMelanchthon and adopted December 22, 1548, at Leipzig. This \"Resolution\nof the Diet at Leipzig\" was designated by its opponents the \"Leipzig\nInterim.\" Schaff remarks: \"It was the mistake of his [Melanchthon's]\nlife, yet not without plausible excuses and incidental advantages. He\nadvocated immovable steadfastness in doctrine [?], but submission in\neverything else for the sake of peace. He had the satisfaction that the\nUniversity of Wittenberg, after temporary suspension, was restored and\nsoon frequented again by two thousand students. [The school was closed\nMay 19 and reopened October 16, 1547.] But outside of Wittenberg and\nSaxony his conduct appeared treasonable to the cause of the Reformation,\nand acted as an encouragement to an unscrupulous and uncompromising\nenemy. Hence the venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarter\nby friend and foe.\" (_Creeds_ 1, 300.)\n\nIt is generally held that fear induced Melanchthon to condescend to this\nbetrayal of Lutheranism,--for such the Leipzig Interim amounted to in\nreality. And, no doubt, there is a good deal of truth in this\nassumption. For Melanchthon had been told that because of his opposition\nto the Augsburg Interim the anger of the Emperor was directed against\nhim especially, and that he had already called upon Maurice to banish\nthis \"arch-heretic.\" It certainly served the purpose of Maurice well\nthat he had to deal with Melanchthon, whose fear and vacillation made\nhim as pliable as putty, and not with Luther, on whose unbending\nfirmness all of his schemes would have foundered. However, it cannot\nhave been mere temporary fear which induced Melanchthon to barter away\neternal truth for temporal peace. For the theologians of Wittenberg and\nLeipzig did not only identify themselves with the Leipzig Interim while\nthe threatening clouds of persecution were hovering over them, but also\nafterwards continued to defend their action. When the representatives of\nthe Saxon cities protested against some of the provisions of the\nInterim, they declared, on December 28, 1548: \"We have learned your\nrequest and are satisfied with the articles [Leipzig Interim] delivered,\nwhich not we alone, but also several other superintendents and\ntheologians prepared and weighed well; therefore we are unable to change\nthem. For they can well be received and observed without any violence to\ngood conscience.\" (_C. R._ 7, 270.) It was as late as September, 1556\nthat Melanchthon, though even then only in a qualified way, admitted\nthat he had sinned in this matter, and should have kept aloof from the\ninsidious counsels of the politicians. (8, 839.) Indeed, in 1557 and\n1560 the Leipzig and Wittenberg theologians still defended the position\nthey had occupied during the Interim. Evidently, then apart from other\nmotives of fear, etc., Melanchthon consented to write the Interim\nbecause he still believed in the possibility of arriving at an\nunderstanding with the Romanists and tried to persuade himself that the\nEmperor seriously sought to abolish prevailing errors and abuses, and\nbecause the theological views he entertained were not as far apart from\nthose of the Leipzig compromise as is frequently assumed.\n\n126. Provisions of Leipzig Interim.\n\nThe professed object of the Leipzig Interim was to effect a compromise\nin order to escape persecution and desolation of the churches by\nadhering to the doctrine, notably of justification, but yielding in\nmatters pertaining to ceremonies, etc. December 18, 1548, Melanchthon\n(in the name of George of Anhalt) wrote to Burchard concerning the\nInterim adopted four days later: \"They [Maurice and the estates] hope to\nbe able to ward off dangers if we receive some rites which are not in\nthemselves vicious; and the charge of unjust obstinacy is made if in\nsuch things we are unwilling to contribute toward public tranquillity...\nIn order, therefore, to retain necessary things, we are not too exacting\nwith respect to such as are unnecessary, especially since heretofore\nthese rites have, to a great extent, remained in the churches of these\nregions.... We know that much is said against this moderation, but the\ndevastation of the churches, such as is taking place in Swabia, would be\na still greater offense.\" (7, 251ff.) The plan of Melanchthon therefore\nwas to yield in things which he regarded as unnecessary in order to\nmaintain the truth and avoid persecution.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, the Leipzig Interim, too, was in every\nrespect a truce over the corpse of true Lutheranism. It was a unionistic\ndocument sacrificing Lutheranism doctrinally as well as practically. The\nobnoxious features of the Augsburg Interim had not been eliminated, but\nmerely toned down. Throughout, the controverted doctrines were treated\nin ambiguous or false formulas. Tschackert is correct in maintaining\nthat, in the articles of justification and of the Church, \"the\nfundamental thoughts of the Reformation doctrine were catholicized\" by\nthe Leipzig Interim. (508.) Even the Lutheran _sola_ (_sola fide,_ by\nfaith alone) is omitted in the article of justification. The entire\nmatter is presented in terms which Romanists were able to interpret in\nthe sense of their doctrine of \"infused righteousness, _iustitia\ninfusa._\" Faith is coordinated with other virtues, and good works are\ndeclared to be necessary to salvation. \"Justification by faith,\" says\nSchmauk, \"is there [in the Leipzig Interim] so changed as to mean that\nman is renewed by the Holy Spirit, and can fulfil righteousness with his\nworks, and that God will, for His Son's sake accept in believers this\nweak beginning of obedience in this miserable, frail nature.\" (_Conf.\nPrin.,_ 596.)\n\nFurthermore, the Leipzig Interim indirectly admits the Semi-Pelagian\nteaching regarding original sin and free will, while other doctrines\nwhich should have been confessed are passed by in silence. It recognizes\nthe supremacy of the Pope, restores the power and jurisdiction of the\nbishops, acknowledges the authority of the council, approves of a number\nof ceremonies objectionable as such (_e.g._, the Corpus Christi\nFestival), and advocates the reintroduction of these and others in order\nto avoid persecution and to maintain outward peace with the Papists.\n\nSelf-evidently, in keeping with the Interim, the Pope also could no\nlonger be regarded as, and publicly declared to be, the Antichrist. In\n1561 Flacius wrote that at that time the suspected Lutherans did not\nconsider the Pope the Antichrist. Simon Musaeus and others were banished\nbecause they refused to eliminate the hymn \"Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem\nWort\" from their services. (Walther, 25.)--Such, then, being the\ncharacter of the Leipzig Interim, it stands to reason that this\ndocument, adopted as it was by Melanchthon and other Lutheran leaders,\nwas bound to become a fertile source of numerous and violent\ncontroversies.\n\n127. Flacius and Other Opponents of Interimists.\n\nThe Leipzig Interim was imposed upon the churches of Electoral Saxony as\na directory for teaching, preaching, and worship. Melanchthon declared\nthat it could be adopted with a good conscience, and hence should be\nintroduced, as demanded by Maurice, in order to insure the peace of the\nChurch. At Wittenberg and other places corresponding efforts were made.\nBut everywhere the result was dissension and strife. The Interim\ndefeated its own purpose. Pastors who declined to conform were deposed,\nbanished, incarcerated or abused in other ways. And wherever faithful\nministers were removed, the people refused to be served by the hirelings\nwho took their places. At the very convention at Leipzig where the\nInterim was adopted, Wolfgang Pfentner, Superintendent at Annaberg,\ndeclared: \"What caused them to reintroduce such tomfooleries [Romish\nceremonies]? Were they growing childish again? They might do what they\nwanted to, but as for himself, he could not consent [to the Interim].\nAnd even if he should permit himself to be deceived, his parishioners\nwould not accept it. For in a letter delivered by a messenger on\nhorseback they had charged him to agree to no ungodly article, or not\nreturn to them. Accordingly, he would have his head cut off at Leipzig\nand suffer this with a good conscience rather than give offense to his\nchurch.\" (Walther, 22.)\n\nDecember 24, three days after the adoption of the Interim,\nrepresentatives of the cities in Saxony presented complaints to Elector\nMaurice and Melanchthon against some of the provisions of the document.\nThey protested particularly against the reinstitution of Extreme\nUnction, the Festival of Corpus Christi, and the use of chrism at\nBaptism. (_C. R._ 7, 270.) Even the Wittenberg theologians finally\nadmitted that in consequence of \"the Interim the rupture had become so\ngreat that there was an agreement neither of one church with another,\nnor, in the same church, of any deacon, any schoolmaster, or sexton with\nhis pastor, nor of one neighbor with another, nor of members of the\nhousehold with one another.\" (Walther, 23.)\n\nForemost among the champions of true Lutheranism over against the\nInterimists were John Hermann, Aquila, Nicholas Amsdorf, John Wigand,\nAlberus, Gallus, Matthias Judex, Westphal, and especially Matthias\nFlacius Illyricus, then (from 1544 to 1549) a member of the Wittenberg\nfaculty, where he opposed all concessions to the Adiaphorists. It is\ndue, no doubt, to Flacius more than to any other individual that true\nLutheranism and with it the Lutheran Church was saved from annihilation\nin consequence of the Interims. In 1548 he began his numerous and\npowerful publications against them. In the same year, 1548, the\nfollowing book of John Hermann appeared: \"That during These Dangerous\nTimes Nothing should be Changed in the Churches of God in Order to\nPlease the Devil and the Antichrist.\" In 1549: \"Against the Mean Devil\nwho Now Again is Disguising Himself as an Angel of Light.\"\n\nIn 1549, when he was no longer safe in Wittenberg, Flacius removed to\nMagdeburg then the only safe asylum in all Germany for such as were\npersecuted on account of their Lutheran faith and loyalty, where he was\njoined by such \"exiles of Christ\" as Wigand, Gallus, and others, who had\nalso been banished and persecuted because of their opposition to the\nInterim. Here they inaugurated a powerful propaganda by publishing\nbroadsides of annihilating pamphlets against the Interim, as well as its\nauthors, patrons, and abettors. They roused the Lutheran consciousness\neverywhere, and before long the great majority of Lutherans stood behind\nFlacius and the heroes of Magdeburg. The publications emanating from\nthis fortress caused such an aversion to the Adiaphoristic princes as\nwell as theologians among the people that from the very outset all their\nplans and efforts were doomed to failure, and the sinister schemes of\nthe Pope and Emperor were frustrated. Because of this able and staunch\ndefense of Lutheranism and the determined opposition to any unionistic\ncompromise, Magdeburg at that time was generally called \"God's\nchancellery, _Gottes Kanzlei._\" Nor did the opposition subside when this\nLutheran stronghold, thrice outlawed by the Emperor, was finally, after\na siege of thirteen months, captured by Maurice. In their attacks the\nchampions of Magdeburg were joined also by the ministers of Hamburg and\nother places. Only in Saxony and Brandenburg the policy of Melanchthon\nwas defended.\n\nAs the conflict extended, it grew in bitterness, revealing with\nincreasing luridness the insincerity and dishonesty of the Philippists.\nTrue Lutherans everywhere were satisfied that the adoption also of the\nLeipzig Interim was tantamount to a complete surrender of Lutheranism.\nTheir animosity against this document was all the stronger because it\nbore the stamp of the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians and was\nsponsored by Melanchthon, the very man whom they had regarded as\nLuther's successor and as the leader of the Church. This, too, was the\nreason why the Leipzig Interim caused even more resentment among the\nLutherans, especially in Northern Germany, than did the Augsburg\nInterim. In their view, Melanchthon and his colleagues had betrayed the\ncause of the Reformation and practically joined their forces with those\nof the Romanists, even as Maurice had betrayed the Lutherans politically\nwhen fighting at the side of the Emperor against his own coreligionists.\nTschackert remarks: \"In view of the fact that at that time about 400\nEvangelical pastors in Southern Germany, because of their refusal to\nadopt the Augsburg Interim, had suffered themselves to be driven from\ntheir charges and homes and wandered about starving, many with their\nwives and children, the yielding of the theologians of Electoral Saxony\ncould but appear as unpardonable and as a betrayal of the Church.\"\n(508.)\n\n128. Grief over Melanchthon's Inconstancy.\n\nIn consequence of his dubious attitude, Melanchthon also, who before\nthis had been generally honored as the leader of the Lutheran Church,\ncompletely lost his prestige, even among many of his formerly most\ndevoted friends. The grief and distress experienced by loyal Lutherans\nat his wavering and yielding is eloquently expressed by Antonius\nCorvinus, Superintendent at Kalenberg-Goettingen, the Lutheran martyr,\nwho, because of his opposition to the Interim, was incarcerated for\nthree years, in consequence of which he died, 1553. In a letter dated\nSeptember 25, 1549, he implored his friend to abandon the Interim, and\nto \"return to his pristine candor, his pristine sincerity, and his\npristine constancy,\" and \"to think, say, write, and do what is becoming\nto Philip, the Christian teacher, not the court philosopher.\" Peace,\nindeed, was desirable, but it must not be obtained by distracting the\nchurches. Christ had also declared that He did not come to bring peace,\nbut the sword. Even the heathen Horatius Flaccus had said: \"_Si fractus\nillabitur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae._\" How much more should\nChristians avoid cowardice! One must not court the cross wantonly, but\nit must be borne courageously when for the sake of truth it cannot be\navoided, etc.\n\nIn the original, Corvinus's letter reads, in part, as follows: \"O mi\nPhilippe, o, inquam, Philippe noster, rede per immortalem Christum ad\npristinum candorem, ad pristinam sinceritatem ad pristinam constantiam!\nNe languescito ista tua formidine ac pusillanimitate nostrorum animos\ntantopere!... Non sis tantorum in ecclesia offendiculorum autor! Ne\nsinas, tua tam egregia scripta, dicta, facta, quibus mirifice hactenus\nde ecclesia ac scholis meritus es, isto condonationis, novationis,\nmoderationis naevo ad eum modum deformari! Cogita, quantum animi ista\nvestra consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant!... Rogamus,\nut, professionis tuae memor, talem te cum Vitebergensibus tuis iam\ngeras, qualem te ab initio huius causae gessisti, hoc est, ut ea\nsentias, dicas, scribas, agas, quae Philippum, doctorem Christianum, non\naulicum philosophum decent.\" (Tschackert, 506.)\n\nIn a similar manner Melanchthon was admonished also by Brenz, who\npreferred exile and misery to the Interim. In a letter written early in\n1549 he said: \"It is also most manifest that the Interitus [Ruin, a term\nemployed by Brenz for Interim] conflicts with the Word of the Lord. What\nconcord, then, can be found between such conflicting things? You think\nthat one ought to come to the assistance of the churches and pious\nministers. Correct if such can be done without dishonor to Christ.\nPerhaps you believe that the Interimists will tolerate the pious\ndoctrine if we agree to accept all their ceremonies. But do you not know\nthat it is clearly commanded in the introduction of the Interitus that\nno one shall speak or write against this book? What kind of liberty in\nregard to doctrine is this? Therefore, if the Church and the pious\nministers cannot be saved in any other way than by dishonoring the pious\ndoctrine, let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God. He will take\ncare of them. Meanwhile let us patiently bear our exile and wait for the\nLord.\" (_C. R._ 7, 289.)\n\nJune 18, 1550, Calvin also wrote a letter of warning to Melanchthon, in\nwhich he said in substance: \"My grief renders me almost speechless. How\nthe enemies of Christ enjoy your conflicts with the Magdeburgers appears\nfrom their mockeries. Nor do I acquit you altogether of all guilt.\nPermit me to admonish you freely as a true friend. I should like to\napprove of all your actions. But now I accuse you before your very face\n(_ego te nunc apud te ipsum accuso_). This is the sum of your defense:\nIf the purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not be\npertinaciously contended for (_modo retineatur doctrinae puritas, de\nrebus externis non esse pertinaciter dimicandum_). But you extend the\nadiaphora too far. Some of them plainly conflict with the Word of God.\nNow, since the Lord has drawn us into the fight, it behooves us to\nstruggle all the more manfully (_eo virilius nos eniti decebat_). You\nknow that your position differs from that of the multitude. The\nhesitation of the general or leader is more disgraceful than the flight\nof an entire regiment of common soldiers. Unless you set an example of\nunflinching steadfastness, all will declare that vacillation cannot be\ntolerated in such a man. By yielding but a little, you alone have caused\nmore lamentations and complaints than a hundred ordinary men by open\napostasy (_Itaque plures tu unus paululum cedendo querimonias et gemitus\nexcitasti quam centum mediocres aperta defectione_). I would die with\nyou a hundred times rather than see you survive the doctrine surrendered\nby you. You will pardon me for unloading into your bosom these pitiable,\nthough useless groans.\" (Schluesselburg 13, 635; _C. R._ 41 [_Calvini\nOpera_ 13], 593; Frank 4, 88.)\n\n129. Interim Eliminated Politically, But Not Theologically.\n\nIt was also in the interest of allaying the animosity against his own\nperson that Elector Maurice had prevailed upon Melanchthon to frame the\nLeipzig Interim. But in this respect, too, the document proved to be a\ndismal failure. Openly the people, his own former subjects included,\nshowed their contempt for his person and character. Everywhere public\nsentiment was aroused against him. He was held responsible for the\ncaptivity and shameful treatment of Philip of Hesse and especially of\nJohn Frederick, whom the people admired as the Confessor of Augsburg and\nnow also as the innocent Martyr of Lutheranism. Maurice, on the other\nhand, was branded a mameluke, condemned as a renegade and an apostate,\ndespised as the traitor of Lutheranism, and abhorred as the \"Judas of\nMeissen,\" who had sold his coreligionists for an electorate.\n\nAt the same time Maurice was provoked by the arbitrary manner in which\nthe Emperor exploited and abused his victory by a repeated breach of his\npromises, and by the treacherous and shameful treatment accorded his\nfather-in-law, Philip of Hesse. Chagrined at all this and fully\nrealizing the utter impossibility of enforcing the Interim, Maurice\ndecided to end the matter by a single stroke which at the same time\nwould atone for his treachery, and turn shame into glory and the vile\nname of a \"traitor\" into the noble title of \"Champion of Protestantism.\"\nAccordingly Maurice, easily the match of Charles in duplicity and\ncunning, secretly prepared his plans, and, suddenly turning his army\nagainst the unsuspecting Emperor, drove him from Innsbruck, scared the\n\"Fathers of Trent\" to their homes, and on April 5, 1552, victoriously\nentered Augsburg, where he was received with great rejoicing. The fruits\nof this victory were the Treaties of Passau August 2, 1552, and of\nAugsburg, 1555, which for the first time granted religious liberty to\nthe Protestants. The latter placed Lutherans and Catholics on an equal\nfooting in the Empire and, according to the rule: _Cuius regio, eius\nreligio,_ gave every prince religious control in his own territory,\nnon-conformists being granted the right of emigration. To the great\nadvantage of the Romanists, however, the treaty also provided that\nterritories ruled by bishops must remain Catholic even though the ruler\nshould turn Protestant.\n\nBut while the Interim was thus eliminated as a political and practical\nissue, the theological controversy precipitated by it continued\nunabated. Its political elimination cleared the situation toward the\nRomanists, but left conditions within the Lutheran Church unsettled. It\nneither unified nor pacified the Church. It neither eliminated the false\ndoctrines and unionistic principles and tendencies injected by the\nInterimists, nor did it restore confidence in the doctrinal soundness,\nloyalty, and sincerity of the vacillating Philippists, who had caused\nthe first breach in the Lutheran Church. \"Does it agree with the\ncharacter of the Lutheran Church to tolerate and approve the doctrines\nand principles contained and involved in the Interim, and to harbor and\nfellowship such indifferentists as framed, indorsed, and defended this\ndocument?\" such and similar were the questions which remained live\nissues even after the Interim was politically dead. The theological\nsituation within the Lutheran Church, therefore, was not changed in the\nleast when the annihilation threatening her from without was warded off\nby the victory of Maurice over the Emperor. The Interim was fraught with\ndoctrinal issues which made unavoidable the subsequent controversies.\n\n\nXI. Controversies Following the Interim and Settled by the Formula of\nConcord.\n\n130. Three Theological Parties.\n\nIn the theological conflicts after Luther's death three parties may be\ndistinguished. The first party embraced chiefly the Interimists, the\nSynergists, and the Crypto-Calvinists. They were adherents of Philip\nMelanchthon, hence called Melanchthonians or, more commonly,\nPhilippists, and were led by the theologians of Electoral Saxony. Their\nobject was to supplant the authority and theology of Luther by the\nunionistic and liberal views of Melanchthon. Their headquarters were the\nuniversities of Wittenberg and Leipzig. Some of their chief\nrepresentatives were: Joachim Camerarius (born 1500, professor of Greek\nin Leipzig, a close friend of Melanchthon, died 1574); Paul Eber (born\n1511, professor in Wittenberg, died 1568); Caspar Cruciger, Jr. (born\n1525, professor in Wittenberg, died at Cassel 1597); Christopher Pezel\n(born 1539, professor in Wittenberg, died 1600 or 1604); George Major\n(Meier; born 1502, professor in Wittenberg, died 1574); Caspar Peucer\n(doctor of medicine, son-in-law of Melanchthon; born 1525, imprisoned\nfrom 1574 till 1586 died 1602); Paul Crell (born 1531, professor in\nWittenberg, died 1579); John Pfefflnger (born 1493, professor in\nLeipzig, died 1573); Victorin Strigel (born 1524, 1548 professor in\nJena, died in Heidelberg 1569); John Stoessel (born 1524, died in prison\n1576); George Cracow (born 1525, professor of jurisprudence in\nWittenberg, privy counselor in Dresden, died in prison 1575).\n\nThe second party, the so-called Gnesio-Lutherans (genuine Lutherans),\nwas represented chiefly by the theologians of Ducal Saxony and embraced\nsuch staunch and loyal men as Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Matthias\nJudex, Moerlin, Tileman Hesshusius, Timann, Westphal, and Simon Musaeus.\nThough some of these leaders were later discredited by falling into\nextreme positions themselves, they all proved to be valiant champions of\nLuther and most determined opponents of the Philippists. The strongholds\nof this party were Magdeburg and the University of Jena, founded by the\nsons of John Frederick in 1547. Led by Flacius, this university\nunflinchingly opposed the modified and unionistic Lutheranism advocated\nby the Philippists at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Seeberg says, in\nsubstance: The Gnesio-Lutherans were opposed to the philosophy of the\nPhilippists and stood for \"the simple Biblical truth as Luther had\nunderstood it.\" Even when opposed by the government, they defended the\ntruth, and were willing to suffer the consequences. Strict doctrinal\ndiscipline was exercised by them. They opposed with equal determination\nthe errors also of their fellow-combatants: Amsdorf, Flacius, Poach, and\nothers. Intellectually they were superior to the Philippists. Seeberg\nconcludes: \"In the forms of their time (which were not outgrown by any\none of the Philippists either) they preserved to the Church genuine\nLuther-treasures--_echtes Luthergut._\" (_Dogmengeschichte_ 4, 2, 482.)\n\nThe third, or center-party, was composed of the loyal Lutherans who took\nno conspicuous part in the controversies, but came to the front when the\nwork of pacification began. They were of special service in settling the\ncontroversies, framing the Formula of Concord, and restoring a true and\ngodly peace to our Church. Prominent among them were Brenz, Andreae,\nChemnitz, Selneccer, Chytraeus, Cornerus, Moerlin, and others. These\ntheologians were, on the one hand, opposed to all unnecessary\nlogomachies _i.e._, controversies involving no doctrinal differences,\nand, at the same time, were most careful not to fall into any extreme\nposition themselves. On the other hand, however, they approved of all\ncontroversies really necessary in the interest of truth, rejected and\ncondemned all forms of indifferentism and unionism, and strenuously\nopposed every effort at sacrificing, veiling, or compromising any\ndoctrine by ambiguous formulas for the sake of external peace or any\nother policy whatsoever. (CONC. TRIGL., 855f.)\n\n131. Various Theological Controversies.\n\nFollowing is a synopsis and summary of the main controversies within the\nLutheran Church after the death of Luther, which were settled in the\nfirst eleven articles of the Formula of Concord. The sequence of these\narticles, however, is not strictly historical and chronological, but\ndogmatic. In the main, the arrangement of the Augsburg Confession is\nobserved.\n\nThe first of these controversies was the so-called Adiaphoristic\nControversy, from 1548 to 1555, in which the Wittenberg and Leipzig\ntheologians (Melanchthon, Eber, Pfeffinger, etc.) defended the Leipzig\nInterim and the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies into the Lutheran\nChurch. They were opposed by the champions of a consistent and\ndetermined Lutheranism, led by Flacius, who declared: \"_Nihil est\nadiaphoron in statu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron\nin case of confession and offense.\" The controversy was decided by\nArticle X.\n\nThe second is the Majoristic Controversy, from 1551 to 1562, in which\nGeorge Major and Justus Menius defended the phrase of Melanchthon that\ngood works are necessary to salvation. They were opposed by the loyal\nLutherans, of whom Amsdorf, however, lapsed into the opposite error:\nGood works are detrimental to salvation. This controversy was settled\nby Article IV.\n\nThe third is the Synergistic Controversy, from 1555 to 1560, in which\nPfeffinger, Eber, Major, Crell, Pezel, Strigel, and Stoessel held with\nMelanchthon that man by his own natural powers cooperates in his\nconversion. Their opponents (Amsdorf, Flacius, Hesshusius, Wigand,\nGallus, Musaeus, and Judex) taught, as formulated by Flacius: \"_Solus\nDeus convertit hominem.... Non excludit voluntatem, sed omnem efficaciam\net operationem eius...._ God alone converts man.... He does not exclude\nthe will, but all efficaciousness and operation of the same.\" This\ncontroversy was decided and settled by Article II.\n\nThe fourth is the Flacian Controversy, from 1560 to 1575, in which\nFlacius, supported by Cyriacus Spangenberg, Christian Irenaeus, Matthias\nWolf, I. F. Coelestinus, Schneider, and others, maintained that original\nsin is not an accident, but the very substance of fallen man. The\nLutherans, including the Philippists, were practically unanimous in\nopposing this error. It was decided by Article I.\n\nThe fifth was the Osiandristic and the Stancarian Controversy, from 1549\nto 1566, in which Andrew Osiander denied the forensic character of\njustification, and taught that Christ is our righteousness only\naccording to His divine nature, while Stancarus contended that Christ is\nour righteousness according to His human nature only. Both, Osiander as\nwell as Stancarus, were opposed by Melanchthon, Flacius, and practically\nall other Lutherans, the Philippists included. This controversy was\nsettled by Article III.\n\nThe sixth was the Antinomistic Controversy, from 1527 to 1556, in which\nvarious false views concerning the Law and the Gospel were defended,\nespecially by John Agricola who maintained that repentance (contrition)\nis not wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel (a view which, in a\nmodified form was later on defended also by Wittenberg Philippists),\nand, after Luther's death, by Poach and Otto, who rejected the so-called\nThird Use of the Law. The questions involved in these Antinomian\ncontroversies were decided by Articles V and VI.\n\nThe seventh was the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, from 1560 to 1574,\nin which the Philippists in Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Dresden (Peucer,\nCracow, Stoessel, etc.) endeavored gradually to supplant Luther's\ndoctrines concerning the Lord's Supper and the majesty of the human\nnature of Christ by the Calvinistic teachings on these points. These\nsecret and dishonest enemies of Lutheranism were opposed by true\nLutherans everywhere, notably by the theologians of Ducal Saxony. In\n1574 they were publicly unmasked as deceivers and Calvinistic schemers.\nThe controversy was settled by Articles VII and VIII.\n\nThe two last controversies were of a local nature. The first was chiefly\nconfined to Hamburg, the second to Strassburg. In the former city John\nAepinus taught that Christ's descent into hell was a part of His\nsuffering and humiliation. He was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg.\nIn Strassburg John Marbach publicly denounced Zanchi, a\nCrypto-Calvinist, for teaching that faith, once engendered in a man,\ncannot be lost. The questions involved in these two articles are dealt\nwith in Articles IX and XI, respectively.\n\n132. Conflicts Unavoidable.\n\nWhen describing the conflicts after Luther's death, historians\nfrequently deplore \"the dreadful controversies of these dark days of\ndoctrinal extremists and the polemical spirit of rigid Lutheranism.\" G.\nJ. Planck, in particular, characterized them all as useless quarrels and\npersonal wranglings of narrow-minded, bigoted adherents of Luther, who\nvitiated original Lutheranism by making it essentially a matter of \"pure\ndoctrine.\" To the present day indifferentistically inclined historians\nare wont to mar their pages with similar views.\n\nTrue, \"pure doctrine,\" \"unity in the pure doctrine of the Gospel,\" such\nwas the shibboleth of the faithful Lutherans over against the\nMelanchthonians and other errorists. But this was neither reprehensible\ndoctrinalism nor a corruption of original Lutheranism, but the very\nprinciple from which it was born and for which Luther contended\nthroughout his life--a principle of life or death for the Lutheran\nChurch. It was the _false_ doctrine of justification which made Luther a\nmost miserable man. It was the _pure_ doctrine as taught by St. Paul\nwhich freed his conscience, transported him into Paradise, as he himself\nputs it, and made him the Reformer of the Church. Ever since, purity of\ndoctrine was held, by Luther and all true Lutheran theologians, to be of\nparamount import to Christianity and the Church. Fully realizing that\nadulteration of any part of the Christian doctrine was bound to infect\nalso the doctrine of faith and justification and thus endanger\nsalvation, they earnestly warned against, and opposed, every deviation\nfrom the clear Word of God, no matter how insignificant it might appear.\nThey loved the truth more than external peace, more even than their own\nlives. Hence they found it impossible to be silent, apathetic, and\ncomplacent spectators while the Philippists and others denied, attacked,\nand corrupted the truth taught by Luther from the Word of God.\n\nAccordingly, since the Leipzig Interim involved and maintained doctrines\nand principles subversive of genuine Lutheranism and was prepared,\nintroduced, and defended by the very men who were regarded as pillars of\nthe Lutheran Church, it was evident from the outset that this document\nmust of necessity precipitate most serious internal troubles. From the\nmoment the Wittenbergers cast the Interim as a firebrand into the\nChurch, a domestic warfare was unavoidable,--if indeed any true\ndisciples of Luther still remained in the Church of which he, and not\nMelanchthon, was the founder. While the Augsburg Interim resulted in an\nexternal theological warfare of the Lutherans against the Romanists,\nthe Leipzig Interim added a most serious domestic conflict, which\nconscientious Lutherans could not evade, though it well-nigh brought our\nChurch to the brink of destruction. For now the issue was not merely how\nto resist the Pope and the Romanists, but, how to purge our own Church\nfrom the Interimists and their pernicious principles. And as long as the\nadvocates of the Interim or of other aberrations from the old Lutheran\nmoorings refused to abandon their errors, and nevertheless insisted on\nremaining in the Church, there was no real unity in the truth. Hence\nthere could also be no true peace and brotherly harmony among the\nLutherans. And the way to settle these differences was not indifferently\nto ignore them, nor unionistically to compromise them by adopting\nambiguous formulas, but patiently to discuss the doctrines at issue\nuntil an agreement in the truth was reached, which finally was done by\nmeans of the Formula of Concord.\n\nTrue, these controversies endangered the very existence of our Church.\nBut the real cause of this was not the resistance which the loyal\nLutherans offered to the errorists, nor even the unseemly severity by\nwhich the prosecution of these controversies was frequently marred, but\nthe un-Lutheran spirit and the false principles and doctrines manifested\nand defended by the opponents. In so far as divine truth was defended\nand error opposed, these controversies were truly wars to end war, and\nto establish real peace and true unity within our Church. A cowardly\nsurrender to the indifferentistic spirit, the unionistic policy, the\nfalse principles, and the erroneous doctrines of the Interimists would\nhave been tantamount to a complete transformation of our Church and a\ntotal annihilation of genuine Lutheranism.\n\nThe manner in which these controversies were conducted, it is true, was\nfrequently such as to obstruct, rather than further, mutual\nunderstanding and peace. As a rule, it is assumed that only the genuine\nLutherans indulged in unseemly polemical invective, and spoke and wrote\nin a bitter and spiteful tone. But the Melanchthonians were to say the\nleast, equally guilty. And when censuring this spirit of combativeness,\none must not overlook that the ultimate cause of the most violent of\nthese controversies was the betrayal of the Lutheran Church by the\nInterimists; and that the severity of the polemics of the loyal\nLutherans did not, at least not as a rule, emanate from any personal\nmalice toward Melanchthon, but rather from a burning zeal to maintain\nsound Lutheranism, and from the fear that by the scheming and the\nindifference of the Philippists the fruits of Luther's blessed work\nmight be altogether lost to the coming generations. The \"peace-loving\"\nMelanchthon started a conflagration within his own church in order to\nobtain a temporal and temporary peace with the Romanists; while the\nloyal Lutherans, inasmuch as they fought for the preservation of genuine\nLutheranism, stood for, and promoted, a truly honorable, godly, and\nlasting peace on the basis of eternal truth. And while the latter fought\nhonestly and in the open, the Philippists have never fully cleared\nthemselves from the charges of duplicity, dishonesty, and dissimulation.\n\n133. Melanchthon Prime Mover of Conflicts.\n\nThe Leipzig Interim was the signal for a general and prolonged warfare\nwithin the Lutheran Church. It contained the germs of various doctrinal\nerrors, and produced a spirit of general distrust and suspicion, which\ntended to exaggerate and multiply the real differences. Schmauk says:\n\"The seeds of the subsequent controversies are all to be found in the\nLeipzig Interim.\" (595.) At any rate, most of the controversies after\nLuther's death flowed from, or were in some way or other connected with,\nthis unfortunate document. Such is the view also of the Formula of\nConcord, which declares that the thirty years' controversies which it\nsettled originated especially in the Interim. (857, 19; 947, 29.)\n\nYet the Interim was rather the occasion than the ultimate cause of these\nconflicts. Long before the flames of open discord burst forth, the\nembers of secret doctrinal dissension had been glowing under the\nsurface. Even during the life of Luther much powder had been secretly\nstored up for which the Interim furnished the spark. This is proved,\namong other things, by Luther's predictions (referred to in the\npreceding chapter) concerning his own colleagues. And above all it was\nthe \"peace-loving\" Philip who first and most successfully sowed the\ndragon's teeth of discord. Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations from the\nteachings of Luther and from his own former position must be regarded as\nthe last cause of both the Leipzig Interim and the lamentable\ncontroversies that followed in its wake. Indeed, a tragic sight to\nbehold: The co-laborer of Luther, the servant of the Reformation second\nonly to Luther, the Praeceptor Germaniae, the ardent and anxious lover\nof peace, etc.--untrue to his confiding friend, disloyal to the cause of\nthe Reformation, and the chief cause of strife and dissension in the\nLutheran Church! And withal, Melanchthon, mistaking external union for\nreal unity and temporal peace with men for true peace with God, felt\nsatisfied that he had spent the efforts of his entire life in the\ninterest of the true welfare of the Church! Shortly before his death\n(April 19, 1560) he expressed his joy that now he would be delivered\nfrom the \"fury of the theologians.\" On a sheet of paper found on his\ntable were written a number of reasons why he feared death less. One of\nthem was: \"_Liberaberis ab aerumnis et a rabie teologorum._ You will be\ndelivered from toils and from the fury of the theologians.\" (_C. R._ 9,\n1098.) Thus even in the face of death he did not realize that he himself\nwas the chief cause of the conflicts that had embittered his declining\nyears!\n\n134. Melanchthon's Humanistic and Unionistic Tendencies.\n\nTill about 1530 Melanchthon seems to have been in complete harmony with\nLuther, and to have followed him enthusiastically. To propagate, coin,\nand bring into scholastic form the Christian truths once more brought to\nlight by the Reformer he considered to be his peculiar mission. But his\nsecret letters and, with gradually increasing clearness and boldness,\nalso his publications show that later on he began to strike out on paths\nof his own, and to cultivate and disseminate doctrines incompatible with\nthe Lutheranism of Luther. In a measure, these deviations were known\nalso to the Wittenberg students and theologians, to Cordatus, Stifel,\nAmsdorf, the Elector John Frederick, Brueck, and Luther, who also called\nhim to account whenever sufficient evidence warranted his doing so.\n(_Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 61ff.)\n\nIn a letter to Cordatus, dated April 15, 1537, Melanchthon was bold\nenough to state that he had made many corrections in his writings and\nwas glad of the fact: \"_Multa ultro correxi in libellis meis et\ncorrexisse me gaudeo._\" (_C. R._ 3, 342.) In discussing the squabble\nbetween Cordatus and Melanchthon whether good works are necessary for\nsalvation, Luther is reported by the former to have said, in 1536: \"To\nPhilip I leave the sciences and philosophy and nothing else. But I shall\nbe compelled to chop off the head of philosophy, too.\" (Kolde,\n_Analecta,_ 266.) Melanchthon, as Luther put it, was always troubled by\nhis philosophy; that is to say, instead of subjecting his reason to the\nWord of God, he was inclined to balance the former against the latter.\nThe truth is that Melanchthon never fully succeeded in freeing himself\nfrom his original humanistic tendencies, a fact which gave his mind a\nmoralistic rather than a truly religious and Scriptural bent. Even\nduring the early years of the Reformation when he was carried away with\nadmiration for Luther and his work, the humanistic undercurrent did not\ndisappear altogether. January 22, 1525, he wrote to Camerarius: \"_Ego\nmihi conscius sum, non ullam ob causam unquam tetheologekenai, nisi at\nmores meos emendarem_. I am conscious of the fact that I have never\ntheologized for any other reason than to improve my morals.\" (_C. R._ 1,\n722.) Such, then, being his frame of mind, it was no wonder that he\nshould finally desert Luther in most important points, lapse into\nsynergism and other errors, and, in particular value\nindifferentistically doctrinal convictions, notably on the real presence\nin the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ. \"Over against Luther,\"\nsays Schaff, \"Melanchthon represented the unionistic and liberal type of\nLutheranism.\" (_Creeds,_ 1, 259.) This is correct; but the stricture\nmust be added that, since unionism and liberalism are incompatible with\nthe very essence of Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism as such was in\nreality not a \"type,\" but a denial of Lutheranism.\n\nMelanchthon lacked the simple faith in, and the firm adherence and\nimplicit submission to, the Word of God which made Luther the undaunted\nand invincible hero of the Reformation. Standing four-square on the\nBible and deriving from this source of divine power alone all his\ntheological thoughts and convictions, Luther was a rock, firm and\nimmovable. With him every theological question was decided and settled\nconclusively by quoting a clear passage from the Holy Scriptures, while\nMelanchthon, devoid of Luther's single-minded and whole-hearted devotion\nto the Word of God, endeavored to satisfy his reason as well.\nConsequently he lacked assurance and firm conviction, wavered and\nvacillated, and was never fully satisfied that the position he occupied\nwas really the only correct one, while, on the other hand, he endeavored\nto present his views concerning some of the disputed doctrines in\nambiguous and indefinite terms. \"We have twenty-eight large volumes of\nMelanchthon's writings,\" says C. P. Krauth, \"and, at this hour,\nimpartial and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on\nsome of the profoundest questions of church doctrine, on which\nMelanchthon was writing all his life!\" (_Conservative Ref.,_ 291;\nSchmauk, 748.) This indefinite and wavering attitude towards divine\ntruth, the natural consequence of the humanistic bent of his mind,\nproduced in Melanchthon a general tendency and proneness to surrender or\ncompromise doctrinal matters in the interest of policy, and to barter\naway eternal truth for temporal peace. It made him an indifferentist and\na unionist, always ready to strike a bargain also in matters pertaining\nto Christian faith, and to cover doctrinal differences with ambiguous\nformulas. While Luther's lifelong attitude on matters of Christian\ndoctrine is characterized by the famous words spoken by him at Worms in\n1521: \"_Ich kann nicht anders,_ I cannot do otherwise,\" Melanchthon,\ntreating even questions of faith as matters of expediency rather than of\nconscience, was the man who, as a rule, could also do otherwise, and who\nwas great in manufacturing \"Polish boots,\" as the ambiguous phrases by\nwhich he endeavored to unite opposing parties were called by the\nLutherans in Reuss.\n\nIn order to preserve peace with the Romanists at Augsburg in 1530, he\ndid not hesitate to sacrifice Lutheran truths and to receive into the\nbargain a number of what he considered minor papal errors. In his\nsubsequent overtures to the Reformed he was more than willing to make\nsimilar concessions. The spirit of Melanchthon was the spirit of\nreligious indifference and of unionism, which, though thoroughly\neliminated by the Formula of Concord, was from time to time revived\nwithin the Lutheran Church by such men as Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf,\nNeander, and, in our own country, by S. S. Schmucker.\n\nThe unionistic tendencies and doctrinal corruptions which Melanchthon\ninjected into Lutheranism were all the more dangerous to our Church\nbecause they derived special weight and prestige from the fact that\nLuther had unstintingly praised his gifts, his books, and the services\nhe had rendered the Church (St. L. 18, 1671; 23, 1152), that he was now\ngenerally regarded as Luther's successor with regard to theological\nleadership of the Church; and that he was gratefully admired as the\nPraeceptor Germaniae by a host of loyal pupils, who made it a point also\nto cultivate just those theological peculiarities of Master Philip, as\nthey called him, in which he differed from Luther.\n\n135. Melanchthon's \"Shameful Servitude.\"\n\nThat Melanchthon failed our Church in the Interim emergency as well as\nin the subsequent controversies is generally ascribed to the fact that\nhe lacked the bracing influence and assistance of Luther. No doubt,\nthere is a good deal of truth in this assumption. But the true reason\nwhy he did not measure up to the demands of the times and the\nexpectations of our Church were not mere moral weaknesses, but rather\nthe errors and false principles to which he was wedded. How could\nMelanchthon have approved himself a leader of the Lutherans when he was\nout of sympathy with them, doubted some of their most cherished\ndoctrines, and long ago had struck out on a path deviating from that\nmapped out by Luther? True, the bracing which he received from Luther in\nthe past had repeatedly kept him from publicly sacrificing the truth,\nbut even in these instances he did not always yield because he was\nreally convinced, but because he feared the uncompromising spirit of\nLuther.\n\nThat fear of an open conflict with Luther which, he felt, would result\nin a crushing defeat for himself, bulked large among the motives which\nprompted him to maintain a semblance of true orthodoxy as long as Luther\nlived, is clearly admitted by Melanchthon himself. In his notorious and\nmost discreditable letter to Carlowitz (counselor of Elector Maurice),\nwritten April 28, 1548, eight days after the meeting at Celle, where he\nhad debauched his conscience by promising submission to the religious\ndemands of the Emperor, Melanchthon, pouring forth his feelings and\nrevealing his true inwardness and his spirit of unionism and\nindifferentism as much as admitted that in the past he had been\naccustomed to hiding his real views. Here he declared in so many words\nthat it was not he who started, and was responsible for, the religious\ncontroversy between the Lutherans and Romanists, but rather Luther whose\ncontentious spirit (he said) also had constantly increased the rupture,\nand that under Luther he had suffered \"a most shameful servitude.\"\n\nIn the original the letter reads, in part, as follows: \"Totum enim me\ntibi [Carlowitz] aperio.... Ego, cum decreverit princeps etiamsi quid\nnon probabo, tamen nihil seditiose faciam, sed vel tacebo, vel cedam,\nvel feram, quidquid accidet. _Tuli etiam antea servitutem paene\ndeformem,_ cum saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua filoneikia erat\nnon exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi serviret. Et\nscio, omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita aliqua in\ngubernatione vitia modeste et arte ferenda et dissimulanda esse....\nFortassis natura sum ingenio servili.\" (_C. R._ 6, 879f.)\n\nEven before Melanchthon had, in private letters to his friends,\ndisplayed a similar vein of ill will toward Luther, whom he evidently\nfeared because of his own secret doctrinal deviations. (_Lehre und\nWehre_ 1908, 61. 68.) No doubt, as stated above, fear was also among the\nmotives which induced him to identify himself with the Leipzig Interim.\nBut evidently his own theological attitude, too, differed little from\nthe spirit pervading this document. At any rate, the letter to Carlowitz\ndoes not support the assumption that Melanchthon really outraged his own\nconvictions when he wrote and adopted the Interim. As a matter of fact,\nhe also continued to defend the Interim; and it was as late as 1556\nbefore he was ready to make even a qualified admission of one of the\nerrors connected with it.\n\nWhile, therefore, the Lutheran Church will always gratefully acknowledge\nthe splendid services which Melanchthon rendered in the work of Luther's\nReformation, it must at the same time be admitted and cannot be gainsaid\nthat, in the last analysis, Melanchthon, by reason of his deviations\nfrom Luther, which will be set forth more fully in the following, was\nthe ultimate cause and originator of most of the dissensions which began\nto distract the Lutheran Church soon after the death of Luther. Andrew\nMusculus, who assisted in drafting the _Formula of Concord,_ brought out\nthis fact (though in terms too strong) when he characterized Melanchthon\nas a \"philosophical theologian and a patriarch of all heretics.\"\n(Meusel, _Handl._ 4, 710.) In a way, Melanchthon may even be regarded as\nthe indirect cause of the Smalcald War and its unfortunate issue,\ninasmuch, namely, as his vacillating and compromising attitude and his\nincompetent leadership created conditions of internal weakness among the\nLutherans, which invited the aggression of Pope and Emperor.\n\n\nXII. The Adiaphoristic Controversy.\n\n136. Contents of the Leipzig Interim.\n\nTo exhibit the insidious character of the Leipzig Interim more fully, we\nsubmit the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: \"As far as\nthe doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall is\nconcerned, there is no controversy\" (between the Lutherans and\nRomanists). The article \"Of Justification,\" in which the Lutheran _sola\nfide_ is omitted, declares: \"The merciful God does not work with man as\nwith a block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he be\nof understanding years.\" Again: \"And they who have thus received the\nforgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghost\nbegins faith and trust in the Son of God, love and hope, then become\nheirs of eternal salvation for the Savior's sake.\" In the article \"Of\nGood Works\" we read: \"Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works are\nso highly necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart there\nwould be no reception of divine grace.\" Again: \"It is certainly true\nthat these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and are\nnecessary to salvation.... And since the virtues and good works, as has\nbeen said, please God, they merit also a reward in this life, both\nspiritual and temporal, according to God's counsel, and still more\nreward in the eternal life, because of the divine promise.\"\n\nThe article \"Of Ecclesiastical Power\" runs as follows: \"What the true\nChristian Church gathered in the Holy Ghost, acknowledges, determines,\nand teaches in regard to matters of faith is to be taught and preached,\nsince it neither should nor can determine anything contrary to the Holy\nScriptures.\" Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_\nendorsement of the Council and its resolutions. In the article \"Of\nEcclesiastical Ministers\" we read: \"And that all other ministers should\nbe subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to other\nbishops who administer their episcopal office according to God's\ncommand, using the same for edification and not for destruction; which\nministers should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation by\nthe patrons.\" This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and the\necclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishops. The article \"Of Ordination\"\ndeclares: \"Also, that, as has been said, upon presentation by patrons,\nministers should hereafter be ordained with Christian ceremonies by such\nbishops as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should be\nallowed to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presented\nby the patrons and have the permission of the bishops.\" That was\ntantamount to a restoration of the \"sacrament\" of episcopal ordination.\n\nThe Interim furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction of\nabolished ceremonies, such as exorcism and other ceremonies of Baptism,\nconfirmation by bishops, auricular confession, extreme unction,\nepiscopal ordination, and the like. We read: \"That repentance,\nconfession, and absolution, and what pertains thereto, be diligently\ntaught and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receive\nof them absolution in God's stead, and be also diligently admonished and\nurged to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admitted\nto the highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [in\nthis indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in the\nInterim] unless he have first confessed to the priest and received of\nhim absolution.\" Again: \"Although in this country the unction [Extreme\nUnction] has not been in use for many years, yet ... such unction,\naccording to the apostle, may be hereafter observed.\" Again: \"That\nhenceforth the mass be observed in this country with ringing of bells,\nwith lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies.\" Among\nthe holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi and\nthe festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: \"The images and\npictures of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be also\nretained in the churches.\" Again: \"In the churches where the canonical\nhours have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung in\nchapters and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals,\nand also on Sundays.\" \"Likewise, that on Fridays and Saturdays, as well\nas during fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this be\nobserved as an external ordinance at the command of His Imperial\nMajesty.\" The clause, \"that this be observed,\" etc., was regarded by\nFlacius and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the part\nof the Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119.) Again, as to the apparel of\npriests, that \"a distinction be observed between ministers and secular\npersons, and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate.\" The\nIntroduction of the Interim gives the assurance that the Lutherans would\nobey the Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. The\nConclusion adds the humble promise: \"In all other articles we are ready\n... in a friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved and\nPrincely Graces, and to settle our differences in a Christian way.\" (_C.\nR._ 7, 258. Jacobs, _Book of Concord,_ 2, 260.)\n\n137. Issue in Adiaphoristic Controversy.\n\nFrom the passages quoted it appears that the Leipzig Interim was\ninoculated with the germs of many controversies. However, while in the\nbeginning its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generally\nrecognized and realized, the Emperor's demand for, and approval of, the\nWittenberg and Leipzig theologian's reintroduction of the Romish\nceremonies immediately created an acute situation and a great commotion\neverywhere. The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latter\npoint in particular was called the Adiaphoristic or Interimistic\nControversy. And, as explained above, even after the Interim had become\na dead letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because its\nparamount object was not merely to pass a correct judgment on past\nevents during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similar\nsituations in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Church\nthe spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well as\nindirect denial of the Gospel-truth.\n\nAccordingly, the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: May\nLutherans, under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, when\nthe Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded the\nreinstitution of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies in\nquestion be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a good\nconscience, that is to say, without denying the truth and Christian\nliberty, without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without giving\noffense either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church,\nespecially its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists and\ndenied by their opponents.\n\n138. Opposition to the Adiaphorists.\n\nProminent among the theologians who participated in the controversy\nagainst the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, who\nin Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, and\nadvocates of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publications\nwhich dealt with the questions involved: \"Opinion concerning the\nInterim, by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548,\" published by Flacius without\nthe knowledge of Melanchthon.--\"Report on the Interim by the Theologians\nof Meissen,\" 1548.--\"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesen\ngeschwinden Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of God in\nOrder to Please the Devil and the Antichrist,\" by John Hermann, 1548. A\nLatin edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius as\nits author.--\"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim from\nwhich One may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book,\"\n1548.--\"A General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeine\nProtestation und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against the\nInterim and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemies\nof the Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548.\" Waremund was a pseudonym for\nFlacius.--\"Against the Interim, Papal Mass, Canon, and Master Eisleben,\"\n1519.--\"Against the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who Now\nAgain Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i.e._, against the New\nInterim, by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549.\" Of this book, too,\nFlacius was the author. (Preger 1, 67.)--\"Apology (Entschuldigung) of\nMatthias Flacius Illy. to a Certain Pastor,\" 1549.--\"Several Letters of\nthe Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial,\nWritten 1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg,\" 1549, with a\npreface by Flacius.--\"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy., Addressed to\nthe University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora,\" 1549.--\"Writing\nof Matthias Flacius Illy. against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Book\nof the Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Order\nto Guard Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the True\nReligion,\" 1549.--\"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and Matthias\nFlacius Illy. to the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding the\nQuestion whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don the\nCassock\" (_linea vestis, Chorrock_).--\"Against the Extract of the\nLeipzig Interim, or the Small Interim,\" by Flacius, 1549.--\"Book\nconcerning True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et Falsis\nAdiaphoris_), in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almost\nin Its Entirety, by Flacius, 1549.\" This book, which is most frequently\nquoted and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is found\nin Schluesselburg's _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff.--\"An Admonition\n(Vermahnung) to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross and\nPrayer, by Flacius,\" 1549.--\"A Christian Admonition by Matthias Flacius\nIlly. to be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and in\nthe Augsburg Confession,\" 1550.--\"Against the Alleged Power and Primacy\nof the Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavors\nagain to Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, by\nMatthias Flacius Illy.\"--\"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock,\nD. Geitz Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy., 1552.\"--For a complete list\nof the writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger's _Matthias\nFlacius Illyricus,_ 2, 540 ff.\n\nEven the titles of these publications indicate that the Adiaphoristic\nControversy did not lack violence and virulence. This animosity against\nthe Interimists was chiefly due to the fear that their policy would\nfinally lead to the complete undoing of the Reformation. For while\nMelanchthon still believed in and hoped for, an understanding with the\nRomanists, Flacius saw through their schemes and fully realized the\nimpending danger. In the reintroduction of Catholic ceremonies which\nMelanchthon regarded as entirely harmless, Flacius beheld nothing but\nthe entering wedge, which would gradually be followed by the entire mass\nof Romish errors and abuses and the absolute dominance of Pope and\nEmperor over the Lutheran Church. The obedience demanded by the Emperor,\nsaid Flacius, consists in this, that \"we abandon our true doctrine and\nadopt the godless Papacy.\" In all its details, he explained, the\nultimate purpose of the Interim is none other than the reestablishment\nof Popery, of which even such seemingly trifling matters as the\nreintroduction of the _Chorrock (linea vestis)_ were but the beginning,\nas it were, the breach in the dam which was bound ultimately to result\nin a complete submersion of Lutheranism. (Frank 4, 74. 76. 119.)\n\nSince the loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther and\nthe Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, they\ncould not but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treachery\nagainst the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted that\ntheir opponents answer the question, \"whether the Pope with his\ngovernment is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Word\nof God he has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whether\nhe still should and must be regarded and confessed as such.\" And if\nLuther's doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union be\neffected between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and his\nbishops) and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religion\nof Christ? (53. 107.) On the title-page of his _Apology,_ of 1549,\nFlacius declares: \"The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment of\nthe Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple of\nChrist, the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over the\nChurch of Christ and to grieve the godly, likewise weakening, leading\ninto doubt, separation and innumerable offenses.\" (Schaff 1, 301.)\nRegarding the acknowledgment of the Pope and bishops by the Interim,\nFlacius remarked: \"Mark well, here the werewolf (_Baerwolf_), together\nwith his fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. There\nis, however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: \"The\nPope should use his power not for destruction, but for edification\"],\nthey have counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In my\nopinion this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to the\ntemple from which he has been expelled by the Finger of God.\" (Preger 1,\n191.) Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and trembling\nwith fear for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthon\nwith want of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterized\nthe Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of light\nand darkness, of Christ and Antichrist.\n\nWhile Flacius thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors and\nabettors, he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheran\npastors to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross and\npersecution, and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. That\nminister, he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or who\nyields to a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess with\nour mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of the\nflock, but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant.\nFlacius also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princes\nand acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if they\nadvocated and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged both\npastors and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding the\nreinstitution of the Roman ceremonies. \"A government,\" said he in his\n_Admonition,_ \"no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastor\nto preach the pure doctrine.\" When the government persecutes the truth,\nwe must not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christians\nwill sacrifice everything to a tyrannical prince, but not \"the truth,\nnot the consolation of divine grace, nor the hope of eternal life.\"\n(Frank 4, 68. 117.)\n\n139. Doctrinal Position of Anti-Adiaphorists.\n\nThe theological position occupied by the opponents of the Adiaphorists\nmay be summarized as follows: Ceremonies which God has neither commanded\nnor prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceteris\nparibus_ (other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adopted\nor rejected. However, under circumstances testing one's faith they may\nbecome a matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case wherever\nand whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introduction\ninvolves a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringement\nof Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemies\nof the Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or an\noffense to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, they\nmaintained, prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope and\nEmperor plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romish\nreligion in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and the\nreinstitution of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, by\nCatholics as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such a\nreestablishment of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzig\ntheologians, instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to God\nfor the protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded to\nthe demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when the\nconsciences of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever the\nabolished rites were reinstituted. Accordingly, they declared that under\nthe prevailing circumstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies\nwas nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian love\nas well.\n\nFlacius, in particular, maintained that under the prevailing\ncircumstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora\nceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good\nconscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies\nof the Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons,\nsuch as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because\ntheir reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and\ngave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people,\nProtestants as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard such\nreintroduction both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans that\nthey had been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as the\nbeginning of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain the\nreintroduction of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to the\nInterimists, the common people, especially the Romanists, always\nimpressed by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer that\nthose teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy in\nevery respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veris\net Falsis Adiaphoris_ we read: \"Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certe\npraecipua capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas cum in\nnostris ecclesiis in eorum gratiam restituimus, an non videmur tum eis,\ntum aliis eorum impiis cultibus assentiri? Nec dubitant, quin\nquandoquidem in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessuri\nsimus, nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esse\nconfiteamur.\" (Schluesselburg 13, 217.) Accordingly, Flacius contended\nthat under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists,\neven in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of\nLutheranism. The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by him\nreduced to the following principle or axiom: \"_Nihil est adiaphoron in\ncasu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession\nand offense are involved.\" And wherever the Interim was enforced, the\nconsequences foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences were\nconfused, simple Christians were offended, and the enemies were\nstrengthened in their error and emboldened in their attacks and in\nfurther demands made upon the Lutherans.\n\n140. Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted.\n\nThe Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their attitude by a\nseries of sophisms to which they also adhered in the \"Final Report\n(Endlicher Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzig\nand Wittenberg,\" 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2.) By adopting the Interim, the\nWittenbergers, in reality, had assented also to doctrinally false and\ndubious statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such.\nYet they pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and the\nharmlessness of their procedure. They maintained that they had yielded\nmerely in minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded nor\nprohibited by the Word of God; that this was done in order to preserve\nintact the central Christian truth of justification; to preserve\npolitical peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak,\nwhose shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that in\ntheir concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom,\nwhich always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this they\nhad merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimized\nthe entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of the\nsituation. In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting and\nsounding the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discovered\nnothing but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney.\n\nBut in the ears of all genuine and earnest Lutherans their sophistries\nand apologies rang neither true nor sincere. The arguments which they\nemployed merely served to defeat their own purpose. What else, for\nexample, than disgust, indignation, and distrust could be the effect on\nall honest Lutherans when the Wittenberg theologians, dishonestly\nveiling the real facts, declared in their official \"Exposition\" of 1559\n(when danger of persecution had passed long ago) concerning the\nreintroduction of Corpus Christi that they had reintroduced this\nfestival all the more readily in order that they might be able to\ninstruct the people in the right use of the Sacrament and in the\nhorrible abuses and profanations of the most holy Supper of the Lord in\nthe circumgestation and adoration of the bread which their critics [the\nLutheran opponents of the Interimists, by their doctrine concerning the\nLord's Supper] strengthened and that they might thank God for the\npurification of the temple from the Romish idol Maozim, Dan. 11, 38.\n(Tschackert, 510.) Frank remarks: \"One must see this passage black on\nwhite in order to believe the Wittenbergers really capable of\nstultifying themselves in such an incredible manner. It is a\nmonstrosity, a defense unworthy of an honest man, let alone an\nEvangelical Christian.\" (4, 61. 113.)\n\nThe weak and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly and\nconvincingly refuted by their opponents. To the assertion of the\nWittenbergers that the dispute was concerning mere unimportant\nceremonies which were neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Flacius\nand Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers of\nMeissen whether they should leave their charges rather than don the\n_Chorrock, lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to such\nseemingly most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_)\none must not overlook what is attached to it. \"We do not believe,\" they\nsaid, \"that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, although\nfirst he only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time,\nhowever, not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he will\nalso demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, as\nwell as all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since the\nbeginning is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are at\npresent demanded only that a door may be opened for all the other\nimpieties that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationum\ninitia iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per ea\naditus reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat._\"\n(Schluesselburg 13, 644.)\n\nThe Adiaphorists pretended that they had consented to the Interim in the\ninterest of the weak, who were unable to bear persecution. But the\nLutherans answered that weak Christians could not be strengthened in\ntheir faith by teaching and persuading them to deny it and that the\nenemies and persecutors of the Gospel could certainly not be regarded as\nweak. (Frank 4, 78.) The protestations of the Adiaphorists that they had\nmade the changes in ceremonies with the very best of intentions were\nanswered by Flacius in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ as follows:\nHardly ever has a Christian denied Christ without endeavoring to deceive\nboth God and himself as to his motives. \"But one must also consider, as\nmay be clearly shown from 1 Cor. 10, with what design (_quo animo_) the\nadversaries propose such things to us, likewise, how they as well as\nothers interpret our act.\" (Schl. 13, 217.) \"Even though the intention\nof those who receive and use the adiaphora be not an evil one, the\nquestion is,\" said Martin Chemnitz in his _Iudicium de Adiaphoris,_\n\"whether the opinion of the one who commands, imposes, and demands the\nadiaphora is impious or wicked, whether such reception and observation\nis interpreted and understood as a turning away from the confession of\nthe true doctrine, and whether the weak are offended and grow faint\nthereby.\" (717.)\n\nTo the claims of the Interimists that they were but following the\nexample of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romish\nceremonies, etc., the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times and\nconditions! Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciences\nstill felt bound to the Roman usages, while the \"weakness\" spoken of by\nAdiaphorists is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution.\nMoreover Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as there\nwas hope of arriving at an agreement with the Romanists in doctrine,\nwhile the Adiaphorists reinstitute ceremonies which have been abolished,\nand this, too, in deference and obedience to irreconcilable adversaries\nof the truth. Accordingly, Luther's attitude in this matter flowed from\npure love for truth and from compassion with the weak, whom he\nendeavored to win for the truth, while the submission of the\nAdiaphorists to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short of\nunchristian denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55.) Brenz\ndeclared: \"_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt._ Adiaphora\nmust be judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, the\nadiaphoron, too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however,\nthe condition is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observance\nof it is prohibited.\" (Schl. 13, 562.)\n\nFurthermore, when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintained\nthat, in preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to the\ngreater (persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, the\nvoice of true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not be\nplaced on a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order to\navoid suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _Explicatio\nGeneralis Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: \"Impium\nest, amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sed\naccersuntur et augentur poenae._ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins,\nnor are they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinduced\nand increased.\" (13, 251.) \"It is better to take upon oneself\npunishments and great dangers than to offend God and to provoke His\nwrath by such offense.\" (250.) \"It is better and easier to bear many\nevils and to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the least\ncommandment of God, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a single\nsin.\" (251.) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but to\nretain a good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was the\ncounsel of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65.)\n\nBut our Wittenberg school will be closed, our churches will be\ndesolated, and our preachers will be banished, exclaimed the\nfaint-hearted Wittenbergers. The Lutherans answered: It is our duty to\nconfess the truth regardless of consequences, and, at the same time, to\nlook to God for the protection of His Church. Flacius said, in _De Veris\net Falsis Adiaphoris:_ Confess the truth and suffer the consequences! A\nChristian cannot obtain peace by offending God and serving and\nsatisfying tyrants. Rather be drowned by the Spaniards in the Elbe with\na millstone about one's neck than offend a Christian, deny the truth,\nand surrender the Church to Satan. \"Longe satius esset teste Christo\npati, ut alligata mola asinaria in medium Albis ab Hispanis\nproiiceremur, quam _unicum_ parvulum Christi scandalizaremus, multo vero\nmagis haec et quaevis gravissima pati deberemus, quam _tam infinitis_\n(ut iam fit) Christi parvulis offendiculum daremus, ecclesiam Satanae\nproderemus et salvificam confessionem veritatis abiiceremus.\" (Schl. 13,\n227.)\n\nAs to the Wittenberg School, Flacius said: \"It would certainly be better\nthat the school were closed not one, but many years than that we, by\navoiding confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well as\nstrengthen the one opposed to it.\" (13, 231.) \"As for myself, I do not\ndoubt that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the Wittenberg\nSchool would have been to-day much firmer than it is.... The Interim\nsprang from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians.... Even a\nthousand Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highly\nby pious men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they would\nrather suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel.\n_Certe non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, ut\npropter earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luce\nprivari._\" (232.) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginning\nof 1549, Brenz said: \"If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannot\nbe preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the pious\ndoctrine, then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God; He will\ntake care of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear our\nbanishment and wait for the Lord.\" (_C. R._ 7, 290.)\n\nJune 30, 1530, Luther had written to Melanchthon, who was then in\nAugsburg: \"You want to govern things according to your philosophy; you\ntorment yourself and do not see that this matter is not within your\npower and wisdom.... If we fall, Christ, that is to say, the Ruler of\nthe world, falls with us; and even though He should fall, I would rather\nfall with Christ than stand with the Emperor.\" This passage is contained\nin one of the letters of Luther which Flacius published 1548 in order to\ndispel Melanchthon's timidity, rouse his Lutheran consciousness, and\ncure him of his vain and most dangerous disposition to save the Church\nby human wisdom and shrewdness, instead of, as Luther believed, solely\nby a bold confession of the truth of God's Word.\n\n141. Theological Attitude of Flacius Sanctioned.\n\nThe theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatants\noccupied over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Article\nof the _Formula of Concord,_ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church as\na whole. Frank says concerning this most excellent article which our\nChurch owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notably\nFlacius: \"The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formula\nof Concord_ were those of Flacius.\" The entire matter, too, concerning\nthe adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that the\nsubsequent formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused but\nlittle difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f.)\n\nEven Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of any\ndoctrinal deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponents\nand admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding the\nadiaphora. In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was not\nsatisfied with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September\n5, 1556, he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: \"I knew\nthat even the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to the\npeople. However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would rather\nhave our people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry of\nthe Gospel. _Cum doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hanc\nservitutem subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii._ And I confess\nthat I have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This I\nhave done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed....\nAfterwards you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. In\nHomer, Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields and\nadmits that the former is victor. You never come to an end with your\naccusations. Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking those\nwho yield and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contend\nconcerning those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churches\nwould enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in this\nmatter, and ask forgiveness of God, that I did not flee far from those\ninsidious deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hoc\nin re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi\ninsidiosas illas deliberationes_.\" (_C. R._ 8, 839.)\n\nOn January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: \"I was\ndrawn into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if in\nany way I have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of God\nand of the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church.\"\n(9, 61.) In the _Formula Consensus,_ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in\n1557, the Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: \"With the\nhelp of God we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine of\njustification, agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with the\nconfessions which were published in the church of Hamburg against the\nbook called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to be\nmixed with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine in\nall its articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical and\nproper forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided.\" (9,\n369.) The _Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon and\nsigned by the princes, maintains: \"Where the true Christian doctrine of\nthe holy Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as well\nas other ceremonies are detrimental and injurious.\" (9, 501.)\n\n\nXIII. The Majoristic Controversy.\n\n142. Early Origin of This Error.\n\nThough not personally mentioned and attacked by the opponents of\nMajorism, Melanchthon must be regarded as the real father also of this\ncontroversy. He was the first to introduce and to cultivate the phrase:\n\"Good works are necessary to salvation.\" In his _Loci_ of 1535 he taught\nthat, in the article of justification, good works are the _causa sine\nqua non_ and are necessary to salvation, _ad vitam aeternam, ad\nsalutem._ (Herzog, _R. E._, 1903, 12, 519; Galle, _Melanchthon,_ 345.\n134.) Melanchthon defined: \"_Causa sine qua non_ works nothing, nor is\nit a constituent part but merely something without which the effect does\nnot occur, or by which, if it were not present, the working cause would\nbe hindered because it was not added. _Causa sine qua non nihil agit,\nnec est pars constituens, sed tantum est quiddam, sine quo non fit\neffectus, seu quo, si non adesset, impediretur agens, ideo quia illud\nnon accessisset.\"_ (Preger 1, 356.) According to Melanchthon, therefore,\njustification cannot occur without the presence of good works. He\nexplained: \"_Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam,\nquia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent._ Nevertheless good works\nare necessary to eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily follow\nreconciliation.\" (_C. R._ 21, 429. 775.) According to the context in\nwhich it is found, this statement includes that good works are necessary\nalso to justification; for Melanchthon, too, correctly held \"that the\nadoption to eternal life or the gift of eternal life was connected with\njustification, that is, the reconciliation imparted to faith.\" (453.)\n\nAt Wittenberg Melanchthon's efforts to introduce the new formula met\nwith energetic opposition, especially on the part of Cordatus and\nAmsdorf. The formula: \"_Bona opera non quidem esse causam efficientem\nsalutis, sed tamen causam sine qua non_--Good works are indeed not the\nefficient cause of salvation, but nevertheless an indispensable cause,\"\na necessary antecedent, was launched in a lecture delivered July 24,\n1536, by a devoted pupil of Melanchthon, Caspar Cruciger, Sr. [born at\nLeipzig, January 1, 1504; professor in Wittenberg; assisted Luther in\ntranslating the Bible and in taking down his lectures and sermons;\npresent at colloquies in Marburg 1529, in Wittenberg 1536, in Smalcald\n1537, in Worms and Hagenau 1540 in Regensburg 1541, in Augsburg 1548;\ndied November 16, 1548]. According to Ratzeberger, Cruciger had\ndictated: \"_Bona opera requiri ad salutem tamquam causam sine qua non._\"\nCordatus reports Cruciger's dictation as follows: \"_Tantum Christus est\ncausa propter quem; interim tamen verum est, homines agere aliquid\noportere; oportere nos habere contritionem et debere Verbo erigere\nconscientiam, ut fidem concipiamus, ut nostra contritio et noster\nconatus sunt causae iustificationis sine quibus non_--our contrition and\nour endeavor are causes of justification without which it does not take\nplace.\" (3, 350.)\n\nCordatus immediately attacked the new formula as false. \"I know,\" said\nhe, \"that this duality of causes cannot stand with the simple article of\njustification.\" (3, 350.) He demanded a public retraction from Cruciger.\nBefore long Amsdorf also entered the fray. September 14, 1536, he wrote\nto Luther about the new-fangled teaching of Melanchthon, \"that works are\nnecessary to eternal life.\" (3, 162; Luther, St. L. 21b, 4104.) Pressed\nby Cordatus, Cruciger finally admitted that Melanchthon was back of the\nphrases he had dictated. He declared that he was the pupil of Mr.\nPhilip; that the entire dictation was Mr. Philip's; that by him he had\nbeen led into this matter; and that he did not know how it happened. _Se\nesse D. Philippi discipulum, et dictata omnia esse D. Philippi, se ab eo\nin illam rem traductum, et nescire quomodo._\" [tr. note: no opening\nquotation mark in original] (_C. R._ 3, 162.)\n\nThat Melanchthon had been making efforts to introduce the new phrases in\nWittenberg appears from the passage in his _Loci_ of 1535 quoted above,\nand especially from his letters of the two following years. November 5,\n1536, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: \"Cordatus incites the city, its\nneighborhood, and even the Court against me because in the explanation\nof the controversy on justification I have said that new obedience is\nnecessary to salvation, _novam obedientiam necessariam esse ad\nsalutem._\" (185. 179.) May 16, 1537, Veit Dietrich wrote to Forester:\n\"Our Cordatus, driven, I know not, by what furies, writes against Philip\nand Cruciger as against heretics, and is determined to force Cruciger to\nretract because he has said that good works are necessary to\nsalvation.... This matter worries Philip very much, and if certain\nmalicious men do not control themselves, he threatens to leave.\" (372.)\nAs for Melanchthon, he made no efforts to shirk the responsibility for\nCruciger's dictation. \"_Libenter totam rem in me transfero_--I\ncheerfully transfer the entire affair to myself\" he wrote April 15,\n1537. Yet he was worried much more than his words seem to indicate.\n(342.)\n\nComplaints against the innovations of Melanchthon and Cruciger were also\nlodged with Luther by Cordatus, Amsdorf, and Stiefel. Cordatus reports\nLuther as saying after the matter had been related to him, October 24,\n1536: \"This is the very theology of Erasmus, nor can anything be more\nopposed to our doctrine. _Haec est ipsissima theologia Erasmi, neque\npotest quidquam nostrae doctrinae esse magis adversum._\" To say that new\nobedience is the \"_causa sine qua non--sine qua non contingit vita\naeterna,_\" Luther declared, was tantamount to treading Christ and His\nblood under our feet. \"_Cruciger autem haec, quae publice dictavit,\npublice revocabit._ What he has publicly dictated, Cruciger shall\npublicly retract.\" (Kolde, _Analecta,_ 266.)\n\nAccording to Ratzeberger, Luther immediately warned and censured\nCruciger \"in severe terms.\" (_C. R._ 4, 1038.) Flacius reports that\nLuther had publicly declared more than five times: \"_Propositionem: Bona\nopera esse necessaria ad salutem, volumus damnatam, abrogatam, ex\necclesiis et scholis nostris penitus explosam._\" (Schluesselburg 7,\n567.) After his return from Smalcald, where he had expressed grave fears\nas to the future doctrinal soundness of his Wittenberg colleagues,\nLuther, in a public disputation on June 1, 1537 \"exploded and condemned\"\nthe teaching that good works are necessary to salvation, or necessary to\nsalvation as a _causa sine qua non_. (_Lehre u. Wehre_ 1908, 65.) Both\nparties were present at the disputation, Cordatus as well as Melanchthon\nand Cruciger. In a letter to Veit Dietrich, June 27, 1537, Cruciger\nreports: Luther maintained that new obedience is an \"effect necessarily\nfollowing justification,\" but he rejected the statement: \"New obedience\nis necessary to salvation, _necessariam ad salutem._\" He adds: \"_Male\nhoc habuit nostrum [Melanchthon], sed noluit eam rem porro agitare._\nMelanchthon was displeased with this, but he did not wish to agitate the\nmatter any further.\" (_C. R._ 3, 385.) After the disputation Cruciger\nwas handed an anonymous note, saying that his \"Treatise on Timothy\" was\nnow branded as \"heretical, sacrilegious, impious, and blasphemous\n(_haeretica, sacrilega, impia et blasphema_),\" and unless he retracted,\nhe would have to be regarded as a Papist, a teacher and servant of Satan\nand not of Christ, and that his dictations would be published. (387.) In\na letter to Dietrich, Cruciger remarks that Luther had disapproved of\nthis anonymous writing, but he adds: \"I can't see why he [Luther] gives\nso much encouragement to Cordatus.\" (385.)\n\nIn private, Luther repeatedly discussed this matter also with\nMelanchthon. This appears from their Disputation of 1536 on the\nquestion: \"Whether this proposition is true: The righteousness of works\nis necessary to salvation.\" (E. 58, 353.) In a letter to Dietrich of\nJune 22, 1537, Melanchthon, in substance, refers as follows to his\ndiscussions with Luther: I am desirous of maintaining the unity of the\nWittenberg Academy; in this matter I also employ some art; nor does\nLuther seem to be inimical; yesterday he spoke to me in a very kind\nmanner on the questions raised by Quadratus [Cordatus]. What a spectacle\nif the Lutherans would oppose each other as the Cadmean brethren! I will\ntherefore modify whatever I can. Yet I desire a more thorough exposition\nof the doctrines of predestination, of the consent of the will, of the\nnecessity of our obedience, and of the sin unto death. (_C. R._ 3, 383.)\n\nA number of private letters written by Melanchthon during and\nimmediately after his conflict with Cordatus, however, reveal much\nanimosity, not only against Cordatus, but against Luther as well. Nor do\nthose written after Luther's disputation, June 1, 1537, indicate that he\nwas then fully cured of his error. (357. 392. 407.) Moreover, in his\n_Loci_ of 1538 we read: \"_Et tamen haec nova spiritualis obedientia\n(nova spiritualitas) necessaria est ad vitam aeternam._ And nevertheless\nthis new spiritual obedience is necessary to eternal life.\" (21, 429.)\nEvidently, then, Melanchthon did not grasp the matter, and was not\nconvinced of the incorrectness of his phraseology. Yet he made it a\npoint to avoid and eliminate from his publications the obnoxious\nformula: \"_Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem._\" At any rate, his\nessay on Justification and Good Works, of October 1537, as well as\nsubsequent publications of his, do not contain it. In the _Loci_ of\n1538, just referred to, he replaced the words _bona opera_ by the phrase\n_obedientia haec nova spiritualis,_--indeed, a purely verbal rather than\na doctrinal change. Nor did it reappear even in the _Variata_ of 1540.\nIn 1541, at Regensburg, Melanchthon consented to the formula \"that we\nare justified by a living and efficacious faith--_iustificari per fidem\nvivam et efficacem._\" But when Luther deleted the words \"_et efficacem,_\nand efficacious,\" Melanchthon acquiesced. (4, 499.) In the _Loci_ of\n1543 he expunged the appendix \"_ad salutem,_ to salvation.\" At the same\ntime, however, he retained the error in a more disguised form, _viz._,\nthat good works are necessary to retain faith. For among the reasons why\ngood works are necessary he here enumerates also \"the necessity of\nretaining the faith, since the Holy Spirit is expelled and grieved when\nsins against the conscience are admitted.\" (21, 775.)\n\n143. Formula Renewed--Abandoned.\n\nUnder the duress of the Augsburg Interim, Melanchthon relapsed into his\nold error. July 6, 1548, he (together with Caspar Cruciger, John\nPfeffinger, Daniel Gresser, George Major, and John Foerster) agreed to\nthe statement: \"For this proposition is certainly true that no one can\nbe saved without love and good works. Yet we are not justified by love\nand good works, but by grace for Christ's sake.\" (7, 22.) In the Leipzig\nInterim, adopted several months later, the false teaching concerning the\nnecessity of good works to salvation was fully restored, as appears from\nthe quotations from this document cited in the chapter on the\nAdiaphoristic Controversy. According to the _Formula of Concord_ this\nrenewal of the obnoxious formula at the time of the Interim furnished\nthe direct occasion for the Majoristic Controversy. For here we read:\n\"The aforesaid modes of speech and false expressions [concerning the\nnecessity of good works to salvation] were renewed by the Interim just\nat a time when there was special need of a clear, correct confession\nagainst all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article of\njustification.\" (947, 29.) However, when the controversy on good works\nbegan, and George Major zealously championed the restored formula,\nMelanchthon, probably mindful of his former troubles in this matter,\nsignally failed to support and endorse his friend and colleague.\nMoreover, he now advised Major and others to abstain from using the\nphrase: Good works are necessary to salvation, \"because,\" said he, \"this\nappendix [to salvation, _ad salutem_] is interpreted as merit, and\nobscures the doctrine of grace.\"\n\nIn an opinion of December, 1553, Melanchthon explains: \"New obedience is\nnecessary; ... but when it is said: New obedience is necessary to\nsalvation, the Papists understand that good works merit salvation. This\nproposition is false, therefore I relinquish this mode of speech.\" (_C.\nR._ 8, 194.) January 13, 1555, he wrote to the Senate of Nordhausen that\ntheir ministers \"should not preach, defend, and dispute the proposition\n[Good works are necessary to salvation], because it would immediately be\ninterpreted to mean that good works merit salvation--_weil doch alsbald\ndiese Deutung angehaengt wird, als sollten gute Werke Verdienst sein der\nSeligkeit._\" (410.) September 5, 1556, he said in his letter to Flacius:\n\"I have always admonished George [Major] not only to explain his\nsentence (which he did), but to abandon that form of speech. And he\npromised that he would not use it. What more can I ask? The same I did\nwith others.\" (842.)\n\nIn the Frankfurt Recess of 1558, written by Melanchthon and signed by\nthe Lutheran princes, we read: \"Although therefore this proposition,\n'New obedience is necessary (_Nova obedientia est necessaria, nova\nobedientia est debitum_),' must be retained, we nevertheless do not wish\nto attach these words, '_ad salutem,_ to salvation,' because this\nappendix is interpreted as referring to merit and obscures the doctrine\nof grace, for this remains true that man is justified before God and is\nan heir of eternal salvation by grace, for the sake of the Lord Christ,\nby faith in Him only.\" (9, 497. 405.) In an opinion written November 13,\n1559, Melanchthon (together with Paul Eber, Pfeffinger, and H. Salmut)\nagain declared: \"I say clearly that I do not employ the phrase, 'Good\nworks are necessary to salvation.'\" (969.) In his _Responsiones ad\nArticulos Bavaricos_ of 1559 he wrote: \"_Ego non utor his verbis: Bona\nopera sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia hoc additione 'ad salutem'\nintelligitur meritum._ I do not use these words: Good works are\nnecessary to salvation, because by the addition 'to salvation' a merit\nis understood.\" In his lectures, too, Melanchthon frequently rejected\nthe appendix (to salvation), and warned his pupils not to use the\nphrase. (4, 543; _Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 78.)\n\nThus Melanchthon, time and again, disowned the proposition which he\nhimself had first introduced. Nowhere, however, did he reject it or\nadvise against its use because it was inherently erroneous and false as\nsuch but always merely because it was subject to abuse and\nmisapprehension,--a qualified rejection which self-evidently could not\nand did not satisfy his opponents. In an opinion, dated March 4, 1558,\nMelanchthon refuses to reject flatly the controverted formula, and\nendeavors to show that it is not in disagreement with the mode of speech\nemployed in the Bible. We read: \"Illyricus and his compeers are not\nsatisfied when we say that the appendix [to salvation] is to be omitted\non account of the false interpretation given it, but demand that we\nsimply declare the proposition, 'Good works are necessary to salvation,'\nto be wrong. Against this it must be considered what also Paul has said,\nRom. 10: Confession is made to salvation (_Confessio fit ad salutem_),\nwhich Wigand maliciously alters thus: Confession is made concerning\nsalvation (_Confessio fit de salute_). Again, 2 Cor. 7: 'For godly\nsorrow worketh repentance to salvation,' Likewise Phil. 2: 'Work out\nyour own salvation with fear and trembling.' Nor do these words sound\nany differently: 'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be\nsaved,' Acts 2, 21. But, they say, one must understand these expressions\ncorrectly! That is what we say, too. This disputation however, would be\nended if we agreed to eliminate the appendix and rack our brains no\nfurther--_dass wir den Anhang ausschliessen und nicht weiter\ngruebelten._\" (9, 474.)\n\n144. Major Champions Error.\n\nThe immediate cause of the public controversy concerning the question\nwhether good works are necessary to salvation was George Major, a\ndevoted pupil and adherent of Melanchthon and a most active member of\nthe Wittenberg faculty [Major was born April 25, 1502; 1529 Rector of\nthe school in Magdeburg; 1536 Superintendent in Eisleben; soon after,\npreacher and professor in Wittenberg; 1544 Rector of the University of\nWittenberg; in 1548, at Celle, he, too, submitted to the demands of\nMaurice, in the Leipzig Interim he merely objected to the insertion of\nExtreme Unction; 1552 Superintendent in Eisleben; professor in\nWittenberg from 1553 until his death in 1574].\n\n\"_That Dr. Pommer_ [Bugenhagen] _and Dr. Major have Caused Offense and\nConfusion._ Nicholas Amsdorf, Exul Christi. Magdeburg, 1551,\"--such was\nthe title of a publication which appeared immediately prior to Major's\nappointment as Superintendent in Eisleben. In it Bugenhagen (who died\n1558) and Major (of course, Melanchthon could and should have been\nincluded) were denounced for their connection with the Leipzig Interim.\nMajor in particular, was censured for having, in the Interim, omitted\nthe word _sola,_ \"alone,\" in the phrase \"_sola fide justificamur,_ we\nare justified by faith alone,\" and for having emphasized instead that\nChristian virtues and good works are meritorious and necessary to\nsalvation. When, as a result of this publication the preachers of\nEisleben and Mansfeld refused to recognize Major as their superior the\nlatter promised to justify himself publicly. He endeavored to do so in\nhis _Answer_ published 1552 at Wittenberg, after he had already been\ndismissed by Count Albrecht as Superintendent of Eisleben. The _Answer_\nwas entitled: _Auf des ehrenwuerdigen Herrn Niclas von Amsdorfs Schrift,\nso jetzund neulich mense Novembri 1551 wider Dr. Major oeffendtlich im\nDruck ausgegangen. Antwort Georg Majors._ In it Major disclaimed\nresponsibility for the Interim (although he had been present at Celle,\nwhere it had been framed), and declared that he had never doubted the\n\"_sola fide,_ by faith alone.\" \"But,\" continued Major, \"I do confess\nthat I have hitherto taught and still teach, and henceforth will teach\nall my life: that good works are necessary to salvation. And I declare\npublicly and with clear and plain words that no one is saved by evil\nworks, and also that no one is saved without good works. Furthermore I\nsay, let him who teaches otherwise, even though an angel from heaven, be\naccursed (_der sei verflucht_)!\" Again: \"Therefore it is impossible for\na man to be saved without good works.\" Major explained that good works\nare necessary to salvation, not because they effect or merit forgiveness\nof sins, justification, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life\n(for these gifts are merited alone by the death of our only Mediator and\nSavior Jesus Christ, and can be received only by faith), \"but\nnevertheless good works _must be present,_ not as a merit, but as due\nobedience toward God.\" (Schlb. 7, 30.)\n\nIn his defiant attitude Major was immediately and firmly opposed by\nAmsdorf, Flacius, Gallus, and others. Amsdorf published his \"_Brief\nInstruction Concerning Dr. Major's Answer, that he is not innocent, as\nhe boasts._ Ein kurzer Unterricht auf Dr. Majoris Antwort, dass er nicht\nunschuldig sei, wie er sich ruehmet,\" 1552. Major's declaration and\nanathema are here met by Amsdorf as follows: \"First of all, I would like\nto know against whom Dr. George Major is writing when he says: Nobody\nmerits heaven by evil works. Has even the angry and impetuous Amsdorf\never taught and written thus? ...We know well, praise God, and confess\nthat a Christian should and must do good works. Nobody disputes and\nspeaks concerning that; nor has anybody doubted this. On the contrary,\nwe speak and dispute concerning this, whether a Christian earns\nsalvation by the good works which he should and must do.... For we all\nsay and confess that after his renewal and new birth a Christian should\nlove and fear God and do all manner of good works, but not that he may\nbe saved, for he is saved already by faith (_aber nicht darum, dass er\nselig werde, denn er ist schon durch den Glauben selig_). This is the\ntrue prophetic and apostolic doctrine, and whoever teaches otherwise is\nalready accursed and damned. I, therefore, Nicholas von Amsdorf,\ndeclare: Whoever teaches and preaches these words as they read (Good\nworks are necessary to salvation), is a Pelagian, a mameluke, and a\ndenier of Christ, and he has the same spirit which prompted Drs. Mensing\nand Witzel to write against Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, that good\nworks are necessary to salvation.\" (Schlb. 7, 210.)\n\nAnother attack was entitled: \"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Gown,\nDr. Miser Major. _Wider den Evangelisten des heiligen Chorrocks, Dr.\nGeitz Major,_\" 1552. Here Flacius--for he was the author of this\npublication--maintained that neither justification, nor salvation, nor\nthe preservation of the state of grace is to be based on good works. He\nobjected to Major's propositions because they actually made good works\nthe antecedent and cause of salvation and robbed Christians of their\ncomfort. He declared: \"When we say: That is necessary for this work or\nmatter, it means just as much as if we said: It is a cause, or, by this\nor that work one effects this or that.\" As to the practical consequences\nof Major's propositions, Flacius remarks: \"If therefore good works are\nnecessary to salvation, and if it is impossible for any one to be saved\nwithout them, then tell us, Dr. Major, how can a man be saved who all\nhis life till his last breath has led a sinful life, but now when about\nto die, desires to apprehend Christ (as is the case with many on their\ndeath-bed or on the gallows)? How will Major comfort such a poor\nsinner?\" The poor sinner, Flacius continues, would declare: \"Major, the\ngreat theologian, writes and teaches as most certain that no one can be\nsaved without good works, and that good works are absolutely necessary\n(_ganz notwendig_) to salvation; therefore I am damned, for I have\nheretofore never done any good works.\" \"Furthermore Major will also have\nto state and determine the least number of ounces or pounds of good\nworks one is required to have to obtain salvation.\" (Preger 1, 363f.)\n\nIn his \"Explanation and Answer to the New Subtle Corruption of the\nGospel of Christ--_Erklaerung und Antwort auf die neue subtile\nVerfaelschung des Evangelii Christi,_\" 1554 Nicholas Gallus maintained\nthat, if the righteousness presented by Christ alone is the cause of our\njustification and salvation, then good works can only be the fruits of\nit. In a similar way Schnepf, Chemnitz, and others declared themselves\nagainst Majorism. (Schlb. 7, 55. 162. 205. 534. 572; _C. R._ 9, 475;\nSeeberg, _Dogg._ 4, 486.)\n\n145. Major's Modifications.\n\nMajor answered his opponents in his book of 1553 entitled, _A Sermon on\nthe Conversion to God of St. Paul and All God-fearing Men._ In it he\nmost emphatically denied that he had ever taught that good works are\nnecessary in order to _earn_ salvation, and explained more fully\n\"whether, in what way, which, and why good works are nevertheless\nnecessary to salvation.\" Here he also admits: \"This proposition would be\ndangerous and dark if I had said without any distinction and\nexplanation: Good works are necessary to salvation. For thus one might\neasily be led to believe that we are saved by good works without faith,\nor also by the merit of good works, not by faith alone.\" \"We are not\njust and saved by renewal, and because the fulfilment of the Law is\nbegun in us, as the Interim teaches, but in this life we always remain\njust and saved by faith _alone._\" (Preger 1, 364ff.)\n\nMajor explains: \"When I say: The new obedience or good works which\nfollow faith are necessary to salvation, this is not to be understood in\nthe sense that one must earn salvation by good works, or that they\nconstitute, or could effect or impart the righteousness by which a man\nmay stand before the judgment-seat of God, but that good works are\neffects and fruits of true faith, which are to follow it [faith] and are\nwrought by Christ in believers. For whoever believes and is just, he, at\nthe risk of losing his righteousness and salvation, is in duty bound and\nobliged to begin to obey God as his Father, to do that which is good,\nand to avoid evil.\" (370.)\n\nMajor furthermore modified his statement by explaining: Good works are\nnecessary to salvation, not in order to obtain but to retain, salvation.\n\"In order to retain salvation and not to lose it again,\" he said, \"they\nare necessary to such an extent that, if you fail to do them, it is a\nsure indication that your faith is dead and false, a painted faith, an\nopinion existing only in your imagination.\" The reason, said Major\n(Menius, too, later on expressed his agreement in this point with\nMajor), why he had urged his proposition concerning the necessity of\ngood works to salvation, was the fact that the greater number also of\nthose who claim to be good evangelical Christians \"imagine that they\nbelieve, and imagine and fabricate a faith which may exist without good\nworks, though this is just as impossible as that the sun should not emit\nbrightness and splendor.\" (Tschackert 515; Frank 2, 162. 373.)\n\nReducing his teaching to a number of syllogisms, Major argued, in\nsubstance, as follows: Eternal life is given to none but the regenerate;\nregeneration, however, is new obedience and good works in the believers\nand the beginning of eternal life: hence the new life, which consists in\ngood works, is necessary to believers for salvation. Again: No one is\nsaved unless he confesses with his mouth the faith of his heart in\nChrist and remains steadfast in such faith, Rom. 10, 9. 10; Matt. 22,\n13; hence the works of confessing and persevering faith are necessary to\nsalvation as fruits of faith, in order that salvation, obtained by\nfaith, may not be lost by denial and apostasy. (Frank 2, 162.) Again:\nThe thing without which salvation cannot be preserved is necessary to\nsalvation; without obedience toward God salvation, received by grace\nthrough faith, cannot be preserved; hence obedience toward God is\nnecessary in order that by it salvation, received by grace, may be\npreserved and may not be lost by disobedience. At the conclusion of his\n\"Sermon on Paul's Conversion,\" Major also repeated his anathema against\nall those who teach otherwise, and added: \"Hiewider moegen nun Amseln\n[Amsdorf] oder Drosseln singen und schreien, Haehne [Gallus] kraehen\noder gatzen [gakkern], verloffene und unbekannte Wenden und Walen\n[Flacius] laestern, die Schrift verwenden, verkehren, kalumniieren,\nschreiben und malen, wie sie wollen, so bin ich doch gewiss, dass diese\nLehre, so in diesem Sermon steht die rechte goettliche Wahrheit ist,\nwider welche auch alle hoellischen Pforten nichts Bestaendiges oder\nGruendliches koennen aufbringen, wie boese sie sich auch machen.\"\n(Preger 1, 371. 380.)\n\nSchluesselburg charges Major also with confounding justification with\nsanctification. In proof of this he quotes the following from Major's\nremarks on Rom. 8: \"Salvation or justification is twofold: one in this\nlife and the other in eternal life. The salvification in this life\nconsists, first, in the remission of sins and in the imputation of\nrighteousness; secondly, in the gift and renewing of the Holy Spirit and\nin the hope of eternal life bestowed freely for the sake of Christ. This\nsalvification and justification is only begun [in this life] and\nimperfect; for in those who are saved and justified by faith there still\nremains sin, the depravity of nature, there remain also the terrors of\nsin and of the Law, the bite of the old Serpent, and death, together\nwith all miseries that flesh is heir to. Thus by faith and the Holy\nGhost we, indeed, _begin to be justified,_ sanctified, and saved, but we\nare not yet _perfectly justified,_ sanctified, and saved. It remains,\ntherefore, that we become _perfectly just and saved._ Sic per fidem et\nSpiritum Sanctum _coepimus quidem iustificari,_ sanctificari, et\nsalvari, nondum tamen perfecte iusti et salvi sumus. Reliquum igitur\nest, ut perfecte iusti et salvi fiamus.\" (7, 348.)\n\n146. Menius Sides with Major.\n\nProminent among the theologians who were in essential agreement with\nMajor was Justus Menius. He was born 1499; became Superintendent in\nGotha 1546; was favorably disposed toward the Leipzig Interim; resigned\nhis position in Gotha 1557; removed to Leipzig, where he published his\npolemical writings against Flacius; died August 11, 1558. In 1554 he was\nentangled in the Majoristic controversy. In this year Amsdorf demanded\nthat Menius, who, together with himself, Schnepf, and Stolz, had been\nappointed visitors of Thuringia, declare himself against the\nAdiaphorists, and, in particular, reject the books of Major, and his\ndoctrine that good works are necessary to salvation. Menius declined,\nbecause, he said, he had not read these books. As a result Menius was\ncharged with being a secret adherent of Majorism.\n\nIn 1556, however, Menius himself proved by his publications that this\nsuspicion was not altogether unwarranted. For in his _Preparation for a\nBlessed Death_ and in a _Sermon on Salvation,_ published in that year,\nMenius taught that the beginning of the new life in believers is\n\"necessary to salvation\" (Tschackert, 517; _Herzog, R._ 12, 89.) This\ncaused Flacius to remark in his book, _Concerning the Unity of Those who\nin the Past Years have Fought for and against the Adiaphora,_ 1556:\n\"Major and Menius, in their printed books, are again reviving the error\nthat good works are necessary to salvation, wherefore it is to be feared\nthat the latter misfortune will be worse than the former.\" (Preger 1,\n382.) Soon after, Menius was suspended from office and required to clear\nhimself before the Synod in Eisenach, 1556. Here he subscribed seven\npropositions in which the doctrine that good works are necessary to\nsalvation, or to retain salvation, was rejected.\n\nThe seven Eisenach propositions, signed by Menius, read as follows: \"1.\nAlthough this proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation, may be\ntolerated in the doctrine of the Law abstractly and ideally (_in\ndoctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari potest_), nevertheless\nthere are many weighty reasons why it should be avoided and shunned no\nless than the other: Christ is a creature. 2. In the forum of\njustification and salvation this proposition, Good works are necessary\nto salvation, is not at all to be tolerated. 3. In the forum of new\nobedience, after reconciliation, good works are not at all necessary to\nsalvation but for other causes. 4. Faith alone justifies and saves in\nthe beginning, middle, and end. 5. Good works are not necessary to\nretain salvation (_ad retinendam salutem_). 6. Justification and\nsalvation are synonyms and equipollent or convertible terms, and neither\ncan nor must be separated in any way (_nec ulla ratione distrahi aut\npossunt aut debent_). 7. May therefore the papistical buskin be banished\nfrom our church on account of its manifold offenses and innumerable\ndissensions and other causes of which the apostles speak Acts 15.\"\n(Preger 1, 383.)\n\nIn his subscription to these theses Menius declared: \"I, Justus Menius,\ntestify by my present signature that this confession is true and\northodox, and that, according to the gift given me by God, I have\nheretofore by word and writing publicly defended it, and shall continue\nto defend it.\" In this subscription Menius also promised to correct the\noffensive expressions in his _Sermon on Salvation._ However,\ndissatisfied with the intolerable situation thus created, he resigned,\nand soon after became Superintendent in Leipzig. In three violently\npolemical books, published there in 1557 and 1558, he freely vented his\nlong pent-up feelings of anger and animosity, especially against\nFlacius. (384f.)\n\nIn these publications, Menius denied that he had ever used the\nproposition of Major. However, he not only refused to reject it, but\ndefended the same error, though in somewhat different terms. He merely\nreplaced the phrase \"good works\" by \"new life,\" \"new righteousness,\"\n\"new obedience,\" and affirmed \"that it is necessary to our salvation\nthat such be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost.\" He wrote: The Holy Spirit\nrenews those who have become children of God by faith in Christ, and\nthat this is performed in them \"this, I say, they need for their\nsalvation--_sei ihnen zur Seligkeit vonnoeten._\" (Frank 2, 223.) Again:\n\"He [the Holy Spirit] begins righteousness and life in the believers,\nwhich beginning is in this life (as long as we dwell on earth in this\nsinful flesh) very weak and imperfect, _but nevertheless necessary to\nsalvation,_ and will be perfect after the resurrection, that we may walk\nin it before God eternally and be saved.\" (222.) Works, said Menius,\nmust not be introduced into the article of justification,\nreconciliation, and redemption; but when dealing with the article of\nsanctification, \"then it is correct to say: Sanctification, or renewal\nof the Holy Spirit, is necessary to salvation.\" (Preger 1, 388.)\n\nWith respect to the proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation,\nMenius stated that he could not simply condemn it as altogether false\nand heretical. Moreover, he argued: \"If it is correct to say:\nSanctification, or renewal by the Holy Spirit, is necessary to\nsalvation, then it cannot be false to say: Good works are necessary to\nsalvation, since it is certain and cannot be gainsaid that\nsanctification and renewal do not and cannot exist without good works.\"\n(386.) Indeed, he himself maintained that \"good works are necessary to\nsalvation in order that we may not lose it again.\" (387. 391.) At the\nsame time Menius, as stated above, claimed that he had never employed\nMajor's proposition, and counseled others to abstain from its use in\norder to avoid misinterpretation. The same advice he gave with respect\nto his own formula that new obedience is necessary to salvation. (Frank\n2, 165. 223.)\n\nMenius also confounded justification and sanctification. He wrote: \"By\nfaith in Christ alone we become just before God and are saved. Why?\nBecause by faith one receives first, forgiveness of sins and the\nrighteousness or obedience of Christ, with which He fulfilled the Law\nfor us; thereupon, one also receives the Holy Spirit, who effects and\nfulfils in us the righteousness required by the Law, here in this life\nimperfectly and perfectly in the life to come.\" (Preger 1, 387.) At the\nsynod of Eisenach, 1556, the theologians accordingly declared: \"Although\nit is true that grace and the gift through grace cannot be separated,\nbut are always together, nevertheless the gift of the Holy Spirit is not\na piece or part, much less a co-cause of justification and salvation,\nbut an appendix, a consequence, and an additional gift of grace.--\n_Wiewohl es wahr ist, dass gratia und donum per gratiam nicht koennen\ngetrennt werden, sondern allezeit beieinander sind, so ist doch die Gabe\ndes Heiligen Geistes nicht ein Stueck oder Teil, viel weniger eine\nMitursache der Justifikation und Salvation, sondern ist ein Anhang,\nFolge und Zugab be der Gnade._\" (Seeberg 4, 487.)\n\n147. Attitude of Anti-Majorists.\n\nWith the exception of Menius and other adherents in Electoral Saxony,\nMajor was firmly opposed by Lutheran ministers and theologians\neverywhere. Even when he was still their superintendent, the ministers\nof Mansfeld took issue with him; and after he was dismissed by Count\nAlbrecht, they drafted an _Opinion,_ in which they declared that Major's\nproposition obscures the doctrine of God's grace and Christ's merit.\nAlso the clergy of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg united in\nan _Opinion,_ in which they rejected Major's proposition. Chief among\nthe theologians who opposed him were, as stated, Amsdorf, Flacius,\nWigand, Gallus, Moerlin and Chemnitz. In their publications they\nunanimously denounced the proposition that good works are necessary to\nsalvation, and its equivalents, as dangerous, godless, blasphemous, and\npopish. Yet before the controversy they themselves had not all nor\nalways been consistent and correct in their terminology.\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ says: \"Before this controversy quite a few pure\nteachers employed such and similar expressions [that faith is preserved\nby good works, etc.] in the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in no\nway, however, intending thereby to confirm the above-mentioned errors of\nthe Papists.\" (949, 36.) Concerning the word \"faith,\" 1549, Flacius, for\nexample had said that our effort to obey God might be called a \"_causa\nsine qua non,_ or something which serves salvation.\" His words are:\n\"Atque hinc apparet, quatenus nostrum studium obediendi Deo dici possit\ncausa sine qua non, seu huperetikon ti, id est, quiddam subserviens ad\nsalutem.\" But when his attention was called to this passage, he first\neliminated the _causa sine qua non_ and substituted _ad vitam aeternam_\nfor _ad salutem,_ and afterwards changed this phrase into _ad veram\npietatem._ (Frank 2, 218. 169.) However, as soon as the controversy\nbegan, the Lutherans, notably Flacius, clearly saw the utter falsity of\nMajor's statements.\n\nFlacius wrote: \"Salvation is forgiveness of sins, as Paul testifies,\nRom. 4, and David, Ps. 32: 'Blessed are they whose sins are forgiven.'\n'Thy faith hath made thee whole.' Matt. 9; Mark 5. 10, Luke 7. 8. 18.\nJesus saves sinners and the lost. Matt. 1, 18; 1 Tim. 1. Since, now,\nsalvation and forgiveness of sins are one and the same thing, consider,\ndear Christian, what kind of doctrine this is: No one has received\nforgiveness of sins without good works; it is impossible for any one to\nreceive forgiveness of sins or to be saved without good works; good\nworks are necessary to forgiveness of sins.\" (Preger 1, 375.) Again:\n\"Young children and those who are converted in their last hour (who\ncertainly constitute the greater part), must confess that they neither\npossess, nor will possess, any good works, for they die forthwith.\nIndeed, St. Bernard also wrote when on his deathbed: _Perdite vixi_--I\nhave led a wicked life! And what is still more, all Christians, when in\ntheir dying moments, they are striving with sins, must say: 'All our\ngood works are like filthy rags; in my life there is nothing good;' and,\nas David says, Ps.51: 'Before Thee I am nothing but sin,' as Dr. Luther\nexplains it.\" (376.) Again: \"We are concerned about this, that poor and\nafflicted consciences may have a firm and certain consolation against\nsin, death, devil, and hell, and thus be saved. For if a condition or\nappendix concerning our good works and worthiness is required as\nnecessary to salvation, then, as Dr. Major frequently discusses this\nmatter very excellently, it is impossible to have a firm and solid\nconsolation.\" (376.)\n\nFlacius showed that Major's proposition taken as it reads, can be\ninterpreted only in a papistical sense, and that no amount of\nexplanations is able to cure it of its ingrained falsity. Major, said\nhe, must choose between his proposition or the interpretations which he\nplaces upon it; for the former does not admit of the latter. He added\nthat a proposition which is in constant need of explanations in order\nnot to be misunderstood is not adapted for religious instruction. From\nthe fact, says Flacius, that the justified are obliged to obey the Law,\nit follows indeed that good works are necessary, but not that they are\nnecessary to salvation (as Major and Menius inferred). \"From the\npremises [that Christians are in duty bound to obey the Law and to\nrender the new obedience] it merely follows that this obedience is\nnecessary; but nothing is here said of salvation.\" (392.) Flacius showed\nthat Major's proposition, even with the proviso that each and every\nmerit of works was to be excluded, remained objectionable. The words\n\"necessary to, _necessaria ad,_\" always, he insisted, designate\nsomething that precedes, moves, works, effects. The proposition:\nJustification, salvation, and faith are necessary to good works, cannot\nbe reversed, because good works are not antecedents, but consequents of\njustification, salvation, and faith.\n\nFor the same reason Flacius objected to the phrase that good works are\nnecessary as _causa sine qua non._ \"Dear Dr. G.\" (Major), says he, \"ask\nthe highly learned Greek philosophers for a little information as to\nwhat they say _de causa sine qua non, hon ouk aneu._ Ask I say, the\nlearned and the unlearned, ask philosophy, reason, and common languages,\nwhether it is not true that it [_causa sine qua non_] must precede.\"\n(377.) No one, said he would understand the propositions of Major and\nMenius correctly. Illustrating this point Flacius wrote: \"Can one become\na carpenter without the house which he builds afterwards? Can one make a\nwagon or ship without driving or sailing? I say, yes! Or, dear Doctor,\nare we accustomed to say: Driving and sailing is necessary to the wagon\nand ship respectively, and it is impossible for a wagon or ship to be\nmade without driving or sailing? I hear: No!\" (375.) \"Nobody says:\nFruits and leaves are necessary to the tree; wine and grapes are\nnecessary to the vineyard; or dwelling is necessary to a house; driving\nand sailing, to a wagon and ship; riding is necessary to a horse; but\nthus they speak: Wagons and horses are necessary to riding, a ship is\nnecessary to sailing.\" (391.)\n\nThe charge that Major's proposition robbed Christians of their assurance\nof salvation was urged also by Nicholas Gallus. He says: It is giving\nwith one hand and taking again with the other when Major adds [to his\nproposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation] that\nour conscience is not to look upon our works, but on Christ alone.\n(Frank 2, 224.) The same point was stressed in the _Opinion_ of the\nministers of Luebeck, Hamburg, Lueneburg, and Magdeburg, published by\nFlacius and Gallus in 1553. (220.) The Hamburg theologians declared:\n\"This appendix [necessary to salvation, _ad salutem_] indicates a cause\nand a merit.\" They added that in this sense also the phrase was\ngenerally understood by the Papists. (Planck, _Geschichte des prot.\nLehrbegriffes_ 5, 505. 497.) Gallus also explained that it was\npapistical to infer: By sins we lose salvation, hence it is retained by\ngood works; or, Sins condemn, hence good works save. (Frank 2, 171.)\nHesshusius wrote to Wigand: \"I regard Eber's assertion that good works\nare necessary to justification _because they must be present,_ as false\nand detrimental. For Paul expressly excludes good works from the\njustification of a sinner before God, not only when considered a merit\ncause, glory, dignity, price, object or trust, and medium of\napplication, etc., but also as to the necessity of their presence\n(_verum etiam quoad necessitatem praesentiae_). If it is necessary that\ngood works be present with him who is to be justified, then Paul errs\nwhen he declares that a man is justified without the works of the Law.\"\n(172.)\n\nRegarding this point, that good works are necessary to justification in\nso far as they must be present, the Majorists appealed to Luther, who,\nhowever, had merely stated that faith is never alone, though it alone\njustifies. His axiom was: \"Faith alone justifies, but it is not alone--\n_Fides sola iustificat, sed non est sola._\" According to Luther good\nworks, wherever they are found, are present in virtue of faith; where\nthey are not present, they are absent because faith is lacking; nor can\nthey preserve the faith by which alone they are produced. At the\nAltenburg Colloquy (1568 to 1569) the theologians of Electoral Saxony\ninsisted that, since true faith does not and cannot exist in those who\npersevere in sins against their conscience, good works must not be\naltogether and absolutely excluded from justification, at least their\nnecessity and presence must not be regarded as unnecessary. (189.) The\ntheologians of Ducal Saxony, however, denied \"that in the article and\nact of justification our good works are necessary by necessity of\npresence. _Sed impugnamus istam propositionem, in articulo et actu\niustificationis bona nostra opera necessaria esse necessitate\npraesentiae._\" \"On the other hand, however, they, too, were solicitous\nto affirm the impossibility of faith's coexisting with an evil purpose\nto sin against God in one and the same mind at the same time.\" (237;\nGieseler 3, 2, 251.) In the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ the\nLutheran theologians declared: \"The proposition (Justification of faith\nrequires the presence of good works) was rejected [in the _Formula of\nConcord_] because it cannot be understood otherwise than of the cause of\njustification. For whatever is present in justification as necessary in\nsuch a manner that without its presence justification can neither be nor\noccur, that must indeed be understood as being a cause of justification\nitself.\" (238)\n\n148. Major's Concessions Not Satisfactory.\n\nIn order to put an end to the controversy, Major offered a concession in\nhis \"_Confession concerning the Article of Justification,_ that is,\nconcerning the doctrine that by faith alone, without any merit, for the\nsake of Christ, a man has forgiveness of sins, and is just before God\nand an heir of eternal salvation,\" 1558. Here he states that he had not\nused the controverted formula for several years and, in order not to\ngive further cause for public contention, he promised \"not to employ the\nwords, 'Good works are necessary to salvation,' any more, on account of\nthe false interpretations placed upon it.\" (Preger 1, 396.) In making\nthis concession, however, Major did not at all intend to retract his\nteaching or to condemn his proposition as false. He promised to abstain\nfrom its use, not because he was now convinced of his error and viewed\nhis propositions as false and incorrect as such, but merely because it\nwas ambiguous and liable to abuse, and because he wished to end the\nconflict. (Frank 2, 166f. 223.)\n\nNor did Major later on ever admit that he had erred in the matter. In an\noration delivered 1567 he boasted of his intimate relation and doctrinal\nagreement with Luther and Melanchthon, adding: \"Neither did I ever\ndeviate, nor, God assisting me, shall I ever deviate, from the truth\nonce acknowledged. _Nec discessi umquam nec Deo iuvante discedam ab\nagnita semel veritate._\" He had never thought or taught, said he, that\ngood works are a cause of justification. And concerning the proposition,\n\"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" he had expressly declared that\nhe intended to abstain from its use \"because it had offended some on\naccount of its ambiguity, _cum propter ambiguitatem offenderit\naliquos._\" He continued: \"The facts show that we [the professors of\nWittenberg University] are and have remained guardians of that doctrine\nwhich Luther and Melanchthon ... delivered to us, in whose writings from\nthe time of the [Augsburg] Confession there is neither a dissonance nor\na discrepancy, either among themselves or from the foundation, nor\nanything obscure or perplexing.\" (Frank 2, 224. 167.)\n\nAlso in his Testament (_Testamentum Doctoris Georgii Majoris_),\npublished 1570, Major emphatically denied that he had ever harbored or\ntaught any false views concerning justification, salvation, and good\nworks. Of his own accord he had also abandoned the phrases: \"Good works\nare necessary to salvation; it is impossible to be saved without good\nworks; no one has ever been saved without good works--_Bona opera sunt\nnecessaria ad salutem; impossibile est, sine bonis operibus salvum\nfieri; nemo umquam sine bonis operibus salvatus est._\" He had done this\nin order to obviate the misapprehension as though he taught that good\nworks are a cause of salvation which contribute to merit and effect\nsalvation. According to this _Testament,_ he desired his doctrines and\nwritings to be judged. In future he would not dispute with anybody about\nthese phrases. (168.) Thus in his _Testament,_ too, Major withdrew his\nstatements not because they were simply false, but only because they\nhad been interpreted to mean that good works are the efficient cause of\njustification and salvation. And while Major in later writings did\neliminate the appendix \"_ad salutem,_ to salvation,\" or \"_ad vitam\naeternam,_ to eternal life,\" he retained, and continued to teach,\nessentially the same error in another garb, namely, that good works are\nnecessary in order to retain faith. Enumerating, in his _Explanation of\nthe Letter to the Galatians,_ of 1560, the purposes on account of which\ngood works ought to be rendered, he mentions as the \"first, in order to\nretain faith, the Holy Spirit, the grace bestowed, and a good\nconscience.\" (218.)\n\nThus Major was willing to abandon as dangerous and ambiguous, and to\nabstain from the use of the formula, \"Good works are necessary to\nsalvation,\" but refused to reject it as false and to make a public\nadmission and confession of his error. This, however, was precisely what\nhis opponents demanded; for they were convinced that they could be\nsatisfied with nothing less. As a result the controversy continued till\nMajor's death, in 1574. The Jena professors, notably Flacius, have been\ncharged with prolonging the controversy from motives of personal\nrevenge. (Schaff, 276.) No doubt, the Wittenbergers had gone to the very\nlimit of rousing the animosity and resentment of Flacius (who himself,\nindeed, was not blameless in the language used against his opponents).\nMajor had depicted Flacius as a most base and wicked man, as a cunning\nand sly adventurer; as a tyrant, who, after having suppressed the\nWittenbergers, would, as a pope, lord it over all Germany; as an\nAntinomian and a despiser of all good works, etc. (Preger 1, 397.) In\nthe address of October 18, 1567 already referred to, Major said: \"There\nwas in this school [Wittenberg] a vagabond of uncertain origin,\nfatherland, religion, and faith who called himself Flacius Illyricus....\nHe was the first one to spew out against this school, against its\nprincipal Doctors, against the churches of these regions, against the\nprinces themselves, the poison which he had brewed and imbibed some time\nago, and, having gnawed and consumed with the bite of a serpent the womb\nof his mother, to destroy the harmony of these churches, at first by\nspreading his dreams, fables, and gossip but now also by calumnies and\nmanifest lies.\" (Frank 2, 217.) Melanchthon, too, had repeatedly written\nin a similar vein. In an _Opinion_ of his, dated March 4, 1558, we read:\n\"Even if they [Flacius and his adherents] condemn and banish me, I am\nwell satisfied; for I do not desire to associate with them, because I\nwell know that the said Illyricus with his adherents does not seek the\nhonor of God, but publicly opposes the truth, and as yet has never\ndeclared himself concerning the entire sum of Christian doctrine.\" (_C.\nR._ 9, 463. 476. 311.) In an _Opinion_ of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon\neven insinuated that Flacius denied the Trinity. (763.) Before this,\nAugust, 1549, he had written to Fabricius: \"The Slavic runagate (Slavus\ndrapetes) received many benefits from our Academy and from me. But we\nhave nursed a serpent in our bosom. He deserves to be branded on his\nforehead as the Macedonian king did with a soldier: 'Ungrateful\nstranger, xevnos acharistos.' Nor do I believe that the source of his\nhatred is any other than that the place of Cruciger was not given to\nhim. But I omit these disagreeable narrations.\" (7, 449. 478 ff.) This\npersonal abuse, however, was not the reason why Flacius persisted in his\nopposition despite the concessions made by Major and Menius,--\nconcessions with which even such moderate men as Martin Chemnitz were\nnot satisfied.\n\nFlacius continued his opposition because he could not do otherwise\nwithout sacrificing his own principles, compromising the truth, and\njeopardizing the doctrine of justification. He did not yield because he\nwas satisfied with nothing less than a complete victory of the divine\ntruth and an unqualified retraction of error. The truly objective manner\nin which he dealt with this matter appears from his _Strictures on the\nTestament of Dr. Major (Censura de Testamento D. Majoris)_. Here we\nread, in substance: In his _Testament_ Major covers his error with the\nsame sophism which he employed in his former writings. For he says that\nhe ascribes the entire efficient cause, merit, and price of our\njustification and salvation to Christ alone, and therefore excludes and\nremoves all our works and virtues. This he has set forth more fully and\nmore clearly in his previous writings, saying that the proposition,\n\"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" can be understood in a double\nsense; _viz._, that they are necessary to salvation as a certain merit,\nprice, or efficient cause of justification or salvation (as the Papists\nunderstand and teach it), or that they are necessary to salvation as a\ncertain debt or an indispensable cause (_causa sine qua non_), or a\ncause without which it is impossible for the effect of salvation to\nfollow or for any one to obtain it. He now confesses this same opinion.\nHe does not expressly eliminate \"the indispensable cause, or the\nobligation without the fulfilment of which it is impossible for any one\nto be preserved, as he asserted repeatedly before this, from which it\nappears that he adheres to his old error. _Et non diserte tollit causam\nsine qua non seu debitum, sine cuius persolutione sit impossibile\nquemquam servari, quod toties antea asseruit; facile patet, eum\npristinum illum suum errorem retinere._\" (Schlb. 7, 266; Preger 1, 398.)\nFlacius demanded an unqualified rejection of the statement, \"Good works\nare necessary to salvation\"--a demand with which Major as well as\nMelanchthon refused to comply. (_C. R._ 9, 474 f.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_, however, sanctioned the attitude of Flacius.\nIt flatly rejected the false and dubious formulas of Melanchthon, Major,\nand Menius concerning the necessity of good works to salvation, and\nfully restored Luther's doctrine. Luther's words concerning \"good works\"\nare quoted as follows: \"We concede indeed that instruction should be\ngiven also concerning love and good works, yet in such a way that this\nbe done when and where it is necessary, namely, when otherwise and\noutside of this matter of justification we have to do with works. But\nhere the chief matter dealt with is the question not whether we should\nalso do good works and exercise love, but by what means we can be\njustified before God and saved. And here we answer with St. Paul: that\nwe are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by the deeds of the\nLaw or by love. Not that we hereby entirely reject works and love, as\nthe adversaries falsely slander and accuse us, but that we do not allow\nourselves to be led away, as Satan desires, from the chief matter, with\nwhich we have to do here, to another and foreign affair, which does not\nat all belong to this matter. Therefore, whereas and as long as we are\noccupied with this article of justification, we reject and condemn\nworks, since this article is so constituted that it can admit of no\ndisputation or treatment whatever regard ing works. Therefore in this\nmatter we cut short all Law and works of the Law.\" (925, 29.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ rejects the Majoristic formula, not because it\nis ambiguous, but because it is false. Concerning ambiguous phrases it\ndeclares: \"To avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum,\ni.e._, words and expressions which are applied and used in various\nmeanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained.\" (874, 51.) An\nambiguous phrase or statement need not be condemned, because it may be\nmade immune from error and misapprehension by a careful explanation. The\nstatement, \"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" however, does not\nadmit of such treatment. It is inherently false and cannot be cured by\nany amount of explanation or interpretation. Because of this inherent\nfalsity it must be rejected as such. Logically and grammatically the\nphrase, \"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" reverses the correct\ntheological order, by placing works before faith and sanctification\nbefore justification. It turns things topsy-turvy. It makes the effect\nthe cause; the consequent, the antecedent, and vice versa.\n\nNot personal animosity, but this fundamental falsity of the Majoristic\nformula was, in the last analysis, the reason why the explanations and\nconcessions made by Major and Menius did not and could not satisfy their\nopponents. They maintained, as explained above, that the words\n\"necessary to\" always imply \"something that precedes, moves, effects,\nworks,\" and that, accordingly, the obnoxious propositions of Major\n\"place good works before the remission of sins and before salvation.\"\n(Preger 1, 377.) Even Planck admits that only force could make the\nproposition, \"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" say, \"Good works\nmust follow faith and justification.\" \"According to the usage of every\nlanguage,\" says he, \"a phrase saying that one thing is necessary to\nanother designates a causal connection. Whoever dreamt of asserting that\nheat is necessary to make it day, because it is a necessary effect of\nthe rays of the sun, by the spreading of which it becomes day.\" (4, 542.\n485.) Without compromising the truth and jeopardizing the doctrine of\njustification, therefore, the Lutherans were able to regard as\nsatisfactory only a clear and unequivocal rejection of Majorism as it is\nfound in the _Formula of Concord._\n\n149. Absurd Proposition of Amsdorf.\n\nNicholas Amsdorf, the intimate and trusted friend of Luther, was among\nthe most zealous of the opponents of Majorism. He was born December 3,\n1483; professor in Wittenberg; 1521 in Worms with Luther; superintendent\nin Magdeburg; 1542 bishop at Naumburg; banished by Maurice in 1547, he\nremoved to Magdeburg; soon after professor and superintendent in Jena;\nopposed the Interimists, Adiaphorists, Osiandrists, Majorists,\nSynergists, Sacramentarians, Anabaptists, and Schwenckfeldians; died at\nEisenach May 14, 1565. Regarding the bold statements of Major as a blow\nat the very heart of true Lutheranism, Amsdorf antagonized his teaching\nas a \"most pernicious error,\" and denounced Major as a Pelagian and a\ndouble Papist. But, alas, the momentum of his uncontrolled zeal carried\nhim a step too far--over the precipice. He declared that good works are\ndetrimental and injurious to salvation, _bona opera perniciosa_ (noxia)\n_esse ad salutem._ He defended his paradoxical statement in a\npublication of 1559 against Menius, with whose subscription to the\nEisenach propositions, referred to above, he was not satisfied; chiefly\nbecause Menius said there that he had taught and defended them also in\nthe past. The flagrant blunder of Amsdorf was all the more offensive\nbecause it appeared on the title of his tract, reading as follows:\n\"_Dass diese Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schaedlich,'\neine rechte, wahre christliche Propositio sei,_ durch die heiligen\nPaulum und Lutherum gelehrt und gepredigt. Niclas von Amsdorf, 1559.\nThat this proposition, 'Good works are injurious to salvation,' is a\ncorrect, true, Christian proposition taught and preached by Sts. Paul\nand Luther.\" (Frank 2, 228.)\n\nLuther, to whose writings Amsdorf appealed, had spoken very guardedly\nand correctly in this matter. He had declared: Good works are\ndetrimental to the righteousness of faith, \"if one presumes to be\njustified by them, _si quis per ea praesumat iustificari._\" Wherever\nLuther speaks of the injuriousness of good works, it is always _sub\nspecie iustificationis,_ that is to say, viewing good works as entering\nthe article of justification, or the forgiveness of sins. (Weimar 7, 59;\n10, 3, 373. 374. 387; E. 16, 465. 484; Tschackert, 516.) What vitiated\nthe proposition as found in Amsdorf's tract was the fact that he had\nomitted the modification added by Luther. Amsdorf made a flat statement\nof what Luther had asserted, not flatly, _nude et simpliciter,_ but with\na limitation, _secundum quid._\n\nSelf-evidently the venerable Amsdorf, too, who from the very beginning\nof the Reformation had set an example in preaching as well as in living\na truly Christian life, did not in the least intend to minimize, or\ndiscourage the doing of, good works by his offensive phrase, but merely\nto eliminate good works from the article of justification. As a matter\nof fact, his extravagant statement, when taken as it reads, flatly\ncontradicted his own clear teaching. In 1552 he had declared against\nMajor, as recorded above: \"Who has ever taught or said that one should\nor need not do good works?\" \"For we all say and confess that after his\nrenewal and new birth a Christian should love and fear God and do all\nmanner of good works,\" etc. What Amsdorf wished to emphasize was not\nthat good works are dangerous in themselves and as such, but in the\narticle of salvation. For this reason he added: \"_ad salutem,_ to\nsalvation.\" By this appendix he meant to emphasize that good works are\ndangerous when introduced as a factor in justification and trusted in\nfor one's salvation.\n\nMelanchthon refers to the proposition of Amsdorf as \"filthy speech,\n_unflaetige Rede._\" In 1557, at Worms, he wrote: \"Now Amsdorf writes:\nGood works are detrimental to salvation.... The Antinomians and their\nlike must avoid the filthy speech, 'Good works are detrimental to\nsalvation.'\" (_C. R._ 9, 405 ff.) Though unanimously rejecting his\nblundering proposition, Amsdorf's colleagues treated the venerable\nveteran of Lutheranism with consideration and moderation. No one, says\nFrank, disputed the statement in the sense in which Amsdorf took it, and\nits form was so apparently false that it could but be generally\ndisapproved. (2, 176.) The result was that the paradox assertion\nremained without any special historical consequences.\n\nTrue, Major endeavored to foist Amsdorf's teaching also on Flacius. He\nwrote: Flacius \"endeavors with all his powers to subvert this\nproposition, that good works are necessary to those who are to be saved;\nand tries to establish the opposite blasphemy, that good works are\ndangerous to those who are to be saved, and that they area hindrance to\neternal salvation--_evertere summis viribus hanc propositionem conatur:\nbona opera salvandis esse necessaria. Ac contra stabilire oppositam\nblasphemiam studet: Bona opera salvandis periculosa sunt et aeternae\nsaluti officiunt._\" Major continues: \"Let pious minds permit Flacius and\nhis compeers, at their own risk, to prostitute their eternal salvation\nto the devils, and by their execrations and anathemas to sacrifice\nthemselves to the devil and his angels.\" (Frank 2, 221.) This, however,\nwas slander pure and simple, for Flacius was among the first publicly to\ndisown Amsdorf when he made his extravagant statement against Menius.\n(Preger 1, 392. 384.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ most emphatically rejects the error of Amsdorf\n(the bare statement that good works are injurious to salvation) \"as\noffensive and detrimental to Christian discipline.\" And justly so; for\nthe question was not what Amsdorf meant to say: but what he really did\nsay. The _Formula_ adds: \"For especially in these last times it is no\nless, needful to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works,\nand remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in\ngood works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than\nthat works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men\nmay be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by\npapistic and Pharisaical confidence in their own works and merits.\"\n(801, 18.)\n\n150. Other Points of Dispute.\n\nIs it correct to say: God requires good works, or, Good works are\nnecessary, and, Christians are obliged or in duty bound to do good works\n(_bona opera sunt necessaria et debita_)? This question, too, was a\npoint of dispute in the Majoristic controversy. Originally the\ncontroversy concerning these terms and phrases was a mere logomachy,\nwhich, however, later on (when, after the error lurking in the absolute\nrejection of them had been pointed out, the phrases were still flatly\ncondemned), developed into a violent controversy. The _Formula of\nConcord_ explains: \"It has also been argued by some that good works are\nnot _necessary (noetig)_, but are _voluntary (freiwillig)_, because they\nare not extorted by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be done\nfrom a voluntary spirit and a joyful heart. Over against this the other\nside contended that good works are _necessary_. This controversy was\noriginally occasioned by the words _necessitas_ and _libertas_\n[\"_notwendig_\" und \"_frei_\"], that is, necessary and free, because\nespecially the word _necessitas,_ necessary, signifies not only the\neternal, immutable order according to which all men are obliged and in\nduty bound to obey God, but sometimes also a coercion, by which the Law\nforces men to good works. But afterwards there was a disputation not\nonly concerning the words, but the doctrine itself was attacked in the\nmost violent manner, and it was contended that the new obedience in the\nregenerate is not necessary because of the above-mentioned divine\norder.\" (939, 4f.)\n\nFrom the very beginning of the Reformation the Romanists had slandered\nLuther also by maintaining that he condemned good works and simply\ndenied their necessity. A similar charge was made by the Majorists\nagainst their opponents generally. And Melanchthon's writings, too,\nfrequently create the same impression. But it was an inference of their\nown. They argued: If good works are not necessary to salvation, they\ncannot be necessary at all. Wigand wrote: \"It is a most malicious and\ninsidious trait in the new teachers [the Majorists] that they, in order\nto gloss over their case, cry out with the Papists that the controversy\nis whether good works are necessary. But this is not in dispute, for no\nChristian ever denied it. Good works are necessary; that is certainly\ntrue. But the conflict arises from the appendix attached to it, and the\npatch pasted to it, _viz._, 'to salvation.' And here all God-fearing\nmen say that it is a detrimental, offensive, damnable, papistic\nappendix.\" (Planck 4, 498. 544.)\n\nIt is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more\nextensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents\nof the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement, \"Good works are\nnecessary.\" Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily\nimplying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion,\nthey rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word \"must\" is\nhere not in place, they protested. Agricola, as well as the later\nAntinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions \"_necessarium,_\nnecessary\" and \"duty, _debitum,_\" when employed in connection with good\nworks. January 13, 1555, Melanchthon wrote: \"Some object to the words,\n'Good works are _necessary,_' or, 'One _must_ do good works.' They\nobject to the two words _necessitas_ and _debitum._ And the\nCourt-preacher [Agricola] at that time juggled with the word _must: 'das\nMuss ist versalzen._' He understood _necessarium_ and _debitum_ as\nmeaning, coerced by fear of punishment, _extortum coactione_ (extorted\nby coercion), and spoke high-sounding words, such as, how good works\ncame without the Law. Yet the first meaning of _necessarium_ and\n_debitum_ is not _extortum coactione,_ but the eternal and immutable\norder of divine wisdom; and the Lord Christ and Paul themselves employ\nthese words _necessarium_ and _debitum._\" In December, 1557, he wrote:\n\"They [the Antinomians] object to the proposition: 'New obedience is\nnecessary;' again: 'New obedience is a debt (_debitum_).' And now\nAmsdorf writes: 'Good works are detrimental to salvation,'and it was\nEisleben's [Agricola's] slogan: 'Das Muss ist versalzen.' In Nordhausen\nsome one has publicly announced a disputation which contains the\nproposition: '_Summa ars Chriatianorum est nescire legem._--The highest\nart of a Christian is not to know the Law.'\" March 4, 1558: \"Some, for\ninstance, Amsdorf and Gallus, object to the word _debitum._\" (_C. R._ 8,\n411. 194. 842; 9, 405. 474.)\n\nAndrew Musculus, professor in Frankfurt on the Oder, is reported to have\nsaid in a sermon, 1558: \"They are all the devil's own who teach: 'New\nobedience is necessary (_nova obedientia est necessaria_)'; the word\n'must (necessary)' does not belong here. 'Good works are necessary to\nsalvation,' and, 'Good works are necessary, but not to salvation'--these\nare both of a cloth--_das sind zwei Hosen aus EINEM Tuch._\" (Meusel,\n_Handlexikon_ 4, 710; Gieseler 3, 2, 216.)\n\nOver against this extreme position, Melanchthon, Flacius, Wigand,\nMoerlin, and others held that it was entirely correct to say that good\nworks are necessary. In the _Opinion_ of November 13, 1559, referred to\nabove, Melanchthon, after stating that he does not employ the phrase,\n\"Good works are necessary to salvation,\" continues as follows: \"But I do\naffirm that these propositions are true, and that one may properly and\nwithout sophistry say, 'The new obedience or good works are necessary,'\nbecause obedience is due to God and because it is necessary that, after\nthe Holy Spirit has been received, regeneration or conversion be\nfollowed by motions corresponding to the Holy Spirit.... And the words\n'duty' and 'necessity' signify the order of God's wisdom and justice;\nthey do not signify an obedience which is compelled or extorted by\nfear.\" (_C. R._ 9, 969.) The Frankfurt _Rezess_ of 1558 [Rezess,\nRueckzug, Vergleich = Agreement], written by Melanchthon and signed by\nthe Lutheran princes, declared: \"These propositions, '_Nova obedientia\nest necessaria, nova obedientia est debitum,_ New obedience is\nnecessary, is a debt,' shall not be rejected.\" The _Rezess_ explained:\n\"It is certainly a divine, immovable truth that new obedience is\nnecessary in those who are justified; and these words are to be retained\nin their true meaning. 'Necessary' signifies divine order. New obedience\nis necessary and is a debt for the very reason that it is an immutable\ndivine order that the rational creature obeys God.\" (_C. R._ 9, 496.\n498.)\n\nIn a similar way this matter was explained by Flacius and other\ntheologians. They all maintained that it is correct to say, Good works\nare necessary. Even Amsdorf wrote 1552 in his _Brief Instruction_\nagainst Major: \"For we all say and confess that a Christian after his\nrenewal and new birth _should_ and _must_ (_soll und muss_) love and\nfear God and do all manner of good works, but not in order to be saved\nthereby, for he is saved already by faith.\" (Schlb. 7, 210.) This view,\nwhich was also plainly taught in the _Augsburg Confession,_ prevailed\nand received the sanction of our Church in Article IV of the _Formula of\nConcord._ When a Christian spontaneously and by the free impulse of his\nown faith does (and would do, even if there were no law at all) what,\naccording to the holy will of God, revealed in the Ten Commandments, he\nis obliged and in duty bound to do--such works, and such only, are,\naccording to the _Formula of Concord,_ truly good works, works pleasing\nto God. It was the doctrine of Luther, who had written, _e.g._, in his\n_Church Postil_ of 1521: \"No, dear man, you [cannot earn heaven by your\ngood works, but you] must have heaven and already be saved before you do\ngood works. Works do not merit heaven, but, on the contrary, heaven,\nimparted by pure grace, does good works spontaneouslv, seeking no merit,\nbut only the welfare of the neighbor and the glory of God. _Nein, lieber\nMensch, du musst den Himmel haben und schon selig sein, ehe du gute\nWerke tust. Die Werke verdienen nicht den Himmel, sondern wiederum\n[umgekehrt], der Himmel, aus lauter Gnaden gegeben, tut die guten Werke\ndahin, ohne Gesuch des Verdienstes, nur dem Naechsten zu Nutz und Gott\nzu Ehren._\" (E. 7, 174.) Again, in _De Servio Arbitrio_ of 1525: \"The\nchildren of God do good entirely voluntarily, seeking no reward, but\nonly the glory and will of God, ready to do the good even if, assuming\nthe impossible, there were neither heaven nor hell. _Filii autem Dei\ngratuita voluntate faciunt bonum, nullum praemium quaerentes, sed solam\ngloriam et voluntatem Dei, parati bonum facere, si per impossibile neque\nregnum neque infernus esset._\" (E. v. a. 7, 234.)\n\n\nXIV. The Synergistic Controversy.\n\n151. Relation of Majorism and Synergism.\n\nThe theological connection between Majorism and synergism is much closer\nthan is generally realized. Both maintain that, in part, or in a certain\nrespect, salvation depends not on grace alone, but also on man and his\nefforts. The Majorists declared good works to be necessary to salvation,\nor at least to the preservation of faith and of salvation. Thus\nsalvation would, in a way, depend on the right conduct of a Christian\nafter his conversion. The Synergists asserted: Man, too, must do his bit\nand cooperate with the Holy Spirit if he desires to be saved. Conversion\nand salvation, therefore, would depend, at least in part, on man's\nconduct toward converting grace, and he would be justified and saved,\nnot by grace alone, but by a faith which to a certain extent is a work\nof his own. The burden of both, Majorism and synergism, was the denial\nof the _sola gratia._ Both coordinated man and God as the causes of our\nsalvation. Indeed, consistently carried out, both destroyed the central\nChristian truth of justification by grace alone and, with it, the\nassurance of a gracious God and of eternal salvation--the supreme\nreligious concern of Luther and the entire Lutheran theology.\n\nMajorists and Synergists employed also the same line of argument. Both\nderived their doctrine, not from any clear statements of the Bible, but\nby a process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning. The Majorists\ninferred: Since evil works and sins against conscience destroy faith\nand justification, good works are required for their preservation. The\nSynergists argued: Since all who are not converted or finally saved must\nblame, not God, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who are\nconverted must be credited with at least a small share in the work of\ntheir salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace than\nthe conduct of those who are lost.\n\nHowever, while Majorism as well as synergism, as stated, represented\nessentially the same error and argued against the doctrine of grace in\nthe same unscriptural manner, the more subtle, veiled, and hence the\nmore dangerous of the two, no doubt, was synergism, which reduced man's\ncooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and, especially in the\nbeginning, endeavored to clothe itself in ambiguous phrases and\napparently pious and plausible formulas. Perhaps this accounts also for\nthe fact that, though Melanchthon and the Majorists felt constrained to\nabandon as described in the preceding chapter, the coarser and more\noffensive Majoristic propositions, they had at the same time no\ncompunctions about retaining and defending essentially the same error in\ntheir doctrine of conversion; and that, on the other hand, their\nopponents, who by that time fully realized also the viciousness of\nsynergism, were not satisfied with Major's concessions in the\ncontroversy on good works, because he and his colleagues in Wittenberg\nwere known to identify themselves with the Synergists. For the same\nreason the dangerous error lurking in the synergistic phrases does not\nseem from the first to have been recognized by the Lutherans in the same\ndegree as was the error contained in the Majoristic propositions, which\nindeed had even during Luther's life to some extent become a subject of\ndispute. Yet it seems hardly possible that for years they should not\nhave detected the synergistic deviations in Wittenberg from Luther's\ndoctrine of free will. Perhaps the fact that at the time when\nMelanchthon came out boldly with his synergism, 1548, the Lutherans were\nengrossed with the Adiaphoristic and Majoristic controversies may help\nto explain, at least to some extent, why the synergistic error caused\nsmall concern, and was given but little consideration in the beginning.\nAs a matter of fact, although a considerable amount of synergistic\nmaterial had been published by 1548, the controversy did not begin till\n1556, while the error that good works are necessary to salvation was\npublicly opposed soon after its reappearance in the Leipzig Interim. At\nthe Weimar Disputation, 1560, Strigel referred to this silence, saying:\n\"I am astonished that I am pressed so much in this matter [concerning\nsynergism], since three years ago at Worms no mention whatever [?] was\nmade of this controversy, while many severe commands were given\nregarding others.\" (Richard, _Conf. Prin.,_ 349.) The matter was\nmentioned at Worms, but Melanchthon is reported to have satisfied Brenz\nand others by declaring that in the passages of his _Loci_ suspected of\nsynergism he meant \"the regenerated will.\"\n\n152. Luther's Monergism.\n\nAccording to Lutheran theology, the true opposite of synergism is not\nCalvinism with its double election, irresistible grace, denial of\nuniversal redemption, etc., but the monergism of grace, embracing\nparticularly the tenets that in consequence of Adam's fall man is\nspiritually dead and utterly unable to contribute in any degree or\nmanner toward his own justification and conversion; moreover, that,\nbeing an enemy of God, man, of his own natural powers, is active only in\nresisting the saving efforts of God, as well as able and prone only to\ndo so; that God alone and in every respect is the Author of man's\nconversion, perseverance, and final salvation; and that, since the grace\nof God is universal and earnestly proffered, man alone is responsible\nfor, and the cause of, his own damnation.\n\n_\"Sola fides iustificat,_ Faith alone justifies\"--that was the great\nslogan of the Reformation sounded forth by Luther and his followers with\never increasing boldness, force and volume. And the distinct meaning of\nthis proposition, which Luther called \"_hoc meum dogma,_ this my dogma,\"\nwas just this, that we are saved not by any effort or work of our own,\nbut in every respect by God's grace alone. The restoration of this\nwonderful truth, taught by St. Paul, made Luther the Reformer of the\nChurch. This truth alone, as Luther had experienced, is able to impart\nsolid comfort to a terror-stricken conscience, engender divine assurance\nof God's pardon and acceptance, and thus translate a poor miserable\nsinner from the terrors of hell into paradise.\n\nIn the _Seven Penitential Psalms,_ written 1517, Luther says: \"If God's\nmercy is to be praised, then all [human] merits and worthiness must come\nto naught.\" (Weimar 1, 161.) \"Not such are blessed as have no sins or\nextricate themselves by their own labors, but only those whose sins are\ngraciously forgiven by God.\" (167.) \"It is characteristic of God (_es\nist Gottes Natur_) to make something out of nothing. Hence God cannot\nmake anything out of him who is not as yet nothing.... Therefore God\nreceives none but the forsaken, heals none but the ill, gives sight to\nnone but the blind, quickens none but the dead, makes pious none but the\nsinners, makes wise none but the ignorant,--in short, He has mercy on\nnone but the miserable, and gives grace to none but those who are in\ndisgrace. Whoever therefore, is a proud saint, wise or just, cannot\nbecome God's material and receive God's work within himself, but remains\nin his own work and makes an imaginary, seeming, false, and painted\nsaint of himself, _i.e._, a hypocrite.\" (183.) \"For he whom Thou [God]\ndost justify will never become righteous by his works; hence it is\ncalled Thy righteousness, since Thou givest it to us by grace, and we do\nnot obtain it by works.\" (192.) \"Israel the true [new] man, does not\ntake refuge in himself, nor in his strength, nor in his righteousness\nand wisdom.... For help and grace is not with themselves. They are\nsinners and damned in themselves, as He also says through Hosea: O\nIsrael, with thee there is nothing but damnation, but with Me is thine\nhelp.\" (210.) \"He, He, God Himself, not they themselves, will deliver\nthe true Israel.... Mark well, Israel has sin and cannot help itself.\"\n(211.)\n\nIn his explanation of Ps. 109 (110), 1518, Luther says: \"He calls these\nchildren [conceived from spiritual seed, the Word of God] dew, since no\nsoul is converted and transformed from Adam's sinful childhood to the\ngracious childhood of Christ by human work, but only by God, who works\nfrom heaven like the dew, as Micah writes: 'The children of Israel will\nbe like the dew given by God which does not wait for the hands of men.'\"\n(701.) Again: \"In every single man God precedes with grace and works\nbefore we pray for grace or cooperate. The Doctors call this _gratiam\nprimam et praevenientem,_ that is, the first and prevenient grace.\nAugustine: _Gratia Dei praevenit, ut velimus, ne frustra velimus._ God's\ngrace prevenes that we will, lest we will in vain.\" (710.)\n\nIn his 40 theses for the Heidelberg disputation, also of 1518, Luther\nsays of man's powers in spiritual matters: \"13. Free will after sin [the\nFall] is a mere titular affair [an empty title only], and sins mortally\nwhen it does what it is able to do. _Liberum arbitrium post peccatum res\nest de solo titulo et dum facit, quod in se est, peccat mortaliter._\"\n\"16. A man desirous of obtaining grace by doing what he is able to do\nadds sin to sin, becoming doubly guilty. _Homo putans, se ad gratiam\nvelle pervenire faciendo, quod est in se, peccatum addit peccato, ut\nduplo reus fiat._\" \"18. It is certain that a man must utterly despair of\nhimself in order to become apt to acquire the grace of Christ. _Certum\nest, hominem de se penitus oportere desperare, ut aptus fiat ad\nconsequendam gratiam Christi._\" (W. 1, 354.) By way of explanation\nLuther added to thesis 13: \"The first part [of this thesis, that free\nwill is a mere empty title] is apparent, because the will is a captive\nand a servant to sin, not that it is nothing, but that it is free only\nto [do] evil--_non quod sit nihil, sed quod non sit liberum nisi ad\nmalum._ John 8, 34. 36: 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.\nIf the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' Hence, St.\nAugustine says in his book _De Spiritu et Litera:_ Free will without\ngrace can only sin--_non nisi ad peccandum valet._ And in his second\nbook against Julianus: You call that a free will which in truth is\ncaptive, etc.\" To thesis 16 Luther added: \"When man does what he is able\nto do (_dum facit, quod est in se_), he sins, seeking altogether his\nown. And if he is minded to become worthy of, and apt for, grace by a\nsin, he adds proud presumption.\"\n\nIn his sermon of 1519 on Genesis 4, Luther remarked: \"This passage ['The\nLord had respect unto Abel'] subverts the entire liberty of our human\nwill. _Hic locus semel invertit universam libertatem voluntatis\nnostrae._\" (Weimar 9, 337.) In a sermon of September 8, 1520, we read:\n\"By nature we are born accursed;... through Christ we are born again\nchildren of life. Thus we are born not by free will, not by works, not\nby our efforts. As a child in the womb is not born by its own works, but\nsuffers itself to be carried and to be given birth, so we are justified\nby suffering, not by doing.\" (474.) \"Where, then,\" Luther exclaimed\nabout the same time in his _Operationes in Psalmos,_ \"will free will\nremain? where the doing what one can? _Ubi ergo manebit liberum\narbitrium, ubi facere quod in se?_\" (5, 544. 74.) In a sermon of\nFebruary 2, 1521, he said: \"Whatever grace is in us comes from God\nalone. Here free will is entirely dead. All that we attempt to establish\nwith our powers is lost unless He prevenes and makes us alive through\nHis grace. Grace is His own work, which we receive in our hearts by\nfaith. This grace the soul did not possess before, for it is the new\nman.... The great proud saints will not do this [ascribe everything to\nGod and His mercy]. They, too, would have a share in it, saying to our\nLord: 'This I have done by my free will, this I have deserved.'\" (9,\n573; 5, 544.)\n\nThus Luther, from the very beginning of the Reformation, stood for the\ndoctrine of justification, conversion, and salvation by grace alone.\nMost emphatically he denied that man though free to a certain extent in\nhuman and temporal affairs, is able to cooperate with the powers of his\nnatural, unregenerate will in matters spiritual and pertaining to God.\nThis was also the position which Luther victoriously defended against\nErasmus in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ of 1525. Goaded on by the Romanists\nto come out publicly against the German heretic, the great Humanist, in\nhis _Diatribe_ of 1524, had shrewdly planned to attack his opponent at\nthe most vulnerable point. As such he regarded Luther's monergistic\ndoctrine, according to which it is God alone who justifies, converts,\npreserves, and saves men, without any works of their own. In reality,\nhowever, as presently appeared from his glorious classic on the\n_sola-gratia_ doctrine, Erasmus had assaulted the strongest gate of\nLuther's fortress. For the source of the wonderful power which Luther\ndisplayed throughout the Reformation was none other than the divine\nconviction born of the Word of God that in every respect grace alone is\nthe cause of our justification and salvation. And if ever this blessed\ndoctrine was firmly established, successfully defended, and greatly\nglorified, it was in Luther's book against Erasmus.\n\nJustification, conversion, perseverance in faith, and final salvation,\nobtained not by any effort of ours, but in every respect received as a\ngracious gift of God alone--that was the teaching also to which Luther\nfaithfully, most determinedly, and without any wavering adhered\nthroughout his life. In his _Large Confession_ of 1528, for example, we\nread: \"Herewith I reject and condemn as nothing but error all dogmas\nwhich extol our free will, as they directly conflict with this help and\ngrace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since outside of Christ death and\nsin are our lords, and the devil our god and prince, there can be no\npower or might, no wisdom or understanding, whereby we can qualify\nourselves for, or strive after, righteousness and life; but we must be\nblinded people and prisoners of sin and the devil's own, to do and to\nthink what pleases them and is contrary to God and His commandments.\"\n(CONC. TRIGL. 897, 43.)\n\n153. Luther's Doctrine Endorsed.\n\nTo adhere faithfully to Luther's doctrine of conversion and salvation by\ngrace alone was also the determination of the loyal Lutherans in their\nopposition to the Synergists. Planck correctly remarks that the doctrine\nwhich Flacius and the Anti-Synergists defended was the very doctrine\nwhich \"Luther advocated in his conflict with Erasmus.\" (_Prot.\nLehrbegriff_ 4, 667.) This was substantially conceded even by the\nopponents. When, for example, at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, the\nRomanists demanded that Flacius's doctrine of free will be condemned by\nthe Lutherans, Melanchthon declared that herein one ought not to submit\nto the Papists, who slyly, under the name of Illyricus [Flacius],\ndemanded the condemnation of Luther, whose opinion in the doctrine of\nfree will he [Melanchthon] was neither able nor willing to condemn.\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 232.) In their _Confession,_ published in March, 1569,\nthe theologians of Ducal Saxony (Wigand, Coelestin, Irenaeus, Kirchner,\netc.) declared: \"We also add that we embrace the doctrine and opinion of\nDr. Luther, the Elias of these latter days of the world, as it is most\nluminously and skilfully set forth in the book _De Servo Arbitrio,_\nagainst Erasmus, in the _Commentary on Genesis,_ and in other books; and\nwe hold that this teaching of Luther agrees with the eternal Word of\nGod.\" (Schluesselburg, _Catalogus_ 5, 133.)\n\nLuther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine was embodied also in the _Formula of\nConcord,_ and this with a special endorsement of his book _De Servo\nArbitrio._ For here we read: \"Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter\n[the doctrine that our free will has no power whatever to qualify itself\nfor righteousness, etc.] also in his book _De Servo Arbitrio; i.e._, Of\nthe Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and\nsupported this position well and thoroughly [_egregie et solide_]; and\nafterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the\nbook of Genesis, especially of chapter 26. There likewise his meaning\nand understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced\nincidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been\nsecured by him in the best and most careful way against all\nmisunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and\nrefer others.\" (897, 44; 981, 28.) In the passage of his _Commentary on\nGenesis_ referred to by the _Formula,_ Luther does not, as has been\nclaimed, retract or modify his former statements concerning the\ninability of the human will and the monergism of grace, but emphasizes\nthat, in reading _De Servo Arbitrio,_ one must heed and not overlook his\nfrequent admonitions to concern oneself with God as He has revealed\nHimself in the Gospel, and not speculate concerning God in His\ntranscendence, absoluteness, and majesty, as the One in whom we live and\nmove and have our being, and without whom nothing can either exist or\noccur, and whose wonderful ways are past finding out. (CONC. TRIGL.,\n898.) And the fact that the Lutheran theologians, living at the time and\nimmediately after the framing of the _Formula of Concord,_ objected\nneither to the book _De Servo Arbitrio_ itself nor to its public\nendorsement by the _Formula of Concord,_ is an additional proof of the\nfact that they were in complete agreement with Luther's teaching of\nconversion and salvation by grace alone. (Frank 1, 120.)\n\nThis _sola-gratia_-doctrine, the vital truth of Christianity,\nrediscovered and proclaimed once more by Luther, was, as stated, the\ntarget at which Erasmus directed his shafts. In his _Diatribe_ he\ndefined the power of free will to be the faculty of applying oneself to\ngrace (_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_), and declared that those are\nthe best theologians who, while ascribing as much as possible to the\ngrace of God, do not eliminate this human factor. He wrote: Free will is\n\"the ability of the human will according to which man is able either to\nturn himself to what leads to eternal salvation or to turn away from\nit.\" (St.L. 18, 1612.) Again: \"Those, therefore, who are farthest apart\nfrom the views of Pelagius ascribe to grace the most, but to free will\nalmost nothing; yet they do not abolish it entirely. They say that man\ncannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything\ngood, cannot continue in it, cannot complete anything without the chief\nthing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems to be\npretty probable because it leaves to man a striving and an effort, and\nyet does not admit that he is to ascribe even the least to his own\npowers.\" (1619.) One must avoid extremes, and seek the middle of the\nroad, said Erasmus. Pelagius had fallen into Scylla, and Luther into\nCharybdis. \"I am pleased with the opinion of those who ascribe to free\nwill something, but to grace by far the most.\" (1666.) Essentially,\nthis was the error held, nursed, and defended also by the Synergists,\nthough frequently in more guarded and ambiguous phrases. But their\ntheory of conversion also involved, as Schaff and Schmauk put it, \"the\nidea of a partnership between God and man, and a corresponding division\nof work and merit.\" (_Conf. Principle,_ 600.)\n\nHowever, these attempts to revamp the Semi-Pelagian teaching resulted in\na controversy which more and longer than any other endangered and\ndisquieted the Lutheran Church, before as well as after the adoption of\nthe _Formula of Concord._ Whether the unregenerate man, when the Word of\nGod is preached, and the grace of God is offered him, is able to prepare\nhimself for grace, accept it, and assent thereto, was, according to the\n_Formula of Concord,_ \"the question upon which, _for quite a number of\nyears now,_ there has been a controversy among some theologians in the\nchurches of the Augsburg Confession.\" (881, 2.) And of all the\ncontroversies after Luther's death the synergistic controversy was most\nmomentous and consequential. For the doctrine of grace with which it\ndealt is the vital breath of every Christian. Without it neither faith\nnor the Christian religion can live and remain. \"If we believe,\" says\nLuther in _De Servo Arbitrio,_ \"that Christ has redeemed men by His\nblood, then we must confess that the entire man was lost; otherwise we\nmake Christ superfluous or the Redeemer of but the meanest part of us,\nwhich is blasphemous and sacrilegious.\" Reading the book of Erasmus, in\nwhich he bent every effort toward exploding the doctrine of grace,\nLuther felt the hand of his opponent clutching his throat. In the\nclosing paragraph of _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther wrote: \"I highly laud\nand extol you for this thing also, that of all others you alone have\ngone to the heart of the subject.... You alone have discerned the core\nof the matter and have aimed at the throat, for which I thank you\nheartily.--_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti, et ipsum iugulum\npetisti, pro quo ex animo tibi gratias ago, in hac enim causa libentius\nversor, quantum favet tempus et otium._\" (E. v. a. 7, 367. 137; St. L.\n18, 1967; Pieper, _Dogm._ 2, 543.) And so the Synergists, who renewed\nthe doctrine of Erasmus, also flew at the throat of Christianity.\nGenuine Lutheranism would have been strangled if synergism had emerged\nvictorious from this great controversy of grace versus free will.\n\n154. The Father of Synergism.\n\nDuring the first period of his activity in Wittenberg, Melanchthon was\nin perfect agreement with Luther also on the question of man's inability\nin spiritual matters and the sole activity, or monergism, of grace in\nthe work of his salvation. As late as 1530 he incorporated these views\nin the _Augsburg Confession,_ as appears, in particular, from Articles\nII, V, XVIII, and XIX. His later doctrine concerning the three\nconcurring causes of conversion (the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the\nconsenting will of man), as well as his theory explaining\nsynergistically, from an alleged dissimilar action in man, the\ndifference why some are saved while others are lost, is not so much as\nhinted at in the Confession. But even at this early date (1530) or soon\nafter, Melanchthon also does not seem any longer to have agreed\nwhole-heartedly with Luther in the doctrine of grace and free will. And\nin the course of time his theology drifted farther and farther from its\noriginal monergistic moorings. Nor was Luther wholly unaware of the\nsecret trend of his colleague and friend toward--Erasmus. In 1536, when\nthe deviations of Melanchthon and Cruciger, dealt with in our previous\nchapter, were brought to his notice, Luther exclaimed: \"_Haec est\nipsissima theologia Erasmi._ This is the identical theology of Erasmus,\nnor can there be anything more opposed to our doctrine.\" (Kolde,\n_Analecta,_ 266.)\n\nThat Melanchthon's theology was verging toward Erasmus appears from his\nletter of June 22, 1537, to Veit Dietrich, in which he said that he\ndesired a more thorough exposition also of the doctrines of\npredestination and of the _consent of the will._ (_C. R._ 3, 383.)\nBefore this, in his _Commentary on Romans_ of 1532, he had written that\nthere is some cause of election also in man; _viz._, in as far as he\ndoes not repudiate the grace offered--\"_tamen eatenus aliquam causam in\naccipiente esse quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat_.\" (Seeberg 4,\n442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ of 1533 he also spoke of a cause of\njustification and election residing in man. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the\nrevised editions of 1535 and 1543 he plainly began to prepare the way\nfor his later bold and unmistakable deviations. For even though unable\nto point out a clean-cut and unequivocal synergistic statement, one\ncannot read these editions without scenting a Semi-Pelagian and Erasmian\natmosphere. What Melanchthon began to teach was the doctrine that man,\nwhen approached by the Word of God, is able to assume either an attitude\nof _pro_ or _con_, _i.e._, for or against the grace of God. The same\napplies to the _Variata_ of 1540 in which the frequent \"_adiuvari_\"\nthere employed, though not incorrect as such, was not without a\nsynergistic flavor.\n\nTschackert remarks of the _Loci_ of 1535: \"Melanchthon wants to make man\nresponsible for his state of grace. Nor does the human will in\nconsequence of original sin lose the ability to decide itself when\nincited; the will produces nothing new by its own power, but assumes an\nattitude toward what approaches it. When man hears the Word of God, and\nthe Holy Spirit produces spiritual affections in his heart, the will can\neither assent or turn against it. In this way Melanchthon arrives at the\nformula, ever after stereotype with him, that there are three concurring\ncauses in the process of conversion: 'the Word of God, the Holy Spirit,\nand the human will, which, indeed, is not idle, _but strives against its\ninfirmity.'_\" (520.)\n\nHowever, during the life of Luther, Melanchthon made no further\nmeasurable progress towards synergism. Perhaps the unpleasant\nexperiences following upon his innovations in the doctrine of good works\nacted as a check also on the public development of his synergistic\ntendencies. During Luther's life Melanchthon, as he himself admitted to\nCarlowitz (106), dissimulated, keeping his deviating views to himself\nand his intimate friends. After Luther's death, however, he came out\nunmistakably and publicly, also in favor of synergism, endorsing even\nthe Erasmian definition of free will as \"the power in man to apply\nhimself to grace.\" He plainly taught that, when drawn by the Holy\nSpirit, the will is able to decide _pro_ or _con,_ to obey or to resist.\nEspecially in his lectures, Melanchthon--not indeed directly, but\nmentioning the name of Flacius--continually lashed such phrases of\nLuther as \"purely passive,\" \"block,\" \"resistance,\"--a fact to which\nSchluesselburg, who had studied in Wittenberg, refers in support of his\nassertion that Melanchthon had departed from Luther's teaching on free\nwill. (_Catalogus_ 5, 32.) While Melanchthon formerly (in his _Loci_ of\n1543) had spoken of three causes of a good action (_bonae actionis_) he\nnow publicly advocated the doctrine of three concurring causes of\n_conversion._ Now he boldly maintained that, since the grace of God is\nuniversal, one must assume, and also teach, that there are different\nactions in different men, which accounts for the fact that some are\nconverted and saved while others are lost. According to the later\nMelanchthon, therefore, man's eternal salvation evidently does not\ndepend on the gracious operations of God's Holy Spirit and Word alone,\nbut also on his own correct conduct toward grace. In his heart,\nespecially when approaching the mercy-seat in prayer, Melanchthon, no\ndoubt, forgot and disavowed his own teaching, and believed and practised\nLuther's _sola-gratia_-doctrine. But it cannot be denied that, in his\nendeavors to harmonize universal grace with the fact that not all, but\nsome only, are saved, Melanchthon repudiated the monergism of Luther,\nespoused and defended the powers of free will in spiritual matters, and\nthought, argued, spoke, and wrote in terms of synergism. Indeed,\nMelanchthon must be regarded as the father of both synergism and the\nrationalistic methods employed in its defense, and as the true father\nalso of the modern rationalistico-synergistic theology represented by\nsuch distinguished men as Von Hofmann, Thomasius, Kahnis, Luthardt, etc.\n(Pieper 2, 582; Frank 1, 231.)\n\n155. Unsound Statements of Melanchthon.\n\nFollowing are some of the ambiguous and false deliverances of\nMelanchthon: In the _Loci_ of 1535 the so-called human cause of\nconversion which must be added to the Word and Spirit is described as\nendeavoring, striving, and wishing to obey and believe. We read: \"We do\nnot say this to ensnare the consciences, or to deter men from the\nendeavor to obey and believe, or from making an effort. On the contrary,\nsince we are to begin with the Word, we certainly must not resist the\nWord of God, but strive to obey it.... We see that these causes are\nunited: the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, which is certainly not\nidle, but strives against its infirmity. In this manner ecclesiastical\nwriters are accustomed to join these causes. Basil says: 'Only will, and\nGod will precede,' God precedes, calls, moves, assists us, but let us\nbeware lest we resist.... Chrysostom says: He who draws, draws him who\nis willing.\" (_C. R._ 21, 376.)\n\nIn conversion and salvation God certainly must do and does His share,\nbut man must beware lest he fail to do what is required of him. This is\nalso the impression received from Melanchthon's statements in the third\nelaboration of his _Loci,_ 1543. We read: \"Here three causes of a good\naction concur (_hic concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis_): the Word\nof God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will assenting to and not\nresisting the Word of God (_humana voluntas assentiens, nec repugnans\nVerbo Dei_). For it could expel [the Spirit], as Saul expelled [Him] of\nhis own free will. But when the mind hearing and sustaining itself does\nnot resist, does not give way to diffidence, but, the Holy Spirit\nassisting, endeavors to assent,--in such a struggle the will is not\ninactive (_in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa_). The ancients have\nsaid that good works are done when grace precedes and the will follows.\nSo also Basil says: '_Monon theleson, kai theos proapanta_, Only will,\nand God anticipates. God precedes, calls, moves, assists us; but as for\nus, let us see to it that we do not resist. _Deus antevertit nos, vocat,\nmovet, adiuvat, SED NOS VIDERIMUS, ne repugnemus,_' (21, 658.) And Phil.\n1, 6: 'He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the\nday of Jesus Christ,' _i.e._, we are assisted by God (_adiuvamur a\nDeo_), but we must hear the Word of God and not resist the drawing God.\"\n(916.) \"God draws our minds that they will, but we must assent, not\nresist. _Deus trahit mentes, ut velint, sed assentiri nos, non repugnare\noportet._\" (917.) Here we also meet the remark: \"But the will, when\nassisted by the Holy Spirit, becomes more free. _Fit autem voluntas\nadiuvata Spiritu Sancto magis libera._\" (663.) Frank comments\npertinently that the _magis_ presupposes a certain degree of liberty of\nthe will before the assistance of the Holy Spirit. (1, 198.)\n\nThe boldest synergistic statements are found in the _Loci_ of 1548. It\nwas the year of the Leipzig Interim, in which the same error was\nembodied as follows: \"The merciful God does not deal with man as with a\nblock, but draws him in such a way that his will, too, cooperates.\" (_C.\nR._ 7, 51. 260.) As to the _Loci_ of this year, Bindseil remarks in the\n_Corpus Reformatorum:_ \"This edition is famous on account of certain\nparagraphs inserted by the author in the article on Free Will. For these\nadditions contain the Erasmian definition of free will (that it is the\nfaculty of applying oneself to grace), on account of which Melanchthon\nwas charged with synergism by the Flacians.... For this reason the\nedition is called by J. T. Mayer 'the worst of all (_omnium pessima_).'\"\nAt the Weimar colloquy, 1560, even Strigel was not willing to identify\nhimself openly with the Erasmian definition of free will (_facultas\napplicandi se ad gratiam_) as found in one of these sections. When\nFlacius quoted the passage, Strigel retorted excitedly: \"I do not\ndefend that definition which you have quoted from the recent edition\n[1548]. When did you hear it from me? When have I undertaken to defend\nit?\" (Frank 1, 199. 135.) At the Herzberg colloquy Andreae remarked:\n\"The _Loci Communes_ of Melanchthon are useful. But whoever reads the\n_locus de libero arbitrio_ must confess, even if he judges most mildly,\nthat the statements are dubious and ambiguous. And what of the four\nparagraphs which were inserted after Luther's death? For here we read:\n'There must of necessity be a cause of difference in us why a Saul is\nrejected, a David received.'\" (Pieper 2, 587.)\n\nFrom these additions of 1548 we cite: \"Nor does conversion occur in\nDavid in such a manner as when a stone is turned into a fig: but free\nwill does something in David; for when he hears the rebuke and the\npromise, he willingly and freely confesses his fault. And his will does\nsomething when he sustains himself with this word: The Lord hath taken\naway your sin. And when he endeavors to sustain himself with this word,\nhe is already assisted by the Holy Spirit.\" (_C. R._ 21, 659.) Again: \"I\ntherefore answer those who excuse their idleness because they think that\nfree will does nothing, as follows: It certainly is the eternal and\nimmovable will of God that you obey the voice of the Gospel, that you\nhear the Son of God, that you acknowledge the Mediator. How black is\nthat sin which refuses to behold the Mediator, the Son of God, presented\nto the human race! You will answer: 'I cannot.' But in a manner you can\n(_immo aliquo modo potes_), and when you sustain yourself with the voice\nof the Gospel, then pray that God would assist you, and know that the\nHoly Spirit is efficacious in such consolation. Know that just in this\nmanner God intends to convert us, when we, roused by the promise wrestle\nwith ourselves, pray and resist our diffidence and other vicious\naffections. For this reason some of the ancient Fathers have said that\nfree will in man is the faculty to apply himself to grace (_liberum\narbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam_); _i.e._,\nhe hears the promise, endeavors to assent, and abandons sins against\nconscience. Such things do not occur in devils. The difference therefore\nbetween the devils and the human race ought to be considered. These\nmatters however, become still clearer when the promise is considered.\nFor since the promise is universal, and since there are no contradictory\nwills in God, there must of necessity be in us some cause of difference\nwhy Saul is rejected and David is received; _i.e._, there must of\nnecessity be some dissimilar action in these two. _Cum promissio sit\nuniversalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est in\nnobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abiiciatur. David\nrecipiatur, id est, necesse est aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his\nduobus._ Properly understood, this is true, and the use [_usus_] in the\nexercises of faith and in true consolation (when our minds acquiesce in\nthe Son of God, shown in the promise) will illustrate this copulation of\ncauses: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the will.\" (_C. R._ 21,\n659f.)\n\nAt the colloquy of Worms, 1557, Melanchthon, interpellated by Brenz, is\nreported to have said that the passage in his _Loci_ of 1548 defining\nfree will as the faculty of applying oneself to grace referred to the\nregenerated will (_voluntas renata_), as, he said, appeared from the\ncontext. (Gieseler 3, 2, 225; Frank 1, 198.) As a matter of fact,\nhowever, the context clearly excludes this interpretation. In the\npassage quoted, Melanchthon, moreover, plainly teaches: 1. that in\nconversion man, too, can do, and really does, something by willingly\nconfessing his fault, by sustaining himself with the Word, by praying\nthat God would assist him, by wrestling with himself, by striving\nagainst diffidence, etc.; 2. that the nature of fallen man differs from\nthat of the devils in this, that his free will is still able to apply\nitself to grace, endeavor to assent to it, etc.; 3. that the dissimilar\nactions resulting from the different use of this natural ability\naccounts for the fact that some are saved while others are lost. Such\nwas the plain teaching of Melanchthon from which he never receded, but\nwhich he, apart from other publications, reaffirmed in every new\nedition of his _Loci._ For all, including the last one to appear during\nhis life (1559), contain the additions of 1548. \"The passage added by\nthe author [Melanchthon, 1548] after Luther's death is repeated in all\nsubsequent editions,\" says Bindseil. (_C. R._ 21, 570.)\n\nThe sections which were added to the _Loci_ after 1548 also breathe the\nsame synergistic spirit. In 1553 Melanchthon inserted a paragraph which\nsays that, when approached by the Holy Spirit, the will can obey or\nresist. We read: \"The liberty of the human will after the Fall, also in\nthe non-regenerate, is the faculty by virtue of which man is able to\ngovern his motions, _i.e._, he can enjoin upon his external members such\nactions as agree, or such as do not agree, with the Law of God. But he\ncannot banish doubts from his mind and evil inclinations from his heart\nwithout the light of the Gospel and without the Holy Spirit. But when\nthe will is drawn by the holy Spirit, it can obey or resist. _Cum autem\ntrahitur a Spiritu Sancto, potest obsequi et repugnare._\" (21, 1078; 13,\n162.)\n\nOther publications contain the same doctrine. While in his _Loci_ of\n1543 he had spoken only of three causes of a good action (_bonae\nactionis_), Melanchthon, in his _Enarratio Symboli Nicaeni_ of 1550,\nsubstituted \"conversion\" for \"good action.\" We read: In conversion these\ncauses concur: the Holy Spirit, the voice of the Gospel, \"and the will\nof man, which does not resist the divine voice, but somehow, with\ntrepidation, assents. _Concurrunt in conversione hae causae: Spiritus\nSanctus ... vox Evangelii ... et voluntas hominis, quae non repugnat\nvoci divinae, sed inter trepidationem utcumque assentitur_.\" Again: \"And\nconcerning this copulation of causes it is said: The Spirit comes to the\nassistance of our infirmity. And Chrysostom truly says: God draws, but\nhe draws him who is willing.\" Again: God's promise is universal, and\nthere are no contradictory wills in God; hence, though Paul is drawn in\na different manner than Zacchaeus, \"nevertheless there is some assent of\nthe will (_tamen aliqua est voluntatis assensio_).\" \"God therefore\nbegins and draws by the voice of the Gospel but He draws him who is\nwilling, and assists him who assents.\" \"Nor is anything detracted from\nthe glory of God, but it is truly affirmed that the assistance of God\nalways concurs in the beginning and afterwards (_auxilium Dei semper\ninitio et deinceps concurrere_).\" (23, 280 ff.) Accordingly, God merely\nconcurs as one of three causes, among which the will of man is the\nthird. In his _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, Melanchthon again replaced\nthe term \"good action\" by \"conversion.\" He says: \"In conversion these\ncauses concur: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father and Son\nsend to kindle our hearts, and our will, assenting and not resisting the\nWord of God (_et nostra voluntas assentiens et non repugnans Verbo\nDei_). And lest we yield to diffidence, we must consider that both\npreachings are universal, the preaching of repentance as well as the\npromise of grace.... Let us therefore not resist but assent to the\npromise, and constantly repeat this prayer: I believe, O Lord, but come\nto the help of my weakness.\" (23, 15.) Finally in his _Opinion on the\nWeimar Book of Confutation,_ March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks: \"Again,\nif the will is able to turn from the consolation, it must be inferred\nthat it works something and follows the Holy Spirit when it accepts the\nconsolation. _Item, so sich der Wille vom Trost abwenden mag, so ist\ndagegen zu verstehen, dass er etwas wirket und folget dem Heiligen\nGeist, so er den Trost annimmt._\" (9, 768.)\n\nW. Preger is right when he says: \"According to Melanchthon's view,\nnatural man is able to do the following [when the Word of God is\npreached to him]: he is able not to resist; he is able to take pains\nwith respect to obedience; he is able to comfort himself with the\nWord.... This [according to Melanchthon] is a germ of the positive good\nwill still found in natural man which prevenient grace arouses.\"\n(_Flacius Illyricus_ 2, 189 f.) Schmauk writes: Melanchthon found \"the\ncause for the actual variation in the working of God's grace in man, its\nobject. This subtle synergistic spirit attacks the very foundation of\nLutheranism, flows out into almost every doctrine, and weakens the\nChurch at every point. And it was particularly this weakness which the\ngreat multitude of Melanchthon's scholars, who became the leaders of the\ngeneration of which we are speaking, absorbed, and which rendered it\ndifficult to return, finally, after years of struggle, to the solid\nground, once more recovered in the _Formula of Concord._\" (_Conf.\nPrinciple,_ 601.)\n\nR. Seeberg characterizes Melanchthon's doctrine as follows: \"A\nsynergistic trait therefore appears in his doctrine. In the last\nanalysis, God merely grants the outer and inner possibility of obtaining\nsalvation. Without man's cooperation this possibility would not become\nreality; and he is able to refuse this cooperation. It is, therefore, in\nconversion equally a cause with the others. _Sie [die Mitwirkung des\nMenschen] ist also freilich eine den andern Ursachen gleichberechtigte\nUrsache in der Bekehrung._\" God makes conversion possible, but only the\ndecision of man's free will makes it actual,--such, according to\nSeeberg, was the \"synergism\" of Melanchthon. (Seeberg, _Dogg.,_ 4, 444.\n446.)\n\nFrank says of Melanchthon's way of solving the question why some are\nconverted and saved while others are lost: \"The road chosen by\nMelanchthon has indeed led to the goal. The contradictions are solved.\nBut let us look where we have landed. We are standing--in the Roman\ncamp!\" After quoting a passage from the _Tridentinum,_ which speaks of\nconversion in terms similar to those employed by Melanchthon, Frank\ncontinues: \"The foundation stone of Luther's original Reformation\ndoctrine of salvation by grace alone; _viz._, that nothing in us, not\neven our will moved and assisted by God, is the _causa meritoria_ of\nsalvation, is subverted by these propositions; and it is immaterial to\nthe contrite heart whether much or little is demanded from free will as\nthe faculty of applying oneself to grace.\" Frank adds: \"What the\nPhilippists, synchronously [with Melanchthon] and later, propounded\nregarding this matter [of free will] are but variations of the theme\nstruck by Melanchthon. Everywhere the sequence of thought is the same,\nwith but this difference, that here the faults of the Melanchthonian\ntheory together with its consequences come out more clearly.\" (1, 134f.)\nThe same is true of modern synergistic theories. Without exception they\nare but variations of notes struck by Melanchthon,--the father of all\nthe synergists that have raised their heads within the Lutheran Church.\n\n156. Pfeffinger Champions Synergistic Doctrine.\n\nPrior to 1556 references to the unsound position of the Wittenberg and\nLeipzig theologians are met with but occasionally. (Planck 4, 568.) The\nunmistakably synergistic doctrine embodied in the _Loci_ of 1548, as\nwell as in the Leipzig Interim, did not cause alarm and attract\nattention immediately. But when, in 1555, John Pfeffinger [born 1493;\n1539 superintendent, and 1543 professor in Leipzig; assisted 1548 in\nframing the Leipzig Interim; died January 1, 1573] published his \"Five\nQuestions Concerning the Liberty of the Human Will--_De Libertate\nVoluntatis Humanae Quaestiones Quinque._ D. Johannes Pfeffinger Lipsiae\nEditae in Officina Georgii Hantschi 1555,\" the controversy flared up\ninstantly. It was a little booklet containing besides a brief\nintroduction, only 41 paragraphs, or theses. In these Pfeffinger\ndiscussed and defended the synergistic doctrine of Melanchthon,\nmaintaining that in conversion man, too, must contribute his share\nthough it be ever so little.\n\nEarly in the next year Pfeffinger was already opposed by the theologians\nof Thuringia, the stanch opponents of the Philippists, John Stolz,\ncourt-preacher at Weimar composing 110 theses for this purpose. In 1558\nAmsdorf published his _Public Confession of the True Doctrine of the\nGospel and Confutation of the Fanatics of the Present Time,_ in which\nhe, quoting from memory, charged Pfeffinger with teaching that man is\nable to prepare himself for grace by the natural powers of his free\nwill, just as the godless sophists, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, and their\ndisciples, had held. (Planck 4, 573. 568.) About the same time Stolz\npublished the 110 theses just referred to with a preface by Aurifaber\n(_Refutatio Propositionum Pfeffingeri de Libero Arbitrio_). Flacius,\nthen professor in Jena, added his _Refutation of Pfeffinger's\nPropositions on Free Will_ and _Jena Disputation on Free Will._ In the\nsame year, 1558, Pfeffinger, in turn published his _Answer to the Public\nConfession of Amsdorf,_ charging the latter with falsification, and\ndenouncing Flacius as the \"originator and father of all the lies which\nhave troubled the Lutheran Church during the last ten years.\" But at the\nsame time Pfeffinger showed unmistakably that the charges of his\nopponents were but too well founded. Says Planck: \"Whatever may have\nmoved Pfeffinger to do so, he could not (even if Flacius himself had\nsaid it for him) have confessed synergism more clearly and more\ndefinitely than he did spontaneously and unasked in this treatise.\" (4,\n574.) Frank: \"Pfeffinger goes beyond Melanchthon and Strigel; for the\naction here demanded of, and ascribed to, the natural will is, according\nto him, not even in need of liberation by prevenient grace.... His\ndoctrine may without more ado be designated as Semi-Pelagianism.\" (1,\n137.)\n\nAt Wittenberg, Pfeffinger was supported by George Major, Paul Eber, and\nPaul Crell and before long his cause was espoused also by Victorin\nStrigel in Jena. Disputations by the Wittenberg and Leipzig synergists\n(whom Schluesselburg, 5, 16, calls \"cooperators\" and \"die freiwilligen\nHerren\") and by their opponents in Jena increased the animosity. Both\nparties cast moderation to the winds. In a public letter of 1558 the\nWittenberg professors, for example, maligned Flacius in every possible\nway, and branded him as \"der verloffene undeutsche Flacius Illyricus\"\nand as the sole author of all the dissensions in the churches of\nGermany. (Planck 4, 583.)\n\n157. Statements of Pfeffinger.\n\nFollowing are some of the synergistic deliverances made by Pfeffinger in\nhis _Five Questions Concerning the Liberty of the Human Will._ Par. 11\nreads: \"Thirdly, when we inquire concerning the spiritual actions, it is\ncorrect to answer that the human will has not such a liberty as to be\nable to effect the spiritual motions without the help of the Holy Spirit\n(_humanam voluntatem non habere eiusmodi libertatem, ut motus\nspirituales sine auxilio Spiritus Sancti efficere possit_).\" Par. 14:\n\"Therefore some assent or apprehension on our part must concur (_oportet\nigitur nostram aliquam assensionem seu apprehensionem concurrere_) when\nthe Holy Spirit has aroused (_accenderit_) the mind, the will and the\nheart. Hence Basil says: Only will, and God anticipates; and Chrysostom:\nHe who draws, draws him who is willing; and Augustine: He assists those\nwho have received the gift of the call with becoming piety, and preserve\nthe gifts of God as far as man is able. Again: When grace precedes, the\nwill follows--_praeeunte gratia, comitante voluntate._\" In Par. 16 we\nread: \"The will, therefore, is not idle, but assents faintly. _Voluntas\nigitur non est otiosa sed languide assentitur._\"\n\nParagraph 17 runs: \"If the will were idle or purely passive, there would\nbe no difference between the pious and the wicked, or between the elect\nand the damned, as, between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God\nwould also become a respecter of persons and the author of contumacy in\nthe wicked and damned; and to God would be ascribed contradictory wills,\n--which conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there\nis in us a cause why some assent while others do not. _Sequitur ergo in\nnobis esse aliquam causam, cur alii assentiantur, alii non\nassentiantur_.\" Par. 24: \"Him [the Holy Spirit], therefore, we must not\nresist; but on the part of our will, which is certainly not like a stone\nor block, some assent must be added--_sed aliquam etiam assensionem\naccedere nostrae voluntatis, quam non sicut saxum aut incudem se habere\ncertum est._\" Par. 30: \"But apprehension on our part must concur. For,\nsince the promise of grace is universal, and since we must obey this\npromise, some difference between the elect and the rejected must be\ninferred from our will (_sequitur, aliquod discrimen inter electos et\nreiectos a voluntate nostra sumendum esse_), _viz._, that those who\nresist the promise are rejected, while those who embrace the promise are\nreceived.... All this clearly shows that our will is not idle in\nconversion or like a stone or block in its conduct. _Ex quibus omnibus\nmanifestissimum apparet, voluntatem nostram non esse otiosam in\nconversione, aut se ut saxum aut incudem habere._\"\n\nPar. 34 reads: \"Some persons, however, shout that the assistance of the\nHoly Spirit is extenuated and diminished if even the least particle be\nattributed to the human will. Though this argument may appear specious\nand plausible, yet pious minds understand that by our doctrine--\naccording to which we ascribe some cooperation to our will; _viz._, some\nassent and apprehension (_qua tribuimus aliquam SYNERGIAM voluntati\nnostrae, videlicet qualemcumque assensionem et apprehensionem_)--\nabsolutely nothing is taken away from the assistance rendered by the\nHoly Spirit. For we affirm that the first acts (_primas partes_) must be\nassigned and attributed to Him who first and primarily, through the Word\nor the voice of the Gospel, moves our hearts to believe, to which\nthereupon we, too, ought to assent as much as we are able (_cui deinde\net NOS, QUANTUM IN NOBIS EST, ASSENTIRI oportet_), and not resist the\nHoly Spirit, but submit to the Word, ponder, learn, and hear it, as\nChrist says: 'Whosoever hath heard of the Father and learned, cometh to\nMe.'\" Par. 36: \"And although original sin has brought upon our nature a\nruin so sad and horrible that we can hardly imagine it, yet we must not\nthink that absolutely all the knowledge (_notitiae_) which was found in\nthe minds of our first parents before the Fall has on that account been\ndestroyed and extinguished after the Fall, or that the human will does\nnot in any way differ from a stone or a block; for we are, as St. Paul\nhas said most seriously, coworkers with God, which coworking, indeed, is\nassisted and strengthened by the Holy Spirit--_sumus synergi Dei, quae\nquidem synergia adiuvatur a Spiritu Sancto et confirmatur._\" Evidently\nno comment is necessary to show that the passages cited from Pfeffinger\nare conceived, born, and bred in Semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.\n\nPlanck furthermore quotes from Pfeffinger's _Answer to Amsdorf,_ 1558:\n\"And there is no other reason why some are saved and some are damned\nthan this one alone, that some, when incited by the Holy Spirit, do not\nresist, but obey Him and accept the grace and salvation offered, while\nothers will not accept it, but resist the Holy Spirit, and despise the\ngrace.\" (4, 578.) Again: \"Although the will cannot awaken or incite\nitself to spiritually good works, but must be awakened and incited\nthereto by the Holy Ghost, yet man is not altogether excluded from such\nworks of the Holy Ghost, as if he were not engaged in it and were not to\ncontribute his share to it--_dass er nicht auch dabei sein und das Seine\nnicht auch dabei tun muesse._\" (576.) Again: In the hands of the Holy\nSpirit man is not like a block or stone in the hands of a sculptor,\nwhich do not and cannot \"know, understand, or feel what is done with\nthem, nor in the least further or hinder what the artist endeavors to\nmake of them.\" (576.) \"But when the heart of man is touched, awakened,\nand moved by the Holy Ghost, man must not be like a dead stone or block,\n... but must obey and follow Him. And although he perceives his great\nweakness, and, on the other hand, how powerfully sin in his flesh\nopposes, he must nevertheless not desist, but ask and pray God for grace\nand assistance against sin and flesh.\" (577.) Planck remarks: According\nto Pfeffinger, the powers for all this are still found in natural man,\nand the only thing required is, not to recreate them, but merely to\nincite them to action. (579.)\n\nIn 1558, in an appendix to his disputation of 1555, Pfeffinger explained\nand illustrated his position, in substance, as follows: I was to prove\nnothing else than that some use of the will [in spiritual matters] was\nleft, and that our nature is not annihilated or extinguished, but\ncorrupted and marvelously depraved after the Fall. Now, to be sure, free\nwill cannot by its own natural powers regain its integrity nor rise\nafter being ruined, yet as the doctrine [the Gospel] can be understood\nby paying attention to it, so it can also in a manner (_aliquo modo_) be\nobeyed by assenting to it. But it is necessary for all who would dwell\nin the splendor of the eternal light and in the sight of God to look up\nto and not turn away from, the light. Schluesselburg adds: \"_Haec certe\nest synergia_--This is certainly synergism.\" (_Catalogus_ 5, 161.)\n\nTschackert summarizes Pfeffinger's doctrine as follows: \"When the Holy\nSpirit, through the Word of God, influences a man, then the assenting\nwill becomes operative as a factor of conversion. The reason why some\nassent while others do not must be in themselves.... Evidently\nPfeffinger's opinion was that not only the regenerate, but even the\nnatural will of man possesses the ability either to obey the divine\nSpirit or to resist Him.\" (521.) According to W. Preger, Pfeffinger\ntaught \"that the Holy Spirit must awaken and incite our nature that it\nmay understand, think, will and do what is right and pleasing to God,\"\nbut that natural free will is able \"to obey and follow\" the motions of\nthe Spirit. (2, 192. 195.)\n\nNo doubt, Pfeffinger advocated, and was a candid exponent and champion\nof, nothing but the three-concurring-causes doctrine of Melanchthon,\naccording to which God never fails to do His share in conversion, while\nwe must beware (_sed nos viderimus, C. R._ 21, 658) lest we fail to do\nour share. Pfeffinger himself made it a special point to cite\nMelanchthon as his authority in this matter. The last (41st) paragraph\nin his _Five Questions_ begins as follows: \"We have briefly set forth\nthe doctrine concerning the liberty of the human will, agreeing with the\ntestimonies of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, a fuller\nexplanation of which students may find in the writings of our preceptor,\nMr. Philip (_prolisciorem explicationem requirant studiosi in scriptis\nD. Philippi, praeceptoris nostri_).\" And when, in the subsequent\ncontroversy Pfeffinger was publicly assailed by Amsdorf, Flacius, and\nothers, everybody knew that their real target was none other than--\nMaster Philip. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this fact. In his\n_Opinion on the Weimar Confutation,_ of March 9, 1559, in which the\nsynergism of the Philippists is extensively treated, he said: \"As to\nfree will, it is apparent that they attack me, Philip, in particular.\"\n(_C. R._ 9, 763.)\n\n158. Strigel and Huegel Entering Controversy.\n\nThe synergistic controversy received new zest and a new impetus when, in\n1559, Victorin Strigel and Huegel (Hugelius), respectively professor and\npastor at Jena, the stronghold of the opponents of the Wittenberg\nPhilippists, opposed Flacius, espoused the cause of Pfeffinger,\nchampioned the doctrine of Melanchthon, and refused to endorse the so\ncalled _Book of Confutation_ which Flacius had caused to be drafted\nparticularly against the Wittenberg Philippists and Synergists, and to\nbe introduced. The situation thus created was all the more sensational\nbecause, in the preceding controversies, Strigel had, at least\napparently, always sided with the opponents of the Philippists.\n\nThe \"_Konfutationsbuch_--Book of Confutation and Condemnations of the\nChief Corruptions, Sects, and Errors Breaking in and Spreading at this\nTime\" was published in 1559 by Duke John Frederick II as a doctrinal\nnorm of his duchy. In nine chapters this Book, a sort of forerunner of\nthe _Formula of Concord,_ dealt with the errors 1. of Servetus, 2. of\nSchwenckfeld, 3. of the Antinomians, 4. of the Anabaptists, 5. of the\nZwinglians, 6. of the Synergists, 7. of Osiander and Stancarus, 8. of\nthe Majorists, 9. of the Adiaphorists. Its chief object, as expressly\nstated in the Preface, was to warn against the errors introduced by the\nPhilippists, whose doctrines, as also Planck admits, were not in any\nway misrepresented in this document. (4, 597. 595.) The sixth part,\ndirected against synergism bore the title: \"_Confutatio Corruptelarum\nin Articulo de Libero Arbitrio sive de Viribus Humanis_--Confutation of\nthe Corruptions in the Article Concerning Free Will or Concerning the\nHuman Powers.\" The _Confutation_ was framed by the Jena theologians,\nStrigel and Huegel also participating in its composition. However, some\nof the references to the corruptions of the Philippists must have been\nrather vague and ambiguous in the first draft of the book; for when it\nwas revised at the convention in Weimar, Flacius secured the adoption of\nadditions and changes dealing particularly with the synergism of the\nWittenbergers, which were energetically opposed by Strigel.\n\nEven before the adoption of the _Book of Confutation,_ Strigel had been\npolemicizing against Flacius. But now (as Flacius reports) he began to\ndenounce him at every occasion as the \"architect of a new theology\" and\nan \"enemy of the _Augsburg Confession._\" At the same time he also\nendeavored to incite the students in Jena against him. Flacius, in turn,\ncharged Strigel with scheming to establish a Philippistic party in Ducal\nSaxony. The public breach came when the _Book of Confutation_ was\nsubmitted for adoption and publication in the churches and schools.\nPastor Huegel refused to read and explain it from the pulpit, and\nStrigel presented his objections to the Duke, and asked that his\nconscience be spared. But when Strigel failed to maintain silence in the\nmatter, he as well as Pastor Huegel were summarily dealt with by the\nDuke. On March 27, 1559, at two o'clock in the morning, both were\nsuddenly arrested and imprisoned. Flacius who was generally regarded as\nthe secret instigator of this act of violence, declared publicly that\nthe arrest had been made without his counsel and knowledge. About six\nmonths later (September 5, 1569) Strigel and Huegel after making some\ndoctrinal concessions and promising not to enter into any disputation on\nthe Confutation, were set at liberty. (Planck 4, 591. 604.)\n\n159. Weimar Disputation.\n\nIn order to settle the differences, Flacius and his colleagues (Wigand,\nJudex, Simon Musaeus), as well as Strigel, asked for a public\ndisputation, which John Frederick, too was all the more willing to\narrange because dissatisfaction with his drastic procedure against\nStrigel and Huegel was openly displayed everywhere outside of Ducal\nSaxony. The disputation was held at Weimar, August 2 to 8, 1560. It was\nattended by the Saxon Dukes and their entire courts, as well as by a\nlarge number of other spectators, not only from Jena, but also from\nErfurt, Wittenberg and Leipzig. The subjects of discussion, for which\nboth parties had submitted theses were: Free Will, Gospel, Majorism,\nAdiaphorism, and Indifferentism (_academica epoche,_ toleration of\nerror). The disputing parties (Flacius and Strigel) agreed that \"the\nonly rule should be the Word of God, and that a clear, plain text of the\nHoly Scriptures was to weigh more than all the inferences and\nauthorities of interpreters\" (Planck 4, 606.)\n\nAccording to the proceedings of the Weimar Disputation, written by\nWigand and published by Simon Musaeus 1562 and 1563 under the title:\n\"_Disputatio de Originali Peccato et Libero Arbitrio_ inter M. Flacium\nIllyr. et Vict. Strigelium Publice Vinariae Anno 1560 Habita,\" the only\nquestions discussed were free will and, incidentally, original sin.\nStrigel defended the Melanchthonian doctrine, according to which the\ncauses of conversion are the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the will\nof man feebly assenting to the Gospel and, at the same time, seeking\nstrength from God. He repeated the formula: \"Concurrunt in conversione\nhaec tria: Spiritus Sanctus movens corda, vox Dei, voluntas hominis,\nquae voci divinae assentitur.\" Flacius, on the other hand, defended the\n_mere passive_ of Luther, according to which man, before he is converted\nand endowed with faith, does not in any way cooperate with the Holy\nSpirit but merely suffers and experiences His operations. At the same\ntime, however, he seriously damaged and discredited himself as well as\nthe sacred cause of divine truth by maintaining that original sin is not\na mere accident, such as Strigel maintained, but the very substance of\nman. The discussions were discontinued after the thirteenth session. The\nDuke announced that the disputation would be reopened later, charging\nboth parties in the mean time to maintain silence in public,--a\ncompromise to which Flacius and his adherents were loath to consent.\n\nJohn Wigand and Matthias Judex however continued to enforce the _Book of\nConfutation_ demanding an unqualified adoption in every point, _per\nomnia._ When the jurist Matthew Wesenbecius declined to accept the book\nin this categorical way, he was not permitted to serve as sponsor at a\nbaptism. John Frederick was dissatisfied with this procedure and action\nof the ministers; and when they persisted in their demands, the\nautocratic Duke deprived them of the right to excommunicate, vesting\nthis power in a consistory established at Weimar. Flacius and his\nadherents protested against this measure as tyranny exercised over the\nChurch and a suppression of the pure doctrine. As a result Musaeus,\nJudex, Wigand, and Flacius were suspended and expelled from Jena,\nDecember, 1561. (Gieseler 3, 2, 244. 247.) Their vacant chairs at the\nuniversity were filled by Freihub, Salmuth, and Selneccer, who had been\nrecommended by the Wittenberg Philippists at the request of the Duke,\nwho now evidently favored a compromise with the Synergists. Strigel,\ntoo, was reinstated at Jena after signing an ambiguous declaration.\n\nAmsdorf, Gallus, Hesshusius, Flacius, and the other exiled theologians\ndenounced Strigel's declaration as insincere and in conflict with\nLuther's book _De Servo Arbitrio,_ and demanded a public retraction of\nhis synergistic statements. When the ministers of Ducal Saxony also\ndeclined to acknowledge Strigel's orthodoxy, a more definite\n\"Superdeclaration,\" framed by Moerlin and Stoessel (but not signed by\nStrigel), was added as an interpretation of Strigel's declaration. But\neven now a minority refused to submit to the demands of the Duke,\nbecause they felt that they were being deceived by ambiguous terms, such\nas \"capacity\" and \"aptitude,\" which the wily Strigel and the Synergists\nused in the active or positive, and not in the passive sense. These\nconscientious Lutherans whom the rationalist Planck brands as \"almost\ninsane, _beinahe verrueckt,_\" were also deposed and banished, 1562.\nStrigel's declaration of March, 1562 however, maintaining that \"the will\nis passive in so far as God alone works all good, but active in so far\nas it must be present in its conversion, must consent, and not resist,\nbut accept,\" showed that he had not abandoned his synergism. In the same\nyear he applied for, and accepted, a professorship in Leipzig. Later on\nhe occupied a chair at the Reformed university in Heidelberg, where he\ndied 1569, at the age of only forty-five years.\n\nIn 1567, when John William became ruler of Ducal Saxony, the Philippists\nwere dismissed, and the banished Lutheran pastors and professors (with\nthe exception of Flacius) were recalled and reinstated. While this\nrehabilitation of the loyal Lutherans formally ended the synergistic\ncontroversy in Ducal Saxony, occasional echoes of it still lingered, due\nespecially to the fact that some ministers had considered Strigel's\nambiguous declaration a satisfactory presentation of the Lutheran truth\nwith regard to the questions involved. That the synergistic teaching of\nMelanchthon was continued in Wittenberg appears, for example, from the\n_Confessio Wittenbergica_ of 1570.\n\n160. Strigel's Rationalistic Principle.\n\nAlthough at the opening of the disputation the debaters had agreed to\ndecide all questions by clear Scripture-passages alone, Strigel's\nguiding principle was in reality not the Bible but philosophy and\nreason. His real concern was not, What does Scripture teach concerning\nthe causes of conversion? but, How may we harmonize the universal grace\nof God with the fact that only some are converted and saved?\nSelf-evidently Strigel, too, quoted Bible-passages. Among others, he\nappealed to such texts as John 6, 29; Rom. 1, 16; 10, 17; Luke 8, 18;\nHeb. 4, 2; Rev. 3, 20; Luke 11, 13; Mark 9, 24; 1 Thess. 2, 13; Jas. 1,\n18. But as we shall show later, his deductions were philosophical and\nsophistical rather than exegetical and Scriptural. Preger remarks: In\nhis disputation Strigel was not able to advance a single decisive\npassage of Scripture for the presence and cooperation of a good will at\nthe moment when it is approached and influenced (_ergriffen_) by grace.\n(2, 211.) And the clear, irrefutable Bible-texts on which Flacius\nfounded his doctrine of the inability of natural will to cooperate in\nconversion, Strigel endeavored to invalidate by philosophical reasoning,\nindirect arguing, and alleged necessary logical consequences.\n\nAt Weimar and in his _Confession_ of December 5 1560, delivered to the\nDuke soon after the disputation, Strigel argued: Whoever denies that\nman, in a way and measure, is able to cooperate in his own conversion\nis logically compelled also to deny that the rejection of grace may be\nimputed to man, compelled to make God responsible for man's damnation;\nto surrender the universality of God's grace and call; to admit\ncontradictory wills in God, and to take recourse to an absolute decree\nof election and reprobation in order to account for the fact that some\nreject the grace of God and are lost while others are converted and\nsaved. At Weimar Strigel declared: \"I do not say that the will is able\nto assent to the Word without the Holy Spirit, but that, being moved and\nassisted by the Spirit, it assents with trepidation. If we were unable\nto do this, we would not be responsible for not having received the\nWord. _Si hoc [utcumque assentiri inter trepidationes] non possemus, non\nessemus rei propter Verbum non receptum._\" Again, also at Weimar: \"If\nthe will is not able to assent in some way, even when assisted, then we\ncannot be responsible for rejecting the Word, but the blame must be\ntransferred to another, and others may judge how religious that is. _Si\nvoluntas ne quidem adiuta potest aliquo modo annuere, non possumus esse\nrei propter Verbum reiectum, sed culpa est in alium transferenda quod\nquam sit religio sum, alii iudicent._\" (Planck 4, 689. 719; Luthardt,\n_Lehre vom freien Willen,_ 222.)\n\nOver against this rationalistic method of Strigel and the Synergists\ngenerally, the Lutherans adhered to the principle that nothing but a\nclear passage of the Bible can decide a theological question. They\nrejected as false philosophy and rationalism every argument directed\nagainst the clear sense of a clear Word of God. They emphatically\nobjected to the employment of reason for establishing a Christian\ndoctrine or subverting a statement of the Bible. At Weimar, Flacius\nprotested again and again that human reason is not an authority in\ntheological matters. \"Let us hear the Scriptures! _Audiamus\nScripturam!_\" \"Let the woman be silent in the Church! _Mulier taceat in\necclesia!_\" With such slogans he brushed aside the alleged necessary\nlogical inferences and deductions of Strigel. \"You take your arguments\nfrom philosophy,\" he said in the second session, \"which ought not to be\ngiven a place in matters of religion. _Disputas ex philosophia, cui\nlocus in rebus religionis esse non debet._\" Again, at Weimar: \"It is\nagainst the nature of inquiring truth to insist on arguing from blind\nphilosophy. What else corrupted such ancient theologians as Clement,\nOrigen, Chrysostom, and afterwards also the Sophists [scholastic\ntheologians] but that they endeavored to decide spiritual things by\nphilosophy, which does not understand the secret and hidden mysteries of\nGod. _Est contra naturam inquirendae veritatis, si velimus ex caeca\nphilosophia loqui. Quid aliud corrupit theologos veteres, ut Clementem,\nOriginem, Chrysosthomum et postea etiam Sophistas, nisi quod de rebus\ndivinis ex philosophia voluerunt statuere, quae non intelligit\nabstrusissima et occultissima mysteria Dei._\" \"May we therefore observe\nthe rule of Luther: Let the woman be silent in the Church! For what a\nmiserable thing would it be if we had to judge ecclesiastical matters\nfrom logic! _Itaque observemus legem Lutheri: Taceat mulier in ecclesia!\nQuae enim miseria, si ex dialectica diiudicandae nobis essent res\necclesiae!_\" (Planck 4, 709.)\n\nIn an antisynergistic confession published by Schluesselburg, we read:\n\"This doctrine [of conversion by God's grace alone] is simple, clear,\ncertain, and irrefutable if one looks to God's Word alone and derives\nthe _Nosce teipsum,_ Know thyself, from the wisdom of God. But since\npoor men are blind, they love their darkness more than the light, as\nChrist says John 3, and insist on criticizing and falsifying God's\ntruth by means of blind philosophy, which, forsooth, is a shame and a\npalpable sin, if we but had eyes to see and know.... Whatsoever blind\nreason produces in such articles of faith against the Word of God is\nfalse and wrong. For it is said: _Mulier in ecclesia taceat!_ Let\nphilosophy and human wisdom be silent in the Church.\" (_Catalogus_ 5,\n665f.) Here, too, the sophistical objections of the Synergists are\ndisposed of with such remarks as: \"In the first place, this is but spun\nfrom reason, which thus acts wise in these matters. _Denn fuers erste\nist solches nur aus der Vernunft gesponnen, die weiss also hierin zu\nkluegeln._\" (668.) \"This is all spun from reason; but God's Word teaches\nus better. _Dies ist alles aus der Vernunft spintisiert; Gottes Wort\naber lehrt es besser._\" (670.)\n\nEvidently Strigel's rationalistic method was identical with that\nemployed by Melanchthon in his _Loci,_ by Pfeffinger, and the Synergists\ngenerally. Accordingly, his synergism also could not differ essentially\nfrom Melanchthon's. Planck pertinently remarks: \"It is apparent from\nthis [argument of Strigel that natural man must have power to cooperate\nin his conversion because otherwise God would be responsible for his\nresistance and damnation] that his synergism was none other than that of\nthe Wittenberg school; for was not this the identical foundation upon\nwhich Melanchthon had reared his [synergism]?\" (4, 690.) Like methods\nlead to the same results, and _vice versa._ Besides, Strigel had always\nappealed to the Wittenbergers; and in his _Opinion on the Weimar\nConfutation_ 1559, Melanchthon, in turn, identified himself with\nStrigel's arguments. (_C. R._ 9, 766.) The \"Confession and Opinion of\nthe Wittenbergers Concerning Free Will--_Confessio et Sententia\nWittebergensium de Libero Arbitrio_\" of 1561 also maintained the same\nattitude.\n\n161. Strigel's Theory.\n\nStrigel's views concerning the freedom of man's will in spiritual\nmatters may be summarized as follows: Man, having a will, is a free\nagent, hence always able to decide for or against. This ability is the\n\"mode of action\" essential to man as long as he really is a man and in\npossession of a will. Even in matters pertaining to grace this freedom\nwas not entirely lost in the Fall. It was impeded and weakened by\noriginal sin, but not annihilated. To be converted, man therefore\nrequires that these residual or remaining powers be excited and\nstrengthened rather than that new spiritual powers be imparted or a new\nwill be created. Accordingly, persuasion through the Word is the method\nof conversion employed by the Holy Spirit. When the will is approached\nby the Word, incited and assisted by the Spirit, it is able to admit the\noperations of the Spirit and assent to the Word, though but feebly.\nHence, no matter how much of the work of conversion must be ascribed to\nthe Holy Spirit and the Word the will itself, in the last analysis,\ndecides for or against grace. Man is, therefore, not purely passive in\nhis conversion, but cooperates with the Holy Spirit and the Word, not\nmerely after, but also in his conversion, before he has received the\ngift of faith.\n\n\"God who, outside of His essence in external actions, is the freest\nagent,\" said Strigel \"created two kinds of natures, the one free, the\nother acting naturally (_naturaliter agentes_). The free natures are the\nangels and men. Those acting naturally embrace all the rest of the\ncreatures. A natural agent is one that cannot do anything else [than it\ndoes], nor suspend its action _e.g._, fire. Men and angels were created\ndifferently, after the image of God, that they might be free agents.\n_Homines et angeli aliter conditi sunt ad imaginem Dei, ut sint liberum\nagens._\" (Planck 4, 669.) This freedom, which distinguishes man\nessentially from all other creatures, according to Strigel, always\nimplies the power to will or not to will with respect to any object. He\nsays: The act of willing, be it good or evil, always belongs to the\nwill, because the will is so created that it can will or not, without\ncoercion. \"_Ipsum velle, seu bonum seu malum, quod ad substantiam\nattinet, semper est voluntatis; quia voluntas sic est condita, UT POSSIT\nVELLE AUT NON; sed etiam hoc habet voluntas ex opere creationis quod\nadhuc reliquum, et non prorsus abolitum et extinctum est, UT POSSIT\nVELLE AUT NON SINE COACTIONE_.\" (674.) According to Strigel, the very\nessence of the will consists in being able, in every instance, to decide\nin either direction, for or against. Hence the very idea of will\ninvolves also a certain ability to cooperate in conversion. (689.)\n\nThis freedom or ability to decide _pro_ or _con,_ says Strigel, is the\nmode of action essential to man, his mode of action also in conversion.\nAnd in the controversy on free will he sought to maintain that this\nalleged mode of action was a part of the very essence of the human will\nand being. At Weimar Strigel declared: \"I do not wish to detract from\nthe will the mode of action which is different from other natural\nactions. _Nolo voluntati detrahi modum agendi, qui est dissimilis aliis\nactionibus naturalibus._\" (Planck 4, 668.) Again: \"The will is not a\nnatural, but a free agent; hence the will is converted not as a natural\nagent, but as a free agent.... In conversion the will acts in its own\nmode; it is not a statue or a log in conversion. Hence conversion does\nnot occur in a purely passive manner. _Voluntas non est agens naturale,\nsed liberum; ergo convertitur voluntas non ut naturaliter agens, sed ut\nliberum agens.... Et voluntas suo modo agit in conversione, nec est\nstatua vel truncus in conversione. Et per consequens non fit conversio\npure passive._\" (Luthardt, 217. 219. 209.)\n\nWhat Strigel means is that man, being a free agent, must, also in\nconversion, be accorded the ability somehow to decide for grace.\nAccording to the _Formula of Concord_ the words, \"man's mode of action,\"\nsignify \"a way of working something good and salutary in divine things.\"\n(905, 61.) The connection and the manner in which the phrase was\nemployed by Strigel admitted of no other interpretation. Strigel added:\nThis mode of action marks the difference between the will of man and the\nwill of Satan, for the devil neither endeavors to assent, nor prays to\nGod for assistance, while man does. (Luthardt, 220.) Natural man is by\nStrigel credited with the power of \"endeavoring to assent, _conari\nassentiri,_\" because he is endowed with a will. But shrewd as Strigel\nwas, it did not occur to him that, logically, his argument compelled him\nto ascribe also to the devils everything he claimed for natural man,\nsince they, too, have a will and are therefore endowed with the same\n_modus agendi,_ which, according to Strigel, belongs to the very idea\nand essence of will. Yet this palpable truth, which overthrew his entire\ntheory, failed to open the eyes of Strigel.\n\nIf, as Strigel maintained, the human will, by virtue of its nature as a\nfree agent, is, in a way, _able_ to cooperate in conversion, then the\nonly question is how to elevate this ability to an actuality, in other\nwords, how to influence the will and rouse its powers to move in the\nright direction. Strigel answered: Since the will cannot be forced,\nmoral suasion is the true method required to convert a man. \"The will,\"\nsays he \"cannot be forced, hence it is by persuasion, _i.e._, by\npointing out something good or evil, that the will is moved to obey and\nto submit to the Gospel, not coerced, _but somehow willing. Voluntas non\npotest cogi, ergo voluntas persuadendo, id est ostensione alicuius boni\nvel mali flectitur ad obediendum et obtemperandum evangelio, non coacta,\nsed ALIQUO MODO VOLENS._\" (Seeberg 4, 491.) Again: \"Although God is\nefficacious through the Word, drawing and leading us efficaciously, yet\nHe does not make assenting necessary for such a nature as the will,--a\nnature so created that it is able not to assent, if it so wills, and to\nexpel Him who dwells in us. This assent therefore is the work of God and\nthe Holy Spirit, but in so far as it is a free assent, not coerced and\npressed out by force, _it is also the work of the will. Etiam si Deus\nest efficax per Verbum et efficaciter nos trahit et ducit, tamen non\naffert necessitatem assentiendi tali naturae, qualis est voluntas, id\nest, quae sic est condita, ut possit non assentiri, si velit, et\nexcutere sessorem. Est igitur hic assensus opus Dei et Spiritus Sancti,\nsed quatenus est liber assensus, non coactus, expressus vi, EST ETIAM\nVOLUNTATIS._\" (491.) Strigel evidently means: The fact that man is able\nnot to assent to grace of necessity involves that somehow (_aliquo\nmodo_) he is able also to assent, according to man's peculiar mode of\naction (freedom) he must himself actualize his conversion by previously\n(in the logical order) willing it, deciding for it, and assenting to it;\nhe would be converted by coercion if his assent to grace were an act of\nthe will engendered and created solely by God, rather than an act\neffected and produced by the powers of the will when incited and\nassisted by the Spirit. Man is converted by persuasion only, because God\ndoes not create assent and faith in him but merely elicits these acts\nfrom man by liberating and appealing to the powers of his will to effect\nand produce them.\n\nIn defending this freedom of the will, Strigel appealed also to the\nstatement of Luther: \"The will cannot be coerced;... if the will could\nbe coerced, it would not be volition, but rather nolition. _Voluntas non\npotest cogi;... si posset cogi voluntas, non esset voluntas sed potius\nvoluntas._\" However, what Luther said of the form or nature of the will,\naccording to which it always really wills what it wills, and is\ntherefore never coerced, was by Strigel transferred to the spiritual\nmatters and objects of the will. According to Strigel's theory, says\nSeeberg, \"the will must be free even in the first moment of conversion,\nfree not only in the psychological, but also in the moral sense.\" (4,\n492.) Tschackert, quoting Seeberg remarks that Strigel transformed the\nnatural formal liberty into an ethical material liberty--_\"indem die\nnatuerliche formale Freiheit sich ihm unter der Hand [?] verwandelte in\ndie ethische materiale Freiheit._\" (524.)\n\n162. Strigel's Semi-Pelagianism.\n\nStrigel's entire position is based on the error that a remnant of\nspiritual ability still remains in natural man. True, he taught that in\nconsequence of original sin the powers of man and the proper use and\nexercise of these powers are greatly impeded, weakened, checked, and\ninsulated, as it were, and that this impediment can be removed solely by\nthe operation of the Holy Spirit. \"Through the Word the Holy Spirit\nrestores to the will the power and faculty of believing,\" Strigel\ndeclared. (Luthardt, 250.) But this restoration, he said, was brought\nabout by liberating, arousing, inciting, and strengthening the powers\ninherent in man rather than by divine impartation of new spiritual\npowers or by the creation of a new good volition.\n\nStrigel plainly denied that natural man is truly spiritually dead. He\ndeclared: \"The will is so created that it can expel the Holy Spirit and\nthe Word, or, when assisted by the Holy Spirit, can in some manner will\nand obey--to receive is the act of the will; in this I cannot concede\nthat man is simply _dead--accipere est hominis; in hoc non possum\nconcedere simpliciter mortuum esse hominem._\" (Frank 1, 199.) Natural\nman, Strigel explained, is indeed not able to grasp the helping hand of\nGod with his own hand; yet the latter is not dead, but still retains a\nminimum of power. (678.) Again: Man is like a new-born child, whose\npowers must first be strengthened with nourishment given it by its\nmother, and which, _though able to draw this nourishment out of its\nmother's breast,_ is yet unable to lift itself up to it, or to take hold\nof the breast, unless it be given it. (Preger 2, 209.)\n\nWith special reference to the last illustration, Flacius declared:\n\"Strigel, accordingly, holds that we have the faculty to desire and\nreceive the food, _i.e._, the benefits of God. Forsooth, you thereby\nattribute to corrupt man a very great power with respect to spiritual\nthings. Now, then, deny that this opinion is Pelagian.\" (209.) \"Your\nstatements agree with those of Pelagius, yet I do not simply say that\nyou are a Pelagian; for a good man may fall into an error which he does\nnot see.\" Pelagius held that man, by his natural powers, is able to\nbegin and complete his own conversion; Cassianus, the Semi-Pelagian\ntaught that man is able merely to begin this work; Strigel maintained\nthat man can admit the liberating operation of the Holy Spirit, and that\nafter such operation of the Spirit he is able to cooperate with his\nnatural powers. Evidently, then, the verdict of Flacius was not much\nbeside the mark. Planck though unwilling to relegate Strigel to the\nPelagians, does not hesitate to put him down as a thoroughgoing\nSynergist. (Planck 4, 683f.) Synergism, however, always includes at\nleast an element of Pelagianism.\n\nStrigel illustrated his idea by the following analogy. When garlic-juice\nis applied to a magnet, it loses its power of attraction, but remains a\ntrue magnet, and, when goat's blood is applied, immediately regains its\nefficaciousness. So the will of man is hindered by original sin from\nbeginning that which is good; but when the impediment has been removed\nthrough the operation of the Holy Spirit, the native powers of the will\nagain become efficacious and active. (Tschackert, 524; Planck 4, 672;\nPreger 2, 198; Luthardt, 211.) Frank remarks: \"The example of the\ntemporarily impeded power of the magnet, which was repeated also at this\njuncture [in the disputation at Weimar], immediately points to the\nrelated papal doctrine, for the Catholic Andradius explains the dogma of\nthe _Tridentinum_ to this effect: The free will of natural man may be\ncompared to a chained prisoner who, though still in possession of his\nlocomotive powers, is nevertheless impeded by his fetters.\" (1, 136.)\nAlso the _Formula of Concord,_ evidently with a squint at Strigel,\nrejects as a Pelagian error the teaching \"that original sin is not a\ndespoliation or deficiency but only an external impediment to these\nspiritual good powers, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice,\nwhereby its natural power is not removed, but only hindered or that this\nstain can be easily washed away as a spot from the face or a pigment\nfrom the wall.\" (865, 22.)\n\n163. Strigel's \"Cooperation.\"\n\nWhen the impediment caused by original sin has been removed, and the\nwill liberated and aroused to activity, man, according to Strigel, is\nable also to cooperate in his conversion. At Weimar he formulated the\npoint at issue as follows: \"The question is whether [in conversion] the\nwill is present idle, as an inactive, indolent subject, or, as the\ncommon saying is, in a purely passive way; or whether, when grace\nprecedes, the will follows the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and in some\nmanner assents--_an vero praeeunte gratia voluntas comitetur\nefficaciam Spiritus Sancti et aliquo modo annuat_.\" (Luthardt, 222.)\nFollowing are some of his answers to this question: When incited by the\nSpirit, the will is able to assent somewhat and to pray for assistance.\n_Inter trepidationem utcumque assentitur, simul petens auxilium._\nContrition and faith, as well as other virtues, are gifts of God, \"but\nthey are given to those only who hear and contemplate God's Word,\nembrace it by assenting to it, strive against their doubts and in this\nconflict pray for the help of God.\" (230.) The Holy Ghost converts\nthose \"who hear the Word of God and do not resist stubbornly, but\nconsent,\" and God assists such only \"as follow His call and pray for\nassistance.\" (229.) \"The will and heart do not resist altogether, but\ndesire divine consolation, when, indeed, they are assisted by the Holy\nGhost.\" \"The will is neither idle nor contumacious; but, in a manner,\ndesires to obey.\" (Planck 4, 682.) \"Man is dead [spiritually] in as far\nas he is not able to heal his wounds with his own powers; but when the\nremedy is offered him by the Holy Spirit and the Word, then he, at\nleast in receiving the benefit, is not altogether dead; for otherwise a\nconversion could not occur. For I cannot conceive a conversion where\nthe process is that of the flame consuming straw (_denn ich kann mir\nkeine Bekehrung vorstellen, bei der es zugeht, wie wenn die Flamme das\nStroh ergreift_). The nature of the will is such that it can reject the\nHoly Spirit and the Word; or, being supported by the Holy Spirit, can\nin a manner will and obey. The remedy is heavenly and divine, but the\nwill--not the will alone, but the will supported by the Holy Spirit--is\nable to accept it. One must ascribe at least a feeble consent and an\n'Aye' to the will, which is already supported by the Holy Spirit.\"\n(Preger 2, 208.) \"In a betrothal, consent is necessary; conversion is a\nbetrothal of Christ to the Church and its individual members; hence\nconsent is required,\" which the will is able to give when assisted by\nthe Holy Spirit. (Luthardt, 224.)\n\nIt is, however, only a languid, wavering, and weak consent which man is\nable to render (_qualiscumque assensio languida, trepida et imbecilla_).\n\"Compared with the divine operation,\" Flacius reports Strigel as having\nsaid, \"the cooperation of our powers in conversion is something\nextremely small (_quiddam pertenue prorsus_). If, after drinking with a\nrich man, he paying a _taler_ and I a _heller,_ I would afterwards boast\nthat I had been drinking and paying with him--such is cooperation,\n_talis est synergia._\" (Planck 4, 677; Luthardt, 220. 222.) According to\nStrigel, therefore, man is not purely passive, but plays an active part\nin his conversion. With Melanchthon and Pfeffinger he maintained: \"These\nthree concur in conversion: the Holy Spirit, who moves the hearts; the\nvoice of God; the will of man, which assents to the divine voice.\n_Concurrunt in conversione haec tria: Spiritus Sanctus movens corda, vox\nDei, voluntas hominis, quae voci divinae assentitur._\" (Tschackert,\n524.)\n\nFlacius declared with respect to the issue formulated by Strigel: \"I\nexplain my entire view as follows: Man is purely passive (_homo se habet\npure passive_). If you consider the native faculty of the will, its\nwilling and its powers, then he is purely passive when he receives (_in\naccipiendo_). But if that divinely bestowed willing or spark of faith\nkindled by the Spirit is considered, then this imparted willing and this\nspark is not purely passive. But the Adamic will does not only not\noperate or cooperate, but, according to the inborn malice of the heart,\neven operates contrarily (_verum etiam pro nativa malitia cordis sui\ncontra operatur_).\" (Planck 4, 697.) Thus Flacius clearly distinguished\nbetween cooperation _before_ conversion (which he rejected absolutely)\nand cooperation _after_ conversion (which he allowed). And pressing this\npoint, he said to Strigel: \"I ask whether you say that the will\ncooperates _before_ the gift of faith or _after_ faith has been received\nwhether you say that the will cooperates from natural powers, or in so\nfar as the good volition has been bestowed by the renovation of the Holy\nSpirit. _Quaero, an dicas, voluntatem cooperari ante donum fidei aut\npost acceptam fidem; an dicas, cooperari ex naturalibus viribus aut\nquatenus ex renovatione Spiritus Sancti datum est bene velle._\" (Seeberg\n4, 492.) Again: I shall withdraw the charge of Pelagianism if you will\ndeclare it as your opinion \"that only the regenerated, sanctified,\nrenewed will cooperates, and not the other human, carnal, natural will.\"\n\"Confess openly and expressly and say clearly: 'I affirm that man\ncooperates from faith and the good will bestowed by God, not from the\nwill he brings with him from his natural Adam--_quod homo cooperetur ex\nfide et bono velle divinitus donato, non ex eo, quod attulit ex suo\nnaturali Adamo.'_\" \"We say, Only the regenerate will cooperates; if you\n[Strigel] say the same, the controversy is at an end.\" Strigel, however,\nwho, to use a phrase of Luther (St. L. 18, 1673), was just as hard to\ncatch as Proteus of old, did not reply with a definite yes or no, but\nrepeated that it was only a weak assent (_qualiscumque assensio languida\ntrepida et imbecilla_) which man was able to render when his will was\nincited and supported by the prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit.\n(Preger 2, 217; Luthardt, 217. 222. 227; Frank 1, 115.)\n\n164. Objections Answered.\n\nAt Weimar, Strigel insisted: The human will must not be eliminated as\none of the causes of conversion; for without man's will and intellect no\nconversion is possible. Flacius replied: The will, indeed, is present in\nconversion, for it is the will that is converted and experiences\nconversion; but the inborn power of the natural will contributes nothing\nto conversion, and therefore the will \"is purely passive in the\nreception of grace.\" (Preger 2, 217.) \"We are pressed hard with the\nsophistical objection that man is not converted without his knowledge\nand will. But who doubts this? The entire question is: Whence does that\ngood knowledge originate? Whence does that good volition originate?\"\n(216.) \"We certainly admit that in conversion there are many motions of\nthe intellect and will, good and bad. But the dispute among us is not\nwhether in conversion the intellect understands and the will wills; but\nwhence is the capability to think right, and whence is that good willing\nof the will? Is it of us, as of ourselves, or is this sufficiency of\nwilling and thinking of God alone?\" (Planck 4, 711.) The fact that God\nalone converts man, said Flacius, \"does not exclude the presence of the\nwill; but it does exclude all efficaciousness and operation of the\nnatural will in conversion (_non excludit voluntatem, ne adsit, sed\nexcludit omnem efficaciam et operationem naturalise voluntatis in\nconversione_).\" (Seeberg 4, 492.)\n\nIn order to prove man's cooperation in conversion, Strigel declared:\n\"Both [to will and to perform] are in some way acts of God and of\nourselves; for no willing and performing takes place unless we will.\n_Utrumque [velle et perficere] aliquo modo Dei et nostrum est non fit\nvelle aut perficere nisi nobis volentibus._\" Charging Strigel with\nambiguity, Flacius replied: \"You speak of one kind of synergism and we\nof another. You cannot affirm with a good conscience that these\nquestions are unknown to you.\" Strigel, protesting that he was unable to\nsee the difference, answered: \"For God's sake, have a little forbearance\nwith me, I cannot see the difference. If that is to my discredit, let it\nbe to my discredit.--_Bitte um Gottes willen, man wolle mir's zugut\nhalten; ich kann's nicht ausmessen. Ist mir's eine Schand', so sei mir's\neine Schand'_.\" (Frank 1, 136.) Strigel, however, evidently meant that\nman, too, has a share in _producing_ the good volition, while Flacius\nunderstood the phraseology as Luther and Augustine explained it, the\nlatter, _e.g._, writing in _De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio:_ \"It is\ncertain that we will when we will; but He who makes us will is He of\nwhom it is written: It is God who worketh in us to will. _Certum est nos\nvelle cum volumus; sed ille facit, ut velimus, de quo dictum est: Deus\nest, qui operatur in nobis velle._\" (Frank 1, 238.)\n\nIn his objections to the doctrine that man is purely passive in his\nconversion, Strigel protested again and again that man is not like a\nblock or stone when he is converted. \"That is true,\" said Flacius, \"for\na block can neither love nor hate God, while man by nature hates God,\nand scoffs at Him. Rom. 8, 1; 1 Cor. 2. Thus God is dealing with one\nwhose will and heart is altogether against Him. But here [in the denial\nthat man is purely passive in conversion] is buried a popish _meritum de\ncongruo_ and a particle of free will.\" (Preger 2, 191.) Flacius\nfurthermore explained that in his conversion man is able to cooperate\njust as little as a stone can contribute to its transformation into a\nstatue. Indeed, man's condition is even more miserable than that of a\nstone or block (_miserior trunco_), because by his natural powers he\nresists, and cannot but resist, the operations of the Spirit. (Planck 4,\n696f.)\n\nStrigel reasoned: If man is converted without his consent, and if he\ncannot but resist the operations of the Holy Spirit, conversion is an\nimpossibility, a contradiction. He said: \"If the will, even when\nassisted by the Holy Spirit, is unable to assent, it must of necessity\nresist Him perpetually, drive out, reject, and repudiate the Word and\nHoly Spirit; for it is impossible that motions extremely conflicting and\ncontradictory, the one embracing, the other repudiating and persistently\nrejecting, should be in the same will. _Si voluntas etiam adiuta a\nSpiritu Sancto non potest assentiri, necesse est, ut perpetuo ei\nrepugnet, ut excutiat, reiiciat et repudiet Verbum et Spiritum Sanctum.\nNam impossibile est in eadem voluntate esse motus extreme pugnantes et\ncontradictorios, quorum alter est amplecti, alter repudiare et quidem\nperstare in reiectione._\" Flacius replied: You need but distinguish\nbetween the sinful natural will inherited from Adam, which always\nresists, and the new consenting will implanted by God in conversion.\n\"Man consents with the faith given by God, but he resists with the\ninborn wickedness of his Old Adam.\" Your error is that you acknowledge\nonly an inciting grace, which mere incitation presupposes powers of\none's own to do and to perform (_talis incitatio includit proprias vires\nad perficiendum_). \"I plead,\" said Flacius, \"that by original sin man is\nnot only wounded, but, as the Scriptures affirm, entirely dead, and his\nfaculties to do that which is good have been destroyed; on the other\nhand, however, he is alive and vigorous toward evil (_hominem ...\npenitus esse mortuum, extinctum et interfectum ad bonum et contra\ninsuper vivum et vigentem ad malum_).\" \"The will is free with respect to\nthings beneath itself, but not with respect to things above itself. In\nspiritual matters it is a servant of Satan.\" Hence, said Flacius, in\norder to cooperate, new spiritual life must first be imparted to, and\ncreated in, man by the grace of God. (Planck 4, 693ff.; Frank 1, 224ff.,\nLuthardt, 224; Preger 2, 216.)\n\nStrigel argued: If man is able only to sin and to resist the grace of\nGod, he cannot be held accountable for his actions. But Flacius replied:\n\"Also the non-regenerate are justly accused [made responsible for their\nactions] for with the remnant of the carnal liberty they are able at\nleast to observe external decency (_Zucht_), which God earnestly demands\nof us, for example, to hear God's Word, to go to church more frequently\nthan into the tavern.\" \"Furthermore, there are many carnal\ntransgressions in which natural man could have done something which he\nhas not done.\" \"God may justly hold us responsible also with respect to\nthings which we are unable to do because He has bestowed uninjured\npowers upon the human race, which, though forewarned, man has shamefully\nlost through his own fault.\" (Preger 2, 214f.)\n\nTime and again Strigel told Flacius that according to his doctrine man\nis coerced to sin and compelled to resist the grace of God. But the\nlatter replied: As far as his own powers are concerned, the natural will\nof man indeed sins and resists inevitably and of necessity (_voluntas\nrepugnat necessario et inevitabiliter_), but not by coercion or\ncompulsion. Necessity to resist (_necessitas repugnandi_), Flacius\nexplained, does not involve coercion to resist (_coactio repugnandi_),\nsince there is such a thing as a necessity of immutability (_necessitas\nimmutabilitatis_), that is to say, man may be unable to act otherwise and\nyet act willingly. The impossibility of being able to will otherwise\nthan one really wills, does, according to Flacius, not at all involve\ncoercion or compulsion. The holy angels are free from compulsion,\nalthough they cannot sin or fall any more. It is the highest degree of\nfreedom and Christian perfection when, in the life to come, our will to\nremain in union with God is elevated to immutability of so willing.\nAgain, though Satan cannot but sin, yet he is not coerced to sin. Thus\ntoo, of his own powers, natural man is able only to resist grace, yet\nthere is no compulsion involved. The fact, therefore, that natural man\ncannot but sin and resist grace does not warrant the inference that he\nis compelled to sin; nor does the fact that natural man is not coerced\nto resist prove that he is able also to assent to grace. The fact, said\nFlacius, that the wicked _willingly_ will, think, and do only what\npleases Satan does not prove an ability to will in the opposite\nspiritual direction, but merely reveals the terrible extent of Satan's\ntyrannical power over natural man. (Luthardt 224. 231.) According to\nFlacius the will always wills willingly when it wills and what it wills.\nIn brief: The categories \"coercion\" and \"compulsion\" cannot be applied\nto the will. This, however, does not imply that God is not able to\ncreate or restore a good will without coercion or compulsion. There was\nno coercion or compulsion involved when God, creating Adam, Eve, and the\nangels, endowed them with a good will. Nor is there any such thing as\ncoercion or compulsion when God, in conversion, bestows faith and a good\nwill upon man.\n\nIn his statements on the freedom of the will, Flacius merely repeated\nwhat Luther had written before him, in _De Servo Arbitrio:_ \"For if it\nis not we, but God alone, who works salvation in us, then nothing that\nwe do previous to His work, whether we will or not, is salutary. But\nwhen I say, 'by necessity,' I do not mean by coercion, but, as they say\nby the necessity of immutability, not by necessity of coercion, _i.e._,\nman, destitute of the Spirit of God, does not sin perforce, as though\nseized by the neck [stretched upon the rack] nor unwillingly, as a thief\nor robber is led to his punishment but spontaneously and willingly. And\nby his own strength he cannot omit, restrain, or change this desire or\nwillingness to sin, but continues to will it and to find pleasure in it.\nFor even if he is compelled by force, outwardly to do something else,\nwithin, the will nevertheless remains averse, and rages against him who\ncompels or resists it. For if it were changed and willingly yielded to\nforce, it would not be angry. And this we call the necessity of\nimmutability, _i.e._, the will cannot change itself and turn to\nsomething else, but is rather provoked to will more intensely by being\nresisted, as is proved by its indignation. _Si enim non nos, sed solus\nDeus operatur salutem in nobis, nihil ante opus eius operamur salutare,\nvelimus nolimus. Necessario vero dico, NON COACTE, sed, ut illi dicunt,\nnecessitate immutabilitatis, NON COACTIONIS; id est homo cum vacat\nSpiritu Dei, NON QUIDEM VIOLENTIA, velut raptus obtorto collo, NOLENS\nfacit peccatum, quemadmodum fur aut latro nolens ad poenam ducitur, sed\nsponte et libenti voluntate facit. Verum hanc libentiam seu voluntatem\nfaciendi non potest suis viribus omittere, coercere aut mutare, sed\npergit volendo et lubendo; etiamsi ad extra cogatur aliud facere per\nvim, tamen voluntas intus manet aversa et indignatur cogenti aut\nresistenti. Non enim indignaretur, si mutaretur ac volens vim\nsequeretur. Hoc vocamus modo necessitatem immutabilitatis, id est, quod\nvoluntas sese mutare et vertere alio non possit, sed potius irritetur\nmagis ad volendum, dum ei resistitur, quod probat eius indignatio._\" (E.\nv. a. 7, 155f. 134. 157; St. L. 18 1717. 1692. 1718.)\n\nFlacius was also charged with teaching that \"man is converted resisting\n(_hominem converti repugnantem_).\" In their _Confession and Opinion\nConcerning Free Will,_ of 1561, the Wittenberg theologians repeated the\nassertion that Flacius taught \"_converti hominem ... repugnantem et\nhostiliter Deo convertenti adversantem._\" (Planck 4, 688.) But Flacius\nprotested: \"I do not simply say that man is converted resisting\n(_hominem repugnantem converti_). But I say that he resists with respect\nto his natural and carnal free will.\" \"It is not denied that God\nconverts us as willing and understanding (_quin Deus nos convertat\nvolentes et intelligentes_), but willing and understanding not from the\nOld Adam but from the light given by God and from the good volition\nbestowed through the Word and the Holy Spirit.\" (692.) \"Man is converted\nor drawn by the Father to the Son not as a thief is cast into prison,\nbut in such a manner that his evil will is changed into a good will by\nthe power of the Holy Spirit.\" (Preger 2, 218.) It is the very essence\nof conversion that by the grace of God unwilling men are made willing.\n\nIn support of his error that natural man is able to cooperate in his\nconversion Strigel appealed to Rom. 8, 26: \"Likewise the Spirit also\nhelpeth our infirmities,\" etc.; and appealing to the _Augustana_ for the\ncorrectness of his interpretation, he declared that this passage proves\nthat one may speak of a languid and weak assent in man even before he is\nendowed with faith. Flacius replied that this Bible-passage referred to\nsuch only as are already converted, and that Strigel's interpretation\nwas found not in the original _Augustana,_ but in the _Variata._--From\nthe admonition 2 Cor. 5, 20: \"Be ye reconciled to God,\" Strigel inferred\nthat free will must to a certain extent be capable of accepting the\ngrace offered by God. Flacius answered that it was a logical fallacy,\nconflicting also with the clear Word of God, to conclude that man by his\nown powers is able to perform something because God demands it and\nadmonishes and urges us to do it.--From Acts 5, 32: \"...the Holy Ghost,\nwhom God hath given to them that obey Him,\" Strigel argued that the will\nis able to consent to the Holy Spirit. But Flacius rejoined that this\npassage refers to special gifts bestowed upon such as are already\nconverted.--In support of his synergism, Strigel also appealed to the\nParable of the Prodigal Son, who himself repented and returned to his\nfather. But Flacius answered: If every detail of this parable taken from\nevery-day life were to be interpreted in such a manner, Strigel would\nhave to abandon his own teaching concerning prevenient grace, since\naccording to the parable the repentance and return of the son precedes\nthe grace bestowed by the father. (Preger 2, 210f.)\n\n165. Teaching of the Anti-Synergists.\n\nWhile the Philippists, also in the Synergistic Controversy, endeavored\nto supplant the authority and doctrine of Luther by that of Melanchthon,\ntheir opponents, Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others\n(though not always fortunate in the choice of their phraseology), stood\nfour-square on Luther's teaching of the _sola gratia,_ which, they were\nfully convinced, was nothing but the pure truth of the Gospel itself.\nThey maintained that, as a result of the Fall, man has lost his original\nholiness and righteousness or the image of God; that both as to his\nintellect and will he is totally corrupt spiritually; that of his own\npowers he is utterly unable to think or will anything that is truly\ngood; that not a spark of spiritual life is found in natural man by\nvirtue of which he might assent to the Gospel or cooperate with the Holy\nSpirit in his conversion; that his carnal mind is enmity toward God;\nthat of his own powers he is active only in resisting the work of the\nHoly Spirit, nor is he able to do otherwise; that such resistance\ncontinues until he is converted and a new will and heart have been\ncreated in him; that conversion consists in this, that men who by nature\nare unwilling and resist God's grace become such as willingly consent\nand obey the Gospel and the Holy Spirit; that this is done solely by\nGod's grace, through Word and Sacrament; that man is purely passive in\nhis conversion, inasmuch as he contributes nothing towards it, and\nmerely suffers and experiences the work of the Holy Spirit; that only\nafter his conversion man is able to cooperate with the Holy Spirit; that\nsuch cooperation, however, flows not from innate powers of the natural\nwill, but from the new powers imparted in conversion; that also in the\nconverted the natural sinful will continues to oppose whatever is truly\ngood, thus causing a conflict between the flesh and the spirit which\nlasts till death; in brief, that man's conversion and salvation are due\nto grace alone and in no respect whatever to man and his natural powers.\n\nThe _Book of Confutation,_ of 1559, drafted, as stated above, by the\ntheologians of Jena, designates the synergistic dogma as a \"rejection of\ngrace.\" Here we also meet with statements such as the following: Human\nnature \"is altogether turned aside from God, and is hostile toward Him\nand subject to the tyranny of sin and Satan (_naturam humanam prorsus a\nDeo aversam eique inimicam et tyrannidi peccati ac Satanae subiectam\nesse_).\" It is impossible for the unregenerate man \"to understand or to\napprehend the will of God revealed in the Word, or by his own power to\nconvert himself to God and to will or perform anything good (_homini non\nrenato impossibile esse intelligere aut apprehendere voluntatem Dei in\nVerbo patefactam aut sua ipsius voluntate ad Deum se convertere, boni\naliquid velle aut perficere_).\" \"Our will to obey God or to choose the\ngood is utterly extinguished and corrupted. _Voluntas nostra ad Dei\nobedientiam aut ad bonum eligendum prorsus extincta et depravata est_.\"\n(Tschackert, 523; Gieseler 3, 2, 229.)\n\nThe second of the Propositions prepared by Simon Musaeus and Flacius for\nthe Disputation at Weimar, 1560, reads: \"Corrupt man cannot operate or\ncooperate toward anything good by true motions, and such as proceed from\nthe heart; for his heart is altogether dead spiritually, and has utterly\nlost the image of God, or all powers and inclinations toward that which\nis good. _Homo corruptus nihil boni potest veris ac ex corde\nproficiscentibus motibus operari aut cooperari, nom plane est\nspiritualiter mortuus et Dei imaginem seu omnes bonas vires et\ninclinationes prorsus amisit._\" The third: Not only \"has he lost\nentirely all good powers, but, in addition, he has also acquired\ncontrary and most evil powers, ... so that, of necessity or inevitably,\nhe constantly and vehemently opposes God and true piety (_ita [tr. note:\nsic on punctuation] ut necessario seu inevitabiliter Deo ac verae\npietati semper et vehementer adversetur._\" The fourth thesis states that\nGod alone, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, converts, draws, and\nillumines man, kindles faith, justifies, renews, and creates him unto\ngood works, while natural or Adamic free will is of itself not only\ninactive, but resists (_non solum non cooperante ex se naturali aut\nAdamico libero arbitrio, sed etiam contra furente ac fremente_). (Planck\n4, 692; Gieseler 3, 2, 245.)\n\nThe same position was occupied by the Mansfeld ministers in a statement\nof August 20, 1562, and by Hesshusius in his _Confutation of the\nArguments by which the Synergists Endeavor to Defend Their Error\nConcerning the Powers of the Dead Free Will_. They held that in his\nconversion man is purely passive and has no mode of action whatever;\nthat he is but the passive subject who is to be converted (_subiectam\npatiens, subiectum convertendum_); that he contributes no more to his\nconversion than an infant to its own formation in the womb of its\nmother; that he is passive, like a block, inasmuch as he does not in any\nway cooperate, but at the same time differs from, and is worse than, a\nblock, because he is active in resisting the Holy Spirit until he has\nbeen converted. The _Confession_ presented by the theologians of Ducal\nSaxony (Wigand, Coelestinus, Irenaeus, Rosinus, Kirchner, etc.) at the\nAltenburg Colloquy March, 1569, occupies the same doctrinal position. As\nstated before, these theologians made it a special point also to declare\ntheir agreement with Luther's book _De Servo Arbitrio_. (Schluesselburg\n5, 316. 133.)\n\n166. Attitude of Formula of Concord.\n\nThe second article of the _Formula of Concord_, which decided the\nquestions involved in the Synergistic Controversy, takes a clear,\ndetermined, and consistent stand against all forms and formulas of\nsynergism. At the same time it avoids all extravagant, improper,\noffensive, and inadequate terms and phrases, as well as the numerous\npitfalls lurking everywhere in the questions concerning free will,\nagainst which also some of the opponents of the Synergists had not\nalways sufficiently been on their guard. Article II teaches \"that\noriginal sin is an unspeakable evil and such an entire corruption of\nhuman nature that in it and all its internal and external powers nothing\npure or good remains, but everything is entirely corrupt, so that on\naccount of original sin man is in God's sight truly spiritually dead,\nwith all his powers dead to that which is good (_dass der Mensch durch\ndie Erbsuende wahrhaftig vor Gott geistlich tot und zum Guten mit allen\nseinen Kraeften erstorben sei_)\" (CONC. TRIGL. 879, 60); \"that in\nspiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the\nunregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to\nunderstand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, work, or concur\nin working, anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and\ncorrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration,\nthere is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present,\nby which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept\nthe offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or\naccommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as\nof himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his\nconversion either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most\ninconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John\n8, 34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2, 2;\n2 Tim. 2, 26. Hence natural free will according to its perverted\ndisposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is\ndispleasing and contrary to God\" (883, 7; 887, 17); that \"before man is\nenlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed and drawn by the Holy\nSpirit he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin work, or\nconcur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion or\nregeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay.\" (891, 24);\nthat, moreover, \"in this respect\" [inasmuch as man resists the Holy\nSpirit] \"it may well be said that man is not a stone or block, for a\nstone or block does not resist the person who moves it, nor does it\nunderstand and is sensible of what is being done with it, as man with\nhis will so long resists God the Lord until he is converted (_donec ad\nDeum conversus fuerit_)\" (905, 59); that \"the Holy Scriptures ascribe\nconversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongs\nto their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers\nof the natural free will, neither entirely, nor half nor in any, even\nthe least or most inconsiderable part, but _in solidum_, that is,\nentirely and solely, to the divine working and the Holy Spirit\" (891,\n25); that \"the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments of\nthe Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work\nefficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to\nwill and to do\" (901, 52); that \"as soon as the Holy Ghost ... has begun\nin us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that\nthrough the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate\n(_mitwirken_), although still in great weakness\" (907, 65); that this\ncooperation, however, \"does not occur from our carnal natural powers,\nbut from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us\nin conversion,\" and \"is to be understood in no other way than that the\nconverted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy\nSpirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would\nwithdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere\nin obedience to God,\" and that hence it is not a power independent from,\nand coordinated with, the Holy Spirit, as though \"the converted man\ncooperated with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together\ndraw a wagon\" (907, 66); and finally, that as to the\nthree-concurring-causes doctrine it is \"manifest, from the explanations\npresented that conversion to God is a work of God the Holy Ghost alone,\nwho is the true Master that alone works this in us, for which He uses\nthe preaching and hearing of His holy Word as His ordinary means and\ninstrument. But the intellect and will of the unregenerate man are\nnothing else than _subiectum convertendum_, that is, that which is to be\nconverted, it being the intellect and will of a spiritually dead man, in\nwhom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal, towards which work\nman's will that is to be converted does nothing, but suffers God alone\nto work in him until he is regenerated and then he [cooperates] works\nalso with the Holy Ghost that which is pleasing to God in other good\nworks that follow in the way and to the extent fully set forth above\"\n(915, 90).\n\nIt has been said that originally also the _Formula of Concord_ in its\nTorgau draft (_Das Torgausche Buch, i.e._, the draft preceding the\nBergic Book=_Formula of Concord_) contained the three-concurring-causes\ndoctrine of Melanchthon and the Synergists. As a matter of fact,\nhowever, the Torgau Book does not speak of three causes of conversion,\nbut of three causes in those who are already converted,--a doctrine\nentirely in agreement with the _Formula of Concord_, which, as shown,\nplainly teaches that after conversion the will of man also cooperates\nwith the Holy Spirit. In the Torgau Book the passage in question reads:\n\"Thus also three causes concur to effect this internal new obedience in\nthe converted. The first and chief cause is God Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost.... The second is God's Word.... The third is man's intellect,\nenlightened by the Holy Spirit, which ponders and understands God's\ncommand [threat and promise], and our new and regenerate will, which is\ngoverned by the Holy Spirit, and now desires with a glad and willing\nheart (_herzlich gern und willig_), though in great weakness, to submit\nto, and obey, the Word and will of God.\" In the same sense, at the\ncolloquy in AItenburg, 1568 to 1569, the Jena theologians also mentioned\nas a \"third cause\" \"the mind of man, which is regenerated and renewed,\nand yields to, and obeys, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (_des\nMenschen Gemuet, so wiedergeboren und erneuert ist und dem Heiligen\nGeiste und Gottes Wort Folge tut und gehorsam ist_).\" (Frank 1, 214f.)\n\n\nXV. The Flacian Controversy.\n\n167. Flacius Entrapped by Strigel.\n\nMatthias Flacius Illyricus, one of the most learned and capable\ntheologians of his day and the most faithful, devoted, staunch, zealous,\nand able exponent and defender of genuine Lutheranism, was the author of\nthe malignant controversy which bears his name. Flacius was born March\n3, 1520, in Illyria hence called Illyricus. He studied in Basel,\nTuebingen, and Wittenberg. At Wittenberg he was convinced that the\ndoctrine of the Lutheran Church is in complete agreement with the Word\nof God. Here, too, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew in 1544. In\nApril, 1549, he left the city on account of the Interim. He removed to\nMagdeburg where he became the energetic and successful leader of the\nopponents of the Interimists and Adiaphorists. He was appointed\nprofessor at the University of Jena, founded 1547, partly in opposition\nto Philippism. In December 1561, he and his adherents were banished from\nJena. When the latter returned in 1567, he was not recalled. Persecuted\nby his enemies (especially Elector August of Saxony) and forsaken by his\nfriends, he now moved from one place to another: from Jena to\nRegensburg, thence to Antwerp, to Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Strassburg\n(from where he was expelled in the spring of 1573), and again to\nFrankfort-on-the-Main, where he found a last asylum for himself and his\nfamily (wife and eight children), and where he also died in a hospital,\nMarch 11, 1575.\n\nIn the Adiaphoristic Controversy Flacius had time and again urged the\nLutherans to die rather than deny and surrender the truth. And when in\nthe controversy about original sin all shunned him and turned against\nhim he gave ample proof of the fact that he himself was imbued with the\nspirit he had endeavored to kindle in others, being willing to suffer\nand to be banished and persecuted rather than sacrifice what he believed\nto be the truth.--The most important of his numerous books are:\n_Catalogus Testium Veritatis_, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt\nPapae, 1556; _Ecclesiastica Historia_, or the so-called Magdeburg\nCenturies (_Centuriones_), comprising the history of the first thirteen\ncenturies, and published 1559-1574; _Clavis Scripturae_, of 1567; and\n_Glossa Novi Testamenti_. Walther remarks: \"It was a great pity that\nFlacius, who had hitherto been such a faithful champion of the pure\ndoctrine, exposed himself to the enemies in such a manner. Henceforth\nthe errorists were accustomed to brand all those as Flacianists who were\nzealous in defending the pure doctrine of Luther.\" (_Kern und Stern_,\n34.)\n\nThe Flacian Controversy sprang from, and must be regarded as an episode\nof, the Synergistic Controversy, in which also some champions of\nLuther's theology (Amsdorf, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others) had\noccasionally employed unguarded, extreme, and inadequate expressions.\nFollowing are some of the immoderate and extravagant statements made by\nFlacius: God alone converts man, the Adamic free will not only not\ncooperating, \"but also raging and roaring against it (_sed etiam contra\nfurente ac fremente_).\" (Preger 2, 212.) The malice of our free will is\na \"diabolical malice (_nostra diabolica malitia carnis aut liberi\narbitrii_).\" By original sin man is \"transformed into the image of Satan\n(_ad imaginem Satanae transformatus, eiusque charactere [foeda Satanae\nimagine] signatus_).\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 245.) By original sin \"the\nsubstance of man is destroyed (_substantiam hominis ablatam esse_);\"\nafter the Fall original sin is the substance of man; man's nature is\nidentical with sin; in conversion a new substance is created by God. In\nparticular, the assertions concerning the substantiality of original sin\ngave rise to the so-called Flacian Controversy. After Strigel, at the\nsecond session of the disputation in Weimar, had dilated on the\nphilosophical definitions of the terms \"substance\" and \"accident\"\n(\"_accidens, quod adest vel abest praeter subiecti corruptionem_\"), and\nhad declared that original sin was an accident which merely impeded free\nwill in its activity, Flacius, in the heat of the controversy,\nexclaimed: \"_Originale peccatum non est accidens_. Original sin is not\nan accident, for the Scriptures call it flesh, the evil heart,\" etc.\nThus he fell into the pitfall which the wily Strigel had adroitly laid\nfor him. Though Flacius seemed to be loath to enter upon the matter any\nfurther, and protested against the use of philosophical definitions in\ntheology, Strigel now was eager to entangle him still further, plying\nhim with the question: \"_An negas peccatum originis esse accidens?_ Do\nyou deny that original sin is an accident?\" Flacius answered: \"_Lutherus\ndiserte negat esse accidens_. Luther expressly denies that it is an\naccident.\" Strigel: \"_Visne negare peccatum esse accidens?_ Do you mean\nto deny that sin is an accident?\" Flacius: \"_Quod sit substantia, dixi\nScripturam et Lutherum affirmare._ I have said that Scripture and Luther\naffirm that it is a substance.\" (Luthardt, 213. 216.)\n\nAfter the session in which the fatal phrase had fallen from his lips,\nWigand and Musaeus expostulated with Flacius, designating (according to\nlater reports of theirs) his statement as \"this new, perilous, and\nblasphemous proposition of the ancient Manicheans (_haec nova,\npericulosa et blasphema veterum Manichaeorum propositio_).\" (Planck 4,\n611.) Flacius declared that, \"in the sudden and pressing exigency, in\nthe interest of truth, and against Pelagian enthusiasm, he had taken\nthis expression [concerning the substantiality of original sin] from\nLuther's doctrine and books.\" (Preger 2, 324.) In the following (third)\nsession, however, he repeated his error, declaring: I must stand by my\nstatement that original sin is not an accident, but a substance,\n\"because the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures which employ terms\ndenoting substance (_quae verbis substantialibus utuntur_) are so\nnumerous.\" (Planck 4, 610; Luthardt, 216.) Also later on Flacius always\nmaintained that his doctrine was nothing but the teaching of the Bible\nand of Luther. As to Scripture-proofs, he referred to passages in which\nthe Scriptures designate sin as \"flesh,\" \"stony heart,\" etc. Regarding\nthe teaching of Luther, he quoted statements in which he describes\noriginal sin as \"man's nature,\" \"essence,\" \"substantial sin,\" \"all that\nis born of father and mother,\" etc. (Preger 2, 318.)\n\nHowever, the palpable mistake of Flacius was that he took the\nsubstantial terms on which he based his theory in their original and\nproper sense, while the Bible and Luther employ them in a figurative\nmeaning, as the _Formula of Concord_ carefully explains in its first\narticle, which decided and settled this controversy. (874, 50.) Here we\nread: \"Also to avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum_,\nthat is, words and expressions which are applied and used in various\nmeanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained, as when it is\nsaid: God creates the nature of men, there by the term _nature_ the\nessence, body, and soul of men are understood. But often the disposition\nor vicious quality of a thing is called its nature, as when it is said:\nIt is the nature of the serpent to bite and poison. Thus Luther says\nthat sin and sinning are the disposition and nature of corrupt man.\nTherefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our\nnature as it is described in the _Smalcald Articles_. But sometimes the\nconcrete person or the subject that is, man himself with body and soul\nin which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for the\nreason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luther\nsays: 'Thy birth, thy nature, and thy entire essence is sin,' that is,\nsinful and unclean. Luther himself explains that by nature-sin,\nperson-sin, essential sin he means that not only the words, thoughts,\nand works are sin, but that the entire nature, person and essence of man\nare altogether corrupted from the root by original sin.\" (875, 51f.)\n\n168. Context in which Statement was Made.\n\nIn making his statement concerning the substantiality of original sin,\nthe purpose of Flacius was to wipe out the last vestige of spiritual\npowers ascribed to natural man by Strigel, and to emphasize the doctrine\nof total corruption, which Strigel denied. His fatal blunder was that he\ndid so in terms which were universally regarded as savoring of\nManicheism. As was fully explained in the chapter of the Synergistic\nControversy Strigel taught that free will, which belongs to the\nsubstance and essence of man, and hence cannot be lost without the\nannihilation of man himself, always includes the capacity to choose in\nboth directions, that also with respect to divine grace and the\noperations of the Holy Spirit man is and always remains a _liberum\nagens_ in the sense that he is able to decide _in utramque partem;_ that\nthis ability, constituting the very essence of free will, may be\nweakened and impeded in its activity, but never lost entirely. If it\nwere lost, Strigel argued, the very substance of man and free will as\nsuch would have to be regarded as annihilated. But now man, also after\nthe Fall, is still a real man, possessed of intellect and will. Hence\noriginal sin cannot have despoiled him of this liberty of choosing _pro_\nor _con_ also in matters spiritual. The loss of original righteousness\ndoes not, according to Strigel, involve the total spiritual disability\nof the will and its sole tendency and activity toward what is\nspiritually evil. Moreover, despite original corruption, it is and\nremains an indestructible property of man to be able, at least in a\nmeasure, to assent to and to admit, the operations of the Holy Spirit,\nand therefore and in this sense to be converted \"_aliquo modo volens._\"\n(Planck 4, 667. 675. 681.)\n\nIt was in opposition to this Semi-Pelagian teaching that Flacius\ndeclared original sin to be not a mere accident, but the substance of\nman. Entering upon the train of thought and the phraseology suggested by\nhis opponent, he called substance what in reality was an accident,\nthough not an accident such as Strigel contended. From his own\nstandpoint it was therefore a shrewd move to hide his own synergism and\nto entrap his opponent, when Strigel plied Flacius with the question\nwhether he denied that original sin was an accident. For in the context\nand the sense in which it was proposed the question involved a vicious\ndilemma. Answering with yes or no, Flacius was compelled either to\naffirm Strigel's synergism or to expose himself to the charge of\nManicheism. Instead of replying as he did, Flacius should have cleared\nthe sophistical atmosphere by explaining: \"If I say, 'Original sin is an\naccident,' you [Strigel] will infer what I reject, _viz._, that the\ncorrupt will of man retains the power to decide also in favor of the\noperations of the Holy Spirit. And if I answer that original sin is not\nan accident (such as you have in mind), you will again infer what I\ndisavow, _viz._, that man, who by the Fall has lost the ability to will\nin the spiritual direction, has _eo ipso_ lost the will and its freedom\nentirely and as such.\" As it was, however, Flacius instead of adhering\nstrictly to the real issue--the question concerning man's cooperation in\nconversion--and exposing the sophistry implied in the question put by\nStrigel, most unfortunately suffered himself to be caught on the horns\nof the dilemma. He blindly walked into the trap set for him by Strigel,\nfrom which also later on he never succeeded in fully extricating\nhimself.\n\nWith all his soul Flacius rejected the synergism involved in Strigel's\nquestion. His blunder was, as stated, that he did so in terms\nuniversally regarded as Manichean. He was right when he maintained that\noriginal sin is the inherited tendency and motion of the human mind,\nwill, and heart, not toward, but against God,--a direction, too, which\nman is utterly unable to change. But he erred fatally by identifying\nthis inborn evil tendency with the substance of fallen man and the\nessence of his will as such. It will always be regarded as a redeeming\nfeature that it was in antagonizing synergism and championing the\nLutheran _sola gratia_ that Flacius coined his unhappy proposition. And\nin properly estimating his error, it must not be overlooked that he, as\nwill be shown in the following, employed the terms \"substance\" and\n\"accident\" not in their generally accepted meaning but in a sense, and\naccording to a philosophical terminology, of his own.\n\n169. Formal and Material Substance.\n\nThe terms \"substance\" and \"accident\" are defined in Melanchthon's\n_Erotemata Dialectices_ as follows: \"_Substantia est ens, quod revera\nproprium esse habet, nec est in alio, ut habens esse a subiecto._\nSubstance is something which in reality has a being of its own and is\nnot in another as having its being from the subject.\" (_C. R._ 13,\n528.) \"_Accidens est quod non per sese subsistit, nec est pars\nsubstantiae, sed in alio est mutabiliter._ Accident is something which\ndoes not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeable\nin something else.\" (522.) Melanchthon continues: \"Accidentium alia sunt\nseparabilia ut frigus ab aqua, notitia a mente, laetitia, tristitia a\ncorde. Alia accidentia sunt inseparabilia, ut quantitas seu magnitudo a\nsubstantia corporea, calor ab igni, humiditas ab aqua, non separantur...\nEt quia separabilia accidentia magis conspicua sunt, ideo inde sumpta\nest puerilis descriptio: Accidens est, quod adest et abest praeter\nsubiecti corruptionem. Whatever is present or absent without the\ncorruption of the subject is an accident.\" (_C. R._ 13, 523; Preger 2,\n396. 407; Seeberg 4, 494.)\n\nEvidently this last definition, which was employed also by Strigel, is\nambiguous, inasmuch as the word \"corruption\" may signify an\nannihilation, or merely a perversion, or a corruption in the ordinary\nmeaning of the word. In the latter sense the term applied to original\nsin would be tantamount to a denial of the Lutheran doctrine of _total_\ncorruption. When Jacob Andreae, in his disputation with Flacius, 1571,\nat Strassburg, declared that accident is something which is present or\nabsent without _corruption_ of the subject, he employed the term in the\nsense of destruction or annihilation. In the same year Hesshusius stated\nthat by original sin \"the whole nature body and soul, substance as well\nas accidents, are defiled, corrupted, and dead,\" of course, spiritually.\nAnd what he understood by substance appears from his assertion: \"The\nbeing itself, the substance and nature itself, in as far as it is\nnature, is not an evil conflicting with the Law of God.... Not even in\nthe devil the substance itself, in as far as it is substance, is a bad\nthing, _i.e._, a thing conflicting with the Law.\" (Preger 2, 397.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ carefully and correctly defines: \"Everything\nthat is must be either _substantia_, that is, a self-existent essence,\nor _accidens_, that is, an accidental matter, which does not exist by\nitself essentially but is in another self-existent essence and can be\ndistinguished from it.\" \"Now, then, since it is the indisputable truth\nthat everything that is, is either a substance or an _accidens_ that is,\neither a self-existing essence or something accidental in it (as has\njust been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and no\ntruly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this),\nnecessity here constrains, and no one can evade it if the question be\nasked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing as\nexists by itself, and is not in another, or whether it is an _accidens_,\nthat is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another,\nand cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat that\noriginal sin is no substance, but an accident.\" (877, 54; 57.)\n\nFlacius, however, took the words \"substance\" and \"accident\" in a\ndifferent sense. He distinguished between the material and formal\nsubstance, and the latter he regarded as man's true original essence.\nThis essence he explained, consisted in the original righteousness and\nholiness of man, in the image of God or the will as truly free and in\nproper relation toward God. He said: \"Ipsum hominem _essentialiter_ sic\nesse formatum, ut recta voluntas esset imago Dei, non tantum eius\naccidens.\" (Seeberg 4, 494.) He drew the conclusion that original sin,\nby which the image of God (not the human understanding and will as such)\nis lost, cannot be a mere accident, but constitutes the very essence and\nsubstance of fallen man. He argued: The image of God is the formal\nessence of man, or the soul itself according to its best part, by\noriginal sin this image is changed into its opposite: hence the change\nwrought by original sin is not accidental, but substantial,--just as\nsubstantial and essential as when wine is changed into vinegar or fire\ninto frost. What man has lost, said Flacius, is not indeed his material\nsubstance (_substantia materialis_), but his true formal substance or\nsubstantial form (_substantia formalis_ or _forma substantialis_). Hence\nalso original sin, or the corruption resulting from the Fall, in reality\nis, and must be designated, the formal substance or substantial form of\nnatural man. Not all gifts of creation were lost to man by his Fall; the\nmost essential boon, however, the image of God, was destroyed and\nchanged into the image of Satan. \"In homine,\" said Flacius, \"et mansit\naliquid, et tamen quod optimum in ratione et essentia fuit, nempe imago\nDei, non tantum evanuit, sed etiam in contrarium, nempe in imaginem\ndiaboli, commutatum est.\" The devil, Flacius continued, has robbed man\nof his original form (_forma_), the image of God, and stamped him with\nhis own diabolical form and nature. (Luthardt 215; Gieseler 3, 2, 253.)\n\n170. Further Explanations of Flacius.\n\nThe manner in which Flacius distinguished between material and formal\nsubstance appears from the tract on original sin (_De Peccati Originalis\naut Veteris Adami Appellationibus et Essentia_), which he appended to\nhis _Clavis Scripturae_ of 1567. There we read: \"In this disputation\nconcerning the corruption of man I do not deny that this meaner matter\n(_illam viliorem materiam_) or mass of man created in the beginning has\nindeed remained until now, although it is exceedingly vitiated, as when\nin wine or aromas the spirituous (_airy_) or fiery substance escapes,\nand nothing remains but the earthy and watery substance; but I hold that\nthe substantial form or the formal substance (_formam substantialem aut\nsubstantiam formalem_) has been lost, yea, changed into its opposite.\nBut I do not speak of that external and coarse form (although it too, is\ncorrupted and weakened very much) which a girl admires in a youth, or\nphilosophy also in the entire man, according to which he consists of\nbody and soul, has an erect stature two feet, hands, eyes, ears, and the\nlike, is an animal laughing, counting, reasoning, etc.; but I speak of\nthat most noble substantial form (_nobilissima substantialis forma_)\naccording to which especially the heart itself or rather the rational\nsoul, was formed in such a manner that his very essence might be the\nimage of God and represent Him, and that his substantial powers,\nintellect and will, and his affections might be conformed to the\nproperties of God, represent, truly acknowledge, and most willingly\nembrace Him.\" (Preger 2, 314; Gieseler 3, 2, 254.)\n\nAgain: \"In this manner, therefore, I believe and assert that original\nsin is a substance, because the rational soul (as united with God) and\nespecially its noblest substantial powers, namely, the intellect and\nwill which before had been formed so gloriously that they were the true\nimage of God and the fountain of all justice, uprightness, and piety,\nand altogether essentially like unto gold and gems, are now, by deceit\nof Satan, so utterly perverted that they are the true and living image\nof Satan, and, as it were, filthy or rather consisting of an infernal\nflame, not otherwise than when the sweetest and purest mass, infected\nwith the most venomous ferment, is altogether and substantially changed\nand transformed into a lump of the same ferment.\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 254.)\nOriginal sin \"is not a mere accident in man, but his inverted and\ntransformed essence or new form itself, just as when a most wholesome\nmedicine is changed into the most baneful poison.\" \"The matter remains,\nbut it receives a new form, namely, the image of Satan.\" \"Man, who in\nhis essential form was the image of God, has in his essential form\nbecome the image of Satan.\" \"This change may be compared to the change\nwhich the golden image of a beautiful man undergoes when it is\ntransformed into the image of a dragon, the matter at the same time\nbeing corrupted.\" (Preger 2, 214. 217. 325.)\n\nDilating on the substantiality of original sin, Flacius furthermore\ndeclared: \"Original malice in man is not something different from the\nevil mind or stony heart itself, not something that destroys him\nspiritually as a disease consumes him bodily, but it is ruined and\ndestroyed nature itself (_sed est tantum ipsa perditissima et iam\ndestructissima natura_). Original malice was not, as many now think\ninfused from without into Adam in such a way as when poison or some\nother bad substance is thrown or poured into good liquor, so that by\nreason of the added bad substance also the rest becomes noxious, but in\nsuch a way as when good liquor or bread itself is perverted so that now\nit is bad as such and poisonous or rather poison (_ut illud per se iam\nmalum ac venenatum aut potius venenum sit_).\" (Preger 2, 313.)\n\nAlso concerning the body and soul of fallen man Flacius does not\nhesitate to affirm that, since they are permeated and corrupted by\noriginal sin, \"these parts themselves are sin, _eas ipsas [partes,\ncorpus et animam] esse illud nativum malum, quod cum Deo pugnat._\" \"Some\nobject,\" says Flacius, \"that the creature of God must be distinguished\nfrom sin, which is not of God. I answer: now do separate, if you can,\nthe devil from his inherent wickedness!... How can the same thing be\nseparated from itself! We therefore can not distinguish them in any\nother way than by stating that with respect to his first creation and\nalso his present preservation man, even as the devil himself, is of God,\nbut that with respect to this horrible transformation (_ratione istius\nhorrendae metamorphoseos_) he is of the devil, who, by the force of the\nefficacious sentence and punishment of angry God: 'Thou shalt die,' not\nonly captured us to be his vilest slaves, but also recast, rebaked, and\nchanged, or, so to speak, metamorphosed us into another man, as the\nScripture says, even as he [the devil] himself is inverted.\" All parts,\ntalents, and abilities of man, Flacius contends, are \"evil and mere\nsins,\" because they all oppose God. \"What else are they than armed\nunrighteousness!\" he exclaims. Even the natural knowledge of God \"is\nnothing but the abominable source of idolatry and of all superstitions.\"\n(Preger 316f.; Gieseler 3, 2, 255.)\n\nThat the fundamental view of Flacius, however, was much farther apart\nfrom Manicheism than some of his radical phrases imply, appears from his\n\"_Gnowthi seauton, De Essentia Originalis Institutiae,_\" of 1568. After\nadmitting that Augustine, Luther, and the _Apology of the Augsburg\nConfession_ are correct when they define original sin as an inordinate\ndisposition, a disorder (_ataxia_), perversion, and confusion of the\nparts of man, Flacius proceeds: \"The substantial form of a certain thing\nfor the most part, consists in the right position and disposition of the\nparts; as, for example, if a human body were born which had its eyes,\nears, and mouth on the belly or feet, and, _vice versa,_ the toes on the\nhead, no one would say that it was properly a man, but rather a monster.\n... It appears, therefore, that the inordinate disposition of the parts\nproduces an altogether new body or thing. Thus, forsooth, the horrible\nperturbation of the soul has also produced, as it were a new kind of\nmonster fighting against God.\" (Preger 2, 409.) Accordingly, it was not\nman's body and soul as such, but the alteration of the relation of his\npowers toward one another and the consequent corruption of these powers,\nthat Flacius had in mind when he designated original sin as the new\nsubstantial form, or substance, of sinful man.\n\nFlacius expressly denied that the fall of man or his conversion involved\na physical change. \"I do not teach a physical regeneration,\" he\ndeclared, \"nor do I say that two hearts are created, but I say that this\nmost excellent part of the soul or of man is once more established, or\nthat the image of God is recast and transformed out of the image of\nSatan, even as before the image of God was transformed into the image of\nSatan. _Physicam renascentiam non assero nec dico duo corda creari, sed\ndico istam praestantissimam animae aut hominis partem denuo condi aut ex\nimagine Satanae refundi aut transformari imaginem Dei, sicut antea imago\nDei fuit transformata in imaginem Satanae._\" (Seeberg 4, 495.) Gieseler\npertinently remarks: \"It is apparent that Flacius did not deviate from\nthe common concept of original sin, but from the concepts of substance\nand accident, but that here, too, he was uncertain, inasmuch as he\nemployed the terms _substantia, forma substantialis,_ and _substantia\nformalis_ promiscuously.\" (3, 2, 255.)\n\nIf not necessarily involved in, it was at least in keeping with his\nextreme position and extravagant phraseology concerning original sin\nwhen Flacius, in his _De Primo et Secundo Capite ad Romanos, quatenus\nLibero Arbitrio Patrocinari Videntur,_ rejected the doctrine of an\ninborn idea of God and of His Law inscribed in the heart of natural\nman. On Rom. 1, 19 he comments: It is only from the effects in the world\nthat man infers the existence of a supreme cause. And with respect to\nRom. 2, 15 he maintains that Paul's statements were to be understood,\nnot of a law written in the heart of man, but of a knowledge which the\nheathen had derived by inference, from experience, or from tradition of\nthe fathers. On this point Strigel, no doubt was correct when he\nobjected: If the knowledge of God's existence were really extinguished\nfrom the heart, there could be no discipline among men; and if man had\nno inborn knowledge of the Law, then there could be no such thing as\nconscience which condemns him when he sins. The fact that man fears\npunishments even when there is no government to fear, as was the case\nwith Alexander when he had murdered Clitus, proves that in the heart\nthere is a certain knowledge both of God and of His Law. (Preger 2,\n213.) However, Flacius did not, as Strigel seems to insinuate, deny that\nnatural man has an obscure knowledge of God's existence and Law, but\nmerely maintained that this knowledge was not inborn or inherited, but\nacquired from without.\n\n171. Controversy Precipitated by Flacius.\n\nThough Flacius, when he first made his statement concerning the\nsubstantiality of original sin may not have felt absolutely sure of the\nexact meaning, bearing, and correctness of his position, yet the facts\ndo not warrant the assumption that afterwards he was in any way\ndiffident or wavering in his attitude. Whatever his views on this\nsubject may have been before 1560--after the fatal phrase had fallen\nfrom his lips, he never flinched nor flagged in zealously defending it.\nNor was he ever disposed to compromise the matter as far as the\nsubstance of his doctrine was concerned. In 1570 Spangenberg of\nMansfeld, who sided with Flacius, suggested that he retain his meaning,\nbut change his language: \"_Teneat Illyricus mentem, mutet linguam._\" To\nthis Flacius consented. On September 28 1570, he published his _Brief\nConfession,_ in which he agreed to abstain from the use of the term\n\"substance.\" However, what he suggested as a substitute, _viz._, that\noriginal sin be defined as the nature of man (the word \"nature,\" as he\nparticularly emphasized, to be taken not in a figurative, but in its\nproper meaning), was in reality but another way of repeating his error.\n\nThe same was the case in 1572, when Flacius, opposed and sorely pressed\nby the ministerium of Strassburg (whence he was banished the following\nyear), offered to substitute for the word \"substance\" the phrase\n\"essential powers.\" (Preger 2, 371.) Two years later, at the public\ndisputation in Langenau, Silesia, where Flacius defended his doctrine\nwith favorable results for himself against Jacob Coler [born 1537;\nstudied in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1564 pastor in Lauban, Upper Lausatia\n(Oberlausitz); 1573 in Neukirch; 1574 he opposed Leonard Crentzheim and\nFlacius; 1575 professor in Frankfort; afterwards active first as\nPraepositus in Berlin and later on as Superintendent in Mecklenburg,\npublished _Disputatio De Libero Arbitrio;_ died March 7, 1612], he\ndeclared that he did not insist on his phrase as long as the doctrine\nitself was adopted and original sin was not declared to be a mere\naccident. But this, too, was no real retraction of his error. (Preger 2,\n387.) In a similar way Flacius repeatedly declared himself willing to\nabstain from the use of the word \"substance\" in connection with his\ndoctrine concerning original sin, but with conditions and limitations\nwhich made his concessions illusory, and neither did nor could satisfy\nhis opponents.\n\nAt the disputation in Weimar, 1560, Wigand and Musaeus, as stated,\nwarned Flacius immediately after the session in which he had made his\nstatement. Schluesselburg relates: \"Immediately during the disputation,\nas I frequently heard from their own lips, Dr. Wigand, Dr. Simon\nMusaeus, and other colleagues of his who attended the disputation ...\nadmonished Illyricus in a brotherly and faithful manner to abstain from\nthis new, perilous and blasphemous proposition of the ancient\nManicheans, which would cause great turmoil in the Church of God, and to\nrefute the error of Victorin [Strigel] concerning free will not by means\nof a false proposition, but with the Word of God. However, intoxicated\nwith ambition, and relying, in the heat of the conflict, too much on the\nacumen and sagacity of his own mind, Illyricus haughtily spurned the\nbrotherly and faithful admonitions of all his colleagues.\" (_Catalogus_\n2, 4.) In his book _De Manichaeismo Renovato_ Wigand himself reports:\n\"Illyricus answered [to the admonition of his colleagues to abstain from\nthe Manichean phrase] that he had been drawn into this discussion by his\nopponent against his own will. But what happened? Contrary to the\nexpectations of his colleagues, Illyricus in the following session\ncontinued, as he had begun, to defend this insanity.\" (Preger 2, 324;\nPlanck 4, 611.) However, it does not appear that after the disputation\nhis friends pressed the matter any further, or that they made any\nefforts publicly to disavow the Flacian proposition.\n\nIn 1567 Flacius published his tract _De Peccati Originalis aut Veteris\nAdami Appellationibus et Essentia,_ \"On the Appellations and Essence of\nOriginal Sin or the Old Adam,\" appending it to his famous _Clavis\nScripturae_ of the same year. He had written this tract probably even\nbefore 1564. In 1566 he sent it to Simon Musaeus, requesting his opinion\nand the opinion of Hesshusius, who at that time was celebrating his\nmarriage with the daughter of Musaeus. In his answer, Musaeus approved\nthe tract, but desired that the term \"substance\" be explained as meaning\nnot the matter, but the form of the substance to which Hesshusius also\nagreed. After the tract had appeared, Musaeus again wrote to Flacius,\nJune 21, 1568, saying that he agreed with his presentation of original\nsin. At the same time, however, he expressed the fear that the bold\nstatement which Flacius had retained, \"Sin is substance,\" would be\ndangerously misinterpreted. (Preger 2, 327.) And before long a storm was\nbrewing, in which animosity registered its highest point, and a\nveritable flood of controversial literature (one publication following\nthe other in rapid succession) was poured out upon the Church, which was\nalready distracted and divided by numerous and serious theological\nconflicts.\n\nBy the publication of this treatise Flacius, who before long also was\nharassed and ostracized everywhere, had himself made a public\ncontroversy unavoidable. In the conflict which it precipitated, he was\nopposed by all parties, not only by his old enemies, the Philippists,\nbut also by his former friends. According to the maxim: _Amicus Plato,\namicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas,_ they now felt constrained,\nin the interest of truth, to turn their weapons against their former\ncomrade and leader. Flacius himself had made it impossible for his\nfriends to spare him any longer. Nor did he deceive himself as to the\nreal situation. In a letter written to Wigand he reveals his fear that\nthe Lutherans and Philippists, then assembled at the Colloquium in\nAltenburg (held from October 21, 1568, to March, 1569, between the\ntheologians of Thuringia and those of Electoral Saxony), would unite in\na public declaration against his teaching. Wigand whose warning Flacius\nhad disregarded at Weimar, wrote to Gallus: Flacius has forfeited the\nright to request that nothing be published against him, because he\nhimself has already spread his views in print. And before long Wigand\nbegan to denounce publicly the Flacian doctrine as \"new and prolific\nmonsters, _monstra nova et fecunda._\"\n\n172. Publications Pro and Con.\n\nAccording to Preger the first decided opposition to the Flacian teaching\ncame from Moerlin and Chemnitz, in Brunswick, to whom Flacius had also\nsubmitted his tract for approval. Chemnitz closed his criticism by\nsaying: It is enough if we are able to retain what Luther has won\n(_parta tueri_), let us abandon all desires to go beyond (_ulterius\nquaerere_) and to improve upon him. (Preger 2, 328.) Moerlin\ncharacterized Flacius as a vain man, and dangerous in many respects.\nFlacius answered in an objective manner, betraying no irritation\nwhatever. (332.) In a letter of August 10, 1568, Hesshusius, who now had\nread the tract more carefully charged Flacius with teaching that Satan\nwas a creator of substance, and before long refused to treat with him\nany further. In September of the same year Flacius published his _Gnothi\nseauton_ against the attacks of the Synergists and Philippists, notably\nChristopher Lasius [who studied at Strassburg and Wittenberg, was active\nin Goerlitz, Greussen, Spandau, Kuestrin, Cottbus, and Senftenberg,\nwrote _Praelibationes Dogmatis Flaciani de Prodigiosa Hominis\nConversione;_ died 1572]. In the same year Hesshusius prepared his\n_Analysis,_ which was approved by Gallus and the Jena theologians.\n\nRealizing that all his former friends had broken with him entirely,\nFlacius, in January 1570, _published_ his _Demonstrations Concerning the\nEssence of the Image of God and the Devil,_ in which he attacked his\nopponents, but without mentioning their names. His request for a private\ndiscussion was bluntly rejected by the Jena theologians. Wigand, in his\n_Propositions on Sin_ of May 5, 1570, was the first publicly to attack\nFlacius by name. About the same time Moerlin's _Themata de Imagine Dei_\nand Chemnitz's _Resolutio_ appeared. The former was directed \"against\nthe impious and absurd proposition that sin is a substance\", the latter,\nagainst the assertion \"that original sin is the very substance of man,\nand that the soul of man itself is original sin.\" Hesshusius also\npublished his _Letter to M. Flacius Illyricus in the Controversy whether\nOriginal Sin is a Substance._ Flacius answered in his _Defense of the\nSound Doctrine Concerning Original Righteousness and Unrighteousness, or\nSin,_ of September 1, 1570. Hesshusius published his _Analysis,_ in\nwhich he repeated the charge that Flacius made the devil a creator of\nsubstance.\n\nIn his _Brief Confession,_ of September 28 1570, Flacius now offered to\nabstain from the use of the term \"substance\" in the manner indicated\nabove. A colloquium, however, requested by Flacius and his friends on\nthe basis of this Confession, was declined by the theologians of Jena.\nMoreover, in answer to the _Brief Confession,_ Hesshusius published\n(April 21, 1571) his _True Counter-Report,_ in which he again repeated\nhis accusation that Flacius made the devil a creator of substance. He\nsummarized his arguments as follows: \"I have therefore proved from one\nbook [Flacius's tract of 1567] more than six times that Illyricus says:\n_Satan condidit, fabricavit, transformavit veterem hominem, Satan est\nfigulus,_ that is: The devil created and made man, the devil is man's\npotter.\" The idea of a creation out of nothing, however, was not taught\nin the statements to which Hesshusius referred. (Preger 2, 348.)\n\nFurther publications by Andrew Schoppe [died after 1615], Wigand,\nMoerlin, Hesshusius, and Chemnitz, which destroyed all hopes of a\npeaceful settlement, caused Flacius to write his _Orthodox Confession\nConcerning Original Sin._ In this comprehensive answer, which appeared\nAugust 1, 1571, he declares \"that either image, the image of God as well\nas of Satan, is an essence, and that the opposite opinion diminishes the\nmerit of Christ.\" At the same time he complained that his statements\nwere garbled and misinterpreted by his opponents, that his was the\nposition of the man who asked concerning garlic and received an answer\nconcerning onions, that his opponents were but disputing with\nimaginations of their own. (349f.)\n\nIn the same year, 1571, Wigand published a voluminous book, _On Original\nSin,_ in which he charged Flacius with teaching that original sin is the\nentire carnal substance of man according to both his body and soul. In\nhis description of the Flacian doctrine we read: \"Original sin is a\nsubstance, as they teach. Accordingly, original sin is an animal, and\nthat, too, an intelligent animal. You must also add ears, eyes, mouth,\nnose, arms, belly, and feet. Original sin laughs, talks, sews, sows,\nworks, reads, writes, preaches, baptizes, administers the Lord's Supper,\netc. For it is the substance of man that does such things. Behold, where\nsuch men end!\" Flacius replied in his _Christian and Reliable Answer to\nAll manner of Sophistries of the Pelagian Accident,_ 1572, protesting\nthat the doctrine ascribed to him was a misrepresentation of his\nteaching. In the same year Wigand published _Reasons Why This\nProposition, in Controversy with the Manicheans: \"Original Sin Is the\nCorrupt Nature,\" Cannot Stand._ Here Wigand truly says: \"Evil of the\nsubstance and evil substance are not identical. _Malum substantiae et\nmala substantia non sunt idem._\" (Preger 2, 353. 410.)\n\nIn several publications of the same year Hesshusius asserted (quoting\ntestimonies to this effect from Augustine), that the Flacian doctrine\nwas identical with the tenets of the Manicheans, in substance as well as\nterms. Flacius answered in _De Augustini et Manichaeorum Sententia, in\nControversia Peccati,_ 1572, in which he declared: \"I most solemnly\ncondemn the Manichean insanity concerning two creators. I have always\ndenied that original sin is something, or has ever been something\noutside of man; I have never ascribed to this sin any materiality of its\nown.\" (355.) This book was followed by another attack by Hesshusius and\nan answer, in turn, by Flacius.\n\nIn the same year Hesshusius, in order to prevent further accessions to\nFlacianism, published his _Antidote (Antidoton) against the Impious and\nBlasphemous Dogma of Matthias Flacius Illyricus by which He Asserts that\nOriginal Sin Is Substance._ In this book, which was republished in 1576\nand again in 1579, Hesshusius correctly argued: \"If original sin is the\nsubstance of the soul, then we are compelled to assert one of two\nthings, _viz._, either that Satan is the creator of substances or that\nGod is the creator and preserver of sin. _Si substantia animae est\npeccatum originis, alterum a duobus necesse est poni, videlicet, aut\nSatanam esse conditorem substantiarum, aut Deum esse peccati creatorem\net sustentatorem._\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 256.) At this late hour, 1572, Simon\nMusaeus, too, entered the arena with his _Opinion Concerning Original\nSin, Sententia de Peccato Originali._ In it he taught \"that original sin\nis not a substance, but the utmost corruption of it, in matter as well\nas form,\" and that therefore \"Pelagianism no less than Manicheism is to\nbe excluded and condemned.\"\n\nWhen the ministerium of Strassburg turned against Flacius, he again\npublished several books defending his position on the controverted\nquestions, which resulted in his expulsion from the city. In 1573\nFlacius published an answer to Hesshusius's _Antidote_ entitled, _Solid\nRefutation of the Groundless Sophistries, Calumnies, and Figments, as\nalso of the Most Corrupt Errors of the \"Antidote\" and of Other\nNeopelagian Writers._ Flacius charged Hesshusius with misrepresentation,\nand demanded that he swear whether he really believed to have found the\nalleged errors in his writings. (Preger 2, 364ff.)\n\nTill his death, on March 11, 1575, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, Flacius\nconsistently adhered to his false terminology as well as teaching,\napparently never for a moment doubting that he was but defending\nLuther's doctrine. One of his last books was entitled, _Some Clear and\nSplendid Testimonies of Martin Luther Concerning the Evil Essence,\nImage, Form, or Shape_ (Wesen, essentia, Bild, Form oder Gestalt) _of\nthe Earthly Dead Adam and Concerning the Essential Transformation of\nMan._ (389.) As stated above, the mistake of Flacius was that he took\nliterally terms denoting substance which the Bible and Luther employ in\na figurative sense.\n\n173. Adherents of Flacius.\n\nThe chief supporters of Flacius were the Mansfeldians, Count Vollrath\nand Cyriacus Spangenberg [born 1528; studied in Wittenberg; served in\nEisleben, then in Mansfeld; died in Strassburg February 10, 1604]. In\nthe serious dissensions which arose in Mansfeld in consequence of the\ncontroversy on original sin, the Count and Spangenberg were opposed by\nthe Jena theologians and Superintendent Menzel [Jerome Menzel, born\n1517; studied in Wittenberg; wrote against Spangenberg; died 1590]. As\nstated above, it was Spangenberg who endeavored to bring about an\nunderstanding between the contending parties on the principle: \"_Teneat\nIllyricus mentem, mutet linguam._\" A colloquy was held 1572 at Castle\nMansfeld, in which Flacius and his adherents were pitted against Menzel,\nRhode, Fabricius, and others. When Fabricius declared in the\ndiscussions: \"Only in so far as our nature is not in conformity with the\nLaw of God is it corrupt,\" Flacius exclaimed: \"_Non quantum_, not in as\nfar; but I say it is not in conformity because it is corrupt, _quia\ncorrupta est_.\" (Preger 2, 375.) Count Vollrath and his adviser, Caspar\nPflug gave Flacius a written testimony that at the colloquy he had not\nbeen convinced, but found to be correct in the controversy on original\nsin. The publication of this testimony by Flacius as also of the minutes\nof the Colloquy by Count Vollrath, in 1573, resulted in a number of\nfurther publications by Flacius and his friends as well as his\nopponents. At Mansfeld the animosity against the Flacians did not\nsubside even after the death of Flacius in 1575. They were punished with\nexcommunication, incarceration, and the refusal of a Christian burial.\nCount Vollrath left 1577, and died at Strassburg 1578. Spangenberg, who\nalso had secretly fled from Mansfeld, defended the doctrine of Flacius\nin a tract, _De Peccato Originali, Concerning Original Sin_, which he\npublished 1586 under a pseudonym. He died without retracting or changing\nhis views.\n\nAnother adherent of Flacius was F. Coelestinus, professor at Jena. After\nhis suspension he left the city and participated in the controversy. He\npublished _Colloquium inter Se et Tilem. Hesshusium_. He died 1572. In\nAugust, 1571, Court-preacher Christopher Irenaeus and Pastors Guenther\nand Reinecker were dismissed in Weimar because of Flacianism. Irenaeus\npublished _Examen Libri Concordiae_ and many other books, in which he\ncontends that original sin is a substance. Pastors Wolf in Kahla,\nSchneider in Altendorf, and Franke in Oberrosla were dismissed in 1572\nfor the same reason. They, too, entered the public arena in favor of\nFlacius. At Lindau four preachers, who had identified themselves with\nFlacius, were also deposed. One of them, Tobias Rupp, held a public\ndisputation with Andreae. In Antwerp the elders forbade their ministers\nto indulge in any public polemics against Flacius. Among the supporters\nof Flacius were also his son, Matthias Flacius, and Caspar Heldelin. It\nmay be noted here that Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland, who were deposed\nat Luebeck in 1568 also taught \"that original sin is the very substance\nof the body and soul of man,\" and that Christ had assumed \"the flesh of\nanother species\" than ours. (Gieseler 3, 2, 257.)\n\nIn Regensburg four adherents of Flacius were dismissed in 1574, among\nthem Joshua Opitz [born 1543; died 1585]. These and others emigrated to\nthe Archduchy of Austria, where the Lutherans were numerous and\ninfluential, Opitz frequently preaching to an audience of 7,000. No less\nthan 40 of the Lutheran ministers of Austria are said to have shared the\nviews of Flacius. (Preger 2, 393.) Only a few of them revealed symptoms\nof fanaticism, which resulted in their dismissal. Among the latter was\nJoachim Magdeburgius, then an exile at Efferding. He taught \"that the\nbodies of believing Christians after their death were still essential\noriginal sin, and that God's wrath remained over them till the Day of\nJudgment.\" (Joecher, _Lexicon_ 3, 32.) At the same time he branded as\nerrorists Spangenberg, Opitz, and Irenaeus, who declared their dissent.\nIn 1581 the Flacians in Austria issued a declaration against the\n_Formula of Concord_, charging its teaching to be inconsistent with\nLuther's doctrine on original sin. As late as 1604 there were numerous\nFlacianists in German Austria.\n\n174. Decision of Formula of Concord.\n\nSeeberg remarks: \"Flacius was not a heretic, but in the wrangle of his\nday he was branded as such, and this has been frequently repeated.\" (4,\n2, 495.) A similar verdict is passed by Gieseler and other historians.\nBut whatever may be said in extenuation of his error, it cannot be\ndisputed that the unfortunate phrases of Flacius produced, and were\nbound to produce, most serious religious offense, as well as theological\nstrife, and hopeless doctrinal confusion. Even when viewed in the light\nof his distinction between formal substance (man as endowed with the\nimage of God) and material substance (man as possessed of body and soul,\ntogether with will and intellect), the odiousness of his terminology is\nnot entirely removed. It was and remained a form of doctrine and trope\nor mode of teaching which the Lutherans were no more minded to tolerate\nthan the error of Strigel.\n\nAccordingly, the first article of the _Formula of Concord_ rejects both\nthe synergistic as well as the Manichean aberrations in the doctrine of\noriginal sin. In its Thorough Declaration we read: \"Now this doctrine\n[of original sin] must be so maintained and guarded that it may not\ndeflect either to the Pelagian or the Manichean side. For this reason\nthe contrary doctrine ... should also be briefly stated.\" (865, 16.)\nAccordingly, in a series of arguments, the Flacian error is thoroughly\nrefuted and decidedly rejected. At the same time the _Formula of\nConcord_ points out the offensiveness of the Flacian phraseology. It\nrefers to the controversy regarding this question as \"scandalous and\nvery mischievous,\" and declares: \"Therefore it is unchristian and\nhorrible to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy\nTrinity, sanctified, and saved, and other similar expressions found in\nthe writings of the recent Manicheans, with which we will not offend\nsimple-minded people.\" (873, 45. 59.)\n\nOn the other hand, the _Formula of Concord_ is just as determined in\nopposing every effort at extenuating the corruption wrought by original\nsin. It is solicitous to explain that in designating original sin as an\naccident, its corruption is not minimized in the least, if the answer\nconcerning the nature of this accident is not derived from philosophy\nor human reason, but from the Holy Scriptures. \"For the Scriptures,\"\nsays the _Formula_, \"testify that original sin is an unspeakable evil\nand such an entire corruption of human nature that in it and all its\ninternal and external powers nothing pure or good remains, but\neverything is entirely corrupt, so that on account of original sin man\nin God's sight is truly spiritually dead (_plane sit emortuus_), with\nall his powers dead to that which is good.\" (879, 60.)\n\nAccordingly, the _Formula of Concord_ rejects the errors of Strigel and\nthe Semi-Pelagians, \"that original sin is only external, a slight,\ninsignificant spot sprinkled, or a stain dashed, upon the nature of man\n... along with and beneath which the nature nevertheless possesses and\nretains its integrity and power even in spiritual things. Or that\noriginal sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an external\nimpediment to these spiritual good powers.... They are rebuked and\nrejected likewise who teach that the nature has indeed been greatly\nweakened and corrupted through the Fall, but that nevertheless it has\nnot entirely lost all good with respect to divine, spiritual things,\nand that what is sung in our churches, '_Through Adam's fall is all\ncorrupt, nature and essence human,_' is not true, but from natural\nbirth it still has something good, small, little, and inconsiderable\nthough it be, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability to begin, to\neffect, or to help effect something in spiritual things.\" (865, 21ff.)\n\nWhile the _Formula of Concord_ does not deny the capacity of fallen man\nfor salvation, it is careful in defining that this is not an active, but\na passive capacity. That is to say: Man is utterly incapable of\nqualifying himself for, or of contributing in the least toward, his own\nspiritual restoration; but what is impossible for man is not impossible\nwith God who, indeed, is able to convert man, endow him with new\nspiritual powers, and lead him to eternal salvation,--a goal for the\nattainment of which, in contradistinction from inanimate and other\ncreatures, man, being a rational creature, endowed with intellect and\nwill, was created by God and redeemed by Christ. In the _Formula of\nConcord_ we read: \"And although God, according to His just, strict\nsentence, has utterly cast away the fallen evil spirits forever, He has\nnevertheless, out of special, pure mercy, willed that poor fallen human\nnature might again become and be capable and participant of conversion,\nthe grace of God, and eternal life; not from its own natural, active [or\neffective] skill, aptness, or capacity (for the nature of man is\nobstinate enmity against God), but from pure grace, through the gracious\nefficacious working of the Holy Ghost. And this Dr. Luther calls\n_capacitatem_ (_non activam, sed passivam_), which he explains thus:\n_Quando patres liberum arbitrium defendunt, capacitatem libertatis eius\npraedicant, quod scilicet verti potest ad bonum per gratiam Dei et fieri\nrevera liberum, ad quod creatum est_. That is: When the Fathers defend\nthe free will, they are speaking of this, that it is capable of freedom\nin this sense, that by God's grace it can be converted to good, and\nbecome truly free, for which it was created in the beginning.\" (889,\n20.)\n\nThis accords with Luther's words in _De Servo Arbitrio_: \"It would be\ncorrect if we should designate as the power of free will that [power] by\nwhich man, who is created for life or eternal death, is apt to be moved\nby the Spirit and imbued with the grace of God. For we, too, confess\nthis power, _i.e._, aptitude or, as the Sophists [Scholastic\ntheologians] say, disposition and passive aptitude. And who does not\nknow that trees and animals are not endowed with it? For, as the saying\ngoes, heaven is not created for geese. _Hanc enim vim, hoc est,\naptitudinem, seu, ut Sophistae loquuntur, dispositivam qualitatem et\npassivam aptitudinem, et nos confitemur; quam non arboribus neque\nbestiis inditam esse, quis est, qui nesciat? Neque enim pro anseribus,\nut dicitur, coelum creavit._\" (E. v. a. 158: St. L. 18. 1720.)\n\n\nXVI. The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies.\n\n175. Osiander in Nuernberg and in Koenigsberg.\n\nIn the writings of Luther we often find passages foreboding a future\ncorruption of the doctrine of justification, concerning which he\ndeclared in the _Smalcald Articles_: \"Of this article nothing can be\nyielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever will\nnot abide, should sink to ruin.... And upon this article all things\ndepend which we teach and practise in opposition to the Pope, the devil,\nand the world. Therefore we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and\nnot doubt, for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all\nthings gain the victory and suit over us.\" (461, 5.) Martin Chemnitz\nremarks: \"I frequently shudder, because Luther--I do not know by what\nkind of presentiment--in his commentaries on the Letter to the Galatians\nand on the First Book of Moses so often repeats the statement: 'This\ndoctrine [of justification] will be obscured again after my death.'\"\n(Walther, _Kern und Stern_, 26.)\n\nAndrew Osiander was the first to fulfil Luther's prophecy. In 1549 he\nbegan publicly to propound a doctrine in which he abandoned the forensic\nconception of justification by imputation of the merits of Christ, and\nreturned to the Roman view of justification by infusion _i.e._, by\ninfusion of the eternal essential righteousness of the divine nature of\nChrist. According to his own statement, he had harbored these views ever\nsince about 1522. He is said also to have presented them in a sermon\ndelivered at the convention in Smalcald, 1537. (Planck 4, 257.) Yet he\nmade no special effort to develop and publicly to disseminate his ideas\nduring the life of Luther. After the death of the Reformer, however,\nOsiander is reported to have said: \"Now that the lion is dead, I shall\neasily dispose of the foxes and hares\"--_i.e._, Melanchthon and the\nother Lutheran theologians. (257.) Osiander was the originator of the\ncontroversy \"Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God,\" which\nwas finally settled in Article III of the _Formula of Concord_.\n\nOsiander, lauded by modern historians as the only real \"systematizer\"\namong the Lutherans of the first generation, was a man as proud,\noverbearing, and passionate as he was gifted, keen, sagacious, learned,\neloquent, and energetic. He was born December 19, 1498, at Gunzenhausen,\nFranconia, and died October 17, 1552, at Koenigsberg, where he was also\nburied with high honors in the Old City Church. In 1522 he was appointed\npriest at St. Lawrence's Church in the Free City of Nuernberg. Here he\nimmediately acted the part of a determined champion of the Reformation.\nSubsequently he also participated in some of the most important\ntransactions of his day. He was present at the Marburg Colloquy, 1529,\nwhere he made the personal acquaintance of Luther and the Wittenbergers.\nHe also took part in the discussions at the Diet in Augsburg, 1530; at\nSmalcald, 1537; at Hagenau and Worms, 1540. Nor were his interests\nconfined to theological questions. When, at Nuernberg, 1543, the work of\nCopernicus, _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium_, \"Concerning the\nRevolutions of the Heavenly Bodies,\" was published for the first time,\nOsiander read the proof-sheets and wrote the Preface, in which he\ndesignated the new theory as \"hypotheses,\" thus facilitating its\ncirculation also among the Catholics, until in the 17th century the book\nwas placed on the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, where it remained till\nthe 18th century.\n\nWhen the Augsburg Interim was introduced in Nuernberg, Osiander\nresigned, and with words of deep emotion (in a letter of November 22,\n1548, addressed to the city council) he left the place where he had\nlabored more than a quarter of a century. January 27 1549, he arrived in\nKoenigsberg. Here he was joyously received by Count Albrecht of Prussia,\nwhom he had gained for the Reformation in 1523. Moved by gratitude\ntoward Osiander, whom he honored as his \"spiritual father,\" Count\nAlbrecht appointed him pastor of the Old City Church and, soon after,\nfirst professor of theology at the University of Koenigsberg, with a\ndouble salary, though Osiander had never received an academic degree.\nThe dissatisfaction which this unusual preferment caused among his\ncolleagues, Briessman, Hegemon, Isinder, and Moerlin, soon developed\ninto decided antipathy against Osiander, especially because of his\noverbearing, domineering ways as well as his intriguing methods. No\ndoubt, this personal element added largely to the animosity and violence\nof the controversy that was soon to follow, and during which the\nprofessors in Koenigsberg are said to have carried firearms into their\nacademic sessions. (Schaff, _Creeds_ 1, 273.) Yet it cannot be regarded\nas the real cause or even as the immediate occasion, of the conflict,\nwhich was really brought about by the unsound, speculative, and mystical\nviews of Osiander on the image of God and, particularly, on\njustification and the righteousness of faith,--doctrinal points on which\nhe deviated from the Lutheran teaching to such an extent that a\ncontroversy was unavoidable. Evidently, his was either a case of relapse\ninto Romanism, or, what seems to be the more probable alternative,\nOsiander never attained to a clear apprehension of the Lutheran truth\nnor ever fully freed himself from the Roman doctrine, especially in its\nfiner and more veiled form of mysticism.\n\n176. Opposed by Moerlin and Lutherans Generally.\n\nOsiander, as stated, had conceived the fundamental thoughts of his\nsystem long before he reached Koenigsberg. In 1524, when only twenty-six\nyears of age, he laid down the outlines of his theory in a publication\nentitled: \"_A Good Instruction (Ein gut Unterricht) and Faithful Advice\nfrom the Holy Divine Scriptures What Attitude to Take in These\nDissensions Concerning Our Holy Faith and Christian Doctrine_, dealing\nespecially with the questions what is God's Word and what human\ndoctrine, what Christ and what Antichrist.\" Here he says: \"Whoever\nhears, retains, and believes the Word, receives God Himself, for God is\nthe Word. If, therefore, the Word of God, Christ, our Lord, dwells in us\nby faith and we are one with Him, we may say with Paul: 'I live, though\nnot I, but Christ lives in me,' and then we are justified by faith.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 270.) In the following year, 1525, he wrote in his\n_Action of the Honorable Wise Council in Nuernberg with their Preachers\n(Handlung eines ehrsamen weisen Rats zu Nuernberg mit ihren\nPraedikanten)_: \"The one and only righteousness availing before God is\nGod Himself. But Christ is the Word which we apprehend by faith, and\nthus Christ in us, God Himself, is our Righteousness which avails before\nGod.\" \"The Gospel has two parts; the first, that Christ has satisfied\nthe justice of God; the other, that He has cleansed us from sin, and\njustifies us by dwelling in us (_und uns rechtfertigt, so er in uns\nwohnet_).\" (271.) The embryonic ideas of these early publications\nconcerning the image of God and justification were fully developed by\nOsiander in his book of 1550, _Whether the Son of God would have had to\nbe Incarnated (An Filius Dei fuerit Incarnandus), if Sin had Not Entered\nthe World;_ and especially in his confession of September, 1551,\n_Concerning the Only Mediator Jesus Christ (Von dem einigen Mittler Jesu\nChristo) and Justification of Faith_ which appeared also in Latin under\nthe title _De Unico Mediatore_, in October of the same year.\n\nThe public conflict began immediately after Osiander had entered upon\nhis duties at the university. In his inaugural disputation of April 5,\n1549, \"Concerning the Law and Gospel (De Lege et Evangelio),\" Osiander's\nvanity prompted him at least to hint at his peculiar views, which he\nwell knew were not in agreement with the doctrine taught at Wittenberg\nand in the Lutheran Church at large. His colleague, Matthias Lauterwald,\na Wittenberg master, who died 1555, immediately took issue with him. On\nthe day following the disputation, he published theses in which he\ndeclared: \"Osiander denied that faith is a part of repentance.\" October\n24 of the following year Osiander held a second disputation (\"On\nJustification, De Iustificatione\") in which he came out clearly against\nthe doctrine hitherto taught in the Lutheran Church. But now also a\nmuch more able and determined combatant appeared in the arena, Joachim\nMoerlin, who henceforth devoted his entire life to defeat Osiandrism\nand to vindicate Luther's forensic view of justification.\n\nMoerlin (Moehrlein) was born at Wittenberg April 6, 1514, he studied\nunder Luther and was made Master in 1537 and Doctor in 1540; till 1543\nhe was superintendent in Arnstadt, Thuringia, and superintendent in\nGoettingen till 1549, when he was compelled to leave because of his\nopposition to the Augsburg Interim. Recommended by Elizabeth Duchess of\nBraunschweig-Lueneburg, the mother-in-law of Duke Albrecht, he was\nappointed preacher at the Dome of Koenigsberg in 1550. Clearly\nunderstanding that solid comfort in life and death is possible only as\nlong as our faith rests solely on the _aliena iustitia_, on the\nobjective righteousness of Christ, which is without us, and is offered\nin the Gospel and received by faith; and fully realizing also that\nChristian assurance is incompatible with such a doctrine as Osiander\ntaught, according to which our faith is to rely on a righteous condition\nwithin ourselves, Moerlin publicly attacked Osiander from his pulpit,\nand in every way emphasized the fact that his teaching could never be\ntolerated in the Lutheran Church. Osiander replied in his lectures. The\nsituation thus created was most intolerable. At the command of the Duke\ndiscussions were held between Moerlin and Osiander, but without result.\n\nIn order to settle the dispute, Duke Albrecht, accordingly, on October\n5, 1551, placed the entire matter before the evangelical princes and\ncities with the request that the points involved be discussed at the\nvarious synods and their verdicts forwarded to Koenigsberg. This aroused\nthe general interest and the deepest concern of the entire Lutheran\nChurch in Germany. Numerous opinions of the various synods and\ntheologians arrived during the winter of 1551 to 1552. With the\nexception of the Wuerttemberg _Response (Responsum)_, written by John\nBrenz, and the _Opinion_ of Matthew Vogel, both of whom regarded\nOsiander's teaching as differing from the doctrine received by the\nLutheran Church in terms and phrases rather than in substance, they were\nunfavorable to Osiander. At the same time all, including the opinions of\nBrenz and Vogel, revealed the fact that the Lutherans, the theologians\nof Wittenberg as well as those of Jena, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Hamburg,\netc., were firmly united in maintaining Luther's doctrine, _viz._, that\nthe righteousness of faith is not the essential righteousness of the Son\nof God, as Osiander held but the obedience of Christ the God-man imputed\nby grace to all true believers as their sole righteousness before God.\n\nFeeling safe under the protection of Duke Albrecht, and apparently not\nin the least impressed by the general opposition which his innovations\nmet with at the hands of the Lutherans, Osiander continued the\ncontroversy by publishing his _Proof (Beweisung) that for Thirty Years I\nhave Always Taught the Same Doctrine_. And irritated by an opinion of\nMelanchthon (whom Osiander denounced as a pestilential heretic),\npublished with offensive explanations added by the Wittenbergers, he in\nthe same year (April, 1552) wrote his _Refutation (Widerlegung) of the\nUnfounded, Unprofitable Answer of Philip Melanchthon_. In this\nimmoderate publication Osiander boasted that only the Philippian rabble,\ndancing according to the piping of Melanchthon, was opposed to him.\n\nBefore long, however, also such opponents of the Philippists as Flacius,\nGallus, Amsdorf, and Wigand were prominently arraigned against Osiander.\nMeanwhile (May 23, 1552) Moerlin published a large volume entitled:\n_Concerning the Justification of Faith_. Osiander replied in his\n_Schmeckbier_ of June 24 1552, a book as keen as it was coarse. In 1552\nand 1553 Flacius issued no less than twelve publications against\nOsiander, one of them bearing the title: _Zwo fuernehmliche Gruende\nOsiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier_; another: _Antidotum auf\nOsiandri giftiges Schmeckbier_. (Preger 2, 551)\n\nWhen the controversy had just about reached its climax, Osiander died,\nOctober 17, 1552. Soon after, the Duke enjoined silence on both parties,\nand Moerlin was banished. He accepted a position as superintendent in\nBrunswick, where he zealously continued his opposition to Osiandrism as\nwell as to other corruptions of genuine Lutheranism. At Koenigsberg the\nOsiandrists continued to enjoy the protection and favor of Duke Albrecht\nand gradually developed into a quasi-political party. The leader of the\nsmall band was John Funck, the son-in-law of Osiander and the chaplain\nof the Duke. In 1566, however, the king of Poland intervened, and Funck\nwas executed as a disturber of the public peace. Moerlin was recalled\nand served as bishop of Samland at Koenigsberg from 1567 till his death\nin 1571. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum_, or _Borussicum_, framed by\nMoerlin and Chemnitz and adopted 1567 at Koenigsberg, rejected the\ndoctrines of Osiander. Moerlin also wrote a history of Osiandrism\nentitled: _Historia, welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische Schwaermerei\nim Lande zu Preussen erhaben_.\n\n177. Corruptions Involved in Osiander's Teaching.\n\nOsiander's theory of justification according to which the righteousness\nof faith is the eternal, essential holiness of the divine nature of\nChrist inhering and dwelling in man, consistently compelled him to\nmaintain that justification is not an act by which God declares a man\njust, but an act by which He actually makes him inherently just and\nrighteous; that it is not an imputation of a righteousness existing\noutside of man, but an actual infusion of a righteousness dwelling in\nman; that it is not a mere acquittal from sin and guilt, but\nregeneration, renewal, sanctification and internal, physical cleansing\nfrom sin that it is not a forensic or judicial act outside of man or a\ndeclaration concerning man's standing before God and his relation to\nHim but a sort of medicinal process within man, that the righteousness\nof faith is not the alien (strange, foreign) righteousness, _aliena\niustitia_ (a term employed also by Luther), consisting in the obedience\nof Christ, but a quality, condition, or change effected in believers by\nthe essential righteousness of the divine nature dwelling in them\nthrough faith in Christ; that faith does not justify on account of the\nthing outside of man in which it trusts and upon which it relies, but\nby reason of the thing which it introduces and produces in man; that,\naccordingly, justification is never instantaneous and complete, but\ngradual and progressive.\n\nOsiander plainly teaches that the righteousness of faith (our\nrighteousness before God) is not the obedience rendered by Christ to the\ndivine Law, but the indwelling righteousness of God (_iustitia Dei\ninhabitans_),--essentially the same original righteousness or image that\ninhered in Adam and Eve before the Fall. It consists, not indeed in good\nworks or in \"doing and suffering,\" but in a quality (_Art_) which\nrenders him who receives it just, and moves him to do and to suffer what\nis right. It is the holiness (_Frommigkeit_) which consists in the\nrenewal of man, in the gifts of grace, in the new spiritual life, in the\nregenerated nature of man. By His suffering and death, said Osiander,\nChrist made satisfaction and acquired forgiveness for us, but He did not\nthereby effect our justification. His obedience as such does not\nconstitute our righteousness before God, but merely serves to restore\nit. It was necessary that God might be able to dwell in us, and so\nbecome our life and righteousness. Faith justifies, not inasmuch as it\napprehends the merits of Christ, but inasmuch as it unites us with the\ndivine nature, the infinite essential righteousness of God, in which our\nsins are diluted, as it were, and lost, as an impure drop disappears\nwhen poured into an ocean of liquid purity.\n\nAccording to the teaching of Osiander therefore, also the assurance that\nwe are justified and accepted by God does not rest exclusively on the\nmerits of Christ and the pardon offered in the Gospel, but must be based\non the righteous quality inhering in us. Our assurance is conditioned\nnot alone upon what Christ has done outside of us and for us but rather\nupon what He is in us and produces in us. The satisfaction rendered by\nChrist many centuries ago is neither the only ground on which God\nregards us as just, nor a sufficient basis of our certainty that we are\naccepted by God. Not the Christ for us, but rather the Christ in us, is\nthe basis both of our justification and assurance. Accordingly in order\nto satisfy an alarmed sinner, it is not sufficient to proclaim the\nGospel-promise of divine absolution. In addition, an investigation is\nrequired whether the righteousness and holiness of God is also really\nfound dwelling in him. While Luther had urged alarmed consciences to\ntrust in the merits of Christ alone for their justification and\nsalvation, Osiander led them to rely on the new life of divine wisdom,\nholiness, and righteousness dwelling in their own hearts. From the very\nbeginning of the controversy, Moerlin, Melanchthon, and the Lutherans\ngenerally were solicitous to point out that Osiander's doctrine robs\nChristians of this glorious and only solid comfort that it is not a\nsubjective quality in their own hearts, but solely and only the\nobjective and absolutely perfect obedience rendered by Christ many\nhundred years ago, which God regards when He justifies the wicked, and\nupon which man must rely for the assurance of his acceptance and\nsalvation.\n\nConsistently developed, therefore, the innovation of Osiander was bound\nto vitiate in every particular the doctrine of justification restored\nonce more by Luther. In fact, his theory was but a revamping of just\nsuch teaching as had driven the Lutherans out of the Church of Rome.\nTrue, Osiander denied that by our own works we merit justification; that\nour righteousness consists in our good works; that our good works are\nimputed to us as righteousness. But the fact that he held a subjective\ncondition to be our righteousness before God gives to his doctrine an\nessentially Roman stamp, no matter how widely it may differ from it in\nother respects. Moehler, the renowned Catholic apologist, declared that\nproperly interpreted and illucidated, Osiander's doctrine was \"identical\nwith the Roman Catholic doctrine.\" (Frank 2, 5. 91.) As stated before,\nhis teaching was Romanism in its finer and more veiled form of\nmysticism.\n\n178. Excerpts from Osiander's Writings.\n\nIn his publication of January 10, 1552 _Wider den lichtfluechtigen\nNachtraben_, Osiander endeavors to prove that he is in complete\ndoctrinal agreement with Luther. In it he gives the following summary,\nbut guarded, presentation of his views. \"I understand it this way,\" says\nhe. \"1. It flowed from His pure grace and mercy that God sacrificed His\nonly Son for us. 2. The Son became man and was made under the Law, and\nHe has redeemed us from the Law and from the curse of the Law. 3. He\ntook upon Himself the sins of the whole world, for which He suffered,\ndied, shed His blood, descended into hell, rose again, and thus overcame\nsin, death, and hell, and merited for us forgiveness of sin,\nreconciliation with God, the grace and gift of justification, and\neternal life. 4. This is to be preached in all the world. 5. Whoever\nbelieves this and is baptized, is justified and blessed (_selig_) by\nvirtue of such faith. 6. Faith apprehends Christ so that He dwells in\nour hearts through faith, Eph. 3, 17. 7. Christ, living in us through\nfaith, is our Wisdom, Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1,\n30, Jer. 23, 6; 33, 16. 8. Christ, true God and man, dwelling in us\nthrough faith, is our Righteousness according to His divine nature, as\nDr. Luther says: 'I rely on the righteousness which is God Himself; this\nHe cannot reject. Such is, says Luther, the simple, correct\nunderstanding; do not suffer yourself to be led away from it.'\" (Frank\n2, 7f.) Seeberg cites the following passage: \"But if the question be\nasked what is righteousness, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us by\nfaith is our Righteousness according to His divinity; and the\nforgiveness of sins, which is not Christ Himself, but merited by Christ,\nis a preparation and cause that God offers us His righteousness, which\nHe is Himself.\" (_Dogg_. 4, 498.) Incidentally Osiander's appeal to\nLuther is unwarranted. For according to him Christ is our Righteousness\nbecause His obedience is God's obedience, the work not only of His human\nnature, but, at the same time, also of His divine nature, while\naccording to Osiander everything that Christ did for us merely serves to\nbring about the indwelling of the divine nature of Christ, whose\nessential holiness is our righteousness before God. That Osiander was\nnot in agreement with Luther, as he claimed, appears also from his\nassertion that such statements of Luther as: Christ's death is our life,\nforgiveness of sins is our righteousness, etc., must be explained\nfiguratively, as words flowing from a joyous heart. (2, 23.)\n\nThe manner in which Osiander maintained that Christ is our Righteousness\nonly according to His divine nature appears from the following excerpts:\n\"If the question be asked according to what nature Christ, His whole\nundivided person, is our Righteousness, then just as when one asks\naccording to what nature He is the Creator of heaven and earth, the\nclear, correct, and plain answer is that He is our Righteousness\naccording to His divine, and not according to His human nature, although\nwe are unable to find, obtain or apprehend such divine righteousness\napart from His humanity.\" (Frank 2, 12.) Again: \"When we say: Christ is\nour Righteousness, we must understand His deity, which enters us through\nHis humanity. When Christ says: I am the Bread of Life, we must\nunderstand His deity which comes into us through His humanity and is our\nlife. When He says: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink\nindeed, we must take it to mean His deity which is in the flesh and\nblood and is meat and drink for us. Thus, too, when John says, 1 John 1,\n7: The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, we must understand the\ndeity of Christ which is in the blood; for John does not speak of the\nblood of Christ as it was shed on the cross, but as it, united with the\nflesh of Christ, is our heavenly meat and drink by faith.\" (23.)\nOsiander, therefore, is but consistent when he reiterates that the Son\nof God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are our Righteousness, because\ntheir divine essence which by faith dwells in Christians, is one and the\nsame.\n\nOsiander emphasizes that the essential righteousness of the divine\nnature of Christ alone is able to save us. He says: \"For of what help\nwould it be to you if you had all the righteousness which men and angels\ncan imagine, but lacked this eternal righteousness which is itself the\nSon of God, according to His divine nature, with the Father and the Holy\nGhost? For no other righteousness can lift you up to heaven and bring\nyou to the Father. But when you apprehend this righteousness through\nfaith, and Christ is in you, what can you then be lacking which you do\nnot possess richly, superabundantly, and infinitely in His deity?\"\nAgain: \"Since Christ is ours and is in us, God Himself and all His\nangels behold nothing in us but righteousness on account of the highest,\neternal, and infinite righteousness of Christ, which is His deity itself\ndwelling in us. And although sin still remains in, and clings to, our\nflesh, it is like an impure little drop compared with a great pure\nocean, and on account of the righteousness of Christ which is in us God\ndoes not want to see it.\" (Frank 2, 100. 102.)\n\nTo this peculiarity of Osiander, according to which he seems to have had\nin mind a justification by a sort of mystico-physical dilution rather\nthan by imputation, the _Formula of Concord_ refers as follows: \"For one\nside has contended that the righteousness of faith, which the apostle\ncalls the righteousness of God, is God's essential righteousness, which\nis Christ Himself as the true, natural, and essential Son of God, who\ndwells in the elect by faith and impels them to do right, and thus is\ntheir righteousness, compared with which righteousness the sins of all\nmen are as a drop of water compared with the great ocean.\" (917, 2; 790,\n2.)\n\nIn his confession _Concerning the Only Mediator_, of 1551, Osiander\nexpatiates on justification, and defines it as an act by which\nrighteousness is \"infused\" into believers. We read: \"It is apparent that\nwhatever part Christ, as the faithful Mediator, acted with regard to\nGod, His heavenly Father, for our sakes, by fulfilling the Law and by\nHis suffering and death, was accomplished more than 1,500 years ago,\nwhen we were not in existence. For this reason it cannot, properly\nspeaking, have been, nor be called, our justification, but only our\nredemption and the atonement for us and our sins. For whoever would be\njustified must believe; but if he is to believe, he must already be born\nand live. Therefore Christ has not justified us who _now_ live and die;\nbut we are redeemed by it [His work 1,500 years ago] from God's wrath,\ndeath, and hell.... This, however, is true and undoubted that by the\nfulfilment of the Law and by His suffering and death He merited and\nearned from God, His heavenly Father, this great and superabounding\ngrace, namely, that He not only has forgiven our sin and taken from us\nthe unbearable burden of the Law, but that He also _wishes to justify us\nby faith in Christ, to infuse justification or the righteousness\n(sondern auch uns durch den Glauben an Christum will rechtfertigen, die\nGerechtmachung eingiessen)_, and, if only we obey, through the operation\nof His Holy Spirit and through the death of Christ, in which we are\nembodied by the baptism of Christ, _to mortify, purge out, and entirely\ndestroy sin_ which is already forgiven us, but nevertheless still dwells\nin our flesh and adheres to us. Therefore the _other part_ of the office\nof our dear faithful Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ is now to turn\ntoward us in order to deal also with us poor sinners as with the guilty\nparty, that we acknowledge such great grace and gratefully receive it by\nfaith, _in order that He by faith may make us alive and just from the\ndeath of sin, and that sin, which is already forgiven, but nevertheless\nstill dwells and inheres in our flesh, may be altogether mortified and\ndestroyed in us. And this, first of all, is the act of our\njustification._\" (Tschackert, 492f.; Planck 4, 268.)\n\nThat Osiander practically identified justification with regeneration,\nrenewal, and gradual sanctification appears from the following\nquotations. To justify, says he, means \"to make a just man out of an\nunjust one, that is to recall a dead man to life--_ex impio iustum\nfacere, hoc est, mortuum ad vitam revocare._\" (Seeberg 4, 499.) Again:\n\"Thus the Gospel further shows its power and also justifies us, _i.e._,\nit makes us just, even as, and in the same degree as, He also makes us\nalive (_eben und in aller Masse, wie er uns auch lebendig macht_).\"\n(Frank 2, 18.) \"And here you see again how terribly those err who\nendeavor to prove by this passage of David and Paul that our\nrighteousness is nothing else than forgiveness of sin; for they have\noverlooked the covering of sin with the [essential] righteousness of\nChrist whom we put on in Baptism; _they have also removed from\njustification the renewal of the inner man effected by regeneration._\"\n(102.)\n\nOsiander was fanatical in denouncing those who identified justification\nwith the forgiveness of sins. In his Disputation of October 24, 1550, he\ndeclared: \"The entire fulness of the deity dwells in Christ bodily,\nhence in those also in whom Christ dwells.... Therefore we are just by\nHis essential righteousness.... Whoever does not hold this manner of our\njustification is certainly a Zwinglian at heart, no matter what he may\nconfess with his mouth.... They also teach things colder than ice [who\nhold] that we are regarded as righteous only on account of the\nforgiveness of sins, and not on account of the [essential] righteousness\nof Christ who dwells in us through faith. _Glacie frigidiora docent nos\ntantum propter remissionem peccatorum reputari iustos, et non etiam\npropter iustitiam Christi per fidem in nobis inhabitantis. Non enim tam\niniquus Deus est, ut eum pro iusto habeat, in quo verae iustitiae\nprorsus nil est._\" (Frank 2, 97; Tschackert, 494; Seeberg 4, 497.) They\nare errorists, Osiander declared, \"who say, teach, and write that the\nrighteousness is outside of us.\" (Frank 2, 100.) \"The [essential]\nrighteousness of Christ is indeed, imputed to us, but only when it is in\nus.\" \"For God is not so unrighteous, nor such a lover of unrighteousness\nthat He regards him as just in whom there is absolutely nothing of the\ntrue righteousness; as it is written, Ps. 5, 4: 'For Thou art not a God\nthat hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee,'\"\n(Planck 4, 273.) Evidently, Osiander rejected or had never fully grasped\nPaul's clear statement and teaching concerning the God who justifies the\nungodly, Rom. 4, 5: \"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him\nthat justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.\"\n\n179. Attitude of Brenz and Melanchthon.\n\nWith the exception of Brenz and Vogel, who, as stated before, regarded\nOsiander's doctrine as differing from the generally received view in\nphraseology and mode of presentation rather than in substance, the\nLutherans everywhere were unanimous in rejecting Osiander's theory as a\nrecrudescence of the Romish justification not by imputation, but by\ninfusion. And as to Brenz, who put a milder construction on the\nstatements of Osiander, Melanchthon wrote October 1, 1557: \"Concerning\nthe affair with Osiander, my writings are publicly known, which I hope\nwill be of benefit to many. Brenz also is agreed with us doctrinally. He\nsaid he had advised peace, for he did not take Osiander's expressions to\nbe as dangerous as the opponents did, and for this reason could not as\nyet condemn his person; but in doctrine he was agreed with us and would\nunite in condemning Osiander if the charges made against him were\nproved.\" Melanchthon himself fully realized the viciousness of\nOsiander's error, although at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, he, too, was\nopposed to condemning Osiandrism together with Zwinglianism, Majorism,\nand Adiaphorism, as the theologians of Ducal Saxony demanded. (_C. R._\n9, 311. 402.)\n\nIn May, 1551, Melanchthon wrote to Osiander that by the essential\nrighteousness of Christ renewal is effected in us, but that we have\nforgiveness of sins and are reputed to be righteous on account of the\nmerit of Christ whose blood and death appeased the wrath of God. In his\nconfutation of the Osiandric doctrine, written in September, 1555, we\nread: \"Osiander's definition of righteousness is: Righteousness is that\nwhich makes us do what is righteous.... Hence man is righteous by doing\nwhat is righteous.... Thereupon Osiander, in order to say something also\nconcerning forgiveness of sins, tears remission of sins from\nrighteousness. He expressly declares that the sins are forgiven to all\nmen; Nero however, is damned because he does not possess the essential\nrighteousness; and this, he says, is God Himself, Father, Son, and Holy\nSpirit.... Osiander contends that man is just on account of the\nindwelling of God, or on account of the indwelling God, not on account\nof the obedience of the Mediator, not by the imputed righteousness of\nthe Mediator through grace. And he corrupts the proposition, 'By faith\nwe are justified,' into, By faith we are prepared that we may become\njust by something else, _viz._, the inhabiting God. Thus he in reality\nsays what the Papists say: 'We are righteous by our renewal,' except\nthat he mentions the cause where the Papists mention the effect. _Ita re\nipsa dicit, quod Papistae dicunt, sumus iusti novitate, nisi quod\nnominat causam, ubi nominant Papistae effectum_. We are just when God\nrenews us. He therefore detracts from the honor due to the Mediator,\nobscures the greatness of sin, destroys the chief consolation of the\npious, and leads them into perpetual doubt. For faith cannot exist\nunless it looks upon the promise of mercy concerning the Mediator. Nor\nis there an inhabitation unless the consolation is received by this\nfaith. And it is a preposterous way of teaching that one is to believe\nfirst the inhabitation, afterwards forgiveness of sins (_prius credere\ninhabitationem, postea remissionem peccatorum_). Since therefore this\ndogma of Osiander is both false and pernicious to consciences, it must\nbe shunned and damned.\" (_C. R._ 7, 781; 8, 579ff.)\n\nIn another essay, of September, 1556, signed also by Melanchthon, the\nfollowing propositions are rejected: 1. Man becomes righteous on\naccount of the essential righteousness. 2. Man becomes righteous on\naccount of the essential righteousness of God the Father, Son, and Holy\nSpirit. 3. Man becomes righteous before God on account of the indwelling\nof God. 4. Righteousness consists in the indwelling of Christ, on\naccount of which God imputes righteousness to us.... 5. Nor must one say\nthere are two or more parts of justification: faith, inhabitation, good\nworks, etc. For justification before God is to receive forgiveness of\nsins and to become acceptable to God on account of Christ.... 6. This\nproposition, too, is false: The regenerate after the Fall are righteous\nin the same manner as Adam was before the Fall, namely, not by\nimputation, but by inhabitation or original righteousness.... 8. It is\nalso false when some say we are righteous by faith, namely, in a\npreparative way in order afterwards to be righteous by the essential\nrighteousness. At bottom this is Popish and destructive of faith.... 9.\nThe following propositions must be rejected altogether: The obedience of\nChrist is called righteousness in a tropical sense; Christ justifies\naccidentally (_per accidens_). (_C. R._ 8, 561f.; 9, 3l9. 451. 455.\n457.)\n\n180. Osiander's Views on Image of God.\n\nOsiander's corruption of the doctrine of justification was closely\nconnected with his peculiar view concerning the image of God (the\ncentral idea of his entire system), of which, however, he declared that\nhe did not consider it essential, and would not contend with anybody\nabout it. Nor were the questions involved disputed to any extent or\ndealt with in the _Formula of Concord_. As to Osiander, however, the\ntrain of his thoughts runs as follows:--\n\nThe Logos, the divine Word, is the image of God, into whom His entire\nessence flows in a manner and process eternal. In a temporal and\nhistorical way the same image is destined to be realized in the nature\nof man. Divine essential righteousness indwelling and efficacious in\nhumanity--such was the eternal plan of God. For the realization of this\npurpose the Logos, God's image, was to become man, even if the human\nrace should not have fallen. This was necessary because in finite man\nthere is absolutely no similarity with the infinite essence of the\nnon-incarnate Logos. Without the incarnation, therefore, this infinite\ndissimilarity would have remained forever (_esset et maneret simpliciter\ninfinita dissimilitudo inter hominem et Verbum Dei_). And in order that\nman might be capable of God and share His divine nature (_capax Dei et\ndivinae naturae consors_), God created him according to His image;\n_i.e._, according to the idea of the incarnate Logos. \"God formed the\nbody of man,\" said Osiander, \"that it should be altogether like unto the\nfuture body of Christ. Thereupon He breathed into it the breath of life,\n_i.e._, a rational soul together with the human spirit, adorned with the\nproper powers, in such a manner that it, too, should be like unto the\nfuture soul of Christ in everything.\" (Frank 2, 104.)\n\nIn the incarnate Logos, however, according to whom man was created,\nhumanity and divinity are personally united. When the Word was made\nflesh, the divine essence was imparted to His human nature. And Christ,\nin turn, imparts the same essence to all who by faith are one with Him.\nFrom eternity the incarnate Word was destined to be the head of the\ncongregation in order that the essential righteousness of God might flow\nfrom Him into His body, the believers. Before the Fall the Son of God\ndwelled in Adam, making him just by God's essential righteousness. By\nthe Fall this righteousness was lost. Hence the redemption and atonement\nof Christ were required in order again to pave the way for the renewal\nof the lost image or the indwelling of God's essential righteousness in\nman. The real source of this righteousness and divine life in man,\nhowever, is not the human, but the divine nature of Christ. In the\nprocess of justification or of making man righteous, the human nature of\nChrist merely serves as a medium, or as it were, a canal, through which\nthe eternal essential wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of Christ's\ndivine nature flows into our hearts.\n\nChrist, the \"inner Word\" (John 1), says Osiander, approaches man in the\n\"external Word\" (the words spoken by Jesus and His apostles), and\nthrough it enters the believing soul. For through Word, Sacrament, and\nfaith we are united with His humanity. In the Lord's Supper, for\ninstance, we become the flesh and blood of Christ, just as we draw the\nnourishment out of natural food and transform it into our flesh and\nblood. And since the humanity of Christ, with which we become one in the\nmanner described, is personally united with the deity, it imparts to us\nalso the divine essence, and, as a result, we, too, are the abode of the\nessential righteousness of God. \"We cannot receive the divine nature\nfrom Christ,\" says Osiander, \"if we are not embodied in Him by faith and\nBaptism, thus becoming flesh and blood and bone of His flesh, blood, and\nbone.\" As the branches could not partake of the nature of the vine if\nthey were not of the wood of the vine, even so we could not share the\ndivine nature of Christ if we had not, incorporated in Him by faith and\nBaptism, become flesh, blood, and bone of His flesh, blood, and bone.\nAccordingly, as Christ's humanity became righteous through the union\nwith God, the essential righteousness which moved Him to obedience\ntoward God, thus we also become righteous through our union with Christ\nand in Him with God. (Frank 2, 104. 20ff.; Seeberg 4, 497f.)\n\nIn view of such speculative teaching, in which justification is\ntransformed into a sort of mystico-physical process, it is not\nsurprising that the charge of pantheism was also raised against\nOsiander. The theologians of Brandenburg asserted that he inferred from\nhis doctrine that the believers in Christ are also divine persons,\nbecause the Father, Son and Holy Ghost dwell in them essentially. But\nOsiander protested: \"Creatures we are and creatures we remain, no matter\nhow wonderfully we are renewed; but the seed of God and the entire\ndivine essence which is in us by grace in the same manner as it is in\nChrist by nature and remains eternally in us (_das also aus Gnaden in\nuns ist wie in Christo von Natur und bleibt ewiglich in uns_) is God\nHimself, and no creature, and will not become a creature in us or on\naccount of us but will eternally remain in us true God.\" Frank says\nconcerning the doctrine of Osiander: It is not pantheism or a mixture of\nthe divine and human nature, \"but it is a subjectivism by which the\nobjective foundation of salvation as taught by the Lutheran Church is\nrent to the very bottom. It is a mysticism which transforms the Christ\n_for us_ into the Christ _in us_, and, though unintentionally, makes the\nconsciousness of the _inhabitatio essentialis iustitiae_ (indwelling of\nthe essential righteousness) the basis of peace with God.\" (2, 19. 10.\n13. 95. 103.) In his teaching concerning the image of God and\njustification, Osiander replaced the comforting doctrine of the Bible\nconcerning the substitutionary and atoning work of Christ in His active\nand passive obedience unto death with vain philosophical speculations\nconcerning divinity and humanity or the two natures of Christ. It was\nnot so very far beside the mark, therefore, when Justus Menius\ncharacteized his theory as \"a new alchmistic theology.\" (Planck 4, 257.)\n\n181. Error of Stancarus.\n\nThe Stancarian dispute was incidental to the Osiandric conflict. Its\nauthor was Francesco Stancaro (born in Mantua, 1501), an Italian\nex-priest, who had emigrated from Italy on account of his Protestant\nviews. Vain, opinionated, haughty, stubborn, and insolent as he was, he\nroamed about, creating trouble wherever he appeared, first in Cracow as\nprofessor of Hebrew, 1551 in Koenigsberg then in Frankfort-on-the-Oder,\nnext at various places in Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania. He died at\nStobnitz, Poland, November 12, 1574. Stancarus treated all of his\nopponents as ignoramuses and spoke contemptuously of Luther and\nMelanchthon, branding the latter as an antichrist. In Koenigsberg he\nimmediately felt called upon to interfere in the controversy which had\njust flared up. He opposed Osiander in a fanatical manner, declaring\nhim to be the personal antichrist. The opponents of Osiander at\nKoenigsberg however, were not elated over his comradeship, particularly\nbecause he fell into an opposite error. They were glad when he resigned\nand left for Frankfort the same year he had arrived at Koenigsberg. In\nFrankfort, Stancarus continued the controversy, publishing, 1552, his\n_Apology against Osiander--Apologia contra Osiandrum_. But he was\nignored rather than opposed by the Lutheran theologians. In 1553\nMelanchthon wrote his _Answer (Responsio) Concerning Stancar's\nControversy_. Later on, 1561, when Stancarus was spreading his errors in\nPoland, Hungary, and Transylvania, Calvin and the ministers of Zurich\nalso wrote against him. The chief publication in which Stancarus set\nforth and defended his views appeared 1562, at Cracow, under the title:\n_Concerning the Trinity (De Trinitate) and the Mediator, Our Lord Jesus\nChrist_. As late as 1585 Wigand published his book _Concerning\nStancarism--De Stancarismo_.\n\nStancarus had been trained in scholastic theology and was a great\nadmirer of Peter Lombard. In his book _De Trinitate et Mediatore_ he\nsays: \"One Peter Lombard is worth more than a hundred Luthers, two\nhundred Melanchthons, three hundred Bullingers, four hundred Peter\nMartyrs, five hundred Calvins out of whom, if they were all brayed in a\nmortar, not one drop of true theology would be squeezed. _Plus valet\nunus Petrus Lombardus quam centum Lutheri, ducenti Melanchthones,\ntrecenti Bullingeri, quadringenti Petri Martyres et quingenti Calvini,\nqui omnes, si in mortario contunderentur, non exprimeretur una mica\nverae theologiae._\" (J. G. Walch, _Religionsstreitigkeiten_ 4, 177.)\n\nConcerning Christ's obedience Peter Lombard taught: \"_Christus Mediator\ndicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.... Mediator est\nergo, in quantum homo, et non in quantum Deus_. Christ is called\nMediator according to His humanity, not according to His divinity.... He\nis therefore Mediator inasmuch as He is man, and not inasmuch as He is\nGod.\" (Planck 4, 451; Seeberg 4, 507.) In accordance with this teaching,\nStancarus maintained, in pointed opposition to Osiander, that Christ is\nour Righteousness only according to His human nature, and not according\nto His divine nature. The divine nature of Christ, Stancarus declared\nmust be excluded from the office of Christ's mediation and priesthood;\nfor if God the Son were Mediator and would do something which the Father\nand the Holy Spirit could not do, then He would have a will and an\noperation and hence also a nature and essence different from that of the\nFather and the Holy Spirit. He wrote: \"Christ, God and man, is Mediator\n[and Redeemer] only according to the other nature, namely, the human,\nnot according to the divine; Christ made satisfaction for us according\nto His human nature, but not according to His divine nature; according\nto His divine nature Christ was not under the Law, was not obedient unto\ndeath, etc.\" (Frank 2, 111.) Stancarus argued: \"Christ is one God with\nthe Father and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three personal properties\nof '_paternitas, filiatio, and spiratio passiva_' the three divine\npersons are absolutely identical in their being and operation. Their\nwork is the sending of the Mediator, whose divine nature itself, in an\nactive way, participates in this sending; hence only the human nature of\nthe God-man is sent, and only the human nature of the Mediator acts in a\nreconciling way. Men are reconciled by Christ's death on the cross; but\nthe blood shed on the cross and death are peculiar to the human nature,\nnot to the divine nature; hence we are reconciled by the human nature of\nChrist only, and not by His divine nature (_ergo per naturam humanam\nChristi tantum sumus reconciliati et non per divinam_).\" (Schluesselburg\n9, 216ff.)\n\nConsistently, the Stancarian doctrine destroys both the unity of the\nperson of Christ and the sufficiency of His atonement. It not only\ncorrupts the doctrine of the infinite and truly redeeming value of the\nobedience of the God-man, but also denies the personal union of the\ndivine and human natures in Christ. For if the divine nature is excluded\nfrom the work of Christ, then it must be excluded also from His person,\nsince works are always acts of a person. And if it was a mere human\nnature that died for us, then the price of our redemption is altogether\ninadequate, and we are not redeemed, as Luther so earnestly emphasized\nagainst Zwingli. (CONC. TRIGL. 1028, 44.) True, Stancarus protested:\n\"Christ is Mediator according to the human nature only; this exclusive\n'only' does not exclude the divine nature from the person of Christ, but\nfrom His office as Mediator.\" (Frank 2, 111.) However, just this was\nLuther's contention, that Christ is our Mediator also according to His\ndivine nature, and that the denial of this truth both invalidates His\nsatisfaction and divides His person.\n\nThe Third Article of the _Formula of Concord_, therefore, rejects the\nerror of Stancarus as well as that of Osiander. Against the latter it\nmaintains that the active and passive obedience of Christ is our\nrighteousness before God: and over against the former, that this\nobedience was the act of the entire person of Christ, and not of His\nhuman nature alone. We read: \"In opposition to both these parties\n[Osiander and Stancarus] it has been unanimously taught by the other\nteachers of the _Augsburg Confession_ that Christ is our Righteousness\nnot according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human\nnature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed,\njustified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His\ncomplete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the\nforgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's\nchildren only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith\nalone, out of pure grace is imputed for righteousness to all true\nbelievers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their\nunrighteousness.\" (917, 4.)\n\n182. Deviations of Parsimonious and Hamburg Ministers.\n\nIn 1563 a collateral controversy concerning the obedience of Christ was\nraised by Parsimonius (George Karg). He was born 1512; studied under\nLuther in Wittenberg; 1547 he became pastor in Schwabach, and 1556\nsuperintendent in Ansbach; 1563 he was deposed because of erroneous\ntheses published in that year; he was opposed by Hesshusius and Ketzmann\nin Ansbach; 1570, having discussed his difference with the theologians\nin Wittenberg, Karg retracted and was restored to his office; he died\n1576. In his theses on justification Parsimonius deviated from the\nLutheran doctrine by teaching that Christ redeemed us by His passive\nobedience only, and by denying that His active obedience had any\nvicarious merit, since as man He Himself owed such obedience to the Law\nof God,--a view afterwards defended also by such Reformed divines as\nJohn Piscator, John Camero, and perhaps Ursinus. (Schaff 1, 274.)\n\nOver against this error the _Formula of Concord_ explains and declares:\n\"Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the\nbeliever out of pure grace is the obedience suffering, and resurrection\nof Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid\nfor our sins. For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one\nundivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (because He is the\nLord of the Law) as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is\nconcerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering\nand dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made\nunder the Law and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for\nrighteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience which He\nrendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living\nand dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and\neternally saves us.\" (919, 16.)--\n\nIn their zealous opposition to the doctrine of Osiander according to\nwhich the indwelling essential holiness of the divine nature of Christ\nis our righteousness before God, also the Hamburg ministers went a step\ntoo far in the opposite direction. They denied, or at any rate seemed to\ndeny, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity as such in believers. In their\n_Response (Responsio)_ of 1552 they declared: \"God is said to dwell\nwhere He is present by His grace and benevolence, where He gives the\nWord of His grace, and reveals His promises concerning His mercy and the\nremission of sins, where He works by His Spirit, etc.\" (Frank 2, 107.)\nAgain: \"That His indwelling pertains to His efficacy and operation\nappears from many passages which describe without a figure the efficacy\nand operation of Christ and of the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers.\"\n\"The dwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers signifies that they are\nled by the Spirit of God.\" \"But it cannot be proved by the Scripture\nthat the fulness of God dwells bodily in us as it dwells in Christ\nJesus. The inhabitation of God in us is a matter of grace, not of\nnature; of gift, not of property.\" (107.)\n\nIn 1551 Melanchthon had written: \"It must be admitted that God dwells in\nour hearts, not only in such a manner that He there is efficacious,\nthough not present with His own essence, but that He is both present and\nefficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, but\nGod is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile.\"\n(_C. R._ 7, 781.) This was the view of the Lutheran theologians\ngenerally. Article III of the _Formula of Concord_, too, is emphatic in\ndisavowing a personal union of the deity and humanity in believers, as\nwell as in asserting that God Himself, not merely His gifts, dwell in\nChristians. (935, 54; 937, 65.) In addition to the aberrations\nenumerated, Article III rejects also some of the Roman and the\nRomanizing errors concerning justification in the Leipzig Interim, and\nsome views entertained by Majorists which are extensively and _ex\nprofesso_ dealt with in Article IV. (CONC. TRIGL. 917, 5.)\n\n\nXVII. The Antinomistic Controversy.\n\n183. Distinction between Law and Gospel of Paramount Import.\n\nZwingli, who was a moralist and a Humanist rather than a truly\nevangelical reformer, taught: \"In itself the Law is nothing else than a\nGospel; that is, a good, certain message from God by means of which He\ninstructs us concerning His will.\" (Frank 2, 312.) While Zwingli thus\npractically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, held\nthat the difference between both is as great as that between life and\ndeath or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no one\ncan be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly to\ndistinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling of\nthe Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrine\nof justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must be\ncarefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in the\nChurch; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaningless\nwithout it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, the\nGospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is assailed, even\nif this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality,\nhit harder than the former. The cocoon of antinomianism always bursts\ninto antigospelism.\n\nMajorism, the mingling of sanctification and justification, and\nsynergism, the mingling of nature and grace, were but veiled efforts to\nopen once more the doors of the Lutheran Church to the Roman\nwork-righteousness, which Luther had expelled. The same is true of\nantinomianism in all its forms. It amounts to nothing less than apostasy\nfrom true Evangelicalism and a return to Romanism. When Luther opposed\nAgricola, the father of the Antinomians in the days of the Reformation,\nhe did so with the clear knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ with\nits doctrine of justification by grace and faith alone was at stake and\nin need of defense. \"By these spirits,\" said he, \"the devil does not\nintend to rob us of the Law, but of Christ, who fulfilled the Law.\" (St.\nL. 20, 1614; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 279; Frank 2, 268. 325.)\n\nWith the same interest in view, to save the Gospel from corruption, the\n_Formula of Concord_ opposes antinomianism and urges that the\ndistinction between the Law and the Gospel be carefully preserved. The\nopening paragraph of Article V, \"Of the Law and the Gospel,\" reads: \"As\nthe distinction between the Law and Gospel _is a special brilliant\nlight_ which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided,\nand the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly\nexplained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order\nthat these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a Law\nbe made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and\ntroubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise\nhave in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity,\nand by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials\nagainst the terrors of the Law.\" (951, 1.) The concluding paragraph of\nthis article declares that the proper distinction between the Law and\nthe Gospel must be preserved, \"in order that both doctrines, that of the\nLaw and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one\nanother, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other,\n_whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the\nGospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law_, as has occurred in\nthe Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which\nthey have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is\nagain opened in the Church of God to the Papacy.\" (961, 27.) The blessed\nGospel, our only comfort and consolation against the terrors of the Law,\nwill be corrupted wherever the Law and the Gospel are not properly\ndistinguished,--such, then, was the view also of the _Formula of\nConcord_.\n\nArticles V and VI of the _Formula_ treat and dispose of the issues\nraised by the Antinomians. In both Luther's doctrine is maintained and\nreaffirmed. Article V, \"Of the Law and Gospel,\" teaches that, in the\nproper sense of the term, everything is Law that reveals and rebukes\nsin, the sin of unbelief in Christ and the Gospel included; that Gospel,\nin the proper and narrow sense, is nothing but a proclamation and\npreaching of grace and forgiveness of sin, that, accordingly, the Law as\nwell as the Gospel are needed and must be retained and preached in the\nChurch. This was precisely what Luther had taught. In one of his theses\nagainst Agricola he says: \"Whatever discloses sin, wrath, or death\nexercises the office of the Law; Law and the disclosing of sin or the\nrevelation of wrath are convertible terms. _Quidquid ostendit peccatum,\niram seu mortem, id exercet officium legis; lex et ostensio peccati seu\nrevelatio irae sunt termini convertibiles_.\" Article VI \"Of the Third\nUse of the Law,\" teaches that although Christians, in as far as they are\nregenerate, do the will of God spontaneously, the Law must nevertheless\nbe preached to them on account of their Old Adam, not only as a mirror\nrevealing their sins and as a check on the lusts of the flesh, but also\nas a rule of their lives. This, too, is precisely what Luther had\nmaintained against Agricola: \"The Law,\" said he, \"must be retained [in\nthe Church], that the saints may know which are the works God requires.\"\n(Drews, _Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers_, 418; _Herzog R._ I, 588;\nFrank 2, 272; Tschackert, 482.)\n\n184. Agricola Breeding Trouble.\n\nIn the Lutheran Church antinomianism appeared in a double form: one\nchiefly before the other after the death of Luther. The first of these\nconflicts was originated by Agricola who spoke most contemptuously and\ndisparagingly of the Law of God, teaching, in particular, that true\nknowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, but\nby the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no use\nwhatever for the Law of God. After Luther's death similar antinomistic\nerrors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg,\nwho maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, but\nby the Gospel. Poach, Otto, and others denied that, with respect to good\nworks, the Law was of any service whatever to Christians after their\nconversion.\n\nBarring Carlstadt and similar spirits, John Agricola (Schnitter,\nKornschneider, Magister Islebius--Luther called him Grickel) was the\nfirst to strike a discordant note and breed trouble within the Lutheran\nChurch. Born April 20, 1492, at Eisleben, he studied at Leipzig, and\nfrom 1515 to 1516 at Wittenberg. Here he became an enthusiastic\nadherent and a close friend of Luther and also of Melanchthon, after the\nlatter's arrival in 1518. In 1539 Luther himself declared that Agricola\nhad been \"one of his best and closest friends.\" (St. L. 20, 1612.) In\n1519 he accompanied both to the great debate in Leipzig. In 1525 he\nbecame teacher of the Latin school and though never ordained, pastor of\nthe church in Eisleben. Being a speaker of some renown he was frequently\nengaged by the Elector of Saxony, especially on his journeys--to Speyer\n1526 and 1529, to Augsburg 1530, to Vienna 1535. At Eisleben, Agricola\nwas active also in a literary way, publishing sermons, a catechism, and,\n1526, a famous collection of 300 German proverbs (the Wittenberg edition\nof 1592 contains 750 proverbs).\n\nWhen the new theological professorship created 1526 at Wittenberg was\ngiven to Melanchthon, Agricola felt slighted and much disappointed. In\nthe following year he made his first antinomian attack upon Melanchthon.\nThe dispute was settled by Luther, but only for a time. In 1536\nAgricola, through the influence of Luther (whose hospitality also he and\nhis large family on their arrival in Wittenberg enjoyed for more than\nsix weeks), received an appointment at the university. He rewarded his\ngenerous friend with intrigues and repeated renewals of the antinomian\nquarrels, now directing his attacks also against his benefactor. By 1540\nmatters had come to such a pass that the Elector felt constrained to\ninstitute a formal trial against the secret plotter, which Agricola\nescaped only by accepting a call of Joachim II as courtpreacher and\nsuperintendent at Berlin. After Luther's death, Agricola, as described\nin a preceding chapter, degraded and discredited himself by helping\nPflug and Sidonius to prepare the Augsburg Interim (1547), and by\nendeavoring to enforce this infamous document in Brandenburg. He died\nSeptember 22, 1566.\n\nVanity, ambition, conceit, insincerity, impudence, arrogance, and\nungratefulness were the outstanding traits of Agricola's character.\nLuther said that Agricola, swelled with vanity and ambition, was more\nvexatious to him than any pope; that he was fit only for the profession\nof a jester, etc. December 6, 1540, Luther wrote to Jacob Stratner,\ncourtpreacher in Berlin: \"Master Grickel is not, nor ever will be, the\nman that he may appear, or the Margrave may consider him to be. For if\nyou wish to know what vanity itself is you can recognize it in no surer\nimage than that of Eisleben. _Si enim velis scire, quidnam ipsa vanitas\nsit, nulla certiore imagine cognosces quam Islebii._\" (St. L. 21b,\n2536.) Flacius reports that shortly before Luther's death, when some\nendeavored to excuse Agricola, the former answered angrily: \"Why\nendeavor to excuse Eisleben? Eisleben is incited by the devil, who has\ntaken possession of him entirely. You will see what a stir he will make\nafter my death! _Ihr werdet wohl erfahren, was er nach meinem Tod fuer\neinen Laerm wird anrichten!_\" (Preger 1, 119.)\n\n185. Agricola's Conflict with Melanchthon.\n\nThe antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the\nLaw, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law and\nits preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as early\nas 1525. In his _Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke_ of that year he\nhad written: \"The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit.\nAll those who are occupied with Moses are bound to go to the devil. To\nthe gallows with Moses!\" (Tschackert 481; _Herzog R._ 1, 688; E. 4,\n423.) The public dispute began two years later when Agricola criticized\nMelanchthon because in the latter's \"Instructions to the Visitors of the\nChurches of Saxony\" (Articles of Visitation, _Articuli, de quibus\nEgerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxionae_, 1527) the ministers were\nurged first to preach the Law to their spiritually callous people in\norder to produce repentance (contrition), and thus to prepare them for\nsaving faith in the Gospel the only source of truly good works.\nMelanchthon had written: \"Pastors must follow the example of Christ.\nSince He taught repentance and remission of sins, pastors also must\nteach these to their churches. At present it is common to vociferate\nconcerning faith, and yet one cannot understand what faith is, unless\nrepentance is preached. Plainly they pour new wine into old bottles who\npreach faith without repentance, without the doctrine of the fear of\nGod, without the doctrine of the Law, and accustom the people to a\ncertain carnal security, which is worse than all former errors under the\nPope have been.\" (_C. R._ 26, 9.) Agricola considered these and similar\nexhortations of Melanchthon unfriendly and Romanizing, and published his\ndissent in his _130 Questions for Young Children_, where he displayed a\nshocking contempt for the Old Testament and the Law of God. In\nparticular, he stressed the doctrine that genuine repentance\n(contrition) is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only. In\nletters to his friends, Agricola at the same time charged Melanchthon\nwith corrupting the evangelical doctrine. (Frank 2, 252.)\n\nAt a meeting held at Torgau, November 26 to 28, 1527, the differences\nwere discussed by Agricola and Melanchthon in the presence of Luther and\nBugenhagen. The exact issue was: Does faith presuppose contrition?\nMelanchthon affirmed the question, and Agricola denied it. Luther\nfinally effected an agreement by distinguishing between general and\njustifying faith, and by explaining that repentance (contrition),\nindeed, presupposes a general faith in God, but that justifying faith\npresupposes the terrors of conscience (contrition) wrought by the Law.\nHis decision ran \"that the term faith should be applied to justifying\nfaith which consoles us in these terrors [produced by the threats of the\nLaw] but that the word repentance correctly includes a general faith,\"\n_viz._, that there is a God who threatens transgressors, etc. (_C. R._\n1, 916.)\n\nIn agreement herewith Melanchthon wrote in the German _Unterricht der\nVisitatoren_, published 1528 at Wittenberg, that, in the wider and more\ngeneral sense, the term \"faith\" embraces contrition and the Law, but\nthat in the interest of the common people the word \"faith\" should be\nreserved for the special Christian or justifying faith in Christ. We\nread: \"Denn wiewohl etliche achten, man solle nichts lehren vor dem\nGlauben, sondern die Busse aus und nach dem Glauben folgend lehren, auf\ndass die Widersacher [Papisten] nicht sagen moegen, man widerrufe unsere\nvorige Lehre, so ist aber doch anzusehen, weil [dass] die Busse und\nGesetz auch zu dem gemeinen Glauben gehoeren. Denn man muss ja zuvor\nglauben, dass Gott sei, der da drohe, gebiete, schrecke usw. So sei es\nfuer den gemeinen, groben Mann, dass man solche Stuecke des Glaubens\nlasse bleiben unter dem Namen Busse, Gebot, Gesetz, Furcht usw., auf\ndass sie desto unterschiedlicher den Glauben Christi verstehen, welchen\ndie Apostel _iustificantem fidem_, das ist, der da gerecht macht und\nSuende vertilgt, nennen, welches der Glaube von dem Gebot und Busse\nnicht tut und doch der gemeine Mann ueber dem Wort Glauben irre wird und\nFragen aufbringt ohne Nutzen.\" (_C. R._ 26, 51f.)\n\n186. Luther's First Disputation against the Antinomians.\n\nAt Wittenberg, in 1537, Agricola renewed his antinomianism by secretly\nand anonymously circulating a number of propositions (_Positiones inter\nFratres Sparsae_) directed against both Luther and Melanchthon, whom he\nbranded as \"contortors of the words of Christ,\" urging all to resist\nthem in order to preserve the pure doctrine. Quotations from Luther and\nMelanchthon were appended to the theses in order to show that their\nteaching concerning the \"mode of justification (_modus\niustificationis_)\" was sometimes \"pure,\" sometimes \"impure.\" Agricola\nwrote: \"Impure [among the statements of Melanchthon and Luther] are: 1.\nIn the _Saxon Visitation:_ 'Since Christ commands that repentance and\nremission of sins is to be preached in His name, hence the Decalog is\nto be taught,' 2. Again ... 'As the Gospel therefore teaches that the\nLaw has been given to humiliate us, in order that we may seek Christ,'\netc. 3. In his _Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians_ Luther says\nthat it is the office of the Law to torment and to terrify the\nconscience, that it may know Christ more readily. Many similar passages\nare found in this commentary, which we reject as false, in order to\nmaintain the purity of the doctrine.\" (E., v. a. 4, 422f.; St. L. 20,\n1627.)\n\nLuther answered by publishing, December 1, 1537, the theses of Agricola\ntogether with _Other Antinomian Articles (Alii Articuli Antinomi)_,\ncompiled from written and verbal expressions of Agricola and his\nfollowers. In his introductory remarks Luther not only disowned and\nemphatically condemned (_nos ab eiusmodi portentis prorsus abhorrere_)\nAgricola's _Positiones inter Fratres Sparsae_, but also announced a\nnumber of disputations against antinomianism. (E. 4, 420.) The first was\nheld December 18, 1537, in which Luther maintained: Contrition is\nwrought by the preaching of the Law; but a man is able to make a good\nresolution and to hate sin out of love toward God only after the Gospel\nhas comforted his alarmed conscience.\n\nFollowing are some of the 39 theses discussed by Luther in his first\ndisputation against the Antinomians: \"4. The first part of repentance,\ncontrition, is [wrought] by the Law alone. The other part, the good\npurpose, cannot be [wrought] by the Law. 24. And they [the Antinomians]\nteach perniciously that the Law of God is simply to be removed from the\nchurch, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. 25. For the entire\nScripture teaches that repentance must begin from the Law, which also\nthe order of the matter itself as well as experience shows. 31.\nNecessarily, then, sin and death cannot be revealed by the Word of Grace\nand Solace, but by the Law. 32. Experience teaches that Adam is first\nreproved as a transgressor of the Law and afterwards cheered by the\npromised Seed of the woman. 33. Also David is first killed by the Law\nthrough Nathan, saying: 'Thou art the man,' etc.--afterwards he is saved\nby the Gospel, declaring: 'Thou shalt not die,' etc. [2 Sam. 12, 7. 13.]\n34. Paul, prostrated by the Law, first hears: 'Why persecutest thou Me?'\nAfterwards he is revived by the Gospel: 'Arise,' etc. [Acts 9, 4. 6.]\n35. And Christ Himself says, Mark 1, 15: 'Repent ye and believe the\nGospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand.' 36. Again: 'Repentance and\nremission of sins should be preached in His name,' [Luke 24, 47.] 37.\nLikewise the Spirit first reproves the world of sin, in order to teach\nfaith in Christ, _i.e._, forgiveness of sin. [John 16, 8.] 38. In the\nEpistle to the Romans Paul observes this method, first to teach that all\nare sinners, and thereupon, that they are to be justified solely through\nChrist.\" (Drews, 253ff.; St. L. 20, 1628ff.)\n\n187. Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians.\n\nSince Agricola did not appear at the first public disputation against\nthe Antinomians, moreover secretly [_\"im Winkel\"_] continued his\nopposition and intrigues, Luther insisted that his privilege of\nlecturing at the university be withdrawn. Thus brought to terms\nAgricola, through his wife, sued for reconciliation. Luther demanded a\nretraction to be made at his next disputation, which was held January\n12, 1538. (Drews, 248. 334f.; _C. R._ 25, 64; 3, 482f.) Here Luther\nexplained that, though not necessary to justification, the Law must not\nbe cast out of the church, its chief object being to reveal the guilt of\nsin; moreover, that the Law must be taught to maintain outward\ndiscipline, to reveal sin, and to show Christians what works are\npleasing to God. (Drews, 418.)\n\nFollowing are some of the 48 theses discussed by Luther in his second\ndisputation: \"3. When treating of justification, one cannot say too much\nagainst the inability of the Law [to save] and against the most\npernicious trust in the Law. 4. For the Law was not given to justify or\nvivify or help in any way toward righteousness. 5. But to reveal sin and\nwork wrath, _i.e._, to render the conscience guilty. [Rom. 3, 20; 4,\n15.] 8. In brief, as far as heaven is from the earth, so far must the\nLaw be separated from justification. 9. And nothing is to be taught,\nsaid, or thought in the matter of justification but only the word of the\ngrace exhibited in Christ. 10. From this, however, it does not follow\nthat the Law is to be abolished and excluded from the preaching of [done\nin] the church. 11. Indeed, just for the reason that not only is it not\nnecessary to justification, but also cannot effect it, it is the more\nnecessary to teach and urge it. 12. In order that man, who is proud and\ntrusts in his own powers, may be instructed that he cannot be justified\nby the Law. 18. Whatever reveals sin, wrath, or death exercises the\noffice of the Law, whether it be in the Old or in the New Testament. 19.\nFor to reveal sin is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, than the\nLaw or an effect and the peculiar power of the Law. 20. Law and\nrevelation of sin or of wrath are convertible terms. 24. So that it is\nimpossible for sin to be, or to be known, without the Law written or\ninscribed [in the heart]. 27. And since the Law of God requires our\nobedience toward God, these Antinomians (_nomomachi_) abolish also\nobedience toward God. 28. From this it is manifest that Satan through\nthese his instruments teaches about sin, repentance, and Christ in words\nonly (_verbaliter tantum_). 29. But in reality he takes away Christ,\nrepentance, sin, and the entire Scripture, together with God, its\nAuthor. 46. For the Law, as it was before Christ, did indeed accuse us;\nbut under Christ it is appeased through the forgiveness of sins, and\nthereafter it is to be fulfilled through the Spirit. 47. Therefore the\nLaw will never, in all eternity, be abolished, but will remain, either\nto be fulfilled by the damned, or already fulfilled by the blessed. 48.\nThese pupils of the devil however, seem to think that the Law is\ntemporary only, which ceased under Christ even as circumcision did.\"\n(Drews, 336ff.; St. L. 20, 1632ff.)\n\nFollowing is a summary of the views expressed by Luther in his second\ndisputation: \"Why is the Law to be taught? The Law is to be taught on\naccount of discipline, according to the word of Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: 'The\nLaw is made for the lawless,' and that by this pedagogy men might come\nto Christ as Paul says to the Galatians (3, 24): 'The Law was our\nschoolmaster to bring us to Christ,' In the second place, the Law is to\nbe taught to reveal sin, to accuse, terrify, and damn the consciences,\nRom. 3, 20: 'By the Law is the knowledge of sin;' again, chapter 4, 15:\n'The Law worketh wrath,' In the third place, the Law is to be retained\nthat the saints may know what kind of works God requires in which they\nmay exercise their obedience toward God. _Lex est retinenda, ut sciant\nsancti, quaenam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam exercere erga\nDeum possint._\" (Drews, 418; _Herzog R_. 1, 688.)\n\n188. Third and Fourth Series of Luther's Theses against Antinomianism.\n\nHaving complied with the conditions, and publicly (also in two sermons\ndelivered April 23) retracted his error, and declared his assent to the\nviews expressed in Luther's second disputation, Agricola was again\npermitted to preach and teach. As a result, Luther also, though he had\nno faith in the sincerity of Agricola's retraction, did not carry out\nhis original plan of discussing a third and fourth series of theses\nwhich he had prepared against antinomianism. (Drews, 419ff.; E. 4,\n430ff.)\n\nFrom the third series, comprising 40 theses, we quote the following: \"1.\nThe repentance of the Papists, Turks, Jews, and of all unbelievers and\nhypocrites is alike in every respect. 2. It consists in this, that they\nare sorry and make satisfaction for one or several sins, and afterwards\nare secure as to other sins or original sin. 5. The repentance of\nbelievers in Christ goes beyond the actual sins, and continues\nthroughout life, till death. 8. For the sin in our flesh remains during\nthe entire time of our life, warring against the Spirit, who resists it.\n[Rom. 7, 23.] 9. Therefore all works after justification are nothing\nelse than a continuous repentance, or a good purpose against sin. 10.\nFor nothing else is done than that sin, revealed by the Law and forgiven\nin Christ, is swept out. 17. The Lord's Prayer, taught by the Lord\nHimself to the saints and believers, is a part of repentance, containing\nmuch of the doctrine of the Law. 18. For whoever prays it aright\nconfesses with his own mouth that he sins against the Law and repents.\n27. Therefore also the Lord's Prayer itself teaches that the Law is\nbefore, below, and after the Gospel (_legem esse ante, sub et post\nevangelium_), and that from it repentance must begin. 30. From this it\nfollows that these enemies of the Law [Antinomians] must abolish also\nthe Lord's Prayer if they abolish the Law. 31. Indeed, they are\ncompelled to expunge the greatest part of the sermons of Christ Himself\nfrom the Gospel-story. 32. For Matt. 5, 17ff. He does not only recite\nthe Law of Moses, but explains it perfectly, and teaches that it must\nnot be destroyed. 34. Everywhere throughout the Gospel He also reproves,\nrebukes, threatens, and exercises similar offices of the Law. 35. So\nthat there never has been nor ever will be more impudent men than those\nwho teach that the Law should be abolished.\" (St. L. 20, 1636ff.; E. 4,\n430ff.)\n\nFrom the fourth series of 41 theses directed by Luther against the\nAntinomians we quote: \"12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine of\nthe Papists concerning repentance as of hell and the devil himself. 13.\nMuch more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whatever\nin the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught in\nreality simply wish that there be no repentance. 15. The argument:\n'Whatever is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning,\nnor in the middle, nor in the end, must not be taught,' etc., amounts to\nnothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth that\nman is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in the\nbeginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not be\ntaught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders,\nadulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence such\nthings must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing toward\njustification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolished\nand not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without the\nLaw' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without the\nassistance of the Law,' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demands\nfulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faith\nin Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works,\nwithout the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good works\nfollow spontaneously, without the Law, _i.e._, without the help or\ncoercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nor\nnecessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less for\nsalvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvation\nare necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to save\nthat which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the restitution of all\nthings, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is not\ndestroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become such\nas he was, and even better.\" (St. L. 20. 1639ff.; E. 4. 433.)\n\n189. Luther's Third Public Disputation against the Antinomians.\n\nSoon after his second disputation Luther obtained evidence of Agricola's\nrelapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was another\ndisputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, in\nwhich Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled their\nhearers into carnal security. He also explained that the passages culled\nfrom his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hence\nmisinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressed\nto consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of the\nconsolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them to\nsecure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifying\npower of the Law. (Drews, 421f.; Tschackert, 482.)\n\nFrom the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submit\nthe following: \"1. The Law has dominion over man as long as he lives.\n[Rom. 7, 1.] 2. But he is freed from the Law when he dies. 3.\nNecessarily, therefore, man must die if he would be free from the Law.\n7. These three: Law, sin, and death, are inseparable. 8. Accordingly so\nfar as death is still in man, in so far sin and the Law are in man. 9.\nIndeed, in Christ the Law is fulfilled, sin abolished, and death\ndestroyed. 11. That is, when, through faith we are crucified and have\ndied in Christ, such things [the Law fulfilled, sin abolished, and death\ndestroyed] are true also in us. 13. But the fact itself and experience\ntestify that the just are still daily delivered to death. 14.\nNecessarily, therefore, in as far as they are under death, they are\nstill also under the Law and sin. 15. They [the Antinomians] are\naltogether inexperienced men and deceivers of souls who endeavor to\nabolish the Law from the church. 16. For this is not only foolish and\nwicked, but also absolutely impossible. 17. For if you would abolish the\nLaw, you will be compelled to abolish also sin and death. 18. For death\nand sin are present by virtue of the Law, as Paul says [2 Cor. 3, 6]:\n'The letter killeth,' and [1 Cor. 15, 56]: 'The strength of sin is the\nLaw,' 19. But since you see that the just die daily what a folly is it\nto imagine that they are without the Law! 20. For if there were no Law,\nthere would be neither sin nor death. 21. Hence they should have first\nproved that the just are altogether without sin and death. 22. Or that\nthey no longer live in the flesh, but are removed from the world. 23.\nThen it might justly be taught that also the Law is altogether removed\nfrom them and must not be taught in any way. 24. This they cannot prove,\nbut experience itself shows the contrary to their very faces. 25. So,\nthen, the impudence of the teachers who wish to remove the Law from the\nchurch is extraordinary. 26. Yet it is a much greater impudence, or\nrather insanity, when they assert that even the wicked should be freed\nfrom the Law, and that it should not be preached to them. 29. If,\nhowever, they pretend that their church or their hearers simply are all\npious men and Christians, without the Law, 30. Then it is evident that\nthey are altogether of unsound mind and do not know what they say or\naffirm. 31. For this is nothing else than to imagine that all their\nhearers have been removed from this life. 35. Thus it [the Law] is also\ngiven to the pious, in so far as they are not yet dead and still live in\nthe flesh. 40. Now, in as far as Christ is raised in us, in so far we\nare without Law, sin, and death. 41. But in as far as He is not yet\nraised in us, in so far we are under the Law, sin, and death. 42.\nTherefore the Law (as also the Gospel) must be preached, without\ndiscrimination, to the righteous as well as to the wicked. 44. To the\npious, that they may thereby be reminded to crucify their flesh with its\naffections and lusts, lest they become secure. [Gal. 5, 24.] 45. For\nsecurity abolishes faith and the fear of God, and renders the latter end\nworse than the beginning. [2 Pet. 2, 20.] 46. It appears very clearly\nthat the Antinomians imagine sin to have been removed through Christ\nessentially and philosophically or juridically (_formaliter et\nphilosophice seu iuridice_) 47. And that they do not at all know that\nsin is removed only inasmuch as the merciful God does not impute it [Ps.\n32, 2], and forgives it (_solum reputatione et ignoscentia Dei\nmiserentis_). 61. For if the Law is removed, no one knows what Christ\nis, or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. 66. The doctrine of\nthe Law, therefore, is necessary in the churches, and by all means is to\nbe retained, as without it Christ cannot be retained. 67. For what will\nyou retain of Christ when (the Law having been removed which He\nfulfilled) you do not know what He has fulfilled? 69. In brief, to\nremove the Law and to let sin and death remain, is to hide the disease\nof sin and death to men unto their perdition. 70. When death and sin are\nabolished (as was done by Christ), then the Law would be removed\nhappily; moreover, it would be established, Rom. 3, 31.\" (Drews 423ff.;\nSt. L. 20, 1642ff.; E. 4, 436ff.)\n\n190. Agricola's Retraction Written and Published by Luther.\n\nSeeing his position in the Wittenberg University endangered, Agricola\nwas again ready to submit. And when a public retraction was demanded, he\neven left it to Luther to formulate the recantation. Luther did so in a\npublic letter to Caspar Guettel in Eisleben, entitled, _Against the\nAntinomians--Wider die Antinomer_, which he published in the beginning\nof January, 1539. (St. L. 20, 1610.) In a crushing manner Luther here\ndenounced \"the specter of the new spirits who dare thrust the Law or the\nTen Commandments out of the church and relegate it to the courthouse.\"\n\nComplaining of \"false brethren,\" Luther here says: \"And I fear that, if\nI had died at Smalcald [1537], I should forever have been called the\npatron of such [antinomian] spirits, because they appeal to my books.\nAnd all this they do behind my back, without my knowledge and against\nmy will, not even considering it worth while to inform me with as much\nas a word or syllable, or at least to ask me regarding the matter. Thus\nI am compelled to proceed against Magister John Agricola,\" etc. (1611.)\n\"But since he was afraid that he might not express it in a manner such\nas would be considered satisfactory, he has fully authorized and also\nrequested me to do it [write the retraction for Agricola] as well as I\ncould, which, he being satisfied, I agreed to do, and herewith have\ndone, especially for the reason that after my death neither Master\nEisleben himself nor anybody else might be able to pretend that I had\ndone nothing in this matter and simply allowed everything to pass and go\non as fully satisfactory to me.\" (1612.)\n\nReferring to his former statements appealed to by Agricola, Luther\ncontinues: \"I have indeed taught, and still teach, that sinners should\nbe led to repentance by the preaching of, and meditation upon, the\nsuffering of Christ, so that they may realize how great God's wrath is\nover sin, seeing that there is no other help against it than that God's\nSon must die for it.... But how does it follow from this that the Law\nmust be abandoned? I am unable to discover such an inference in my\nlogic, and would like to see and hear the master who would be able to\nprove it. When Isaiah says, chap. 53, 8: 'For the transgression of My\npeople was He stricken,' tell me, dear friend, is the Law abandoned\nwhen here the suffering of Christ is preached? What does 'for the\ntransgression of My people' mean? Does it not mean: because My people\nhave sinned against, and not kept, My Law? Or can any one imagine that\nsin is something where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the Law must\nwith it also abolish sins. If he would allow sins to remain, he must\nmuch more allow the Law to remain. For Rom. 6, 13 [4, 15] we read:\n'Sin is not imputed where there is no law.' If there is no sin Christ\nis nothing. For why does He die if there be neither Law nor sin for\nwhich He was to die? From this we see that by this spiritism\n[_Geisterei_] the devil does not mean to take away the Law, but Christ,\nwho fulfilled the Law. [Matt. 5, 17.] For he well knows that Christ may\nwell and easily be taken away, but not so the Law, which is written in\nthe heart.\" (1613f.) \"Therefore I request of you, my dear Doctor\n[Guettel], that, as you have done heretofore, you would continue in the\npure doctrine and preach that sinners should and must be led to\nrepentance not only by the sweet grace and suffering of Christ, who has\ndied for us, but also by the terrors of the Law.\" (1615.) \"For whence\ndo we know what sin is if there is no Law and conscience? And whence\nshall we learn what Christ is, what He has done for us, if we are not\nto know what the Law is which He has fulfilled for us, or what sin is,\nfor which He has atoned? And even if we did not need the Law for us and\nwere able to tear it out of our hearts (which is impossible), we\nnevertheless must preach it for the sake of Christ (as also is done and\nmust be done), in order that we may know what He has done and suffered\nfor us. For who could know what and for what purpose Christ has suffered\nfor us if no one were to know what sin or the Law is? Therefore the Law\nmust certainly be preached if we would preach Christ.\" (1616.) \"This,\ntoo, is a peculiar blindness and folly, that they imagine the revelation\nof wrath to be something else than the Law (which is impossible); for\nthe revelation of wrath is the Law when realized and felt, as Paul says\n[Rom. 4, 15]: '_Lex iram operatur_. The Law worketh wrath.'\" (1618.)\n\nBy way of conclusion Luther remarked: \"Let this suffice at present, for\nI hope that since Master Eisleben is converted and retracts, the others,\ntoo, who received it [the antinomian error] from him, will abandon it,\nwhich God may help them to do! Amen.\" (1619.) At the same time, however\nhe did not withhold the opinion that Agricola's self humiliation would\nhardly be of long duration. \"If he continues in such humility,\" said\nLuther, \"God certainly can and will exalt him; if he abandons it, then\nGod is able to hurl him down again.\" (1612.)\n\n191. Luther's Fourth Disputation against the Antinomians.\n\nLuther's distrust was not unfounded, for Agricola continued secretly to\nteach his antinomianism, abetted in his sentiments among others also by\nJacob Schenck [since 1536 first Lutheran pastor in Freiberg, Saxony;\n1538 dismissed on account of his antinomianism 1540 professor in\nLeipzig; later on deposed and finally banished from Saxony]. Indeed in\nMarch, 1540, Agricola even lodged a complaint with the Elector, charging\nLuther with \"calumnies.\" In the first part of the following month Luther\nanswered these charges in a _Report to Doctor Brueck Concerning Magister\nJohn Eisleben's Doctrine and Intrigues_. (St. L. 20, 1648ff.) About the\nsame time; Count Albrecht of Mansfeld denounced Agricola to the Elector\nas a dangerous, troublesome man. Hereupon the Elector on June 15 1540,\nopened formal legal proceedings against Agricola, who, as stated above,\nremoved to Berlin in August without awaiting the trial, although he had\npromised with an oath not to leave before a legal decision had been\nrendered. (Drews, 611.) Incensed by the treacherous conduct of Agricola,\nLuther, September 10, 1540, held a final disputation on a sixth series\nof theses against the Antinomians, charging them with destroying all\norder human as well as divine. (St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)\n\nRegarding Agricola's duplicity, Luther, in his _Report_ to Brueck, said\nin substance: According to the statements of Caspar Guettel and\nWendelin Faber, Agricola had for years secretly agitated against the\nWittenbergers and founded a sect at Eisleben calling themselves\nMinorish [Minorists]; he had branded and slandered their doctrine as\nfalse and impure, and this, too, without conferring with them or\npreviously admonishing them; he had come to Wittenberg for the purpose\nof corrupting and distracting the Church; his adherents had made the\nstatement that Eisleben would teach the Wittenbergers theology and\nlogic; he had inveigled Hans Lufft into printing his Postil by falsely\nstating that it had been read and approved by Luther; in his dealings\nwith the Wittenbergers he had acted not as an honest man, let alone a\npious Christian and theologian, but treacherously and in keeping with\nhis antinomian principles; parading as a loyal Lutheran at public\nconventions and laughing and dining with them, he had misled \"his old,\nfaithful friend\" [Luther] to confide in him, while secretly he was\nacting the traitor by maligning him and undermining his work. In the\n_Report_ we read: \"Agricola blasphemes and damns our doctrine as impure\nand false (_i.e._, the Holy Spirit Himself in His holy Law); he slanders\nand defames us Wittenbergers most infamously wherever he can; and all\nthis he does treacherously and secretly, although we have done him no\nharm, but only did well by him, as he himself must admit. He deceives\nand attacks us [me], his best friend and father, making me believe that\nhe is our true friend. Nor does he warn me, but, like a desperate\ntreacherous villain, secretly works behind our back to cause the people\nto forsake our doctrine and to adhere to him, thus treating us with an\nungratefulness, pride, and haughtiness such as I have not frequently met\nwith before.\" (1656.)\n\nIn his charge against Luther, Agricola had said that it was dangerous to\npreach the Law without the Gospel, because it was a ministry of death\n(_ministerium mortis_). Luther answered in his _Report_ to Brueck:\n\"Behold now what the mad fool does. God has given His Law for the very\npurpose that it should bite, cut, strike, kill, and sacrifice the old\nman. For it should terrify and punish the proud ignorant, secure Old\nAdam and show him his sin and death, so that, being humiliated, he may\ndespair of himself, and thus become desirous of grace, as St. Paul says:\n'The strength of sin is the Law; the sting of death is sin,'[1 Cor. 15,\n56.] For this reason he also calls it _bonam, iustam, sanctam_--good,\njust, holy. Again, Jeremiah [23, 29]: 'My Word is like a hammer that\nbreaketh the rock to pieces.' Again: '_Ego ignis consumens_, etc.--I am\na consuming fire,' Ps. 9, 21 [20]: '_Constitue legislatorem super eos,\nut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes_--Put them\nin fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men.'\nThus St. Paul does Rom. 1 and 2 and 3 making all the world sinners by\nthe Law, casting them under the wrath of God, and entirely killing them\nbefore God. But here our dear Master Grickel appears on the scene and\ninvents a new theology out of his own mad and reckless fool's head and\nteaches: One must not kill and reprove the people, _i.e._, one must not\npreach the Law. Here he himself confesses publicly in his suit [against\nLuther] that he has condemned and prohibited the preaching of the Law.\"\n(St. L. 20, 1657.)\n\nThe _Report_ continues: \"Since, now, the little angry devil who rides\nMaster Grickel will not tolerate the Law, _i.e., mortificantem,\nirascentem, accusantem, terrentem, occidentem legem_,--the mortifying,\nraging, accusing, terrifying, killing Law,--it is quite evident what he\nintends to do through Master Grickel's folly (for he nevertheless wishes\nto be praised as preaching the Law after and under the Gospel, etc.),\n_viz._, to hide original sin and to teach the Law no further than\nagainst future actual sins, for such is the manner of his entire Postil;\neven as the Turks, Jews, philosophers, and Papists teach who regard our\nnature as sound; but Master Grickel does not see that it is just this\nwhich his little spirit [devil] aims at by his bragging and boasting,\nthat he, too, is preaching the Law.... Thus Christ and God are\naltogether vain and lost. And is not this blindness beyond all blindness\nthat he does not want to preach the Law without and before the Gospel?\nFor are these not impossible things? How is it possible to preach of\nforgiveness of sins if previously there have been no sins? How can one\nproclaim life if previously there is no death? Are we to preach to\nangels who have neither sin nor death concerning forgiveness of sins\nand redemption from death? But how can one preach of sins or know that\nthere are sins, if the Law does not reveal them? For according to its\nproper office the Gospel does not say who [is a sinner] and what is sin;\nit does, however, indicate that there must be some great hurt, since so\ngreat a remedy is required; but it does not say how the sin is called,\nor what it is. The Law must do this. Thus Master Eisleben must in fact\n(_re ipsa_) allow the Law to perform its duty (_occidere_, to kill,\netc.) prior to the [preaching of the] Gospel, no matter how decidedly\nhe, with words only, denies it, to spite the Wittenbergers, in order\nthat he also, as _novus autor_ (new author), may produce something of\nhis own and confuse the people and separate the churches.\" (1658.)\n\nFrom the 20 theses which Luther treated in his last disputation against\nthe Antinomians we cull the following: \"1. The inference of St. Paul:\n'For where no law is there is no transgression' [Rom. 4, 15] is valid\nnot only theologically, but also politically and naturally (_non solum\ntheologice, sed etiam politice et naturaliter_). 2. Likewise this too:\nWhere there is no sin, there is neither punishment nor remission. 3.\nLikewise this too: Where there is neither punishment nor remission,\nthere is neither wrath nor grace. 4. Likewise this too: Where there is\nneither wrath nor grace, there is neither divine nor human government.\n5. Likewise this too: Where there is neither divine nor human\ngovernment, there is neither God nor man. 6. Likewise this too: Where\nthere is neither God nor man, there is nothing except perhaps the devil.\n7. Hence it is that the Antinomians, the enemies of the Law, evidently\nare either devils themselves or the brothers of the devil. 8. It avails\nthe Antinomians nothing to boast that they teach very much of God,\nChrist, grace, Law, etc. 10. This confession of the Antinomians is like\nthe one when the devils cried: 'Thou art the Son of the living God,'\n[Luke 4, 34; 8, 28.] 12. Whoever denies that the damning Law must be\ntaught in reality simply denies the Law. 14. A law which does not damn\nis an imagined and painted law as the chimera or tragelaphus. 15. Nor is\nthe political or natural law anything unless it damns and terrifies\nsinners Rom. 13, 1. 5; 1 Pet. 2, 13ff. 17. What the Antinomians say\nconcerning God, Christ, faith, Law, grace, etc., they say without any\nmeaning as the parrot says its '_chaire_, Good day!' 18. Hence it is\nimpossible to learn theology or civil polity (_theologiam aut politiam_)\nfrom the Antinomians. 19. Therefore they must be avoided as most\npestilential teachers of licentious living who permit the perpetration\nof all crimes. 20. For they serve not Christ, but their own belly [Rom.\n16, 18], and, madmen that they are, seek to please men, in order that\nfrom them, as a man's judgment, they may gain glory.\" (Drews, 613; St.\nL. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)--Regarding Luther's disputations against the\nAntinomians Planck pertinently remarks that they compel admiration for\nhis clear and penetrating mind, and rank among the very best of his\nwritings. (1, 18; Frank 2, 311.)\n\n192. \"Grickel\" Remained Grickel.\n\nAt the instance of Elector Joachim, negotiations were begun with Luther,\nwhich finally led to a sort of peaceful settlement. Agricola was\nrequired to send (which he also did) a revocation to the preachers, the\ncouncil, and the congregation at Eisleben. However, the new and enlarged\nedition (1541) of the catechism which Agricola had published in 1527\nrevealed the fact that also this last recantation was insincere; for in\nit he repeated his antinomistic teaching, though not in the original\ndefiant manner. Little wonder, then, that despite the formal settlement,\ncordial relations were not restored between Luther and Agricola. When\nthe latter visited Wittenberg in 1545, Luther refused to see the man\nwhom he regarded incurably dishonest. \"Grickel,\" said he, \"will remain\nGrickel to all eternity, _Grickel wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickel\nbleiben_.\"\n\nAnd \"Grickel\" he did remain; for in 1565 he published a sermon in which\nhe said: \"Every one who is to be appointed as teacher and preacher shall\nbe asked: What do you intend to teach in the church? He shall answer:\nThe Gospel of Jesus Christ. But when further asked: What does the Gospel\npreach? he shall answer: The Gospel preaches repentance and forgiveness\nof sins.\" Considering this a further evidence that Agricola still\nadhered to, and was now ready once more to champion, his old errors, the\npreachers of Mansfeld registered their protest in a publication of the\nsame year. A controversy, however, did not materialize, for Agricola\ndied the following year. (Planck 5, 1, 47; Frank 2, 267.)\n\n193. False Propositions of Agricola.\n\nFollowing are some of Agricola's radical statements concerning the Law\nand the Gospel. The first thesis of his _Positions_ of 1537 reads:\n\"Repentance is to be taught not from the Decalog or from any law of\nMoses, but from the violation of the Son through the Gospel.\n_Poenitentia docenda est non ex decalogo aut ulla lege Mosis, sed ex\nviolatione Filii per evangelium_.\" (E. 4. 420.) Thesis 13: \"In order to\nkeep the Christian doctrine pure, we must resist those [Luther and\nMelanchthon] who teach that the Gospel must be preached only to such\nwhose hearts have previously been terrified and broken by the Law.\n_Quare pro conservanda puritate doctrinae resistendum est iis, qui\ndocent, evangelium non praedicandum nisi animis prius quassatis et\ncontritis per legem_.\" (421.) Thesis 16: \"The Law merely rebukes sin,\nand that, too, without the Holy Spirit; hence it rebukes to damnation.\"\nThesis 17: \"But there is need of a doctrine which does not only condemn\nwith great efficacy, but which saves at the same time; this, however, is\nthe Gospel, a doctrine which teaches conjointly repentance and remission\nof sins.\" (421.) In his _Brief Summary of the Gospel_, Agricola says:\n\"In the New Testament and among Christians or in the Gospel we must not\npreach the violation of the Law when a man breaks or transgresses the\nLaw, but the violation of the Son, to wit that he who does not for the\nsake of the kingdom of heaven willingly omit what he should omit, and\ndoes not do what he should do, crucifies Christ anew.\" (St. L. 20,\n1622ff.; Frank 2, 313, Gieseler 3, 2, 137; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 265ff.)\n\nA commingling of the Law and Gospel always results in a corruption of\nthe doctrines of conversion, faith, and justification. Such was the case\nalso with respect to Agricola, who taught that justification follows a\ncontrition which flows from, and hence is preceded by, love toward God.\nTurning matters topsy-turvy, he taught: Repentance consists in this,\nthat the heart of man, experiencing the kindness of God which calls us\nto Christ and presents us with His grace, turns about, apprehends God's\ngrace, thanks Him heartily for having spared it so graciously, begins to\nrepent, and to grieve heartily and sorrowfully on account of its sins,\nwishes to abstain from them, and renounces its former sinful life.\n\"This,\" says Agricola, \"is repentance (_poenitentia, Buessen_) and the\nfirst stage of the new birth, the true breathing and afflation of the\nHoly Spirit. After this he acquires a hearty confidence in God,\nbelieving that He will condone his folly and not blame him for it, since\nhe did not know any better, although he is much ashamed of it and wishes\nthat it had never happened; he also resolves, since he has fared so\nwell, never to sin any more or to do anything that might make him\nunworthy of the benefit received as if he were ungrateful and forgetful;\nhe furthermore learns to work out, confirm, and preserve his salvation\nin fear and trembling...: this is forgiveness of sins.\" (Frank 2, 247.)\nThese confused ideas plainly show that Agricola had a false conception,\nnot only of the Law and Gospel, but also of original sin, repentance,\nfaith, regeneration, and justification. Essentially, his was the Roman\ndoctrine, which makes an antecedent of what in reality is an effect and\na consequence of conversion and justification. Viewed from this angle,\nit occasions little surprise that Agricola consented to help formulate\nand introduce the Augsburg Interim in which the essentials of\nLutheranism were denied.\n\n194. Poach, Otto, Musculus, Neander.\n\nThe antinomistic doctrines rejected, in particular, by Article VI of the\n_Formula of Concord_, were represented chiefly by Andrew Poach, Anton\nOtto, Andrew Musculus, and Michael Neander. Poach, born 1516, studied\nunder Luther and was an opponent of the Philippists, he became pastor in\nHalle in 1541; in Nordhausen, 1547; in Erfurt, 1550; Uttenbach, near\nJena, 1572, where he died 1585. At Erfurt, Poach was deposed in 1572 on\naccount of dissensions due to the antinomistic controversies. He signed\nthe _Book of Concord_.--Otto [Otho; also called Herzberger, because he\nwas born in Herzberg, 1505] studied under Luther; served as pastor in\nGraefenthal, and from 1543 in Nordhausen where he was deposed in 1568\nfor adherence to Flacius. However, when Otto, while antagonizing\nMajorism and synergism, in sermons on the Letter to the Galatians of\n1565 rejected the Third Use of the Law, he was opposed also by Flacius,\nwho reminded him of the fact that here on earth the new man resembles a\nchild, aye, an embryo, rather than a full-fledged man.\n\nIn his zealous opposition to the Majorists, Andrew Musculus (Meusel,\nborn 1514; studied at Leipzig 1532-1538, then at Wittenberg; became a\nzealous and passionate adherent of Luther, whom he considered the\ngreatest man since the days of the apostles; from 1540 till his death,\nSeptember 29, 1581, professor and pastor, later on, General\nSuperintendent, in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder) also made some extreme\nstatements. Later on, however, he cooperated in preparing and revising\nthe _Formula of Concord_. Musculus wrote of Luther: \"There is as great a\ndifference between the dear old teachers and Luther as there is between\nthe light of the sun and that of the moon; and beyond all doubt, the\nancient fathers, even the best and foremost among them, as Hilary and\nAugustine, had they lived contemporaneously with him, would not have\nhesitated to deliver the lamp to him, as the saying is.\" (Meusel,\n_Handl_. 4, 709; Richard, 450.)\n\nThe most prominent opponents of these Antinomians were the well-known\ntheologians Moerlin, Flacius, Wigand, and Westphal (chiefly in letters\nto Poach). The controversy was carried on with moderation, and without\nany special efforts to cause trouble among the people. The main issue\nwas not--as in the conflict with Agricola--whether the Law is necessary\nin order to effect contrition and prepare men for the Gospel, but the\nso-called Third Use of the Law (_tertius usus legis_), _i.e._, whether\nthe Law is, and is intended to be, of service to Christians after their\nregeneration; in particular, whether the regenerate still need the Law\nwith respect to their new obedience.\n\nThe conflict with Poach arose from the Majoristic controversy. Dealing\nin particular with the aberrations of Menius, the Synod at Eisenach,\n1556, adopted seven theses which Menius was required to subscribe. The\nfirst declared: \"Although the proposition, Good works are necessary to\nsalvation, may be tolerated hypothetically and in an abstract way in the\ndoctrine of the Law (_in doctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari\npotest_), nevertheless there are many weighty reasons why it ought and\nshould be avoided no less than this one: Christ is a creature.\" (Preger\n1, 383.) While Flacius, Wigand, and Moerlin defended the thesis, Amsdorf\n(who first, too, adopted it, but later on withdrew his assent; Seeberg\n4, 488), Aurifaber, and especially Poach rejected it. This marked the\nbeginning of the so-called Second Antinomistic Controversy. Poach denied\nthat the Law has any promise of salvation. Even the most perfect\nfulfilment of the Law, said he, is but the fulfilment of a duty which\nmerits no reward. The only thing one may acquire by a perfect fulfilment\nis freedom from guilt and punishment. Fulfilment of our duty (_solutio\ndebiti_) does not warrant any claim on salvation. Yet Poach was careful\nto declare that this did not apply to the fulfilment of the Law which\nChrist rendered for us. Why? Poach answered: Because Christ, being the\nSon of God, was not obliged to fulfil the Law. When, therefore, He did\nfulfil it in our stead, He rendered satisfaction to divine justice, so\nthat righteousness can now be imputed to us and we become partakers of\neternal life.\n\nPoach wrote: \"It would not be correct to say: In the doctrine of the Law\nall the works commanded in the Law are necessary to salvation. _In\ndoctrina legis omnia opera mandata in lege sunt necessaria ad salutem_.\"\n(Schluesselburg 4, 343.) Again: \"The works of Christ, which are the\nfulfilment of the Law, are the merit of our salvation. Our works, which\nought to have been the fulfilment of the Law, do not merit salvation,\neven though they were most perfect, as the Law requires,--which,\nhowever, is impossible. The reason is that we are debtors to the Law.\nChrist, however, is not a debtor to the Law. Even if we most perfectly\nfulfilled all the commandments of God and completely satisfied the\nrighteousness of God, we would not be worthy of grace and salvation on\nthat account, nor would God be obliged to give us grace and salvation as\na debt. He justly demands the fulfilment of His Law from us as obedience\ndue Him from His creature, which is bound to obey its Creator. _Etiamsi\nnos omnia mandata Dei perfectissime impleremus et iustitiae Dei penitus\nsatisfaceremus, tamen non ideo digni essemus gratia et salute, nec Deus\nobligatus esset, ut nobis gratiam et salutem daret ex debito. Sed iure\nrequirit impletionem legis suae a nobis, ut debitam obedientiam a sua\ncreatura, quae conditori suo obedire tenetur_.\" (274.) Again: \"The Law\nhas not the necessity of salvation, but the necessity of obligation\n(_non habet lex necessitatem salutis, sed necessitatem debiti_). For, as\nsaid, even though a man would most perfectly do the works of the Law, he\nwould not obtain salvation on account of these works. Nor is God under\nobligation to man, but man is under obligation to God. And in the Law\nGod requires of man the obedience he owes; He does not require an\nobedience with the promise of salvation.\" (276.)\n\nAs to Otto, he distinguished, in a series of Latin theses a double\noffice of the Law, the ecclesiastical; and political--_officium\necclesiasticum_ and _officium politicum_. The former is to give\nknowledge of sin; the latter, to coerce the old man and maintain order\namong the obstinate. He denied that the Law in any way serves Christians\nwith respect to good works. Otto declared: \"The Law is useful and\nnecessary neither for justification nor for any good works. But faith in\nChrist the Mediator alone is useful and necessary both for justification\nand the good works themselves. _Lex enim non modo ad iustificationem sed\nneque ad ulla bona opera utilis et necessaria est. Sed sola fides in\nChristum mediatorem utilis et necessaria est tam ad iustificationem quam\nad ipsa bona opera_.\" Quoting Luther, he said: \"The highest art of\nChristians is to know nothing of the Law, to ignore works. _Summa ars\nChristianorum est nescire legem, ignorare opera_,\" _i.e._, in the\narticle of justification, as Otto did not fail to add by way of\nexplanation. (Luther, Weimar 40, 1, 43; Tschackert, 485.) Seeberg\nremarks that in reality, Poach and Otto were merely opposed to such an\ninterpretation of the Third Use of the Law as made the Law a motive of\ngood works, and hence could not be charged with antinomianism proper.\n(4, 488f.)\n\nPlanck, Frank, and other historians have fathered upon Otto also a\nseries of radical German theses, which, however, were composed, not by\nOtto, but probably by some of his adherents. These theses, in which all\nof the errors of Agricola are revamped, were discussed at the Altenburg\ncolloquy, 1568 to 1569; their author, however, was not mentioned. We\nsubmit the following: \"1. The Law does not teach good works, nor should\nit be preached in order that we may do good works. 3. Moses knew nothing\nof our faith and religion. 5. Evangelical preachers are to preach the\nGospel only, and no Law. 7. A Christian who believes should do\nabsolutely nothing, neither what is good nor what is evil. 10. We should\npray God that we may remain steadfast in faith till our end, without all\nworks. 14. The Holy Spirit does not work according to the norm or rule\nof the Law, but by Himself, without the assistance of the Law. 16. A\nbelieving Christian is _supra omnem obedientiam_, above all Law and all\nobedience. 17. The rebuking sermons of the prophets do not at all\npertain to Christians. 21. The Law, good works, and new obedience have\nno place in the kingdom of Christ, but in the world just as Moses and\nthe government of the Pope. 25. The Law has no place in the Church or in\nthe pulpit, but in the court-house (_Rathaus_). 28. The Third Use of the\nLaw is a blasphemy in theology and a monstrosity in the realm of nature\n(_portentum in rerum natura_). 29. No man can be saved if the Third Use\nof the Law is true and is to be taught in the Church. The Holy Spirit in\nman knows nothing of the Law; the flesh, however, is betimes in need of\nthe Law.\" (Tschackert, 485; Planck 5, 1, 62.) Frank also quotes: \"The\nChristians or the regenerate are deified (_vergoettert_); yea, they are\nthemselves God and cannot sin. God has not given you His Word that you\nshould be saved thereby (_dass du dadurch sollst selig werden_); and\nwhoever seeks no more from God than salvation (_Seligkeit_) seeks just\nas much as a louse in a scab. Such Christians are the devil's own,\ntogether with all their good works.\" (2, 326. 275.)\n\nAlso Musculus is numbered among the theologians who were not always\nsufficiently discreet and guarded in their statements concerning the\nnecessity of good works and the use of the Law. All expressions of the\nApostle Paul regarding the spiritual use of the Law, said Musculus, must\nbe understood as referring to such only as are to be justified, not to\nthose who are justified (_de iustificandis, non de iustificatis_). But\nhe added: \"For these, in as far as they remain in Christ, are far\noutside of and above every law. _Hi enim, quatenus in Christo manent,\nlonge extra et supra omnem legem sunt_.\" (Tschackert. 486.)\n\nMichael Neander of Ilfeld, a friend of Otto was also suspected of\nantinomianism. He denied that there is any relation whatever between the\nLaw and a regenerate Christian. But he, too, was careful enough to add:\n\"in as far as he is just or lives by the spirit, _quatenus est iustus\nseu spiritu vivit_.\" In a letter, Neander said: \"I adhere to the opinion\nthat the Law is not given to the just in any use or office whatsoever,\nin so far as he is just or lives by the spirit.... 'For the Law,' as\nLuther says in his marginal note to Jeremiah, chap. 31, 'is no longer\nover us, but under us, and does not surround us any more.' Love rules\nand governs all laws, and frequently something is true according to the\nLaw, but false according to love (_saepeque aliquid lege verum,\ndilectione tamen falsum est_). For love is the statute, measure, norm,\nand rule of all things on earth.... The Law only accuses and damns, and\napart from this it has no other use or office, _i.e._, the Law remains\nthe norm of good works to all eternity, also in hell after the Last Day,\nbut for the unjust and reprobate, and for the flesh in every man. To the\njust, regenerated, and new man, however, it is not the norm of good\nworks, _i.e._, the Law does not govern, regulate, and teach the just\nman; _i.e._, it is not active with respect to him as it is with respect\nto an unjust man, but is rather regulated and governed and taught by the\njust man. It no longer drives the just (as it did before conversion and\nas it still drives the flesh), but is now driven and suffers, since as\njust men we are no longer under the Law, but above the Law and lords of\nthe Law. How, therefore, can the Law be a norm to the just man when he\nis the lord of the Law, commands the Law, and frequently does what is\ncontrary to the Law (_cum iustus legis sit dominus, legi imperet et\nsaepe legi contraria faciat_)?... When the just man meditates in the Law\nof the Lord day and night, when he establishes the Law by faith, when he\nloves the Law and admires the inexhaustible wisdom of the divine Law,\nwhen he does good works written and prescribed in the Law (as indeed he\nalone can), when he uses the Law aright,--all these are neither the\nthird, nor the fourth, nor the twelfth, nor the fiftieth use or office\nof the Law,... but fruits of faith, of the Spirit, or regeneration....\nBut the Old Man, who is not yet new, or a part of him which is not as\nyet regenerated, has need of this Law, and he is to be commanded: 'Put\non the new man; put off the old.'\" (Schluesselburg 4, 61; Tschackert,\n484.)\n\n195. Melanchthon and the Philippists.\n\nA further controversy concerning the proper distinction between the Law\nand the Gospel was caused by the Philippists in Wittenberg whose\nteaching was somewhat akin to that of Agricola. They held that the\nGospel, in the narrow sense of the term, and as distinguished from the\nLaw, is \"the most powerful preaching of repentance.\" (Frank 2, 327.)\nTaking his cue from Luther, Melanchthon, in his _Loci_ of 1521 as well\nas in later writings, clearly distinguished between Law and Gospel. (_C.\nR._ 21, 139; 23, 49; 12, 576.) True, he had taught, also in the\n_Apology_, that, in the wider sense, the Gospel is both a preaching of\nrepentance and forgiveness of sin. But this, as the _Formula of Concord_\nexplains, was perfectly correct and in keeping with the Scriptures.\nHowever, in repeating the statement that the Gospel embraces both the\npreaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins, Melanchthon was not\nalways sufficiently careful to preclude misapprehension and\nmisunderstanding. Indeed, some of the statements he made after Luther's\ndeath are misleading, and did not escape the challenge of loyal\nLutherans.\n\nDuring a disputation in 1548, at which Melanchthon presided, Flacius\ncriticized the unqualified assertion that the Gospel was a preaching of\nrepentance, but was satisfied when Melanchthon explained that the term\nGospel was here used in the wider sense, as comprising the entire\ndoctrine of Christ. However, when Melanchthon, during another\ndisputation, 1556, declared: The ministry of the Gospel \"rebukes the\nother sins which the Law shows, as well as the saddest of sins which is\nrevealed by the Gospel (_hoc tristissimum peccatum, quod in Evangelio\nostenditur_), _viz._, that the world ignores and despises the Son of\nGod.\" Flacius considered it his plain duty to register a public protest.\nIt was a teaching which was, at least in part, the same error that\nLuther, and formerly also Melanchthon himself, had denounced when\nespoused by Agricola, _viz._, that genuine contrition is wrought, not by\nthe Law, but by the Gospel; by the preaching, not of the violation of\nthe Law, but of the violation of the Son. (_C. R._ 12, 634. 640.)\n\nThese misleading statements of Melanchthon were religiously cultivated\nand zealously defended by the Wittenberg Philippists. With a good deal\nof animosity they emphasized that the Gospel in its most proper sense is\nalso a preaching of repentance (_praedicatio poenitentiae,\nBusspredigt_), inasmuch as it revealed the baseness of sin and the\ngreatness of its offense against God, and, in particular, inasmuch as\nthe Gospel alone uncovered, rebuked, and condemned the hidden sin\n(_arcanum peccatum_) and the chief sin of all, the sin of unbelief\n(_incredulitas et neglectio Filii_), which alone condemns a man. These\nviews, which evidently involved a commingling of the Law and the Gospel,\nwere set forth by Paul Crell in his Disputation against John Wigand,\n1571, and were defended in the _Propositions Concerning the Chief\nControversies of These Times_ (also of 1571), by Pezel and other\nWittenberg theologians. (Frank 2, 277. 323.)\n\nAs a consequence, the Philippists, too, were charged with antinomianism,\nand were strenuously opposed by such theologians as Flacius, Amsdorf,\nand Wigand. Wigand attacked the Wittenberg _Propositions_ in his book of\n1571, _Concerning Antinomianism, Old and New_. Pezel answered in his\n_Apology of the True Doctrine on the Definition of the Gospel_, 1571;\nand Paul Crell, in _Spongia, or 150 Propositions Concerning the\nDefinition of the Gospel, Opposed to the Stupid Accusation of John\nWigand_, 1571. The teaching of the Philippists was formulated by Paul\nCrell as follows: \"Since this greatest and chief sin [unbelief] is\nrevealed, rebuked, and condemned by the Gospel alone, therefore also the\nGospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, a\npreaching and a voice of repentance or conversion in its true and proper\nsense. _A solo evangelio, cum peccatum hoc summum et praecipuum\nmonstretur, arguatur et damnetur expresse ac nominatim solum etiam\nevangelium vere ac proprie praedicatio ac vox est poenitentiae sive\nconversionis vere et proprie ita dictae_.\" (277. 327.)\n\nThis doctrine of the Philippists, according to which the Gospel in the\nnarrow and proper sense, and as distinguished from the Law, is a\npreaching of repentance, was rejected by Article V of the _Formula of\nConcord_ as follows: \"But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses\nhimself as a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel,\nare contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the\nGospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing\nelse than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does\nnot reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of\nthe Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again\nby the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through\nChrist's merit.\" (803, 7.)\n\n\nXVIII. The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy.\n\n196. Contents and Purpose of Articles VII and VIII.\n\nIn all of its articles the _Formula of Concord_ is but a reafflrmation\nof the doctrines taught and defended by Luther. The fire of prolonged\nand hot controversies through which these doctrines passed after his\ndeath had but strengthened the Lutherans in their conviction that in\nevery point Luther's teaching was indeed nothing but the pure Word of\nGod itself. It had increased the consciousness that, in believing and\nteaching as they did, they were not following mere human authorities,\nsuch as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, but the Holy Scriptures, by\nwhich alone their consciences were bound. Articles VII and VIII of the\n_Formula of Concord_, too, reassert Luther's doctrines on the Lord's\nSupper and the person of Christ as being in every particular the clear\nand unmistakable teaching of the divine Word,--two doctrines, by the\nway, which perhaps more than any other serve as the acid test whether\nthe fundamental attitude of a church or a theologian is truly Scriptural\nand fully free from every rationalistic and enthusiastic infection.\n\nThe Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of the\ntrue body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, and\nunder the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating and\ndrinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing\ncommunicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood of\nChrist, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neither\na local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal and\ntranscendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of\nthe blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is\nnot Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real\npresence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent\npower of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the\nSacrament.\n\nThe Eighth Article treats of the person of Christ, of the personal union\nof His two natures, of the communication of these natures as well as of\ntheir attributes, and, in particular, of the impartation of the truly\ndivine majesty to His human nature and the terminology resulting\ntherefrom. One particular object of Article VIII is also to show that\nthe doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the\nHoly Supper, as taught by the Lutheran Church, does not, as was\ncontended by her Zwinglian and Calvinistic adversaries, conflict in any\nway with what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ, His\nhuman nature, His ascension, and His sitting at the right hand of God\nthe Father Almighty. The so-called Appendix, or Catalogus, a collection\nof passages from the Bible and from the fathers of the ancient Church,\nprepared by Andreae and Chemnitz was added to the _Formula of Concord_\n(though not as an authoritative part of it) in further support of the\nLutheran doctrine particularly concerning the divine majesty of the\nhuman nature of Christ.\n\nBoth articles, the seventh as well as the eighth, were incorporated in\nthe _Formula of Concord_ in order thoroughly to purify the Lutheran\nChurch from Reformed errors concerning the Lord's Supper and the person\nof Christ, which after Luther's death had wormed their way into some of\nher schools and churches, especially those of Electoral Saxony, and to\nmake her forever immune against the infection of Calvinism\n(Crypto-Calvinism)--a term which, during the controversies preceding the\n_Formula of Concord_ did not, as is generally the case to-day, refer to\nCalvin's absolute decree of election and reprobation, but to his\ndoctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as formulated by himself in the\n_Consensus Tigurinus_ (Zurich Consensus), issued 1549. The subtitle of\nthis confession reads: \"Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria Ministrorum\nTigurinae Ecclesiae, et D. Iohannis Calvini Ministri Genevensis\nEcclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita.\" In this confession,\ntherefore, Calvin declares his agreement with the teaching of Zwingli as\nrepresented by his followers in Zurich, notably Bullinger. Strenuous\nefforts were made by the Calvinists and Reformed everywhere to make the\n_Consensus Tigurinus_ the basis of a pan-Protestant union, and at the\nsame time the banner under which to conquer all Protestant countries,\nLutheran Germany included, for what must be regarded as being\nessentially Zwinglianism. The _Consensus_ was adopted in Switzerland,\nEngland, France, and Holland. In Lutheran territories, too, its teaching\nwas rapidly gaining friends, notably in Southern Germany, where Bucer\nhad prepared the way for it, and in Electoral Saxony where the\nPhilippists offered no resistance. Garnished as it was with glittering\nand seemingly orthodox phrases, the _Consensus Tigurinus_ lent itself\nadmirably for such Reformed propaganda. \"The consequence was,\" says the\n_Formula of Concord_, \"that many great men were deceived by these fine,\nplausible words--_splendidis et magnificis verbis_.\" (973, 6.) To\ncounteract this deception, to establish Luther's doctrine of the real\npresence of the body and blood of Christ, and to defend it against the\nsophistries of the Sacramentarians: Zwinglians, Calvinists, and\nCrypto-Calvinists--such was the object of Articles VII and VIII of the\n_Formula of Concord_.\n\n197. John Calvin.\n\nCalvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France. He began his studies in\nParis, 1523 preparing for theology. In 1529 his father induced him to\ntake up law in Orleans and Bourges. In 1531 he returned to his\ntheological studies in Paris. Here he experienced what he himself\ndescribes as a \"sudden conversion.\" He joined the Reformed congregation,\nand before long was its acknowledged leader. In 1533 he was compelled to\nleave France because of his anti-Roman testimony. In Basel, 1535, he\nwrote the first draft of his _Institutio Religionis Christianae_. In\nGeneva where he was constrained to remain by William Farel [born 1489;\nactive as a fiery Protestant preacher in Meaux, Strassburg, Zurich,\nBern, Basel, Moempelgard, Geneva, Metz, etc.; died 1565], Calvin\ndeveloped and endeavored to put into practise his legalistic ideal of a\ntheocratic and rigorous puritanical government. As a result he was\nbanished, 1538. He removed to Strassburg, where he was held and engaged\nby Bucer. He attended the conventions in Frankfort, 1539; Hagenau, 1540;\nWorms, 1540; and Regensburg, 1541. Here he got acquainted with the\nLutherans notably Melanchthon. September 13, 1541, he returned to\nGeneva, where, woefully mixing State and Church, he continued his\nreformatory and puritanical efforts. One of the victims of his\ntheocratic government was the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus, who,\nat the instance of Calvin, was burned at the stake, October 27, 1553.\nIn 1559 Calvin established the Geneva School, which exercised a\nfar-reaching theological influence. He died May 27, 1564.\n\nCalvin repeatedly expressed his unbounded admiration for Luther as a\n\"preeminent servant of Christ--_praeclarus Christi servus_.\" (_C. R._\n37, 54.) In his _Answer_ of 1543 against the Romanist Pighius he said:\n\"Concerning Luther we testify without dissimulation now as heretofore\nthat we esteem him as a distinguished apostle of Christ, by whose labor\nand service, above all, the purity of the Gospel has been restored at\nthis time. _De Luthero nunc quoque sicut hactenus non dissimulanter\ntestamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maxime\nopera et ministerio restituta hoc tempore fuerit Evangelii puritas_.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 169.) Even after Luther had published his _Brief\nConfession_, in which he unsparingly denounces the Sacramentarians\n(deniers of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's\nSupper), and severs all connection with them, Calvin admonished\nBullinger in a letter dated November 25, 1544, to bear in mind what a\ngreat and wonderfully gifted man Luther was, and with what fortitude,\nability, and powerful teaching he had shattered the kingdom of\nAntichrist and propagated the salutary doctrine. \"I am frequently\naccustomed to say,\" he declared, \"that, even if he should call me a\ndevil I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent\nservant of God.\" In the original the remarkable words of Calvin read as\nfollows: \"_Sed haec cupio vobis in mentem venire, primum quantus sit vir\nLutherus, et quantis dotibus excellat, quanta animi fortitudine et\nconstantia quanta dexteritate, quanta doctrinae efficacia hactenus ad\nprofligandum Antichristi regnum et simul propagandam salutis doctrinam\nincubuerit. Saepe dicere solitus sum, etiamsi me diabolum vocaret, me\ntamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam, qui\ntamen, ut pollet eximiis virtutibus, ita magnis vitiis laboret_.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 169; _C. R._ 39 [_Calvini Opp._ 11], 774.)\n\nHowever, though he admired the personality of Luther, Calvin, like\nZwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg 1529, revealed a theological spirit\nwhich was altogether different from Luther's. In particular, he was\nviolently opposed to Luther's doctrines of the real presence in the\nLord's Supper and of the majesty of the human nature of Christ.\nRevealing his animus, Calvin branded the staunch and earnest defenders\nof these doctrines as the \"apes\" of Luther. In his _Second Defense_\nagainst Westphal, 1556, he exclaimed: \"O Luther, how few imitators of\nyour excellences, but how many apes of your pious ostentation have you\nleft behind! _O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quam\nmultas vero sanctae tuae iactantiae simias reliquisti!_\" (Gieseler 3, 2,\n209.)\n\nTrue, when in Strassburg, Calvin signed the _Augsburg Confession_ (1539\nor 1540), and was generally considered a Lutheran. However, in his _Last\nAdmonition_ to Westphal, of 1557 and in a letter of the same year to\nMartin Schalling, Calvin wrote: \"Nor do I repudiate the _Augsburg\nConfession_, to which I have previously subscribed, _in the sense in\nwhich the author himself_ [Melanchthon in the _Variata_ of 1540] _has\ninterpreted it. Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem\nvolens ac libens subscripsi, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est._\"\n(_C. R._ 37, 148.) According to his own confession, therefore, Calvin's\nsubscription to the _Augustana_, at least as far as the article of the\nLord's Supper is concerned, was insincere and nugatory. In fact Calvin\nmust be regarded as the real originator of the second controversy on\nthe Lord's Supper between the Lutherans and the Reformed, even as the\nfirst conflict on this question was begun, not by Luther, but by his\nopponents, Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. For the adoption of\nthe _Consensus Tigurinus_ in 1549, referred to above, cannot but be\nviewed as an overt act by which the Wittenberg Concord, signed 1536 by\nrepresentative Lutheran and Reformed theologians, was publicly\nrepudiated and abandoned by Calvin and his adherents, and whereby an\nanti-Lutheran propaganda on an essentially Zwinglian basis was\ninaugurated. Calvin confirmed the schism between the Lutherans and the\nReformed which Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius had originated.\n\n198. Calvin's Zwinglianism.\n\nThe doctrine of Calvin and his adherents concerning the Lord's Supper is\nfrequently characterized as a materially modified Zwinglianism. Schaff\nmaintains that \"Calvin's theory took a middle course, retaining, on the\nbasis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith,\nand giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in\nSwitzerland, gained much favor in Germany and opened a fair prospect for\nunion.\" (_Creeds_ 1, 280.) As a matter of fact, however, a fact admitted\nalso by such Calvinists as Hodge and Shedd, Calvin's doctrine was a\ndenial _in toto_ of the real presence as taught by Luther. (Pieper,\n_Dogm._ 3, 354.) Calvin held that after His ascension Christ, according\nto His human nature, was locally enclosed in heaven, far away from the\nearth. Hence he denied also the real presence of Christ's body and blood\nin the Holy Supper. In fact, Calvin's doctrine was nothing but a\npolished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrases\napproaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible. Even where\nhe paraded as Luther, Calvin was but Zwingli disguised (and poorly at\nthat) in a seemingly orthodox garb and promenading with several\nimitation Lutheran feathers in his hat.\n\nIn the _Formula of Concord_ we read: \"Although some Sacramentarians\nstrive to employ words that come as close as possible to the _Augsburg\nConfession_ and the form and mode of speech in its churches, and confess\nthat in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by\nbelievers, still, when we insist that they state their meaning properly,\nsincerely, and clearly, they all declare themselves unanimously thus:\nthat the true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from the\nconsecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest\nheaven is from the earth.... Therefore they understand this presence of\nthe body of Christ not as a presence here upon earth, but only _respectu\nfidei_ (with respect to faith), that is, that our faith, reminded and\nexcited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates\nitself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body\nof Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself,\ntogether with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but\nnevertheless spiritual only;... consequently nothing else is received by\nthe mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine.\" (971, 2f.) This is,\nand was intended to be, a presentation of Calvinism as being nothing but\nZwinglianism clothed in seemingly orthodox phrases.\n\nThat this picture drawn by the _Formula of Concord_ is not a caricature\nor in any point a misrepresentation of Calvinism appears from the\n_Consensus Tigurinus_ itself, where we read: \"In as far as Christ is a\nman, He is to be sought nowhere else than in heaven and in no other\nmanner than with the mind and the understanding of faith. Therefore it\nis a perverse and impious superstition to include Him under elements of\nthis world. _Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo nec\naliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perversa\net impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis huius mundi includere._\"\nAgain: \"We repudiate those [who urge the literal interpretation of the\nwords of institution] as preposterous interpreters.\" \"For beyond\ncontroversy, they are to be taken figuratively,... as when by metonymy\nthe name of the symbolized thing is transferred to the sign--_ut per\nmetonymiam ad signum transferatur rei figuratae nomen._\" Again: \"Nor do\nwe regard it as less absurd to place Christ under, and to unite Him\nwith, the bread than to change the bread into His body. _Neque enim\nminus absurdum iudicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum pane\ncopulare, quam panem transubstantiare in corpus eius._\" Again: \"When we\nsay that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this mode of speech expresses\na distance of place,... because the body of Christ,... being finite and\ncontained in heaven, as in a place, must of necessity be removed from us\nby as great a distance as the heaven is removed from the earth--_necesse\nest, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest a\nterra._\" (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 196.) Such was the\nteaching cunningly advocated by Calvin and his adherents the\nCrypto-Calvinists in Germany included but boldly and firmly opposed by\nthe loyal Lutherans, and finally disposed of by Articles VII and VIII of\nthe _Formula of Concord_.\n\n199. Melanchthon's Public Attitude.\n\nAs stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received with\nincreasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in Southern\nGermany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymen\nwho secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. They\nwere called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because,\nwhile they subscribed to the _Augsburg Confession_, claimed to be loyal\nLutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church,\nthey in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoring\nto suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them the\nviews of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly that\nMelanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what the\nlatter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubt\nthat Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. In\nfact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regarded\nas the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists.\n\nTrue, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord's\nSupper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the\nZwinglians and their \"profane\" teaching in an _Opinion_ on Carlstadt's\ndoctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God and\nman, _i.e._, with His body and blood is present in the Supper. (_C. R._\n1, 760.) In September of the following year he wrote to Philip Eberbach:\n\"Know that Luther's teaching [concerning the Lord's Supper] is very old\nin the Church. _Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesia\nesse_.\" (823.) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also to\nEberbach. In an _Opinion_ of May 15 1529: \"I am satisfied that I shall\nnot agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingli\nand his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament.\" (1067.) June\n20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: \"I would rather die than see our people\nbecome contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. _Nam mori\nmalim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare_. My dear\nJerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed to\ndeath on account of this matter.\" (_C. R._ 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2,\n1529, to John Fesel: \"I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the\nZwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these\nprofane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can\nbe upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the\nancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther\ndoes.\" (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: \"The testimonies of\nancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are\nnow being printed.\" (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored\nto show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian,\nIrenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of\ninstitution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.)\nAccording to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine\nin the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2,\n142. 212.)\n\nAt Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer\nclaimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _Opinion\nConcerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August,\n1530, we read: \"1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can\nbe present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot\nbe anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is\ncontrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local;\nalso, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be in\ndifferent places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that\nthe body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so\nthat it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth\nand reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with\nthe bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that\nthey [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is\nnot necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that\nit can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some\nother secret way by which different places are as one point present at\nthe same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and\nreal presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes\nto accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare\nto say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without\ngeometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word\n'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the Holy\nSpirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but of\nthe body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that the\nbody of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with the\nbread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body of\nChrist is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, _i.e._, by\nimagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men by\nsaying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'by\ncontemplation of faith,' _i.e._, by imagination. 14. We teach that\nChrist's body is truly and really present with the bread or in the\nbread. 15. Although we say that the body of Christ is really present,\nLuther does not say that it is present locally, namely, in some mass, by\ncircumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or the\nentire Christ is present to all creatures.... We deny\ntransubstantiation, and that the body is locally in the bread,\" etc. (2,\n222. 311. 315.)\n\nSuch were the views of Melanchthon in and before 1530. And publicly and\nformally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an _Opinion_\nwritten 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: \"If\nChrist were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with us\nessentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, He\ngives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always.\nThis sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting.... Therefore\nI conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread and\nwine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here we\nmust cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, _viz._, how Christ\nascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else.\"\n(2. 801.) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, which\nplainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also by\nunworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff.) In 1537 he subscribed to the\n_Smalcald Articles_, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of the\nreal presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that \"bread and wine\nin the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and\nreceived not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.\" (CONC.\nTRIGL. 493, 1.) In his letter to Flacius of September 5, 1556,\nMelanchthon solemnly declared: \"I have never changed the doctrine of the\nConfession.\" (_C. R._ 8, 841.) September 6, 1557, he wrote: \"We all\nembrace and retain the Confession together with the _Apology_ and the\nconfession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua.\" (9, 260.)\nAgain, in November of the same year: \"Regarding the Lord's Supper, we\nretain the _Augsburg Confession_ and _Apology_.\" (9, 371.) In an\n_Opinion_ of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper\nthe Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner that\nwhen we use it, [\"]He gives us with the bread and wine His body,\" etc.,\nand that Zwingli was wrong when he declared \"that it is a mere outward\nsign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is a\nmere sign by which Christians know each other.\" (9, 472f.) Several\nmonths before his death, in his preface to the _Corpus Philippicum_,\nMelanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper \"Christ is truly and\nsubstantially present and truly administered to those who take the body\nand blood of Christ,\" and that in it \"He gives His body and blood to him\nwho eats and drinks.\" (Richard. 389.)\n\n200. Melanchthon's Private Views.\n\nWhile Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the manner\nindicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he had\ninwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of a\nstranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to the\ndoctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for the\nauthority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Luther\nput it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clear\nwords of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became a\nwavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging toward\nLuther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error,\nhe was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, and\nthe immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May\n24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted and\ndoubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: \"Know that for ten years\nneither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on this\nmatter,\" the Lord's Supper. (_C. R._ 3, 537.) And his doubts led to a\ndeparture from his own former position,--a fact for which also\nsufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. \"Already in 1531,\" says\nSeeberg, \"Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough to\nthe effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of the\ndivinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body and\nthe bread. _Ep._, p.85.\" (_Dogg._ 4, 2, 447.)\n\nThat Melanchthon's later public statements and protestations concerning\nhis faithful adherence to the doctrine of the _Augsburg Confession_ must\nbe more or less discounted, appears, apart from other considerations,\nfrom his own admission that he was wont to dissimulate in these and\nother matters; from his private letters, in which he favorably refers to\nthe symbolical interpretation of the words of institution; from his\ncommunication to Philip of Hesse with regard to Luther's article on the\nLord's Supper at Smalcald, referred to in a previous chapter; from the\nchanges which he made 1540 in Article X of the _Augsburg Confession_;\nfrom his later indefinite statements concerning the real presence in the\nHoly Supper; from his intimate relations and his cordial correspondence\nwith Calvin; from his public indifference and neutrality during the\neucharistic controversy with the Calvinists; and from his unfriendly\nattitude toward the champions of Luther in this conflict.\n\n201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer.\n\nThat Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities\nrather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that\nOecolampadius's _Dialogus_ of 1530--which endeavored to show that the\nsymbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in\nthe writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine,\nand which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 217), says, was\nwritten \"with greater exactness (_accuratius_) than he is otherwise wont\nto write\"--made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is\nshown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer,\nhe looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a\nresult, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the\nZwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the\nconference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong\nterms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating\nand drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is\ntruly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's _Opinion_ in this\nmatter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows \"Und ist Summa das\nunsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi\ngegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib\nChristi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den\nZaehnen zerbissen werde.\" (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when\nwriting thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his\nobject merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the\nsacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return\nfrom Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at\nCassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign\nopinion. (_C. R._ 2, 822)\n\nAs a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the\ncompromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood\nare truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not\nreally connected with the bread and wine, the signs or _signa\nexhibitiva_, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther\nand Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: \"The only remaining\nquestion therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread\nand body,--and of what need is this question? _Tantum igitur reliqua est\nquaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid\nopus est?_\" (_C. R._ 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he\nhad written: \"He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and\nwine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I\nwould not demand anything further.\" (_C. R._ 2, 787.) In February he\nwrote to Brenz: \"I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far\nfrom the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us\n(_reipsa convenire_); nor do I condemn them.\" (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065.)\nThis, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthon\nsaid: \"Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of\nBucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet.\n_Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare_.\" (_C.\nR._ 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062.) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip of\nHesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one\nhand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the\nother, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (_C. R._ 2, 836.\n841.)\n\n202. Secret Letters and the Variata of 1540.\n\nIn the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in the\npreceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the\nHoly Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. \"Do not ask for my opinion\nnow,\" says he, \"for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me,\nalthough, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard\nwhat our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally\nor when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam noli\nnunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo,\nquid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota\naut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_.\" (2, 822.) Two days\nlater, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in\nGreek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he\nregarded as dangerous, as, _e.g._, in his defamatory letter to\nCamerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R._ 1, 754), in\nwhich he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own\ntrue inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon\nwas no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of\nthe words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire\ndoctrine concerning the Holy Supper.\n\nThe letter reads, in part, as follows: \"You have written several times\nconcerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even\nthough they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if\nthere are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other\narticles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who\nare to be execrated.... Concerning the Concord, however, no action\nwhatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions\nhere [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally\nconcerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and\nreadily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real\npresence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or\ndefender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many\ntestimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the\nmystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while the\nopposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will\nhave to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do\nwish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without\nsophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on\naccount of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any\ngood reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth,\nthis matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that you\ndo not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church.\nI most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any\nsophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this\ngreat matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established\nwithout sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly\nabandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that\namong them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being\nmoved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you\nthink, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together?\nAs for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together on\nthis matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles\nthey as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (_dexterius_)\nsince they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However,\nI conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and,\nafter reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody.\"\n(_C. R._ 2, 823f.; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060.)\n\nIn a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthon\ndeclares: \"In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have\nmaintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these\nthings are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is\ncertainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which\nthe body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread.\nSacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present\nwhen the things are received. _Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem\ntalem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut\nmisceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud_....\nWhat more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you\ndefend what some even now are saying, _viz._, that the body and blood\nare tendered separately--_separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem_. This\ntoo, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, as\nthe saying goes. That physical connection (_illa physica coniunctio_)\nbreeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included;\nwhen [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apart\nfrom the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my\ndear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the _Loci_ I\nhave spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away\nfrom these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think.\nBut I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry,\nwould be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerning\nthe entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I\nshall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I\nam speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and\napproach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients.\" (_C.\nR._ 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: \"I have\nsimply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the\nwords. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and\nefficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to\nadd a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something\naltogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church.\" (3, 536;\n7, 882.)\n\nEvidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his\nviews concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes\nsince 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed\nsentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate\nunion, to subscribe the _Augsburg Confession_, Melanchthon, in 1540,\naltered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter.\nSchaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper \"was in various ways\nofficially recognized in the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1540.\" (1, 280.)\nSuch at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the\nalteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential\nconcession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but\nhe did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation--no doubt,\nbecause it certainly was not very far from the truth.\n\n203. Not in Sympathy with Lutheran Champions.\n\nWhen Westphal, in 1552, pointed out the Calvinistic menace and sounded\nthe tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy to\ndefend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divine\nmajesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failed\nthe Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For although\nLutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence,\nMaster Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in the\nlight of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construe\nthis attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and wherever\nMelanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during this\ncontroversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparent\nthat his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with the\nchampions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings and\nthrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramental\nunion and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvin\nand his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and their\ncause.\n\nMelanchthon's animosity ran high not only against such extremists as\nSaliger (Beatus) and Fredeland (both were deposed in Luebeck 1568 and\nSaliger again in Rostock 1569) who taught that in virtue of the\nconsecration before the use (_ante usum_) bread and wine are the body\nand blood of Christ, denouncing all who denied this as Sacramentarians\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 257), but also against all those who faithfully adhered\nto, and defended, Luther's phraseology concerning the Lord's Supper. He\nrejected the teaching of Westphal and the Hamburg ministers, according\nto which in the Lord's Supper, the bread is properly called the body of\nChrist and the wine the blood of Christ, and stigmatized their doctrine\nas \"bread-worship, _artolatreia_.\" (_C. R._ 8, 362. 660. 791; 9, 470.\n962.)\n\nIn a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching of\nthe omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new and\nfoolish doctrine. Concerning the _Confession and Report of the\nWuerttemberg Theologians_, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, which\nemphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence of\nChrist also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarked\ncontemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and in\na letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could not\ncharacterize \"the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (_Abbates\nWirtebergenses_) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (_Hechingense\nLatinum, Hechinger Latein_),\" _i.e._, as absurd and insipid teaching.\n(9, 1035f.; 7, 780. 884.)\n\n204. Melanchthon Claimed by Calvin.\n\nIn 1554 Nicholas Gallus of Regensburg republished, with a preface of his\nown, _Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerning\nthe Lord's Supper_. The timely reappearance of this book, which\nMelanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was most\nembarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter,\ntherefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openly\nagainst his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider it\nexpedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered,\nOctober 14, 1554: \"As regards your admonition in your last letter that I\nrepress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerning\nthe bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation out\nof hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressing\nme. _Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui\nrenovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio mei\neam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me\nopprimendum_.\" (8, 362.)\n\nFully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with his\nWittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his\n_Last Admonition_ (_Ultima Admonitio_) _to Westphal_, 1557, publicly\nclaimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give public\ntestimony \"that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothing\nforeign to the _Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere a\nConfessione Augustana_.\" \"I confirm,\" Calvin here declared, \"that in\nthis cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be torn\nfrom me than from his own bowels. _Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum\nquam a propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli_.\" (_C. R._ 37\n[_Calvini Opp_. 9], 148. 149. 193. 466; Gieseler 3, 2, 219, Tschackert,\n536.) Melanchthon, however, continued to preserve his sphinxlike\nsilence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that he\nfavored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther's\ndoctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: \"If you will permit\nme to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully and\nearnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are useful\nto the Church.\" (_C. R._ 9, 374.)\n\nAfter the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his _Dilucida\nExplicatio_ against Hesshusius, 1561: \"O Philip Melanchthon! For it is\nto you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of God\nand there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you into\nblessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with labor\nand overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laid\nyour head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! But\nafterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to be\ntogether. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage in\nbattle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. In\nthis way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whose\naudacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. _O\nPhilippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis,\nnosque illic exspectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur.\nDixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput\nfamiliariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu!\nEgo vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe\nanimosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiam\nfalsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo\ncohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam\nvocabant, crevit insultandi audacia_.\" (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9],\n461f.) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claim\nby publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings under\nthe title: _Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini,\nex scriptis eius collecta_. But, alas, the voice of the later\nMelanchthon was not that of the former!\n\n205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists.\n\nIn various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with the\ndefenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinistic\nopponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposed\nHardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished the\nlatter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but to\ndissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: \"_Te autem oro, ne\nproperes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules_.\"\n(_C. R._ 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises\nHardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows:\n\"Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy,\nbut also the madness (_rabies_) of the writers who establish the\nbread-worship is growing.\" (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like\nTimann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's\nSupper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the\nblood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His\nhuman nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to\nacknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the\nReformed doctrine) as his assistant in the distribution of the Lord's\nSupper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists,\nwho soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius\ncome to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and\ndismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of\nthe Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties.\n\nIn the _Opinion_ requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559,\nMelanchthon said: \"To answer is not difficult, but dangerous....\nTherefore I approve of the measure of the illustrious Elector,\ncommanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and the\nCalvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church.... The\ncontentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest\nagree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to\nretain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion\n(_koinonia_) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of\nthe Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently.\nAnd the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that the\nnature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, as\nthose of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he\ndoes not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius\ndoes; but that it is the communion, _i.e._, that by which the union\noccurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the\nuse, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread....\nThe Son of God is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He is\ncertainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account\nof the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in\nyou,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in\nthese true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that\nHe will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper.\"\n(_C. R._ 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed\nto these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently\nremarks: \"Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the\ndisputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as\nif the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not\ndiminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They\ndid the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid\nerror might.\" (_Cons. Ref._, 291.)\n\n206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures.\n\nModern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to the\nLord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier.\nTschackert: \"Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the second\ncontroversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of the\nLutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied with\nmaintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leaving\nthe mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt.\" (532.) Seeberg, who\nmaintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther's\nteaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: \"Melanchthon merely\ndoes not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in the\nSupper, and that it is omnipresent as such.\" (4, 2, 449.) Theo. Kolde:\n\"It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X of\nthe _Augustana_ involved real changes.... In view of his gradually\nchanged conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that he\nsought to leave open for himself and others the possibility of\nassociating also with the Swiss.\" (25.) Schaff: \"Melanchthon's later\nview of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin.\" (1,\n280.)\n\nSuch, then, being the attitude of Melanchthon as to the doctrine of the\nLord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, who\nlooked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should become\ndecided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible for\nthe Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after the\ndeath of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss,\nhe was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he had\nhis way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, the\nLutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed into\na Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt was\nshared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr.,\nPaul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined toward\nMelanchthon's view and attitude also in the matter concerning the Lord's\nSupper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to Veit\nDietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ in\nthe use of the Lord's Supper, but not \"the division or separation of the\nbody and blood.\" (_C. R._ 3, 610.) Shortly before his death, as related\nin a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpable\nsilence with regard to the truth, declaring: \"If you believe as you\nspeak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in public\nlectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen your\nbrethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict the\nwilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be of\nno value whatever.\" (Walther, 40.) Refusal to confess the truth will\nultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is the\nfirst step to open denial.\n\n207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin.\n\nForemost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating the\nReformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close as\npossible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly and\nably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg\n[born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; died\nJanuary 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened the\nentire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise his\nvoice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did so\nin a publication entitled: \"_Farrago Confusanearum et inter se\nDissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and Mutually\nDissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of the\nSacramentarians,\" 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and his\nadherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the real\npresence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just as\nemphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time he\nrefuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated by\nthe title, and maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence,\nthe oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of unbelievers.\nFinally he appealed to the Lutheran theologians and magistrates\neverywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. \"The\n_Farrago_,\" says Kruske, \"signified the beginning of the end of Calvin's\ndomination in Germany.\" Schaff: \"The controversy of Westphal against\nCalvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed and\nconsolidated the separation of the two Confessions,\" Lutheran and\nReformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280.)\n\nThus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the Lutheran\nChurch from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinistic\nmovement, Westphal, in the year following, published a second book:\n\"_Correct Faith (Recta Fides) Concerning the Lord's Supper_,\ndemonstrated and confirmed from the words of the Apostle Paul and the\nEvangelists,\" 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples of\nLuther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who,\nhe declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany for\nZwinglianism.\n\nWestphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a special\nemphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in\n1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had been\ndriven from England by Bloody Mary, reached the Continent. The liberty\nwhich Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_,\nrequested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformed\ncongregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, but\nfinally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, the\nCalvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, was\nforbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity and\npropaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena against\nWestphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et Orthodoxae\nDoctrinae de Sacramentis_, \"Defense of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine\nConcerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, and\nFruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich and\nGeneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutual\nAgreement\" (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in such\nan insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e.g._, with \"a mad\ndog\") that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to assume a\npersonal and acrimonious character.\n\n208. Controversial Publications.\n\nAfter Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by such\nLutherans as John Timann, Paul v. Eitzen, Erhard Schnepf, Alber, Gallus,\nFlacius, Judex, Brenz, Andreae and others. Calvin, on the other hand,\nwas supported by Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Polanus, Beza (the\nmost scurrillous of all the opponents of Lutheranism), and Bibliander.\nIn 1555 Westphal published three additional books: _Collection\n(Collectanea) of Opinions of Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Lord's\nSupper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerning\nthe Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdam\nSacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, \"Just Defense\nagainst the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian.\" The last\npublication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives of\nCalvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were united\nonly in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's\nSupper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor in\nBremen, published in 1555: \"_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing in\nthe True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which the\nchurches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm assent and\nin one spirit according to the divine Word.\"\n\nIn the following year Calvin wrote his _Secunda Defensio ... contra J.\nWestphali Calumnias_, \"Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith,\nagainst the Calumnies of J. Westphal,\" a vitriolic book, dedicated to\nthe Crypto-Calvinists, _viz._, \"to all ministers of Christ who cultivate\nand follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony and\nLower Germany.\" In it Calvin declared: \"I teach that Christ, though\nabsent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with us\naccording to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying for\nus.\" (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79.) Lasco also wrote two books\nagainst Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort,\nand endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine of\nthe Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullinger\nappeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition,\nApologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that the\nministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma in\nthe doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper.\n\nIn the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua Breviter\nRespondet ad Convicia I. Calvini_--\"Letter in which He [Westphal]\nAnswers Briefly to the Invectives of J. Calvin,\" and \"_Answer\n(Responsum) to the Writing of John of Lasco_, in which he transforms the\n_Augsburg Confession_ into Zwinglianism.\" In the same year Westphal\npublished \"_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning the\nSacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches of\nSaxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus\nChrist in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvin\ndedicated to them.\" This publication contained opinions which Westphal\nhad secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand and\nFlacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg,\nBrunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. All\nof these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely in\nfavor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of institution as\nthey read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Nassau, Marburg,\nSpeier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg\n1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _Confession\nConcerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522;\ndied 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defense\nof the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_.\nWestphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his \"_Just Defense\nagainst the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in his\nletter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches,\" 1557. In it he\ndenounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon the\nmagistrates to institute proceedings against them.\n\nCalvin now published his _Ultima Admonitio_, \"Last Admonition of John\nCalvin to J. Westphal, who, if he does not obey (_obtemperet_) must\nthenceforth be held in the manner as Paul commands us to hold obstinate\nheretics; in this writing the vain censures of the Magdeburgians and\nothers, by which they endeavored to wreck heaven and earth, are also\nrefuted\" 1557. Here Calvin plainly reveals his Zwinglianism and says:\n\"This is the summary of our doctrine, that the flesh of Christ is a\nvivifying bread because it truly nourishes and feeds our souls when by\nfaith we coalesce with it. This, we teach, occurs spiritually only,\nbecause the bond of this sacred unity is the secret and incomprehensible\npower of the Holy Spirit.\" (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 162.) In this\nbook Calvin also, as stated above, appeals to Melanchthon to add his\ntestimony that \"we [the Calvinists] teach nothing that conflicts with\nthe _Augsburg Confession_.\"\n\nThough Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to give\npublic testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books against\nthe Calvinists. One of them bears the title: \"_Apologetical Writings\n(Apologetica Scripta) of J.W._, in which he both defends the sound\ndoctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of the\nSacramentarians,\" etc. Another is entitled: _Apology of the Confession\nConcerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies of\nJohn Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin and\nentered the controversy with his \"_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning the\nLord's Supper_, in which the calumnies of J. Westphal are refuted.\"\nLasco's _Reply to the Virulent Letter of That Furious Man J. Westphal_,\nof 1560, appeared posthumously, he having died shortly before in Poland.\n\n209. Brenz and Chemnitz.\n\nForemost among the influential theologians who besides Westphal, took a\ndecided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors in\nLutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitz\nin Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim,\nsince 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influential\ntheologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in his\nanti-Calvinistic attitude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He is\nthe author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of the\nTheologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body and\nBlood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of Duke\nChristopher by the synod assembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion for\ndrafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished by\nBartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he was\nrequired to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with Jacob\nAndreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convinced\nof his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching.\n\nThe _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakable\nterms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all who\npartake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personal\nunion, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence well\nable to fulfil the promise He gave at the institution of the Holy\nSupper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), the\nsacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking\n(_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). It\nholds \"that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of our\nLord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of institution],\ntruly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to all\nmen who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they are\ntendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time also\nreceived with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it.\" Furthermore,\n\"that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine are\npresent in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence of\nthe body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and received\nwith the signs of bread and wine.\" (Tschackert, 541.) It protests: \"We\ndo not assert any mixture of His body and blood with the bread and wine,\nnor any local inclusion in the bread.\" Again: \"We do not imagine any\ndiffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ\n(_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christi\ndistractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by which\nHe, being placed at the right hand of God, fills all things not only by\nHis divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in a\nway that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majesty\nHis presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed.\" (Gieseler\n3, 2, 239f.) Thus, without employing the term \"ubiquity,\" this\n_Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrine\nconcerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther had\nmaintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentarians\ngenerally.\n\nAs stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as \"Hechinger\nLatin.\" In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise\n(Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz replied\nto this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book of\nBullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the Two\nNatures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and His\nSitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewed\nassaults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: \"_Answer\n(Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' and\nthe 'right hand of God' still stands firm,\" 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs\n(Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of the\nNatures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to the\nArguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatest\nwritings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina Maiestate\nChristi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerning\nthe True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (Consensus\nDresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejected\nthe omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature of\nChrist.\n\nIn order to reclaim the Palatinate (which, as will be explained later,\nhad turned Reformed) for Lutheranism the Duke of Wuerttemberg, in April,\n1564, arranged for the Religious Discussion at Maulbronn between the\ntheologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result was\na further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published\n_Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium ... Concerning the Lord's Supper\nand the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttemberg\ntheologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio et\nConfessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of the\nMan Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians of\nthe Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chief\nchampion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz.\n\nIn his various publications against the Calvinists, Brenz, appealing to\nLuther, taught concerning the majesty of Christ that by reason of the\npersonal union the humanity of Christ is not only omnipotent and\nomniscient, but also omnipresent, and that the human nature of Christ\nreceived these as well as other divine attributes from the first moment\nof the incarnation of the Logos. Following are some of his statements:\n\"Although the divine substance [in Christ] is not changed into the\nhuman, and each has its own properties, nevertheless these two\nsubstances are united in one person in Christ in such a manner that the\none is never in reality separated from the other.\" \"Wherever the deity\nis, there is also the humanity of Christ.\" \"We do not ascribe to Christ\nmany and various bodies, nor do we ascribe to His body local extension\nor diffusion; but we exalt Him beyond this corporeal world, outside of\nevery creature and place, and place Him in accordance with the condition\nof the hypostatic union in celestial majesty, which He never lacked,\nthough at the time of His flesh in this world He hid it or, as Paul\nsays, He humbled Himself (_quam etsi tempore carnis suae in hoc saeculo\ndissimulavit, seu ea sese, ut Paulus loquitur, exinanivit, tamen numquam\nea caruit_).\"  According to Brenz the man Christ was omnipotent,\nalmighty, omniscient while He lay in the manger. In His majesty He\ndarkened the sun, and kept alive all the living while in His humiliation\nHe was dying on the cross. When dead in the grave, He at the same time\nwas filling and ruling heaven and earth with His power. (Gieseler 3, 2,\n240f.)\n\nIn Brunswick, Martin Chemnitz (born 1522; died 1586), the Second Martin\n(_alter Martinus_) of the Lutheran Church, entered the controversy\nagainst the Calvinists in 1560 with his _Repetition (Repetitio) of the\nSound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of\nChrist in the Supper_, in which he based his arguments for the real\npresence on the words of institution. Ten years later he published his\nfamous book _Concerning the Two Natures in Christ (De Duabus Naturis in\nChristo)_, etc.,--preeminently the Lutheran classic on the subject it\ntreats. Appealing also to Luther, he teaches that Christ, according to\nHis human nature was anointed with all divine gifts; that, in\nconsequence of the personal union, the human nature of Christ can be and\nis present where, when, and in whatever way Christ will; that therefore\nin accordance with His promise, He is in reality present in His Church\nand in His Supper. Chemnitz says: \"This presence of the assumed nature\nin Christ of which we now treat is not natural or essential [flowing\nfrom the nature and essence of Christ's humanity], but voluntary and\nmost free, depending on the will and power of the Son of God (_non est\nvel naturalis vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a\nvoluntate et potentia Filii Dei_); that is to say, when by a definite\nword He has told, promised, and asseverated that He would be present\nwith His human nature, ... let us retain this, which is most certainly\ntrue, that Christ can be with His body wherever, whenever, and in\nwhatever manner He wills (_Christum suo corpore esse posse, ubicunque,\nquandocunque et quomodocunque vult_). But we must judge of His will from\na definite, revealed word.\" (Tschackert, 644; Gieseler 3, 2, 259.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ plainly teaches, both that, in virtue of the\npersonal union by His incarnation, Christ according to His human nature\npossesses also the divine attribute of omnipresence, and that He can be\nand is present wherever He will. In the Epitome we read: This majesty\nChrist always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained\nfrom it in the state of His humiliation until His resurrection, \"so that\nnow not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all\nthings, _is present with all creatures_, and has under His feet and in\nHis hand everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth.\n... And this His power He, _being present_, can exercise everywhere, and\nto Him everything is possible and everything is known.\" (821, 16. 27.\n30.) The Thorough Declaration declares that Christ \"truly fills all\nthings, and, being present everywhere, not only as God, but also as man,\nrules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth.\" (1025, 27ff.)\nAgain: \"We hold ... that also according to His assumed human nature and\nwith the same He [Christ] _can be, and also is, present where He will_,\nand especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He is\npresent as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, or\none-half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ, to which both\nnatures, the divine and the human, belong, is present not only\naccording to His divinity, but also according to, and with, His assumed\nhuman nature, according to which He is our Brother, and we are flesh of\nHis flesh and bone of His bone.\" (1043 78f.) In virtue of the personal\nunion Christ is present everywhere also according to His human nature;\nwhile the peculiarly gracious manner of His presence in the Gospel, in\nthe Church, and in the Lord's Supper depends upon His will and is based\nupon His definite promises.\n\n210. Bremen and the Palatinate Lost for Lutheranism.\n\nThe indignation of the Lutherans against the Calvinistic propaganda,\nroused by Westphal and his comrades in their conflict with Calvin and\nhis followers, was materially increased by the success of the crafty\nCalvinists in Bremen and in the Palatinate. In 1547 Hardenberg [Albert\nRizaeus from Hardenberg, Holland, born 1510] was appointed Dome-preacher\nin Bremen. He was a former priest whom Lasco had won for the\nReformation. Regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he inclined\ntowards Zwingli. Self-evidently, when his views became known, the\nsituation in Bremen became intolerable for his Lutheran colleagues. How\ncould they associate with and fellowship, a Calvinist! To acknowledge\nhim would have been nothing short of surrendering their own views and\nthe character of the Lutheran Church. The result was that John Timann\n[pastor in Bremen; wrote a tract against the Interim, died February 17,\n1557], in order to compel Hardenberg to unmask and reveal his true\ninwardness, demanded that all the ministers of Bremen subscribe to the\n_Farrago Sententiarum Consentientium in Vera Doctrina et Coena Domini_\nwhich he had published in 1555 against the Calvinists. Hardenberg and\ntwo other ministers refused to comply with the demand. In particular,\nHardenberg objected to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ\ntaught in Timann's _Farrago_. In his _Doctrinal Summary (Summaria\nDoctrina)_ Hardenberg taught: \"St. Augustine and many other fathers\nwrite that the body of Christ is circumscribed by a certain space in\nheaven, and I regard this as the true doctrine of the Church.\"\n(Tschackert, 191.) Hardenberg also published the fable hatched at\nHeidelberg (_Heidelberger Landluege_, indirectly referred to also in the\n_Formula of Concord_, 981, 28), but immediately refuted by Joachim\nMoerlin, according to which Luther is said, toward the end of his life,\nto have confessed to Melanchthon that he had gone too far and overdone\nthe matter in his controversy against the Sacramentarians; that he,\nhowever, did not want to retract his doctrine concerning the Lord's\nSupper himself, because that would cast suspicion on his whole teaching;\nthat therefore after his death the younger theologians might make amends\nfor it and settle this matter.... In 1556 Timann began to preach against\nHardenberg, but died the following year. The Lower Saxon Diet, however,\ndecided February 8, 1561, that Hardenberg be dismissed within fourteen\ndays, yet \"without infamy or condemnation, _citra infamiam et\ncondemnationem_.\" Hardenberg submitted under protest and left Bremen\nFebruary 18, 1561 (he died as a Reformed preacher at Emden, 1574). Simon\nMusaeus who had just been expelled from Jena, was called as\nSuperintendent to purge Bremen of Calvinism. Before long, however, the\nburgomaster of the city, Daniel von Bueren, whom Hardenberg had secretly\nwon for the Reformed doctrine, succeeded in expelling the Lutheran\nministers from the city and in filling their places with Philippists,\nwho before long joined the Reformed Church. Thus ever since 1562 Bremen\nhas been a Reformed city.\n\nA much severer blow was dealt Lutheranism when the Palatinate, the home\nof Melanchthon, where the Philippists were largely represented, was\nCalvinized by Elector Frederick III. Tileman Hesshusius [Hesshusen, born\n1527; 1553 superintendent at Goslar; 1556 professor and pastor at\nRostock; 1557 at Heidelberg; 1560 pastor at Magdeburg; 1562\ncourt-preacher at Neuburg; 1569 professor at Jena; 1573 bishop of\nSamland, at Koenigsberg; 1577 professor at Helmstedt where he died 1588]\nwas called in 1557 by Elector Otto Henry to Heidelberg both as professor\nand pastor and as superintendent of the Palatinate. Here the Calvinists\nand Crypto-Calvinists had already done much to undermine Lutheranism;\nand after the death of Otto Henry, February 12, 1559, Hesshusius who\nendeavored to stem the Crypto-Calvinistic tide, was no longer able to\nhold his own. Under Elector Frederick III, who succeeded Otto Henry, the\nCalvinists came out into the open. This led to scandalous clashes, of\nwhich the Klebitz affair was a typical and consequential instance. In\norder to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, William Klebitz, the\ndeacon of Hesshusius, published, in 1560 a number of Calvinistic theses.\nAs a result Hesshusius most emphatically forbade him henceforth to\nassist at the distribution of the Holy Supper. When Klebitz nevertheless\nappeared at the altar, Hesshusius endeavored to wrest the cup from his\nhands. Elector Frederick ordered both Hesshusius and Klebitz to settle\ntheir trouble in accordance with the _Augustana_ (Variata). Failing to\ncomply with this unionistic demand, Hesshusius was deposed, September\n16, 1559, and Klebitz, too was dismissed. In a theological opinion,\nreferred to above, Melanchthon approved of the action. Hereupon\nHesshusius entered the public controversy against Calvinism. In 1560 he\npublished _Concerning the Presence (De Praesentia) of the Body of Christ\nin the Lord's Supper_ and his _Answer (Responsio) to the Prejudicial\nJudgement (Praeiudicium) of Philip Melanchthon on the Controversy\nConcerning the Lord's Supper_ [with Klebitz].\n\nAfter the dismissal of Hesshusius, Elector Frederick III, who had\nshortly before played a conspicuous role in endeavoring to win the day\nfor Melanchthonianism at the Lutheran Assembly of Naumburg, immediately\nbegan to Calvinize his territory. In reading the controversial books\npublished on the Lord's Supper, he suffered himself to be guided by the\nrenowned physician Thomas Erastus [died 1583], who was a Calvinist and\nhad himself published Calvinistic books concerning the Lord's Supper and\nthe person and natures of Christ. As a result the Elector, having become\na decided Reformedist, determined to de-Lutheranize the Palatinate in\nevery particular, regarding practise and divine service as well as with\nrespect to confessional books, doctrines, and teachers. The large number\nof Philippists, who had been secret Calvinists before, was increased by\nsuch Reformed theologians as Caspar Olevianus (1560), Zacharias Ursinus\n(1561), and Tremellius (1561). Images, baptismal fonts, and altars were\nremoved from the churches; wafers were replaced by bread, which was\nbroken; the organs were closed; the festivals of Mary, the apostles, and\nsaints were abolished. Ministers refusing to submit to the new order of\nthings were deposed and their charges filled with Reformed men from the\nNetherlands. The Calvinistic _Heidelberg Catechism_, composed by\nOlevianus and Ursinus and published 1563 in German and Latin, took the\nplace of Luther's Catechism. This process of Calvinization was completed\nby the introduction of the new Church Order of November 15, 1563. At the\nbehest of Frederick III the _Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica)_ was\npublished in 1566, in order to prove by this out-and-out Zwinglian\ndocument, framed by Bullinger, \"that he [the Elector of the Palatinate]\nentertained no separate doctrine, but the very same that was preached\nalso in many other and populous churches, and that the charge was untrue\nthat the Reformed disagreed among themselves and were divided into\nsects.\" Thus the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Confession, for\nthough Ludwig VI (1576-1583), the successor of Frederick III,\ntemporarily restored Lutheranism, Frederick IV (1583 to 1610) returned\nto Calvinism.\n\n211. Saxony in the Grip of Crypto-Calvinists.\n\nIt was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church when Bremen and the\nPalatinate fell a prey to Calvinism. And the fears were not unfounded\nthat before long the Electorate of Saxony would follow in their wake,\nand Wittenberg, the citadel of the Lutheran Reformation, be captured by\nCalvin. That this misfortune, which, no doubt, would have dealt a final\nand fatal blow to Lutheranism, was warded off, must be regarded as a\nspecial providence of God. For the men (Melanchthon, Major, etc.) whom\nLuther had accused of culpable silence regarding the true doctrine of\nthe Lord's Supper, were, naturally enough, succeeded by theologians who,\nwhile claiming to be true Lutherans adhering to the Augsburg Confession\nand, in a shameful manner deceiving and misleading Elector August\nzealously championed and developed the Melanchthonian aberrations, in\nparticular with respect to the doctrines concerning the Lord's Supper\nand the person of Christ, and sedulously propagated the views of Calvin,\nat first secretly and guardedly, but finally with boldness and abandon.\nGieseler says of these Philippists in Wittenberg: \"Inwardly they were\nout-and-out Calvinists, although they endeavored to appear as genuine\nLutherans before their master,\" Elector August. (3, 2, 250.)\n\nThe most prominent and influential of these so-called Philippists or\nCrypto-Calvinists were Dr. Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Dr. Christopher Pezel,\nDr. Frederick Widebram, and Dr. Henry Moeller. The schemes of these men\nwere aided and abetted by a number of non-theological professors:\nWolfgang Crell, professor of ethics, Esrom Ruedinger, professor of\nphilosophy; George Cracow, professor of jurisprudence and, later, privy\ncouncilor of Elector August; Melanchthon's son-in-law, Caspar Peucer,\nprofessor of medicine and physician in ordinary of the Elector, who\nnaturally had a great influence on August and the ecclesiastical\naffairs of the Electorate. He held that Luther's doctrine of the real\npresence had no more foundation in the Bible than did the Roman\ntransubstantiation. To these must be added John Stoessel, confessor to\nthe Elector and superintendent at Pirna; Christian Schuetze,\ncourt-preacher at Dresden, Andrew Freyhub and Wolfgang Harder\nprofessors in Leipzig, and others. The real leaders of these Philippists\nwere Peucer and Cracow. Their scheme was to prepossess the Elector\nagainst the loyal adherents of Luther, especially Flacius, gradually to\nwin him over to their liberal views, and, at the proper moment, to\nsurrender and deliver Electoral Saxony to the Calvinists. In prosecuting\nthis sinister plan, they were unscrupulous also in the choice of their\nmeans. Thus Wittenberg, during Luther's days the fountainhead of the\npure Gospel and the stronghold of uncompromising fidelity to the truth,\nhad become a veritable nest of fanatical Crypto-Calvinistic schemers\nand dishonest anti-Lutheran plotters who also controlled the situation\nin the entire Electorate.\n\nThe first public step to accomplish their purpose was the publication of\nthe _Corpus Doctrinae Christianae_, or _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_, or\n_Philippicum_, as it was also called. This collection of symbolical\nbooks was published 1560 at Leipzig by Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon's\nson-in-law, with a preface to both the German and Latin editions written\nby Melanchthon and dated September 29, 1559, and February 16, 1560,\nrespectively,--an act by which, perhaps without sufficiently realizing\nit, Melanchthon immodestly assumed for himself and his views the place\nwithin the Lutheran Church which belonged not to him, but to Luther. The\ntitle which reveals the insincerity and the purpose of this publication,\nruns as follows: _\"Corpus Doctrinae, i.e._, the entire sum of the true\nand Christian doctrine ... as a testimony of the steadfast and unanimous\nconfession of the pure and true religion in which the schools and\nchurches of these Electoral Saxon and Meissen territories have remained\nand persevered in all points according to the _Augsburg Confession_ for\nnow almost thirty years against the unfounded false charges and\naccusations of all lying spirits, 1560.\" As a matter of fact, however,\nthis _Corpus_ contained, besides the Ecumenical Symbols, only writings\nof Melanchthon, notably the altered _Augsburg Confession_ and the\naltered _Apology_ of 1542, the Saxon Confession of 1551, the changed\n_Loci_, the _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, and the _Responsiones ad\nImpios Articulos Inquisitionis Bavaricae_.\n\nEvidently this _Corpus Philippicum_, which was introduced also in\nchurches outside of Electoral Saxony, particularly where the princes or\nleading theologians were Melanchthonians, was intended to alienate the\nElectorate from the old teaching of Luther, to sanction and further the\nMelanchthonian tendency, and thus to pave the way for Calvinism. It was\nfoisted upon, and rigorously enforced in, all the churches of Electoral\nSaxony. All professors, ministers, and teachers were pledged by an oath\nto teach according to it. Such as refused to subscribe were deposed,\nimprisoned, or banished. Among the persecuted pastors we find the\nfollowing names: Tettelbach, superintendent in Chemnitz; George Herbst,\ndeacon in Chemnitz and later superintendent in Eisleben; Graf,\nsuperintendent in Sangerhausen; Schade, Heine, and Schuetz, pastors in\nFreiberg. When ministers who refused their signatures appealed to\nLuther's writings, they were told that Luther's books must be\nunderstood and explained according to Melanchthon's _Corpus_. At\nWittenberg the opposition to Luther and his teaching bordered on\nfanaticism. When, for example, in 1568 Conrad Schluesselburg and Albert\nSchirmer, two Wittenberg students, entered a complaint against\nProfessors Pezel and Peucer because of their deviations from Luther in\nthe doctrine of the Lord's Supper and refused to admit that Peucer and\nhis colleagues represented the pure doctrine in this matter, they were\nexpelled from the university, anathematized, and driven from the city.\n(Schluesselburg 13, 609. 730; Gieseler 3, 2, 250.)\n\nImmediately after its appearance, the _Corpus Philippicum_ was\ndenounced by loyal Lutherans, notably those of Reuss, Schoenfeld, and\nJena. When the charges of false teaching against the Wittenberg\ntheologians increased in number and force, Elector August arranged a\ncolloquy between the theologians of Jena and Wittenberg. It was held at\nAltenburg and lasted from October, 1568, to March, 1569 because the\nWittenbergers, evidently afraid of compromising themselves, insisted on\nits being conducted in writing only. The result of this colloquy was a\npublic declaration on the part of Wigand, Coelestinus, Kirchner Rosinus,\nand others to the effect that the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians had\nunmistakably revealed themselves as false teachers. At the colloquy the\nJena theologians objected in particular also to the _Corpus Misnicum_\nbecause it contained the altered _Augustana_, concerning which they\ndeclared: Melanchthon \"has changed the said _Augsburg Confession_ so\noften that finally he has opened a window through which the\nSacramentarians and Calvinists can sneak into it. One must watch\ncarefully, lest in course of time the Papists also find such a loophole\nto twist themselves into it.\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 252.)\n\nThe Philippists of Leipzig and Wittenberg in turn, denounced the Jena\ntheologians as Flacian fighting cocks (_Flacianische Haderkatzen_). They\nalso succeeded in persuading Elector August to adopt more rigorous\nmeasures against the malcontents in his territories. For in addition to\nthe adoption of the _Corpus Philippicum_ the ministers were now required\nto subscribe to a declaration which was tantamount to an endorsement of\nall of the false doctrines entertained by the Wittenbergers. The\ndeclaration read: \"I do not adhere to the dangerous Flacian Illyrian\nerrors, contentions, poisonous backbitings, and fanaticism (_zaenkischem\nGeschmeiss, giftigem Gebeiss und Schwaermerei_) with which the schools\nand churches of this country are burdened [by Flacius] concerning the\nimagined adiaphorism, synergism, and Majorism and other false\naccusations, nor have I any pleasure in it [the quarreling], and in the\nfuture I intend, by the help of God, to abstain from it altogether, to\ndamn, flee, and avoid it, and as much as I am able, to prevent it.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 253; Walther, 49.)\n\n212. Bold Strides Forward.\n\nFeeling themselves firm and safe in the saddle, the Wittenberg\nPhilippists now decided on further public steps in the direction of\nCalvinism. In 1570 they published _Propositions (Propositiones)\nConcerning the Chief Controversies of This Time_, in which the Lutheran\ndoctrine regarding the majesty of the human nature of Christ was\nrepudiated. In the following year they added a new Catechism, entitled:\n\"_Catechesis_ continens explicationem simplicem et brevem decalogi,\nSymboli Apostolici, orationis dominicae, doctrinae Christianae, quod\namplectuntur ac tuentur Ecclesiae regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarum\nquae sunt subiectae editioni Ducis Electoris Saxoniae, edita in Academia\nWitebergensi et accommodata ad usum scholarum puerilium. 1571.\"\n\nThis Catechism, written, according to Wigand, by Pezel, appeared\nanonymously. Its preface, signed by the Wittenberg theological faculty,\nexplains that the new Catechism was an epitome of the _Corpus Doctrinae\nMisnicum_ and merely intended as a supplement of Luther's Catechism for\nprogressed scholars who were in need of additional instruction. As a\nmatter of fact, however, its doctrine concerning the person of Christ\nand the Lord's Supper was in substantial agreement with the teaching of\nCalvin. Under the odious name of \"ubiquity\" it rejected the omnipresence\nof Christ according to His human nature, and sanctioned Calvin's\nteaching concerning the local inclusion of Christ in heaven. Acts 3, 21\nwas rendered in Beza's translation: \"_Quem oportet coelo capi_. Who must\nbe received by the heaven.\"\n\nThe Catechism declares: \"The ascension was visible and corporeal; the\nentire Antiquity has always written that Christ's body is restricted to\na certain place, wherever He wishes it to be; and a bodily ascension\nwas made upwards. _Ascensio fuit visibilis et coporalis, et semper ita\nscripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco\nesse, ubicumque vult, et ascensio corporalis facta est sursum_.\"\nConcerning the real presence, the Catechism merely states: \"The Lord's\nSupper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus\nChrist as it is instituted in the words of the Gospel; in which eating\n(_sumptione_) the Son of God is truly and substantially present, and\ntestifies that He applies His benefits to the believers. He also\ntestifies that He has assumed the human nature for the purpose of\nmaking us, who are ingrafted into Him by faith, His members. He finally\ntestifies that He wishes to be in the believers, to teach, quicken and\ngovern them.\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 263.) The sacramental union, oral eating\nand drinking, and the eating and drinking of the wicked are not\nmentioned. Tschackert remarks that every Calvinist would readily have\nsubscribed to the teaching of this Catechism. (545.)\n\nWhen the Wittenberg Catechism was warned against and designated as\nCalvinistic by Chemnitz, Moerlin, and other theologians of Brunswick,\nLueneburg, Mansfeld, Jena, and Halle, the Wittenbergers answered and\nendeavored to defend their position in the so-called _Grundfeste_, Firm\nFoundation, of 1571. It was a coarse and slanderous publication, as even\nthe title indicates, which reads: \"Firm Foundation of the True Christian\nChurch Concerning the Person and Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ\nagainst the Modern Marcionites, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians,\nNestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites among the Flacian Rabble\nPublished by the Theologians in Wittenberg.\" In this _Grundfeste_ the\nWittenbergers present the matter as though the real issue were not the\nLord's Supper, but Christology. They enumerate as heretics also the\n\"Ubiquitists,\" including Brenz, Andreae, and Chemnitz. With respect to\ntheir own agreement with Calvin, they remark that their teaching is the\ndoctrine of the early Church, in which point, they said, also Calvin\nagreed. (Tschackert, 546.)\n\nThis daring Calvinistic publication again resulted in numerous protests\nagainst the Wittenbergers on the part of alarmed Lutherans everywhere\noutside of Electoral Saxony, which induced Elector August to require his\ntheologians to deliver at Dresden, October 10, 1571, a definite\nstatement of their faith. The confession which they presented was\nentitled: \"_Brief Christian and Simple Repetition of the Confession of\nthe Churches of God in the Territories of the Elector of Saxony\nConcerning the Holy Supper_,\" etc. The _Consensus Dresdensis_, as the\ndocument was called, satisfied the Elector at least temporarily, and was\npublished also in Latin and low German. Essentially, however, the\nindefinite and dubious language of the Catechism was here but repeated.\nConcerning the majesty of Christ the _Dresden Consensus_ declares that\nafter the resurrection and ascension the human nature of Christ \"was\nadorned with higher gifts than all angels and men.\" In His ascension,\nthe _Consensus_ continues, Christ \"passed through the visible heavens\nand occupied the heavenly dwelling, where He in glory and splendor\nretains the essence, property, form, and shape of His true body, and\nfrom there He, at the last day, will come again unto Judgment in great\nsplendor, visibly.\"\n\nIn a similar vague, ambiguous, and misleading manner Christ's sitting at\nthe right hand of God is spoken of. Omitting the oral eating and\ndrinking and the eating and drinking of the wicked, the _Consensus_\nstates concerning the Lord's Supper that \"in this Sacrament Christ gives\nus with the bread and wine His true body sacrificed for us on the cross,\nand His true blood shed for us, and thereby testifies that He receives\nus, makes us members of His body, washes us with His blood, presents\nforgiveness of sins, and wishes truly to dwell and to be efficacious in\nus.\" (Tschackert, 546.) The opponents of the Wittenbergers are branded\nas unruly men, who, seeking neither truth nor peace, excite offensive\ndisputations concerning the real presence in the Lord's Supper as well\nas with regard to other articles. Their doctrine of the real\ncommunication (\"_realis seu physica communicatio_\") is characterized as\na corruption of the article of the two natures in Christ and as a\nrevamping of the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians, Manicheans,\nSamosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and\nMonothelites. (Gieseler 3, 2, 264f.)\n\n213. Apparently Victorious.\n\nAll the Crypto-Calvinistic publications of the Wittenberg and Leipzig\nPhilippists were duly unmasked by the Lutherans outside of Electoral\nSaxony, especially in Northern Germany. Their various opinions were\npublished at Jena, 1572, under the title: \"_Unanimous Confession\n(Einhelliges Bekenntnis) of Many Highly Learned Theologians and\nProminent Churches_ 1. concerning the New Catechism of the New\nWittenbergers, and 2. concerning their _New Foundation (Grundfeste)_,\nalso 3. concerning their _New Confession (Consensus Dresdensis)_,\nthereupon adopted.\" However, all this and the repeated warnings that\ncame from every quarter outside of his own territories, from Lutheran\nprinces as well as theologians, do not seem to have made the least\nimpression on Elector August. Yet he evidently was, and always intended\nto be a sincere, devoted, true-hearted, and singleminded Lutheran. When,\nfor example, in 1572 Beza, at the instance of the Wittenberg\nPhilippists, dedicated his book against Selneccer to Elector August, the\nlatter advised him not to trouble him any further with such writings, as\nhe would never allow any other doctrine in his territory than that of\nthe _Augsburg Confession_.\n\nHowever, blind and credulous as he was, and filled with prejudice and\nsuspicion against Flacius and the Jena theologians generally, whom he,\nbeing the brother of the usurper Maurice, instinctively feared as\npossibly also political enemies, Elector August was easily duped and\ncompletely hypnotized, as it were, by the men surrounding him, who led\nhim to believe that they, too, were in entire agreement with Luther and\nmerely opposed the trouble-breeding Flacians, whom they never tired of\ndenouncing as zealots, fanatics, bigots, wranglers, barkers, alarmists,\netc. While in reality they rejected the doctrine that the true body and\nblood of Christ is truly and essentially present in the Holy Supper,\nthese Crypto-Calvinists pretended (and Elector August believed them)\nthat they merely objected to a _local_ presence and to a Capernaitic\neating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.\nAnd while in reality they clearly repudiated Luther's teaching,\naccording to which the divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence,\netc.) are communicated to the human nature of Christ, they caused the\nElector to believe that they merely opposed a delusion of the\n\"Ubiquitists,\" who, they said, taught that the body of Christ was\n_locally extended_ over the entire universe. This crass localism, they\nmaintained, was the teaching of their opponents, while they themselves\nfaithfully adhered to the teachings of Luther and Philip, and, in\ngeneral, were opposed only to the exaggerations and excrescences\nadvocated by the bigoted Flacians. (Walther, 43.)\n\nSuch was the manner in which the Elector allowed himself to be duped by\nthe Philippists who surrounded him,--men who gradually developed the art\nof dissimulation to premeditated deceit, falsehood, and perjury. Even\nthe Reformed theologian Simon Stenius, a student at Wittenberg during\nthe Crypto-Calvinistic period, charges the Wittenbergers with dishonesty\nand systematic dissimulation. The same accusation was raised 1561 by the\njurist Justus Jonas in his letters to Duke Albrecht of Prussia.\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 249.) And evidently believing that Elector August could\nbe fooled all the time, they became increasingly bold in their\ntheological publications, and in their intrigues as well.\n\nTo all practical purposes the University of Wittenberg was already\nCalvinized. Calvinistic books appeared and were popular. Even the work\nof a Jesuit against the book of Jacob Andreae on the Majesty of the\nPerson of Christ was published at Wittenberg. The same was done with a\ntreatise of Beza, although, in order to deceive the public, the\ntitle-page gave Geneva as the place of publication. Hans Lufft, the\nWittenberg printer, later declared that during this time he did not know\nhow to dispose of the books of Luther which he still had in stock, but\nthat, if he had printed twenty or thirty times as many Calvinistic\nbooks, he would have sold all of them very rapidly.\n\nEven Providence seemed to bless and favor the plans of the plotters. For\nwhen on March 3, 1573, Duke John William, the patron and protector of\nthe faithful Lutherans, died, Elector August became the guardian of his\ntwo sons. And fanaticized by his advisers, the Elector, immediately upon\ntaking hold of the government in Ducal Saxony, banished Wigand,\nHesshusius, Caspar Melissander [born 1540; 1571 professor of theology in\nJena; 1578 superintendent in Altenburg; died 1591] Rosinus [born 1520;\n1559 superintendent in Weimar 1574 superintendent in Regensburg; died\n1586], Gernhard, court-preacher in Weimar, and more than 100 preachers\nand teachers of Ducal Saxony. The reason for this cruel procedure was\ntheir refusal to adopt the _Corpus Philippicum_, and because they\ndeclined to promise silence with respect to the Philippists.\n\n214. \"Exegesis Perspicua.\"\n\nIn 1573, the Calvinization of Electoral and Ducal Saxony was,\napparently, an accomplished fact. But the very next year marked the\nignominious downfall and the unmasking of the dishonest Philippists. For\nin this year appeared the infamous _Exegesis_, which finally opened the\neyes of Elector August. Its complete title ran: \"_Exegesis Perspicua et\nferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena_--Perspicuous and Almost\nComplete Explanation of the Controversy Concerning the Holy Supper.\" The\ncontents and make-up of the book as well as the secret methods adopted\nfor its circulation clearly revealed that its purpose was to deal a\nfinal blow to Lutheranism in order to banish it forever from Saxony.\nNeither the author, nor the publisher, nor the place and date of\npublication were anywhere indicated in the book. The paper bore Geneva\nmark and the lettering was French. The _prima facie_ impression was that\nit came from abroad.\n\nBefore long, however, it was established that the _Exegesis_ had been\npublished in Leipzig by the printer Voegelin, who at first also claimed\nits authorship. But when the impossibility of this was shown, Voegelin,\nin a public hearing, stated that Joachim Curaeus of Silesia, a physician\nwho had left Saxony and died 1573, was the author of the book. Valentin\nLoescher, however, relates (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 195) that probably\nPezel and the son-in-law of Melanchthon, Peucer, had a hand in it; that\nthe Crypto-Calvinist Esram Ruedinger [born 1523, son-in-law of\nCamerarius, professor of physics in Wittenberg, died 1591] was its real\nauthor; that it was printed at Leipzig in order to keep the real\noriginators of it hidden, and that, for the same purpose, the Silesian\nCandidate of Medicine Curaeus had taken the responsibility of its\nauthorship upon himself. (Tschackert, 547.)\n\nSelf-evidently, the Wittenberg theologians disclaimed any knowledge of,\nor any connection with, the origin of the _Exegesis_. However, they were\neverywhere believed to share its radical teachings, and known to have\nspread it among the students of the university, and suspected also of\nhaving before this resorted to tactics similar to those employed in the\n_Exegesis_. As early as 1561, for example, rhymes had secretly been\ncirculated in Wittenberg, the burden of which was that faith alone\neffects the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that the mouth\nreceives nothing but natural bread. One of these ran as follows: \"Allein\nder Glaub' an Jesum Christ Schafft, dass er gegenwaertig ist, Und speist\nuns mit sei'm Fleisch und Blut Und sich mit uns einigen tut. Der Mund\nempfaeht natuerlich Brot, Die Seel' aber speist selber Gott.\" (Walther,\n46.) Of course, the purpose of such dodgers was to prepare the way for\nCalvinism. And on the very face of it, the _Exegesis Perspicua_ was\nintended to serve similar secret propaganda.\n\nThe chief difference between the preceding publications of the\nPhilippists and the _Exegesis_ was that here they came out in clear and\nunmistakable language. The sacramental union, the oral eating and\ndrinking (_manducatio oralis_), and the eating and drinking of the\nwicked, which before were passed by in silence, are dealt with\nextensively and repudiated. The _Exegesis_ teaches: The body of Christ\nis inclosed in heaven; in the Holy Supper it is present only according\nto its efficacy, there is no union of the body of Christ with the bread\nand wine; hence, there neither is nor can be such a thing as oral eating\nand drinking or eating and drinking of unbelievers. The \"ubiquity,\" as\nthe _Exegesis_ terms the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, is\ncondemned as Eutychian heresy. The _Exegesis_ declared: \"In the use of\nthe bread and wine the believers by faith become true and living members\nof the body of Christ, who is present and efficacious through these\nsymbols, as through a ministry inflaming and renewing our hearts by His\nHoly Spirit. The unbelieving, however, do not become partakers, or\n_koinonoi_, but because of their contempt are guilty of the body of\nChrist.\" (Seeberg, _Grundriss_ 146.)\n\nAfter fulsome praise of the Reformed, whose doctrine, the _Exegesis_\nsays, is in agreement with the symbols of the ancient Church, and who as\nto martyrdom surpass the Lutherans, and after a corresponding\ndepreciation of Luther, who in the heat of the controversy was said\nfrequently to have gone too far, the _Exegesis_ recommends that the\nwisest thing would be to follow the men whom God had placed at the side\nof Luther, and who had spoken more correctly than Luther. Following\nMelanchthon, all might unite in the neutral formula, \"The bread is the\ncommunion of the body of Christ,\" avoiding all further definition\nregarding the ubiquity [the omnipresence of Christ's human nature] and\nthe eating of the true body of Christ, until a synod had definitely\ndecided these matters. (Tschackert, 547.)\n\nAll purified churches (all churches in Germany, Switzerland, etc.,\npurified from Roman errors), the _Exegesis_ urges, \"ought to be in\naccord with one another; and this pious concord should not be disturbed\non account of this difference [regarding the Holy Supper]. Let us be\nunited in Christ and discontinue those dangerous teachings concerning\nthe ubiquity, the eating of the true body on the part of the wicked, and\nsimilar things. The teachers should agree on a formula which could not\ncreate offense. They should employ the modes of speech found in the\nwritings of Melanchthon. It is best to suppress public disputations, and\nwhen contentious men create strife and disquiet among the people, the\nproper thing to do, as Philip advised [in his opinion to the Elector of\nthe Palatinate], is to depose such persons of either party, and to fill\ntheir places with more modest men. The teachers must promote unity, and\nrecommend the churches and teachers of the opposite party.\" (Walther,\n51.) Such was the teaching and the theological attitude of the\n_Exegesis_. It advocated a union of the Lutherans and the Reformed based\non indifferentism, and a surrender in all important doctrinal points to\nCalvinism, the Lutherans merely retaining their name. This unionistic\nattitude of the _Exegesis_ has been generally, also in America, termed\nMelanchthonianism.\n\n215. Plotters Unmasked.\n\nThe plain and unmistakable language of the _Exegesis_ cleared the\natmosphere, and everywhere dispelled all doubts as to the real nature of\nthe theological trend at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Now it was plain to\neverybody beyond the shadow of a doubt that Electoral Saxony was indeed\ninfested with decided Calvinists. And before long also the web of deceit\nand falsehood which they had spun around the Elector was torn into\nshreds. The appearance of the _Exegesis_ resulted in a cry of\nindignation throughout Lutheran Germany against the Wittenberg and\nLeipzig Philippists. Yet, in 1574, only few books appeared against the\ndocument, which, indeed, was not in need of a special refutation. Wigand\npublished _Analysis of the New Exegesis_, and Hesshusius: _Assertion\n(Assertio) of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper, against the\nCalvinian Exegesis_. At the same time Elector August was again urged by\nLutheran princes notably the King of Denmark and Duke Ludwig of\nWuerttemberg, also by private persons, to proceed against the Calvinists\nin his country and not to spare them any longer. (Gieseler 3, 2, 267.)\nThe aged Count of Henneberg made it a point to see the Elector\npersonally in this matter. But there was little need for further\nadmonitions, for the _Exegesis_ had opened the Elector's eyes. And soon\nafter its publication discoveries were made which filled August with\ndeep humiliation and burning indignation at the base deception practised\non him by the very men whom he had trusted implicitly and placed in most\nimportant positions. By lying and deceit the Philippists had for a long\nperiod succeeded in holding the confidence of Elector August; but now\nthe time for their complete and inglorious unmasking had arrived.\n\nShortly after the _Exegesis_ had appeared, Peucer wrote a letter to the\nCrypto-Calvinist Christian Schuetze, then court-preacher in Dresden\n[who studied at Leipzig; became superintendent at Chemnitz in 1550,\ncourt-preacher of Elector August in 1554; when he was buried, boys threw\na black hen over his coffin, crying, 'Here flies the Calvinistic devil;'\nJoecher, _Lexicon_ 4, 372], which he had addressed to the wife of the\ncourt-preacher in order to avoid suspicion. By mistake the letter was\ndelivered to the wife of the court-preacher Lysthenius [born 1532;\nstudied in Wittenberg; became court-preacher of Elector August in 1572\nand later on his confessor; opposed Crypto-Calvinism; was dismissed 1590\nby Chancellor Crell; 1591 restored to his position in Dresden, died\n1596]. After opening the letter and finding it to be written in Latin,\nshe gave it to her husband, who, in turn, delivered it to the Elector.\nIn it Peucer requested Schuetze dexterously to slip into the hands of\nAnna, the wife of the Elector, a Calvinistic prayer-book which he had\nsent with the letter. Peucer added: \"If first we have Mother Anna on our\nside, there will be no difficulty in winning His Lordship [her husband]\ntoo.\"\n\nAdditional implicating material was discovered when Augustus now\nconfiscated the correspondence of Peucer, Schuetze, Stoessel, and\nCracow. The letters found revealed the consummate perfidy, dishonesty,\ncunning, and treachery of the men who had been the trusted advisers of\nthe Elector, who had enjoyed his implicit confidence, and who by their\nfalsehoods had caused him to persecute hundreds of innocent and faithful\nLutheran ministers. The fact was clearly established that these\nPhilippists had been systematically plotting to Calvinize Saxony. The\nvery arguments with which Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the\nPerson of Christ might best be refuted were enumerated in these letters.\nHowever, when asked by the Elector whether they were Calvinists, these\nself-convicted deceivers are said to have answered that \"they would not\nsee the face of God in eternity if in any point they were addicted to\nthe doctrines of the Sacramentarians or deviated in the least from Dr.\nLuther's teaching.\" (Walther, 56.) The leaders of the conspiracy were\nincarcerated. Cracow died in prison, 1575; Stoessel, 1576. It was as\nlate as 1586 that Peucer regained his liberty, Schuetze in 1589.\n\n216. Lutheranism Restored.\n\nIn all the churches of Saxony thanksgiving services were held to praise\nGod for the final triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coin\ncelebrating the victory over the Crypto-Calvinists, bearing the date\n1574, was struck at Torgau. The obverse exhibits Elector August handing\na book to Elector John George of Brandenburg. The inscription above\nreads: \"_Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum, Domine_. Preserve Thy Word among\nUs, O Lord.\" Below, the inscription runs: \"_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux\nSaxionae et Elector_. Augustus, by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony and\nElector.\" The reverse represents Torgau and its surroundings, with\nWittenberg in the distance. The Elector, clad in his armor, is standing\non a rock bearing the inscription: \"_Schloss Hartenfels_\" (castle at\nTorgau). In his right hand he is holding a sword, in his left a balance,\nwhose falling scale, in which the Child Jesus is sitting, bears the\ninscription: \"_Die Allmacht_, Omnipotence.\" The lighter and rising pan,\nin which four Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinists are vainly exerting\nthemselves to the utmost in pulling on the chains of their pan in order\nto increase its weight, and on the beam of which also the devil is\nsitting, is inscribed: \"_Die Vernunft_, Reason.\" Above, God appears,\nsaying to the Elector, \"Joshua 1, 5. 6: _Confide, Non Derelinquam Te_.\nTrust, I will not forsake thee.\" Below we read: \"_Apud Deum Non Est\nImpossibile Verbum Ullum_, Lucae 1. _Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum,\nDomine_. 1574. Nothing is impossible with God, Luke 1. Preserve Thy Word\namong us, Lord. 1574.\"\n\nThe obverse of a smaller medal, also of 1574 shows the bust of Elector\nAugust with the inscription: \"_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux Saxoniae Et\nElector_.\" The reverse exhibits a ship in troubled waters with the\ncrucified Christ in her expanded sails, and the Elector in his armor and\nwith the sword on his shoulder, standing at the foot of the mast. In the\nroaring ocean are enemies, shooting with arrows and striking with\nswords, making an assault upon the ship. The fearlessness of the Elector\nis expressed in the inscription: \"_Te Gubernatore_, Thou [Christ] being\nthe pilot.\" Among the jubilee medals of 1617 there is one which\nevidently, too, celebrates the victory over Zwinglianism and Calvinism.\nIts obverse exhibits Frederick in his electoral garb pointing with two\nfingers of his right hand to the name Jehovah at the head of the medal.\nAt his left Luther is standing with a burning light in his right hand\nand pointing with the forefinger of his left hand to a book lying on a\ntable and bearing the title: \"_Biblia Sacra: V[erbum] D[ei] M[anet] I[n]\nAe[ternum]_.\" The reverse represents the Elector standing on a rock\ninscribed: \"_Schloss Hartenfels_, Castle Hartenfels.\" In his right hand\nhe is holding the sword and in his left a balance. Under the falling\nscale, containing the Child Jesus, we read: \"_Die Allmacht_,\nOmnipotence,\" and under the rising pan, in which the serpent is lying:\n\"_Die Vernunft_, Reason.\" The marginal inscription runs. \"_Iosua 1:\nConfide. Non Derelinquam Te_. Joshua 1: Trust. I will not forsake thee.\"\n(Ch. Junker, _Ehrengedaechtnis Dr. M. Luthers_, 353. 383.)\n\nSelf-evidently, Elector August immediately took measures also to\nreestablish in his territories Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.\nThe beginning was made by introducing a confession prepared by reliable\nsuperintendents and discussed, adopted, and subscribed at the Diet of\nTorgau, September, 1574, and published simultaneously in German and\nLatin. Its German title ran: \"_Brief Confession (Kurz Bekenntnis) and\nArticles Concerning the Holy Supper of the Body and Blood of Christ_,\nfrom which may clearly be seen what heretofore has been publicly taught,\nbelieved, and confessed concerning it in both universities of Leipzig\nand Wittenberg, and elsewhere in all churches and schools of the Elector\nof Saxony, also what has been rebuked and is still rebuked as\nSacramentarian error and enthusiasm.\" The Torgau Confession, therefore,\ndoes not reject the _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_ of 1560 nor even the\n_Consensus Dresdensis_ of 1571, and pretends that Melanchthon was in\ndoctrinal agreement with Luther, and that only a few Crypto-Calvinists\nhad of late been discovered in the Electorate. This pretense was the\nchief reason why the Confession did not escape criticism. In 1575 Wigand\npublished: \"Whether the New Wittenbergers had hitherto always taught\nharmoniously and agreeably with the Old, and whether Luther's and\nPhilip's writings were throughout in entire harmony and agreement.\"\n\nAs for its doctrine, however, the Torgau Confession plainly upholds the\nLutheran teaching. Article VII contends that in the distribution of the\nLord's Supper the body and blood of Christ \"are truly received also by\nthe unworthy.\" Article VIII maintains the \"oral eating and drinking,\n_oris manducatio_.\" Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and the\nHeidelberg theologians are rejected, and their names expressly\nmentioned. On the other hand, the \"ubiquity [local extension] of the\nflesh of Christ\" is disavowed and a discussion of the mode and\npossibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ is declined\nas something inscrutable. The Latin passage reads: \"_Ac ne carnis quidem\nubiquitatem, aut quidquam, quod vel veritatem corporis Christi tollat,\nvel ulli fidei articulo repugnet, propter praesentiam in Coena fingimus\naut probamus. Denique de modo et possibilitate praesentiae corporis et\nsanguinis Domini plane nihil disputamus. Nam omnia haec imperscrutabilia\nstatuimus_.\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 268.)\n\nCaspar Cruciger, Jr., Henry Moeller, Christopher Pezel, and Frederick\nWidebram, who refused to subscribe the _Brief Confession_, were first\narrested, then, after subscribing with a qualification, released, but\nfinally (1574) banished. Widebram and Pezel removed to Nassau, Moeller\nto Hamburg, and Cruciger to Hesse. At Leipzig, Andrew Freyhub, who\nappealing to the _Consensus Dresdensis_, taught that Christ was exalted\naccording to both natures, that divine properties were not communicated\nto His humanity, and that His body was inclosed in a certain place in\nheaven was deposed in 1576.\n\nThus ended the Crypto-Calvinistic drama in Electoral Saxony. Henceforth\nsuch men as Andreae, Chemnitz, and Selneccer were the trusted advisers\nof August, who now became the enthusiastic, devoted, and\nself-sacrificing leader of the larger movement for settling all of the\ncontroversies distracting the Lutheran Church, which finally resulted in\nthe adoption of the _Formula of Concord_.\n\n217. Visitation Articles.\n\nElector August, the stanch defender of genuine Lutheranism, died 1586.\nUnder his successor, Christian I, and Chancellor Nicholas Crell,\nCrypto-Calvinism once more raised its head in Electoral Saxony. But it\nwas for a short period only, for Christian I died September 25, 1591,\nand during the regency of Duke Frederick William, who acted as guardian\nof Christian II, Lutheranism was reestablished. In order effectually and\npermanently to suppress the Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues, the Duke, in\nFebruary of 1592, ordered a general visitation of all the churches in\nthe entire Electorate. For this purpose Aegidius Hunnius [born 1550;\n1576 professor in Marburg and later superintendent and professor in\nWittenberg; attended colloquy at Regensburg 1601; wrote numerous books,\nparticularly against Papists and Calvinists, died 1603], Martin Mirus\n[born 1532, died 1593], George Mylius [born 1544; 1584 expelled from\nAugsburg because he was opposed to the Gregorian almanac, since 1585\nprofessor in Wittenberg and Jena, died 1607], Wolfgang Mamphrasius [born\n1557; superintendent in Wurtzen; died 1616], and others, who were to\nconduct the visitation, composed the so-called _Visitation Articles_\nwhich were printed in 1593. The complete title of these articles runs:\n\"_Visitation Articles in the Entire Electorate of Saxony_, together with\nthe Negative and Contrary Doctrines of the Calvinists and the Form of\nSubscription, as Presented to be Signed by Both Parties.\"\n\nAs a result of the visitation, the Crypto-Calvinistic professors in\nWittenberg and Leipzig were exiled. John Salmuth [born 1575;\ncourt-preacher in Dresden since 1584; died 1592] and Prierius, also a\nminister in Dresden, were imprisoned. As a bloody finale of the\nCrypto-Calvinistic drama enacted in Electoral Saxony, Chancellor Crell\nwas beheaded, October 9, 1601, after an imprisonment of ten years. Crell\nwas punished, according to his epitaph, as \"an enemy of peace and a\ndisturber of the public quiet--_hostis pacis et quietis publicae\nturbator_,\" or, as Hutter remarks in his _Concordia Concors_, \"not on\naccount of his religion, but on account of his manifold perfidy--_non ob\nreligionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem_.\" (448. 1258.) For a long\nperiod (till 1836) all teachers and ministers in Electoral Saxony were\nrequired to subscribe also to the Visitation Articles as a doctrinal\nnorm. Self-evidently they are not an integral part of the _Book of\nConcord_.\n\n\nXIX. Controversy on Christ's Descent into Hell.\n\n218. Luther's Doctrine.\n\nWhile according to medieval theologians the descent into hell was\nregarded as an act by which Christ, with His soul only, entered the\nabode of the dead; and while according to Calvin and the Reformed\ngenerally the descent into hell is but a figurative expression for the\nsufferings of Christ, particularly of His soul, on the cross, Luther,\nespecially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordance\nwith the Scriptures that Christ the God-man, body and soul, descended\ninto hell as Victor over Satan and his host. With special reference to\nPs. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial the\nwhole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered the\ndevil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner,\nhowever, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by human\nreason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and must\ntherefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simple\nfaith. It is sufficient if we retain the consolation that neither hell\nnor devil are any longer able to harm us. Accordingly, Luther did not\nregard the descent into hell as an act belonging to the state of\nhumiliation, by which He paid the penalty for our sins, but as an act of\nexaltation, in which Christ, as it were, plucked for us the fruits of\nHis sufferings which were finished when He died upon the cross.\n\nLuther's sermon at Torgau graphically describes the descent as a\ntriumphant march of our victorious Savior into the stronghold of the\ndismayed infernal hosts. From it we quote the following: \"Before Christ\narose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He\nalso descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were\nto be held in it as prisoners.... However I shall not discuss this\narticle in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what\nit means to 'descend into hell,' but adhere to the simplest meaning\nconveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and\nuneducated people.\" \"Therefore whoever would not go wrong or stumble had\nbest adhere to the words and understand them in a simple way as well as\nhe can. Accordingly, it is customary to represent Christ in paintings on\nwalls, as He descends, appears before hell, clad in a priestly robe and\nwith a banner in His hand, with which He beats the devil and puts him to\nflight, takes hell by storm, and rescues those that are His. Thus it was\nalso acted the night before Easter as a play for children. And I am well\npleased with the fact that it is painted, played, sung and said in this\nmanner for the benefit of simple people. We, too, should let it go at\nthat, and not trouble ourselves with profound and subtle thoughts as to\nhow it may have happened, since it surely did not occur bodily inasmuch\nas He remained in the grave three days.\"\n\nLuther continues: \"However since we cannot but conceive thoughts and\nimages of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or\nunderstand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right\nthat we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with\nthe banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we should\nput aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us.\" \"But\nwe ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the\nwords of the Creed, which says: 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the\nSon of God, dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the\nentire person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided, 'born of the\nVirgin, suffered, died, and buried'; _in like manner I must not divide\nit here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in\none person, descended into hell_ but did not remain in it; as Ps. 16, 10\nsays of Him: 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell nor suffer Thine Holy\nOne to see corruption.' By the word 'soul,' He, in accordance with the\nlanguage of the Scripture, does not mean, as we do, a being separated\nfrom the body, but the entire man, the Holy One of God, as He here calls\nHimself. But how it may have occurred that the man lies there in the\ngrave, and yet descends into hell--that, indeed, we shall and must leave\nunexplained and uncomprehended; for it certainly did not take place in a\nbodily and tangible manner although we can only paint and conceive it in\na coarse and bodily way and speak of it in pictures.\" \"Such, therefore\nis the plainest manner to speak of this article, that we may adhere to\nthe words and cling to this main point, that for us, through Christ,\nhell has been torn to pieces and the devil's kingdom and power utterly\ndestroyed, for which purpose He died, was buried, and descended,--so\nthat it should no longer harm or overwhelm us, as He Himself says, Matt.\n16, 18....\" (CONC. TRIGL., 1050)\n\n219. Aepinus in Hamburg.\n\nThe two outstanding features of Luther's sermon are that Christ\ndescended into hell body and soul, and that He descended as a triumphant\nVictor, and not in order to complete His suffering and the work of\natonement. The denial of these two points, in particular, caused a new\ncontroversy, which however, was of brief duration only, and practically\nconfined to the city of Hamburg, hence also called the Hamburg Church\nControversy, _der Hamburger Kirchenstreit_. Its author was John Aepinus\n[Huck or Hoeck; born 1499; studied under Luther; persecuted in\nBrandenburg and banished; rector in Stralsund; 1532 pastor and later\nsuperintendent in Hamburg; wrote 1547 against the Interim; sided with\nFlacius against the Philippists; published books in Latin and Low\nGerman; dealt with Christ's descent to hell especially in his\n_Commentary on Psalm 16_, of 1544, and in his _Explanation of Psalm 68_,\nof 1553; died May 13, 1553].\n\nAepinus taught that Christ's descent is a part of His suffering and\natonement. While the body was lying in the grave, His soul descended\ninto hell in order to suffer the qualms and pangs required to satisfy\nthe wrath of God, complete the work of redemption, and render a plenary\nsatisfaction, _satisfactio plenaria_. The descent is the last stage of\nChrist's humiliation and suffering, His triumph first beginning with the\nresurrection. Though we know His sufferings in hell to have been most\nsad and bitter, yet we are unable to say and define what they were in\nparticular, or to describe them concretely, because Scripture is silent\non this question.\n\nBut while Aepinus originally held that the soul of Christ suffered in\nhell the punishment of eternal death, he later on distinguished between\nthe first and the second death (eternal damnation) asserting the\nsuffering Christ endured in hell to have been a part of the punishment\nof the first death, and that He did not suffer the _cruciatus AETERNI\ntartarei ignis_.--Such were the views advocated, developed, and\nvariously modified by Aepinus in his theological lectures and\npublications. From the Latin \"_Consummatum est_, It is finished,\" the\nteaching that Christ finished His suffering and the work of atonement by\nHis death on the cross was stigmatized by Aepinus as \"_error\nconsummaticus_,\" and its advocates as \"Consummatists,\" while these, in\nturn, dubbed Aepinus and his adherents \"Infernalists.\" (Frank 3,440.)\n\nAmong the statements of Aepinus are the following: \"I believe that hell\nis a place prepared by divine justice to punish the devils and wicked\nmen according to the quality of their sins.\" (437.) \"On account of our\nredemption Christ descended to hell, just as He suffered and died for\nus.\" (437.) \"Theologians who either deny that the soul of Christ\ndescended into hell, or say that Christ was present in hell only in\neffect and power, and not by His presence, deprive the Church of faith\nin the sufficient, complete, and perfect satisfaction and redemption of\nChrist and leave to Satan the right over pious souls after their\nseparation from the body. For by denying that Christ sustained and bore\nthose punishments of death and hell which the souls were obliged to bear\nafter their separation from the body, they assert that complete\nsatisfaction has not been made for them.\" (439.) \"I believe that the\ndescent of the soul of Christ to hell is a part of the Passion of\nChrist, _i.e._, of the struggles, dangers, anguish, pains, and\npunishments which He took upon Himself and bore in our behalf; for, in\nthe Scriptures, to descend to hell signifies to be involved in the\nhighest struggles, pain, and distress. I believe that the descent of\nChrist to hell is a part of His obedience foretold by the prophets and\nimposed on Him because of our sins.\" (440.) \"I believe that the descent\nof Christ pertains to His humiliation, not to His glorification and\ntriumph.\" (441.) \"The descent to hell was by God's judgment laid upon\nChrist as the last degree of His humiliation and exinanition and as the\nextreme part of His obedience and satisfaction.\" (441.) \"Peter clearly\nteaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ felt the pangs of hell and\ndeath while His body was resting in the sepulcher.\" (441.) \"What Christ\nexperienced when He descended into hell is known to Himself, not to us;\nmay we acknowledge and accept with grateful minds that He descended\ninto hell for us. But let us not inquire what it was that He experienced\nfor us in His descent, for we may piously remain ignorant of matters\nwhich God did not reveal to His Church, and which He does not demand\nthat she know.\" (444.)\n\n220. Opposed by His Colleagues.\n\nThe views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 before\nthe ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on the\npart of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversy\nbegan to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus was\nalways marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponents\nTileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated and\nassailed his teaching in their pulpits.\n\nThe chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflicted\nwith, and invalidated, the words of Christ, \"It is finished,\" \"To-day\nshalt thou be with Me in Paradise.\" Aepinus rejoined that the word\n\"to-day\" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence and\nthe indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente tempore\nindefinito_). (414.) However, it was not in every respect Luther's\nposition which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratz\nis reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent of\nChrist was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) was\nidentical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hell\nreferred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; that\nChrist immediately after His death entered paradise together with the\nmalefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completed\nwith His death. (446.)\n\nIn 1550 the city council of Hamburg asked Melanchthon for his opinion.\nBut Melanchthon's answer of September, 1550, signed also by Bugenhagen,\nwas rather indefinite, vague, and evasive. He said, in substance:\nAlthough we have frequently heard the Reverend Doctor Luther speak on\nthis matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now been\nraised, we have written also to others for their views, in order to\npresent a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his\n_Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referred\nDescent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the rest\nmust not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome the\ntorments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not to\nbe restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul\n(_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animae\nseparationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion\n\"that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even when\nreferred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny of\nthe devil and hell is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ\nare liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to the\nword: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain\nway the Son of God manifested this victory to the devils, and, no doubt,\nthe devils felt that their power was broken by this Victor, and that the\nhead of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, by\nChrist, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was the\nresurrection of many dead.\" With respect to the controverted point,\nconcerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separation\nfrom the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg \"enjoin\nboth parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean time\nto avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other public\nmeetings.\" Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but \"only the\ninvestigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of His\ndeparted soul in hell, is to be omitted, an inquiry which also Dr.\nLuther did not consider necessary.\" (_C. R._ 7, 667.)\n\nBefore this Melanchthon had written in a similar vein of compromise to\nAepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. \"I wish,\" said he in a letter of\nApril 4, 1550, \"that there would be an amnesty between you in this\nentire strife\" about the descent of Christ. \"Let us cultivate peace with\none another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadder\ndisputations originate.\" (7, 569; compare 6, 116.) In the following year\nthe Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed and\nexpelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, was\nnot intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, but\nmerely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city.\n\n221. Other Participants in This Controversy.\n\nThough the controversy was suppressed in Hamburg, and Aepinus died May\n13, 1553, the theological questions involved were not settled, nor had\nall of the advocates of the views set forth by Aepinus disappeared from\nthe scene. Even such theologians as Westphal, Flacius, Gallus, and\nOsiander were partly agreed with him. Osiander says in an opinion: \"I am\nasked whether the descent of Christ pertains to the satisfaction made\nfor us or only to His triumph over the enemies. I answer briefly that\nthe descent of Christ into hell pertained to the satisfaction He merited\nfor us as well as to the triumph over the enemies, just as His death on\nthe cross does not belong to the one only, but to both.... Thus by\ndescending into hell He rendered satisfaction for us who merited hell,\naccording to Ps. 16.\" On the other hand, a synod held July 11, 1554, at\nGreifswald made it a point expressly to deny that the descent of Christ\ninvolved any suffering of His soul, or that it was of an expiatory\nnature, or that this article referred to the anguish of His soul before\nHis death, or that it was identical with His burial. They affirmed the\nteaching of Luther, _viz._, that the entire Christ, God and man, body\nand soul, descended into hell after His burial and before His\nresurrection, etc. (Frank, 446f.; 416.)\n\nFurthermore, in a letter to John Parsimonius, court-preacher in\nStuttgart, dated February 1, 1565 John Matsperger of Augsburg taught\nthat, in the article of the descent of Christ, the word \"hell\" must not\nbe taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc., but literally,\nas the kingdom of Satan and the place of the damned spirits and souls\nwherever that might be, that the entire Christ descended into this place\naccording to both divinity and humanity, with His body and soul, and not\nonly with the latter, while the former remained in the grave; that this\noccurred immediately after His vivification or the reunion of body and\nsoul in the grave and before His resurrection; that the Descent was\naccomplished in an instant, _viz._, in the moment after His vivification\nand before His resurrection; and that Christ descended, not to suffer,\nbut, as a triumphant Victor, to destroy the portals of hell for all\nbelievers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any way\nsuffer after His death, but denied emphatically that \"hell\" was a\ndefinite physical locality or place in space, and that the descent\ninvolved a local motion of the body. Brenz assented to the views of\nParsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also assented to them. In\norder to check his zeal against his opponents, Matsperger was deposed\nand imprisoned. (Frank, 450 f.)\n\nSuch being the situation within the Lutheran Church concerning the\nquestions involved in the Hamburg Controversy, which by the way, had\nbeen mentioned also in the Imperial Instruction for the Diet at\nAugsburg, 1555, the _Formula of Concord_ considered it advisable to pass\nalso on this matter. It did so, in Article IX, by simply reproducing\nwhat Luther had taught in the sermon referred to above. Here we read:\n\"We simply believe that the entire person, God and man after the burial,\ndescended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell\nand took from the devil all his might.\" (1051, 3.) \"But how this\noccurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the\nother world, where not only this point [this mystery], but also still\nothers will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot\ncomprehend with our blind reason.\" (827, 4.) Tschackert remarks: \"Ever\nsince [the adoption of the Ninth Article of the _Formula of Concord_]\nLutheran theology has regarded the Descent of Christ as the beginning of\nthe state of exaltation of the human nature of the God-man.\" (559.)\n\n\nXX. The Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord: On Predestination.\n\n222. Why Article XI was Embodied in the Formula.\n\nThe reason why Article XI was embodied in the _Formula of Concord_ is\nstated in the opening paragraph of this article: \"Although among the\ntheologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ there has not occurred as yet\nany public dissension whatever concerning the eternal election of the\nchildren of God that has caused offense, and has become wide-spread, yet\nsince this article has been brought into very painful controversy in\nother places, and even among our theologians there has been some\nagitation concerning it; moreover, since the same expressions were not\nalways employed concerning it by the theologians: therefore in order, by\nthe aid of divine grace, to prevent disagreement and separation on its\naccount in the future among our successors, we, as much as in us lies,\nhave desired also to present an explanation of the same here, so that\nevery one may know what is our unanimous doctrine, faith, and confession\nalso concerning this article.\" (1063, 1.)\n\nThe statements contained in these introductory remarks are in agreement\nwith the historical facts. For, while serious dissensions pertaining to\nelection did occur in Reformed countries, the Lutheran Church, ever\nsince the great conflict with Erasmus on free will, in 1525 had not been\ndisturbed by any general, public, and offensive controversy on this\nquestion, neither _ad intra_ among themselves, nor _ad extra_ with the\nCalvinists. Hence the chief purpose for embodying Article XI in the\n_Formula_ was not to settle past or present disputes, but rather, as\nstated in the paragraph quoted, to be of service in avoiding future\ndifferences and conflicts.\n\nThis earnest concern for the future peace of our Church, as well as for\nthe maintenance of its doctrinal purity, was partly due to\napprehensions, which, indeed, were not without foundation. As a matter\nof fact, long before the _Formula_ was drafted, the theological\natmosphere was surcharged with polemical possibilities and probabilities\nregarding predestination,--a doctrine which is simple enough as long as\nfaith adheres to the plain Word of God, without making rationalistic and\nsophistical inferences, but which in public controversies has always\nproved to be a most intricate, crucial, and dangerous question.\n\nCalvin and his adherents boldly rejected the universality of God's\ngrace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operation\nthrough the means of grace, and taught that, in the last analysis, also\nthe eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree of\ndivine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement of\nelection), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence to\nthe _Augsburg Confession_ and were making heavy inroads into Lutheran\nterritory with their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the\nperson of Christ,--which in itself was sufficient reason for a public\ndiscussion and determined resentment of their absolute\npredestinarianism. The Synergists, on the other hand, had long ago been\nbusy explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma of\nCalvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted and\nelected, while the rest are rejected, was to assume a different conduct\nin man--_aliqua actio dissimilis in homine_. And as for their Lutheran\nopponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were not\nalways sufficiently guarded to preclude all misapprehensions and false\ninferences.\n\nThus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up in\nconsiderable quantities. Considering these factors, which for decades\nhad been making for a theological storm, one may feel rather surprised\nthat a controversy on predestination had not arisen long ago. Tschackert\nsays: \"They [the Lutheran theologians] evidently feared an endless\ndebate if the intricate question concerning predestination were made a\nsubject of discussion.\" (559.) Sooner or later, however, the conflict\nwas bound to come with dire results for the Church, unless provisions\nwere made to escape it, or to meet it in the proper way. Well aware of\nthis entire critical situation and the imminent dangers lurking therein,\nthe framers of the _Formula of Concord_ wisely resolved to embody in it\nalso an article on election in order to clear the theological\natmosphere, maintain the divine truth, ward off a future controversy,\nand insure the peace of our Church.\n\n223. Unguarded Statements of Anti-Synergists.\n\nThat the occasional dissimilar and inadequate references to eternal\nelection and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergists\nwere a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula of\nConcord_ appears from the passage quoted from Article XI, enumerating,\namong the reasons why the article on predestination was embodied in the\n_Formula_, also the fact that \"the same expressions were not always\nemployed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians.\" These\ntheologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but not\nalways without some stumbling in their language. In their expositions\nthey had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn from\ntheir context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation.\nThe framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate and\nunguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following.\n\nBucer had written: \"The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God\ndelivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition.\nWhy, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined to\ndeliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition?\n_Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensum\nreprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam\nstatuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret in\nperniciem?_\" (Frank 4, 264.) The _Formula of Concord_, however, is\ncareful to explain: \"Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that\nwhen God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes\nwith obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because of\ntheir subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should not\nbe interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ that\nsuch persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.\"\n(1001, 83.)\n\nBrenz had said: \"To the one of the entire mass of the human race God\ngives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while He\nleaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus ex\nuniversa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua\niustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate,\nut pereat_.\" (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob and\nto leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understood\nof the election and rejection of all men in general. \"_Potuisset Deus\noptimo iure ambos abiicere;... sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum est\nDeo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobum\neligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobus\ndictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominum\nelectione et abiectione_.\" (256.) Hesshusius: \"In this respect God does\nnot will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectu\nDeus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_.\"\n(Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548.) Such statements, when torn from their\ncontext, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal.\nThe _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestly\nendeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man\nalone is the cause of his damnation.\n\nIn his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf\nsaid: \"God has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore\nGod works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in all\nother creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz._, through His willing\nand saying alone.... As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so and\nin the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, so\nthat man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God wills\nand says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus\nagendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo cum homine volente\net intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis,\nlapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere.... Sicut lapides et\ntrunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectus\nhominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut homo nihil prorsus velle et eligere\npossit nisi id, quod vult et dicit Deus, sive ex gratia, sive ex ira,\nderelinquens eum in manu consilii eius_.\" (Schlb. 5, 547; Gieseler 3, 2,\n230; Frank 4, 259.) This, too, was not embodied in the _Formula of\nConcord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has no\nmode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless has\na different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational and\nthat man is not coerced, neither in his sinning nor in his conversion.\n(905, 60ff.)\n\n224. Synergistic Predestination.\n\nThe connection between the doctrines of conversion and election is most\nintimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to a\ncorrect presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon,\nthe father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of a\nsynergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks of\npredestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, \"with less of\nmysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought as\nZwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, Zwinglis\nAusfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_.\" [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1,\n125; _C. R._ 21, 88. 93.) In reality he probably had never fully grasped\nthe truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, would\naccount for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the charges\nof Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his former\ndoctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views on\nelection. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism.\nSeptember 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: \"But in the entire _Apology_ I\nhave avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerning\npredestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows our\nfaith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish to\nperturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in tota\nApologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de\npraedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequatur\nnostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim volo\nconscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_.\" (_C. R._\n2, 547.)\n\nIn the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to the\nRomans_, 1532, he suggests \"that divine compassion is truly the cause of\nelection, but that there is some cause also in him who accepts, namely,\nin as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered. _Verecundius est,\nquod aliquamdiu placuit Augustino, misericordiam Dei vere causam\nelectionis esse, sed tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse,\nquatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat, quia malum ex nobis est_.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 192; Seeberg 4, 2, 442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ in\n1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and election\nresiding in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promise\nof the Gospel is both gratis and universal. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the\n_Loci_ edition of 1543 we read: \"God elected because He had decreed to\ncall us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefits\nto be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected those\nwho obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionem\ndecrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficia\ninnotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_.\" (21,\n917.)\n\nThe bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed by\nMelanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man a\ncause of discrimination why some are elected while others are rejected.\nIn his _Loci_ of 1548 he had written: \"Since the promise is universal,\nand since there are no contradictory wills in God, some cause of\ndiscrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted\n(_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be some\ndissimilar action in these two.\" (21, 659.) Self-evidently Melanchthon\nwould not have hesitated to replace the phrase \"why Saul was rejected\nand David accepted,\" with \"why Saul was rejected and David elected.\"\n\nMelanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escape\nfrom, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from the\nabsolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternal\ndamnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's \"ability to apply\nhimself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_.\" Accordingly, as\nhe dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supper\nas \"bread-worshipers,\" so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans who\nopposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R._ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100.\n565. 733; 23, 392.) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine as\nfollows: \"Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man the\nfreedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in his\ndoctrine of election.\" (4, 2, 446.) \"God elects all men who desire to\nbelieve.\" (_Grundriss_, 144.)\n\nNaturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed Master\nPhilip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffinger\ndeclared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in the\nchapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: \"If the will were\nidle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinction\nbetween the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, as\nbetween Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become a\nrespecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked and\ndamned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God which\nconflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is in\nus some cause why some assent while others do not assent.\" Thesis 23:\n\"For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideo\nenim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_.) But our\napprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal,\nand we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and the\nrejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz._, that\nthose are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those are\naccepted who embrace the promise.\"\n\nThe Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause of\nour salvation, conversion, and election, grace cannot be universal. Or,\nsince man's contempt of God's Word is the cause of his reprobation,\nman's acceptance of God's grace must be regarded as a cause of his\nelection. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter to\nLandgrave William of Hesse, dated April 20, 1577, criticized the\n_Formula of Concord_ for not allowing and admitting this argument.\n(Frank 4, 135. 267.)\n\n225. Calvinistic Predestination.\n\nWhile the Synergists, in answering the question why only some are saved,\ndenied the _sola gratia_ and taught a conversion and predestination\nconditioned by the conduct of man, John Calvin and his adherents, on the\nother hand, made rapid progress in the opposite direction, developing\nwith increasing clearness and boldness an absolute, bifurcated\npredestination, _i.e._, a capricious election to eternal damnation as\nwell as to salvation, and in accordance therewith denied the\nuniversality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the\nefficacious operation of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. In\nhis \"_Institutio Religionis Christianae_, Instruction in the Christian\nReligion,\" of which the first edition appeared 1535, the second in 1539,\nand the third in 1559, Calvin taught that God created and foreordained\nsome to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Man's election means\nthat he has been created for eternal life, man's reprobation, that he\nhas been created for eternal damnation. We read (_Lib_. 3, cap. 21, 5):\n\"_Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se\nconstitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari\nconditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio\naeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus\nest, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus_.\" (Tholuck,\n_Calvini Institutio_ 2, 133.) In the edition of 1559 Calvin says that\neternal election illustrates the grace of God by showing \"that He does\nnot adopt all promiscuously unto the hope of salvation, but bestows on\nsome what He denies to others--_quod non omnes promiscue adoptat in spem\nsalutis, sed dat aliis, quod aliis negat_.\" (Gieseler 3, 2, 172.) Again:\n\"I certainly admit that all the sons of Adam have fallen by the will of\nGod into the miserable condition of bondage, in which they are now\nfettered; for, as I said in the beginning, one must always finally go\nback to the decision of the divine will alone, whose cause is hidden in\nitself. _Fateor sane, in hanc qua nunc illigati sunt conditionis\nmiseriam Dei voluntate cecidisse universos filios Adam; atque id est,\nquod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinae\nvoluntatis arbitrium, cuius causa sit in ipso abscondita_.\" (173.)\nCalvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was also a strict\nsupralapsarian. At the colloquy of Moempelgard (Montbeliard), 1586, in\ndisputing with Andreae, he defended the proposition \"that Adam had\nindeed of his own accord fallen into these calamities, yet,\nnevertheless, not only according to the prescience, but also according\nto the ordination and decree of God--_sponte quidem, sed tamen non modo\npraesciente, sed etiam iuste ordinante et decernente Deo_.\" (186.)\n\"There never has been, nor is, nor will be a time,\" said he, \"when God\nhas wished, wishes, or will wish, to have compassion on every individual\nperson. _Nullum tempus fuit vel est vel erit, quo voluerit, velit aut\nvoliturus sit Deus singulorum misereri_.\" (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 25. 50.)\n\nIn foisting his doctrine of election on the Reformed churches, Calvin\nmet with at least some opposition. The words in the paragraph of the\n_Formula of Concord_ quoted above: \"Yet, since this article [of\npredestination] has been brought into very painful controversy in other\nplaces,\" probably refer to the conflicts in Geneva and Switzerland.\nOctober 16, 1551, Jerome Bolsec [a Carmelite in Paris, secretly spread\nPelagianism in Geneva; sided with the Protestants in Paris and Orleans\nafter his banishment from Geneva; reembraced Romanism when persecution\nset in; wrote against Calvin and Beza, died 1584] was imprisoned in\nGeneva because of his opposition to Calvin's doctrine of predestination.\nMelanchthon remarks in a letter of February 1, 1552: \"Laelius [Socinus]\nwrote me that in Geneva the struggle concerning the Stoic necessity is\nso great that a certain one who dissented from Zeno [Calvin] was\nincarcerated. What a miserable affair! The doctrine of salvation is\nobscured by disputations foreign to it.\" (_C. R._ 7, 932.) Although the\nGerman cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel) advised moderation, Bolsec was\nbanished from Geneva, with the result however, that he continued his\nagitation against Calvin in other parts of Switzerland. In Bern all\ndiscussions on predestination were prohibited by the city council.\nCalvin complained in a letter of September 18, 1554: \"The preachers of\nBern publicly declare that I am a heretic worse than all the Papists.\"\n(Gieseler 3, 2, 178.) January 26, 1555, the council of Bern renewed its\ndecree against public doctrinal discussions, notably those on\npredestination--\"_principalement touchant la matiere de la divine\npredestination, qui nous semble non etre necessaire_,\" etc. (179.) Later\non the doctrine of Calvin was opposed by the Arminians from\nSemi-Pelagian principles.\n\n226. Calvinistic Confessions.\n\nThe essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination were\nembodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The _Consensus Genevensis_\nof January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [a\nfanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; died\nDecember 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled:\n\"_Concerning God's Eternal Predestination_, by which He has elected some\nto salvation and left theothers to their perdition--_qua in salutem\nalios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit_.\" (Niemeyer,\n_Collectio Confessionum_, 218. 221.) The _Confessio Belgica_, of 1559,\nand the _Confessio Gallicana_, of 1561, teach the same absolute\npredestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: In\npredestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, _viz._,\nmerciful and just. \"Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation and\nperdition those whom ... He elected; just, by leaving the others in\ntheir fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves.\n_Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quam\nsese ipsi praecipites dederunt_.\" (Niemeyer, 370.) The _Gallic\nConfession_ [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved by\na synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translated\ninto German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of La\nRochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in their\ncorruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: \"We believe that from\nthis corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God,\naccording to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He has\nchosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without\nconsideration of their works, to display in them the riches of His\nmercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show\nin them His justice. _Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione\nuniversali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem\neripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola sua\nbonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in Iesu\nChristo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere,\nin quibus nimirum iuste suo tempore damnandis iustitiam suam demonstret,\nsicut in aliis divitias misericordiae suae declarat_.\" (Niemeyer, 332;\nSchaff 3, 366.)\n\nThe _Formula Consensus Helveticae_ of 1675 says, canon 13: \"As from\neternity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who in\ntime are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New Covenant\nHe has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election were\ngiven to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. _Sicut\nChristus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omnium\neorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in tempore\nNovi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternam\nelectionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditas\neius_,\" etc. (Niemeyer, 733.)\n\nThe same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the _Canons\nof the Synod of Dort_, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the _Westminster\nConfession of Faith_, published 1647. In the former we read: \"That some\nreceive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it,\nproceeds from God's eternal election.... According to His just judgment\nHe leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy.\" (Schaff\n3, 582.) \"The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and in\ndifferent measures, attain the assurance of this eternal and\nunchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and\ndeep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy\nand holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the\nWord of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow\nfor sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.\" (583.)\n\"Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the\neternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just,\nirreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave\nin the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves,\nand not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion.\"\n... (584.) \"For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will\nand purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy\nof the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect,\nfor bestowing _upon them alone_ the gift of justifying faith, thereby to\nbring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that\nChrist by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenant\nshould effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and\nlanguage all those, _and those only_, who were from eternity chosen to\nsalvation, and given to Him by the Father.\" (587.) \"But God, who is rich\nin mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not\n_wholly_ withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their\nmelancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the grace\nof adoption and forfeit the state of justification,\" etc. (Schaff 3,\n593; Niemeyer, 716.)\n\nThe _Westminster Confession_ declares: \"By the decree of God, for the\nmanifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto\neverlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.\"\n(Schaff 3, 608.) \"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath\nHe, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all\nthe means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in\nAdam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ\nby His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,\nand kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any\nother redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,\nsanctified, and saved but the elect only.\" (609.) \"The rest of mankind\nGod was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will,\nwhereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His\nsovereign power over His creatures, _to pass by_, and to ordain them to\ndishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious\njustice.\" (610; Niemeyer, _Appendix_ 6. 7.)\n\n227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg.\n\nIn view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it is\ncertainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularly\nwith the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long before\nthe _Formula of Concord_ was able to write that such a conflict had not\nyet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarian\nconflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities,\nwithin as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmish\nlacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as a\nsignal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach and\nZanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI:\n\"Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has been\nmooted also among our theologians.\" This controversy took place from\n1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came into\nimmediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the _Wittenberg\nConcord_ and with it the _Augsburg Confession_ which since took the\nplace of the _Tetrapolitana_ delivered to Emperor Charles at the Diet\nof Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizing\nthe city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together with\nMathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 and\nlabored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He had\nBucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the public\ncontroversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled,\n_Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians_, which\ndefends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature.\n\nIn his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by the\nCrypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a converted\nItalian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won for\nProtestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor,\nfirst in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to the\nContinent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12,\n1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563\nZanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though he\nhad signed the _Augsburg Confession_, he was and remained a rigid\nCalvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and that\nof the Lord's Supper, but withheld his public dissent until about 1561.\nIt was the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,\naccording to which grace once received cannot be lost, upon which Zanchi\nnow laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (_Historia Motuum_ 3,\n30) he taught: \"1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God only\nonce. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith ... can\nnever again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with their\nwhole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he,\nindeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of the\nheart. _1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur.\n2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insiti\nfidem prorsus amittere ... non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duo\nsunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantum\nhominem exteriorem, i.e., ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti,\npeccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum et\ncondelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntate\npeccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fidei\nconfessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde_.\" (Tschackert 560;\nFrank 4, 261.)\n\nThis tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternally\nlost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the _Smalcald Articles_ we\nread: \"On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of\nwhom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of\nthe peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who had\nonce received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become\nbelievers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in\nthe faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Do\nwhatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faith\nblots out all sins,' etc.--they say, besides, that if any one sins after\nhe has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and\nfaith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in\nsome such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is,\naccordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still\nhaving and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving\nwith it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery,\nmurder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed\nfrom them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to\ngain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and\nrestrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what\nit wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not present. For St. John says,\n1 Ep. 3, 9: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,... and he\ncannot sin.' And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says,\n1 Ep. 1, 8: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and\nthe truth is not in us.'\" (491, 42f.)\n\nIn an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 some\nAntinomians maintained and argued \"that, since in this life sin remains\nin saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvation\neven when they commit adultery and other sins against their\nconscience.... There are many at many places who are imbued with this\nerror [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the conscience\ncan remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy although\nthey live and persevere in sins against their consciences.\" (_C. R._ 9,\n764. 405. 473; 8, 411.)\n\nThe perseverance of saints as taught by Zanchi was the point to which\nMarbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, which\nwas finally settled by the _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ of 1563,\noutside theologians participating and acting as arbiters. This\n_Formula_, which was probably prepared by Jacob Andreae, treated in its\nfirst article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. It\nrejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, and\nprescribed the _Wittenberg Concord_ of 1536 as the doctrinal rule\nregarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties,\nZanchi stating over his signature: \"_Hanc doctrinae formam ut piam\nagnosco, ita eam recipio_.\" Evidently his mental reservation was that he\nbe permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it as\npious. Later Zanchi declared openly that he had subscribed the _Formula_\nonly conditionally. Soon after his subscription he left Strassburg,\nserving till 1568 as preacher of a Reformed Italian congregation in\nChiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University of\nHeidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died at\nHeidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continued\nhis work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause of\nthe _Formula of Concord_. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a local\ncharacter, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI.\nThe thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupil\nof Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_.\n\n228. The Strassburg Formula.\n\nThe _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ sets forth the Scriptural and\npeculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, according\nto which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance of\nhis election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not _a\npriori_, but _a posteriori_. That is to say, he is not to speculate on\nthe act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested to\nhim in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own false\nconception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the _Strassburg\nFormula_ did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election,--a\nstricture frequently made also on Article XI of the _Formula of\nConcord_, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election the\nReformed have never fully grasped and realized.\n\nThe _Strassburg Formula_ taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, the\ndoctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it into\nconflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor to\ndeprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in any\nway to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is the\ngrace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election,\nespecially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the hands\nof Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality of\nGod's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvation\nfor all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which is\nthe gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered to\nall; that the reason why the gift of faith is not bestowed upon all men,\nthough Christ seriously invites all to come to Him, is a mystery known\nto God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of God\nproposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men are\ndirected, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is not\ncontradictory of the hidden will of God. (Loescher, _Hist Mot_. 2, 229;\nFrank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560.)\n\nParticularly with respect to the \"mystery,\" the _Strassburg Formula_\nsays: \"The fact that this grace or this gift of faith is not given by\nGod to all when He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinite\ngoodness, certainly calls earnestly: 'Come unto the marriage, for all\nthings are now ready,' is a sealed mystery known to God alone, past\nfinding out for human reason; a secret that must be contemplated with\nfear and be adored, as it is written: 'O the depth of the riches both of\nthe wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and\nHis ways past finding out!' Rom. 11, 33. And Christ gives thanks to the\nFather because He has hid these things from the wise and prudent and\nrevealed them unto babes. Matt. 11, 25. Troubled consciences, however,\nmust not take offense at this hidden way of the divine will but look\nupon the will of God revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to\nHimself.\" This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians.\nMoerlin wrote: \"God has revealed to us that He will save only those who\nbelieve in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden,\nhowever, are God's judgments--why He converts Paul but does not convert\nCaiaphas; why He receives fallen Peter again and abandons Judas to\ndespair.\" Chemnitz: \"Why, then, is it that God does not put such faith\ninto the heart of Judas so that he, too, might have believed and been\nsaved through Christ? Here we must leave off questioning and say, Rom.\n11: 'O the depth!'... We cannot and must not search this nor meditate\ntoo deeply upon such questions.\" Kirchner: \"Since, therefore, faith in\nChrist is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it upon all?\nAnswer: We must defer the discussion of this question unto eternal life,\nand in the mean time be content to know that God does not want us to\nsearch His secret judgments, Rom. 11: 'O the depth,' etc.\" In a similar\nway Chemnitz, Selneccer, and Kirchner expressed themselves in their\n_Apology of the Book of Concord_, of 1582, declaring that, \"when asked\nwhy God does not convert all men, we must answer with the apostle: 'How\nunsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!' but not\nascribe to God the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobation\nor damnation of the impenitent.\" (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 585f.)\n\n229. Predestination according to Article XI of Formula of Concord.\n\nIn keeping with her fundamental teaching of _sola gratia_ and _gratia\nuniversalis_, according to which God's grace is the only cause of man's\nsalvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his damnation, the\nLutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace,\n_i.e._, a predestination to salvation only. God's eternal election, says\nthe _Formula of Concord_, \"does not extend at once over the godly and\nthe wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and\nordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as\nPaul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: 'He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated\nus unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.'\" (1065, 5.) This\nelection, the _Formula_ continues, \"not only foresees and foreknows the\nsalvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure\nof God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and\npromotes our salvation, and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine\npredestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell\ncannot prevail against it, Matt. 16, 18, as is written John 10, 28:\n'Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand,' And again, Acts\n13, 48: 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'\" (1065,\n8.) While thus election is a cause of faith and salvation, there is no\ncause of election in man. The teaching \"that not only the mercy of God\nand the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause of\nGod's election on account of which God has elected us to everlasting\nlife,\" is rejected by the _Formula of Concord_ as one of the\n\"blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines whereby all the comfort\nwhich they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is\ntaken from Christians.\" (837, 20f.)\n\nConcerning the way of considering eternal election, the _Formula_\nwrites: \"If we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably\nconcerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the\nchildren of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to\nspeculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable\nforeknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of\nGod in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us\nthrough the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the\npurpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our\nredemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together;\nas Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8, 29f.; Eph. 1, 4f.,\nas also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22, 1ff.\" (1067, 13.)\n\nWhile according to the Lutheran Church election is the cause of faith\nand salvation, there is no such a thing as an election of wrath or a\npredestination to sin and damnation, of both of which God is not the\ncause and author. According to the _Formula_ the vessels of mercy are\nprepared by God alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared for\ndamnation, not by God, but by themselves. Moreover, God earnestly\ndesires that all men turn from their wicked ways and live. We read: \"For\nall preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin,\nand in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how,\nthen, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God is\nnot a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of\ndamnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin\nis death. Rom. 6, 23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure\nin sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33,\n11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing that\nany one should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3,\n9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18, 23; 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the\nLord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the\nwicked turn from his way and live,' And St. Paul testifies in clear\nwords that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by\nGod's power and working, when he writes 2 Tim. 2, 21: 'If a man,\ntherefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor,\nsanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good\nwork,' For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and\nhence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says\nclearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does\nnot say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have\nprepared themselves as vessels of damnation.\" (1089, 81f.) \"Hence the\napostle distinguishes with special care the work of God, who alone makes\nvessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the\ninstigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of\ndishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f.: 'God endured with much\nlong-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might\nmake known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had\nafore prepared unto glory.' Here, then, the apostle clearly says that\nGod endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not\nsay that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will,\nHe would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault,\nhowever, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and\nto men themselves, and not to God.\" (1089, 79f.)\n\nIt is man's own fault when he is not converted by the Word or afterwards\nfalls away again. We read: \"But the reason why not all who hear it [the\nWord of God] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is not\nbecause God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own\nfault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but\nonly to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy\nGhost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at\nthe time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents.\" (1089, 78.)\n\"For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the\nWord, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22, 3ff. The cause of this\ncontempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination],\nbut the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and\ninstrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and\nresists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through\nthe Word, as Christ says: 'How often would I have gathered you together,\nand ye would not!' Matt. 23, 37. Thus many receive the Word with joy,\nbut afterwards fall away again, Luke 8, 13. But the cause is not as\nthough God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in\nwhom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil.\n1, 6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy\ncommandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves\nagain in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the\nheart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first.\"\n(1077 41f.; 835, 12.)\n\nIt is not because of any deficiency in God that men are lost; for His\ngrace is universal as well as serious and efficacious. The _Formula of\nConcord_ declares: \"However, that many are called and few chosen is not\nowing to the fact that the call of God, which is made through the Word,\nhad the meaning as though God said: Outwardly, through the Word, I\nindeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, in\nMy heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respect\nto a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I call\nthrough the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be and\nremain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myself\nto them otherwise. _Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntates\naffingere_. For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. That\nis, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is Eternal\nTruth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve\nanother in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and]\npunishes also in men this wickedness, when a person declares himself to\none purpose, and thinks and means another in the heart, Ps. 5, 9; 12,\n2f.\" (1075, 36.)\n\nIt is a punishment of their previous sins and not a result of God's\npredestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardening\nsignify that it never was God's good pleasure to save them. \"Moreover,\"\nsays the _Formula_, \"it is to be diligently considered that when God\npunishes sin with sins, that is when He afterwards punishes with\nobduracy and blindness those who had been converted because of their\nsubsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins, this should not be\ninterpreted to mean that it never had been God's good pleasure that such\npersons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For both\nthese facts are God's revealed will: first, that God will receive into\ngrace all who repent and believe in Christ; secondly, that He also will\npunish those who wilfully turn away from the holy commandment, and again\nentangle themselves in the filth of the world 2 Pet. 2, 20, and garnish\ntheir hearts for Satan, Luke 11, 25f., and do despite unto the Spirit of\nGod, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, and\neternally condemned if they persist therein.\" (1091, 83.)\n\n\"But that God ... hardened Pharaoh's heart, namely, that Pharaoh always\nsinned again and again, and became the more obdurate the more he was\nadmonished, that was a punishment of his antecedent sin and horrible\ntyranny, which in many and manifold ways he practised inhumanly and\nagainst the accusations of his heart towards the children of Israel. And\nsince God caused His Word to be preached and His will to be proclaimed\nto him, and Pharaoh nevertheless wilfully reared up straightway against\nall admonitions and warnings, God withdrew His hand from him and thus\nhis heart became hardened and obdurate, and God executed His judgment\nupon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than hell-fire. Accordingly,\nthe holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no other\nreason than to prove by it the justice of God which He exercises towards\nthe impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has he\nintended or understood it to mean that God begrudged salvation to him or\nany person, but had so ordained him to eternal damnation in His secret\ncounsel that he should not be able, or that it should not be possible\nfor him, to be saved.\" (1091, 85f.)\n\n230. Agreement of Articles XI and II.\n\nIn the _Formula of Concord_, Article XI is closely related to most of\nthe other articles particularly to Article I, Of Original Sin, and\nArticle II, Of Free Will and Conversion. Election is to conversion what\nthe concave side of a lens is to the convex. Both correspond to each\nother in every particular. What God does for and in man when He\nconverts, justifies, sanctifies, preserves, and finally glorifies him,\nHe has in eternity resolved to do,--that is one way in which eternal\nelection may be defined. Synergists and Calvinists, however have always\nmaintained that the Second Article is in a hopeless conflict with the\nEleventh. But the truth is, the Second fully confirms and corroborates\nthe Eleventh, and _vice versa;_ for both maintain the _sola gratia_ as\nwell as the _universalis gratia_.\n\nBoth articles teach that in every respect grace alone is the cause of\nour conversion and salvation, and that this grace is not confined to\nsome men only, but is a grace for all. Both teach that man, though\ncontributing absolutely nothing to his conversion and salvation, is\nnevertheless the sole cause of his own damnation. Both disavow Calvinism\nwhich denies the universality of grace. Both reject synergism, which\ncorrupts grace by teaching a cooperation of man towards his own\nconversion and salvation. Teaching therefore, as they do, the same\ntruths, both articles will and must ever stand and fall together. It\nwas, no doubt, chiefly due to this complete harmony between the Second\nand the Eleventh Article that after the former (which received its\npresent shape only after repeated changes and additions) had been\ndecided upon the revision of the latter (the Eleventh) caused but little\ndelay. (Frank 4, V. 133.)\n\nConcerning the alleged conflict between Articles II and XI, we read in\nSchaff's _Creeds of Christendom:_ \"There is an obvious and\nirreconcilable antagonism between Article II and Article XI. They\ncontain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological\nscience, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into\na creed. The _Formula_ adopts one part of Luther's book _De Servo\nArbitrio_, 1525, and rejects the other, which follows with logical\nnecessity. It is Augustinian, yea, hyper-Augustinian and\nhyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and\nanti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It endorses\nthe anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If\nman is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the\ngrace of God, as Article II teaches, he can only be converted by an act\nof almighty power and irresistible grace, which Article XI denies. If\nsome men are saved without any cooperation on their part, while others,\nwith the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the\ndifference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable\ndecree of God. On the other hand if God sincerely wills the salvation of\nall men, as Article XI teaches, and yet only a part are actually saved,\nthere must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost\ntowards converting grace, which is denied in Article II. The Lutheran\nsystem, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either\nfrom Article II in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or\nfrom Article XI in the direction of synergism and Arminianism. The\nformer would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine [?],\nwhich he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the\nlatter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less\nby some of the ablest modern Lutherans.\" (1, 314. 330.) Prior to Schaff,\nsimilar charges had been raised by Planck, Schweizer, Heppe, and others,\nwho maintained that Article XI suffers from a \"theological confusion\notherwise not found in the _Formula_.\"\n\nApart from other unwarranted assertions in the passage quoted from\nSchaff, the chief charges there raised against the _Formula of Concord_\nare: 1. that Articles XI and II are contradictory to each other, 2. that\nthe Lutheran Church has failed to harmonize the doctrines of _sola\ngratia_ and _gratia universalis_. However, the first of these strictures\nis based on gross ignorance of the facts, resulting from a superficial\ninvestigation of the articles involved, for the alleged disagreement is\npurely imaginary. As a matter of fact, no one can read the two articles\nattentively without being everywhere impressed with their complete\nharmony. In every possible way Article XI excludes synergism, and\ncorroborates the _sola gratia_ doctrine of Article II. And Article II,\nin turn, nowhere denies, rather everywhere, directly or indirectly,\nconfirms, the universal grace particularly emphasized in Article XI.\n\nThe framers of the _Formula_ were well aware of the fact that the least\nerror in the doctrine of free will and conversion was bound to manifest\nitself also in the doctrine of election, and that perhaps in a form much\nmore difficult to detect. Hence Article XI was not only intended to be a\nbulwark against the assaults on the doctrine of grace coming from\n Calvinistic quarters, but also an additional reenforcement of the\narticle of Free Will against the Synergists, in order to prevent a\nfuture recrudescence of their errors in the sphere of predestination.\nIts object is clearly to maintain the doctrine of the Bible, according\nto which it is grace alone that saves, a grace which, at the same time,\nis a grace for all, and thus to steer clear of synergism as well as of\nCalvinism, and forever to close the doors of the Lutheran Church to\nevery form of these two errors.\n\nAccording to the Second Article, Christians cannot be assured of their\nelection if the doctrine of conversion [by grace alone] is not properly\npresented. (901, 47. 57.) And Article XI most emphatically supports\nArticle II in its efforts to weed out every kind of synergistic or\nRomanistic corruption. For here we read: \"Thus far the mystery of\npredestination is revealed to us in God's Word; and if we abide thereby\nand cleave thereto, it is a very useful salutary, consolatory doctrine;\nfor it establishes very effectually the article that we are justified\nand saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of grace\nalone, for Christ's sake. For before the time of the world, before we\nexisted, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of\ncourse, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purpose\nchosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9.\nMoreover, all opinions and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers of\nour natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel,\nbefore the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by\nthe power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the\nWord, everything that pertains to our conversion.\" (1077, 43f.; 837,\n20.)\n\nAgain: \"By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving\nchoice of the elect children of God, His own glory is entirely and fully\ngiven to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy,\nwithout any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of\nHis will, as it is written Eph. 1, 5f.: 'Having predestinated us,'...\nTherefore it is false and wrong when it is taught that not alone the\nmercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us\nthere is a cause of God's predestination on account of which God has\nchosen us to eternal life.\" Indeed, one of the most exclusive\nformulations against every possible kind of subtile synergism is found\nin Article XI when it teaches that the reason why some are converted and\nsaved while others are lost, must not be sought in man, _i.e._, in any\nminor guilt or less faulty conduct toward grace shown by those who are\nsaved, as compared with the guilt and conduct of those who are lost.\n(1081, 57f.) If, therefore, the argument of the Calvinists and\nSynergists that the _sola gratia_ doctrine involves a denial of\nuniversal grace were correct, the charge of Calvinism would have to be\nraised against Article XI as well as against Article II.\n\nIn a similar manner the Second Article confirms the Eleventh by\ncorroborating its anti-Calvinistic teaching of universal grace and\nredemption; of man's responsibility for his own damnation; of man's\nconversion, not by compulsion or coercion, etc. The Second Article most\nemphatically teaches the _sola gratia_, but without in any way limiting,\nviolating, or encroaching upon, universal grace. It is not merely\nopposed to Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and synergistic errors, but to Stoic\nand Calvinistic aberrations as well. While it is not the special object\nof the Second Article to set forth the universality of God's grace, its\nanti-Calvinistic attitude is nevertheless everywhere apparent.\n\nArticle II plainly teaches that \"it is not God's will that anyone should\nbe damned, but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved\neternally. Ezek. 33, 11: 'As I live.'\" (901, 49.) It teaches that\n\"Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word\nand holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has\npromised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, and\nare occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst.\" (903, 57.)\nIt maintains that through the Gospel the Holy Ghost offers man grace and\nsalvation, effects conversion through the preaching and hearing of God's\nWord, and is present with this Word in order to convert men. (787, 4ff.;\n889, 18.) It holds that \"all who wish to be saved ought to hear this\npreaching, because the preaching and hearing of God's Word are the\ninstruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to\nwork efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both\nto will and to do.\" (901, 52ff.)  It admonishes that no one should doubt\nthat the power and efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present with, and\nefficacious in, the Word when it is preached purely and listened to\nattentively, and that we should base our certainty concerning the\npresence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost not on our feeling, but\non the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is truly an\noffice and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious\nand works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff.; 3, 5ff.\" [tr. note: sic on\npunctuation] (903, 56.) It asserts that men who refuse to hear the Word\nof God are not converted because they despised the instrument of the\nHoly Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that God does not force men to\nbecome godly; that those who always resist the Holy Ghost and\npersistently oppose the known truth are not converted (905, 60). If,\ntherefore, the inference were correct that the doctrine of universal\ngrace involved a denial of the _sola gratia_, then the charge of\nsynergism would have to be raised against Article II as well as against\nArticle XI.  Both articles will always stand and fall together; for both\nteach that the grace of God is the only cause of our conversion and\nsalvation, and that this grace is truly universal.\n\n231. Mystery in Doctrine of Grace.\n\nThe second charge raised by Calvinists and Synergists against the\n_Formula of Concord_ is its failure to harmonize \"logically\" what they\nterm \"contradictory doctrines\": _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_,\n--a stricture which must be characterized as flowing from rationalistic\npremises, mistaking a divine mystery for a real contradiction, and in\nreality directed against the clear Word of God itself. Says Schaff, who\nalso in this point voices the views of Calvinists as well as Synergists:\n\"The _Formula of Concord_ sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism\nand universalism, or between the original Luther and the later\nMelanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the\nuniversality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these\ncontradictory positions.\" (304.) \"Thus the particularism of election and\nthe universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man, and\nthe guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he cannot accept, are\nillogically combined.\" (1, 330.) The real charge here raised against the\n_Formula of Concord_ is, that it fails to modify the doctrines of _sola\ngratia_ or _universalis gratia_ in a manner satisfactory to the demands\nof human reason; for Synergists and Calvinists are agreed that, in the\ninterest of rational harmony, one or the other must be abandoned, either\n_universalis gratia seria et efficax_, or _sola gratia_.\n\nIn judging of the charge in question, it should not be overlooked that,\naccording to the _Formula of Concord_, all Christians, theologians\nincluded, are bound to derive their entire doctrine from the Bible\nalone; that matters of faith must be decided exclusively by clear\npassages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point to\ncriticize and lord it over the infallible Word of God; that reason must\nbe subjected to the obedience of Christ, and dare not hinder faith in\nbelieving the divine testimonies even when they seemingly contradict\neach other. We are not commanded to harmonize, says the _Formula_, but\nto believe, confess, defend, and faithfully to adhere to the teachings\nof the Bible. (1078, 52ff.) In the doctrine of conversion and salvation,\ntherefore, Lutherans confess both the _sola gratia_ and the _universalis\ngratia_, because they are convinced that both are clearly taught in the\nBible, and that to reject or modify either of them would amount to a\ncriticism of the Word of God, and hence of God Himself. Synergists\ndiffer from Lutherans, not in maintaining universal grace (which in\nreality they deny as to intention as well as extension, for they corrupt\nthe Scriptural content of grace by making it dependent on man's conduct,\nand thereby limit its extension to such only as comply with its\nconditions), but in denying the _sola gratia_, and teaching that the\nwill of man enters conversion as a factor alongside of grace. And\nCalvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the _sola gratia_,\nbut in denying universal grace.\n\nBut while, in accordance with the clear Word of God, faithfully adhering\nto both the _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_, and firmly\nmaintaining that whoever is saved is saved by grace alone, and whoever\nis lost is lost through his own fault alone, the _Formula of Concord_ at\nthe same time fully acknowledges the difficulty presenting itself to\nhuman reason when we hold fast to this teaching. In particular, it\nadmits that the question, not answered in the Bible, _viz_., why some\nare saved while others are lost, embraces a mystery which we lack the\nmeans and ability of solving, as well as the data. Accordingly, the\n_Formula_ also makes no efforts whatever to harmonize them, but rather\ndiscountenances and warns against all attempts to cater to human reason\nin this respect, and insists that both doctrines be maintained intact\nand taught conjointly. Lutherans are fully satisfied that here every\neffort at rational harmonization cannot but lead either to Calvinistic\ncorruption of universal grace or to synergistic modification of _sola\ngratia_.\n\nThus the Lutheran Church not only admits, but zealously guards, the\nmystery contained in the doctrine of grace and election. It\ndistinguishes between God in as far as He is known and not known; in as\nfar as He has revealed Himself, and in as far as He is still hidden to\nus, but as we shall learn to know Him hereafter. The truths which may be\nknown concerning God are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible.\nThe things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments of\nGod, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question why\nsome are saved while others are lost. God has not seen fit to reveal\nthese mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom God, man's\nquest for an answer is both presumptuous and vain. That is to say, we\nare utterly unable to uncover the divine counsels, which would show that\nthe mysterious judgments and ways proceeding from them are in complete\nharmony with the universal grace proclaimed by the Gospel.\n\nYet Lutherans believe that the hidden God is not in real conflict with\nGod as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of God does not\nin the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According to\nthe _Formula of Concord_ there are no real contradictions in God; in Him\neverything is yea and amen; His very being is pure reality and truth.\nHence, when relying on God as revealed in Christ, that is to say,\nrelying on grace which is pure grace only and at the same time grace for\nall, Christians may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in the\nunknown God, _i.e._, in as far as He has not revealed Himself to them,\nwhich might subvert their simple faith in His gracious promises. The\nface of God depicted in the Gospel is the true face of God. Whoever has\nseen Christ has seen the Father as He is in reality.\n\nIndeed, also the hidden God, together with His secret counsels,\nunsearchable judgments, and ways past finding out, even the majestic\nGod, in whom we live and move and have our being, the God who has all\nthings well in hand, and without whom nothing can be or occur, must, in\nthe light of the Scriptures, be viewed as an additional guarantee that,\nin spite of all contingencies, the merciful divine promises of the\nGospel shall stand firm and immovable. Upon eternal election, says the\n_Formula of Concord_, \"our salvation is so [firmly] founded 'that the\ngates of hell cannot prevail against it.'\" (1065, 8.) As for us,\ntherefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what God\nhas withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of God's transcendent\nmajesty, but merely to rely on, and securely trust in, the blessed\nGospel, which proclaims grace for all and salvation by grace alone, and\nteaches that whoever is saved must praise God alone for it, while\nwhoever is damned must blame only himself.\n\nRegarding the mystery involved in predestination, the _Formula of\nConcord_ explains: \"A distinction must be observed with especial care\nbetween that which is expressly revealed concerning it [predestination]\nin God's Word and what is not revealed. For in addition to what has been\nrevealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken,\nGod has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery,\nand reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should not\ninvestigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw\nconclusions nor inquire curiously, but should adhere to the revealed\nWord. This admonition is most urgently needed. For our curiosity has\nalways much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters\n[investigating things abstruse and hidden] than with what God has\nrevealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize\nit [cannot by the acumen of our natural ability harmonize the intricate\nand involved things occurring in this mystery], which, moreover, we have\nnot been commanded to do.\"\n\nThe _Formula_ enumerates as such inscrutable mysteries: Why God gives\nHis Word at one place, but not at another; why He removes it from one\nplace, and allows it to remain at another; why one is hardened, while\nanother, who is in the same guilt, is converted again. Such and similar\nquestions, says the _Formula_, we cannot answer and must not endeavor to\nsolve. On the contrary, we are to adhere unflinchingly to both truths,\n_viz_., that those who are converted are saved, not because they are\nbetter than others, but by pure grace alone; and that those who are not\nconverted and not saved cannot accuse God of any neglect or injustice\nbut are lost by their own fault. The _Formula_ concludes its paragraphs\non the mysteries in predestination by saying: \"When we proceed thus far\nin this article [maintaining that God alone is the cause of man's\nsalvation and man alone is the cause of his damnation, and refusing to\nsolve the problems involved], we remain on the right [safe and royal]\nway, as it is written Hos. 13, 9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed\nthyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in\nthis disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we\nshould, with Paul, place the finger upon our lips, remember and say,\nRom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'\" (1078,\n52ff.)\n\n232. Predestination a Comforting Article.\n\nChristian doctrines, or doctrines of the Church, are such only as are in\nexact harmony with the Scriptures. They alone, too, are able to serve\nthe purpose for which the Scriptures are given, _viz_., to convert and\nsave sinners, and to comfort troubled Christians. Scriptural doctrines\nare always profitable, and detrimental doctrines are never Scriptural.\nThis is true also of the article of eternal election. It is a truly\nedifying doctrine as also the _Formula of Concord_ is solicitous to\nexplain. (1092, 89ff.) However, it is comforting only when taught in its\npurity, _i.e._, when presented and preserved in strict adherence to the\nBible; that is to say, when both the _sola gratia_ and _gratia\nuniversalis_ are kept inviolate. Whenever the doctrine of predestination\ncauses despair or carnal security, it has been either misrepresented or\nmisunderstood.\n\nIn the introductory paragraphs of Article XI we read: \"For the doctrine\nconcerning this article, if taught from, and according to the pattern of\nthe divine Word, neither can nor should be regarded as useless or\nunnecessary, much less as offensive or injurious, because the Holy\nScriptures not only in but one place and incidentally, but in many\nplaces thoroughly treat and urge the same. Moreover, we should not\nneglect or reject the doctrine of the divine Word on account of abuse or\nmisunderstanding, but precisely on that account, in order to avert all\nabuse and misunderstanding the true meaning should and must be explained\nfrom the foundation of the Scriptures.\" (1063, 2; 1067, 13.)\n\n\"If it is treated properly,\" says also the Epitome, the doctrine of\npredestination \"is a consolatory article\" (830, 1); that is to say, if\npredestination is viewed in the light of the Gospel, and particularly,\nif _sola gratia_ as well as _gratia universalis_ are kept inviolate.\nOutside of God's revelation in the Gospel there is no true and wholesome\nknowledge whatever concerning election, but mere noxious human dreams.\nAnd when the universality of grace is denied, it is impossible for any\none to know whether he is elected, and whether the grace spoken of in\nthe Gospel is intended for or belongs to him. \"Therefore,\" says the\n_Formula of Concord_, \"if we wish to consider our eternal election to\nsalvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to\nthis, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the\nGospel is _universalis_ (universal), that is, it pertains to all men,\nLuke 24, 47,\" etc. (1071, 28.) By denying that universal grace is meant\nseriously and discounting the universal promises of the Gospel, \"the\nnecessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain and\nvoid, as we are daily reminded and admonished that only from God's Word,\nthrough which He treats with us and calls us, we are to learn and\nconclude what His will toward us is, and that we should believe and not\ndoubt what it affirms to us and promises.\" (1075, 36.) If God cannot be\ntrusted in His universal promises, absolutely nothing in the Bible can\nbe relied upon. A doctrine of election from which universal grace is\neliminated, necessarily leads to despair or to contumaciousness and\ncarnal security. Calvin was right when he designated his predestination\ntheory, which denies universal grace, a \"horrible decree.\" It left him\nwithout any objective foundation whatever upon which to rest his faith\nand hope.\n\nIn like manner, when the doctrine of election and grace is modified\nsynergistically, no one can know for certain whether he has really been\npardoned and will be saved finally, because here salvation is not\nexclusively based on the sure and immovable grace and promises of God,\nbut, at least in part, on man's own doubtful conduct--a rotten plank\nwhich can serve neither foot for safely crossing the great abyss of sin\nand death. Only when presented and taught in strict adherence to the\nBible is the doctrine of election and grace fully qualified to engender\ndivine certainty of our present adoption and final salvation as well,\nsince it assures us that God sincerely desires to save all men (us\nincluded), that He alone does, and has promised to do, everything\npertaining thereto, and that nothing is able to thwart His promises,\nsince He who made them and confirmed them with an oath is none other\nthan the majestic God Himself.\n\nAccordingly, when Calvinists and Synergists criticize the _Formula of\nConcord_ for not harmonizing (modifying in the interest of rational\nharmony) the clear doctrines of the Bible, which they brand as\ncontradictions, they merely display their own conflicting, untenable\nposition. For while professing to follow the Scriptures, they at the\nsame time demand that its doctrines be corrected according to the\ndictate of reason, thus plainly revealing that their theology is not\nfounded on the Bible, but orientated in rationalism, the true ultimate\nprinciple of Calvinism as well as synergism.\n\nIn the last analysis, therefore, the charge of inconsistency against\nthe _Formula of Concord_ is tantamount to an indirect admission that the\nLutheran Church is both a consistently Scriptural and a truly\nevangelical Church. Consistently Scriptural, because it receives in\nsimple faith and with implicit obedience every clear Word of God, all\ncounter-arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. Truly evangelical,\nbecause in adhering with unswerving loyalty to the seemingly\ncontradictory, but truly Scriptural doctrine of grace, it serves the\npurpose of the Scriptures, which--praise the Lord--is none other than to\nsave, edify, and comfort poor disconsolate sinners.\n\n233. Statements of Article XI on Consolation Offered by Predestination.\n\nThe purpose of the entire Scripture, says the _Formula of Concord_, is\nto comfort penitent sinners. If we therefore abide by, and cleave to,\npredestination as it is revealed to us in God's Word, \"it is a very\nuseful, salutary, consolatory doctrine.\" Every presentation of eternal\nelection, however which produces carnal security or despair, is false.\nWe read: \"If any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious\nelection of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive\ncomfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the\nimpenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and\ntrue that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will\nof God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the\ninstigation of the devil. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15, 4:\n'Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,\nthat we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.'\nBut when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by\nScripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to\nthe will and meaning of the Holy Ghost.\" (1093, 91f., 837, 16; 1077,\n43.)\n\nPredestination is comforting when Christians are taught to seek their\nelection in Christ. We read: \"Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a\ncause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely,\nwhen men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and\nHis holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent\nsinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled\nsinners who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath, to repentance and\nthe knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the\nHoly Ghost for purification and renewal, and thus gives the most\nenduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that\ntheir salvation is not placed in their own hands (for otherwise they\nwould lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in\nParadise, yea, every hour and moment), but in the gracious election of\nGod which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man\nshall pluck us, John 10, 28; 2 Tim. 2, 19.\" (1093, 89.)\n\nIn order to manifest its consolatory power predestination must be\npresented in proper relation to the revealed order of salvation. We\nread: \"With this revealed will of God [His universal, gracious promises\nin the Gospel] we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligently\nengaged upon it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the Holy\nGhost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end [to begin and\ncomplete our salvation], and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss of\nGod's hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13, 24, where one\nasks: 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' and Christ answers: 'Strive\nto enter in at the strait gate.' Accordingly, Luther says [in his\nPreface to the Epistle to the Romans]: 'Follow the Epistle to the Romans\nin its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, that\nyou may recognize your sins and His grace; next that you contend with\nsin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when in\nthe eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by]\ntemptation under the cross and afflictions,--this will teach you in the\nninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is,'\netc.\" (1073, 33.)\n\nPredestination, properly taught, affords the glorious comfort that no\none shall pluck us out of the almighty hands of Christ. The _Formula_\nsays: \"Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent glorious\nconsolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion,\nrighteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully\npurposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the world\nwas laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose\nordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation],\nand preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so\nwell and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of\nour flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and\nmight of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He\nordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown,\nand placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus\nChrist, from which no one can pluck us, John 10, 28. Hence Paul also\nsays, Rom. 8, 28. 39: 'Because we have been called according to the\npurpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?'\n[Paul builds the certainty of our blessedness upon the foundation of the\ndivine purpose, when, from our being called according to the purpose of\nGod, he infers that no one can separate us, etc.]\" (1079, 45.) \"This\narticle also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God will\nexist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell, and likewise\nteaches which is the true Church of God, lest we be offended by the\ngreat authority [and majestic appearance] of the false Church, Rom. 9,\n24. 25.\" (1079, 50.)\n\nEspecially in temptations and tribulations the doctrine of eternal\nelection reveals its comforting power. We read: \"Moreover, this doctrine\naffords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations,\nnamely, that God in His counsel, before the time of the world determined\nand decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties and\nperplexities], grant patience, give consolation, excite [nourish and\nencourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to our\nsalvation. Also, as Paul in a very consolatory way treats this, Rom. 8,\n28. 29. 35. 38. 39, that God in His purpose has ordained before the time\nof the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every one\nof His elect to the image of His Son, and that to every one his cross\nshall and must work together for good, because they are called according\nto the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain and\nindubitable that neither tribulation nor distress, nor death, nor life,\netc., shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in\nChrist Jesus, our Lord.\" (1079, 48.)\n\n\nXXI. Luther and Article XI of the Formula of Concord.\n\n234. Luther Falsely Charged with Calvinism.\n\nCalvinists and Synergists have always contended that Luther's original\ndoctrine of predestination was essentially identical with that of John\nCalvin. Melanchthon was among the first who raised a charge to this\neffect. In his _Opinion_ to Elector August, dated March 9, 1559, we\nread: \"During Luther's life and afterwards I rejected these Stoic and\nManichean deliria, when Luther and others wrote: All works, good and\nbad, in all men, good and bad, must occur as they do. Now it is apparent\nthat such speech contradicts the Word of God, is detrimental to all\ndiscipline and blasphemes God. Therefore I have sedulously made a\ndistinction, showing to what extent man has a free will to observe\noutward discipline, also before regeneration,\" etc. (_C. R._ 9, 766.)\nInstead of referring to his own early statements, which were liable to\nmisinterpretation more than anything that Luther had written,\nMelanchthon disingenuously mentions Luther, whose real meaning he\nmisrepresents and probably had never fully grasped. The true reason why\nMelanchthon charged Luther and his loyal adherents with Stoicism was his\nown synergistic departure from the Lutheran doctrine of original sin and\nof salvation by grace alone. Following Melanchthon, rationalizing\nSynergists everywhere have always held that without abandoning Luther's\ndoctrine of original sin and of the _gratia sola_ there is no escape\nfrom Calvinism.\n\nIn this point Reformed theologians agree with the Synergists, and have\ntherefore always claimed Luther as their ally. I. Mueller declared in\n_Lutheri de Praedestionatione et Libero Arbitrio Doctrina_ of 1832: \"As\nto the chief point (_quod ad caput rei attinet_), Zwingli's view of\npredestination is in harmony with Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_.\" In his\n_Zentraldogmen_ of 1854 Alexander Schweizer endeavored to prove that the\nidentical doctrine of predestination was originally the central dogma of\nthe Lutheran as well as of the Zwinglian reformation. \"It is not so much\nthe dogma [of predestination] itself,\" said he (1, 445), \"as its\nposition which is in dispute\" among Lutherans and Calvinists. Schweizer\n(1, 483) based his assertion on the false assumption \"that the doctrines\nof the captive will and of absolute predestination [denial of universal\ngrace] are two halves of the same ring.\" (Frank 1, 12. 118. 128; 4,\n262.) Similar contentions were made in America by Schaff, Hodge, Shedd,\nand other Reformed theologians.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, also in the doctrine of predestination\nZwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart from\nLuther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simple\nand implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that the\nagreement between Luther's doctrine and that of Zwingli and Calvin is\n\"only specious, _nur scheinbar_.\" (1, 118.) Tschackert remarks: \"Whoever\n[among the theologians before the _Formula of Concord_] was acquainted\nwith the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [of\npredestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheran\nand the Calvinistic theology.\" (559.) F. Pieper declares that Luther and\nCalvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to\nsubstance. (_Dogm_. 3, 554.)\n\nThe _Visitation Articles_, adopted 1592 as a norm of doctrine for\nElectoral Saxony, enumerate the following propositions on\n\"Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God\" which must be upheld\nover against the Calvinists as \"the pure and true doctrine of our\n[Lutheran] churches\": \"1. That Christ has died for all men, and as the\nLamb of God has borne the sins of the whole world. 2. That God created\nno one for condemnation, but will have all men to be saved, and to come\nto the knowledge of the truth. He commands all to hear His Son Christ in\nthe Gospel, and promises by it the power and working of the Holy Ghost\nfor conversion and salvation. 3. That many men are condemned by their\nown guilt who are either unwilling to hear the Gospel of Christ, or\nagain fall from grace, by error against the foundation or by sins\nagainst conscience. 4. That all sinners who repent are received into\ngrace and no one is excluded, even though his sins were as scarlet,\nsince God's mercy is much greater than the sins of all the world, and\nGod has compassion on all His works.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 1153.) Not one of\nthese propositions, which have always been regarded as a summary of the\nLutheran teaching in contradistinction from Calvinism, was ever denied\nby Luther.\n\n235. Summary of Luther's Views.\n\nLuther distinguished between the hidden and the revealed or \"proclaimed\"\nGod, the secret and revealed will of God; the majestic God in whom we\nlive and move and have our being, and God manifest in Christ; God's\nunsearchable judgments and ways past finding out, and His merciful\npromises in the Gospel. Being truly God and not an idol, God, according\nto Luther, is both actually omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can exist\nor occur without His power, and everything surely will occur as He has\nforeseen it. This is true of the thoughts, volitions, and acts of all\nHis creatures. He would not be God if there were any power not derived\nfrom, or supplied by Him, or if the actual course of events could annul\nHis decrees and stultify His knowledge. Also the devils and the wicked\nare not beyond His control.\n\nAs for evil, though God does not will or cause it,--for, on the\ncontrary, He prohibits sin and truly deplores the death of a sinner--yet\nsin and death could never have entered the world without His permission.\nAlso the will of fallen man receives its power to will from God, and its\nevery resolve and consequent act proceeds just as God has foreseen,\nordained, or permitted it. The evil quality of all such acts, however,\ndoes not emanate from God, but from the corrupt will of man. Hence free\nwill, when defined as the power of man to nullify and subvert what God's\nmajesty has foreseen and decreed, is a nonent, a mere empty title. This,\nhowever, does not involve that the human will is coerced or compelled to\ndo evil, nor does it exclude in fallen man the ability to choose in\nmatters temporal and subject to reason.\n\nBut while holding that we must not deny the majesty and the mysteries of\nGod, Luther did not regard these, but Christ crucified and justification\nby faith in the promises of the Gospel, as the true objects of our\nconcern. Nor does he, as did Calvin, employ predestination as a\ncorrective and regulative norm for interpreting, limiting, invalidating,\nannulling, or casting doubt upon, any of the blessed truths of the\nGospel. Luther does not modify the revealed will of God in order to\nharmonize it with God's sovereignty. He does not place the hidden God in\nopposition to the revealed God, nor does he reject the one in order to\nmaintain the other. He denies neither the revealed universality of God's\ngrace, of Christ's redemption, and of the efficaciousness of the Holy\nSpirit in the means of grace, nor the unsearchable judgments and ways of\nGod's majesty. Even the Reformed theologian A. Schweizer admits as much\nwhen he says in his _Zentraldogmen_ (1, 445): \"In the Zwinglio-Calvinian\ntype of doctrine, predestination is a dogma important as such and\nregulating the other doctrines, yea, as Martyr, Beza, and others say,\nthe chief part of Christian doctrine; while in the Lutheran type of\ndoctrine it is merely a dogma supporting other, more important central\ndoctrines.\" (Frank 4, 264.)\n\nMoreover, Luther most earnestly warns against all speculations\nconcerning the hidden God as futile, foolish, presumptuous, and wicked.\nThe secret counsels, judgments, and ways of God cannot and must not be\ninvestigated. God's majesty is unfathomable, His judgments are\nunsearchable, His ways past finding out. Hence, there is not, and there\ncannot be, any human knowledge, understanding, or faith whatever\nconcerning God in so far as He has not revealed Himself. For while the\nfact that there are indeed such things as mysteries, unsearchable\njudgments, and incomprehensible ways in God is plainly taught in the\nBible, their nature, their how, why, and wherefore, has not been\nrevealed to us and no amount of human ingenuity is able to supply the\ndeficiency. Hence, in as far as God is still hidden and veiled, He\ncannot serve as a norm by which we are able to regulate our faith and\nlife. Particularly when considering the question how God is disposed\ntoward us individually, we must not take refuge in the secret counsels\nof God, which reason cannot spy and pry into. According to Luther, all\nhuman speculations concerning the hidden God are mere diabolical\ninspirations, bound to lead away from the saving truth of the Gospel\ninto despair and destruction.\n\nWhat God, therefore, would have men believe about His attitude toward\nthem, must according to Luther, be learned from the Gospel alone. The\nBible tells us how God is disposed toward poor sinners, and how He wants\nto deal with them. Not His hidden majesty, but His only-begotten Son,\nborn in Bethlehem, is the divinely appointed object of human\ninvestigation. Christ crucified is God manifest and visible to men.\nWhoever has seen Christ has seen God. The Gospel is God's only\nrevelation to sinful human beings. The Bible, the ministry of the Word,\nBaptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution are the only means of knowing\nhow God is disposed toward us. To these alone God has directed us. With\nthese alone men should occupy and concern themselves.\n\nAnd the Gospel being the Word of God, the knowledge furnished therein is\nmost reliable. Alarmed sinners may trust in its comforting promises with\nfirm assurance and unwavering confidence. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther\nearnestly warns men not to investigate the hidden God, but to look to\nrevelation for an answer to the question how God is minded toward them,\nand how He intends to deal with them. In his _Commentary on Genesis_ he\nrefers to this admonition and repeats it, protesting that he is innocent\nif any one is misled to take a different course. \"I have added\" [to the\nstatements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ concerning necessity and the hidden\nGod] Luther here declares, \"that we must look upon the revealed God.\n_Addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus_.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 898.)\n\nThis Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men\nguided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal,\nand that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the\nuniversality of God's love and mercy, as well as of Christ's redemption,\nand the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also\naccording to _De Servo Arbitrio_, God wants all men to be saved, and\ndoes not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove\nit. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: \"As I\nlive, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,\nbut that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil\nways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?\" He calls the above a\n\"glorious passage\" and \"that sweetest Gospel voice--_illam vocem\ndulcissimi Evangelii_.\" (E. v. a. 7, 218.)\n\nThus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to\nconvince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. In\nlike manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone\nto be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine\nassurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the\nfinal victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if he\nwere required to contribute anything to his own conversion,\npreservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings.\nNothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In _De Servo\nArbitrio_ everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the\nassertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does \"work\nsomething in matters pertaining to salvation,\" and to establish the\nmonergism or sole activity of grace in man's conversion. (St. L. 18,\n1686, 1688.)\n\nAt the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is\nlost. In _De Servo Arbitrio_ he argues: Since it is God's will that all\nmen should be saved, it must be attributed to man's will if any one\nperishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious\nwill of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however,\nwhy some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal,\nor why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves,\nand since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he\ndemands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of\nGod, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the\nBible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and\nthe revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.\n\nYet Luther maintains that the conflict is seeming rather than real.\nWhatever may be true of the majestic God, it certainly cannot annul or\ninvalidate what He has made known of Himself in the Gospel. There are\nand can be no contradictory wills in God. Despite appearances to the\ncontrary, therefore, Christians are firmly to believe that, in His\ndealings with men, God, who saves so few and damns so many, is\nnevertheless both truly merciful and just. And what we now believe we\nshall see hereafter. When the veil will have been lifted and we shall\nknow God even as we are known by Him, then we shall see with our eyes no\nother face of God than the most lovable one which our faith beheld in\nJesus. The light of glory will not correct but confirm, the truths of\nthe Bible, and reveal the fact that in all His ways God was always in\nperfect harmony with Himself.\n\nIndeed, according to Luther, the truth concerning the majestic God, in\nwhom we live and move and have our being, and without whom nothing can\nbe or occur, in a way serves both repentance and faith. It serves\nrepentance and the Law inasmuch as it humbles man, causing him to\ndespair of himself and of the powers of his own unregenerate will. It\nserves faith inasmuch as it guarantees God's merciful promises in the\nGospel. For if God is supreme, as He truly is, then there can be nothing\nmore reliable than the covenant of grace to which He has pledged Himself\nby an oath. And if God, as He truly does, controls all contingencies,\nthen there remains no room for any fear whether He will be able to\nfulfil His glorious promises, also the promise that nothing shall pluck\nus out of the hands of Christ.--Such, essentially was the teaching set\nforth by Luther in _De Servo Arbitrio_ and in his other publications.\n\n236. Object of Luther's \"De Servo Arbitrio.\"\n\nThe true scope of _De Servo Arbitrio_ is to prove that man is saved, not\nby any ability or efforts of his own, but solely by grace. Luther says:\n\"We are not arguing the question what we can do when God works [moves\nus], but what we can do ourselves, _viz_., whether, after being created\nout of nothing, we can do or endeavor [to do] anything through that\ngeneral movement of omnipotence toward preparing ourselves for being a\nnew creation of His Spirit. This question should have been answered,\ninstead of turning aside to another.\" Luther continues: \"We go on to\nsay: Man, before he is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdom\nof the Spirit, does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preparing himself\nfor renewal and the kingdom; and afterwards, when he has been created\nanew, he does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preserving himself in\nthat kingdom; but the Spirit alone does each of these things in us, both\ncreating us anew without our cooperation and preserving us when\nrecreated,--even as Jas. 1, 18 says: 'Of His own will begat He us by the\nWord of Truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures,'\nHe is speaking here of the renewed creature.\" (E. v. a. 7, 317; St. L.\n18, 1909; compare here and in the following quotations Vaughan's _Martin\nLuther on the Bondage of the Will_, London, 1823.)\n\nMan lacks also the ability to do what is good before God. Luther: \"I\nreply: The words of the Prophet [Ps. 14, 2: \"The Lord looketh down from\nheaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did\nunderstand and seek God. They are all gone aside,\" etc.] include both\nact and power; and it is the same thing to say, 'Man does not seek after\nGod,' as it would be to say, 'Man cannot seek after God.'\" (E. 330; St.\nL. 1923.) Again: \"Since, therefore, men are flesh, as God Himself\ntestifies, they cannot but be carnally minded (_nihil sapere possunt\nnisi carnem_); hence free will has power only to sin. And since they\ngrow worse even when the Spirit of God calls and teaches them, what\nwould they do if left to themselves, without the Spirit of God?\" (E.\n290; St. L. 1876.) \"In brief, you will observe in Scripture that\nwherever flesh is treated in opposition to the Spirit, you may\nunderstand by flesh about everything that is contrary to the Spirit, as\nin the passage [John 6, 63]: 'The flesh profiteth nothing.'\" (E. 291; St.\nL. 1877.) \"Thus also Holy Scripture, by way of emphasis (_per\nepitasin_), calls man 'flesh,' as though he were carnality itself,\nbecause his mind is occupied with nothing but carnal things. _Quod nimio\nac nihil aliud sapit quam ea, quae carnis sunt_.\" (E. 302; St. L. 1890.)\n\nAccording to Luther there is no such thing as a neutral willing in man.\nHe says: \"It is a mere logical fiction to say that there is in man a\nneutral and pure volition (_medium et purum velle_); nor can those prove\nit who assert it. It was born of ignorance of things and servile regard\nto words, as if something must straightway be such in substance as we\nstate it to be in words, which sort of figments are numberless among the\nSophists [Scholastic theologians]. The truth of the matter is stated by\nChrist when He says [Luke 11, 23]: 'He that is not with Me is against\nMe,' He does not say, 'He that is neither with Me nor against Me, but in\nthe middle,' For if God be in us, Satan is absent, and only the will for\ngood is present with us. If God be absent, Satan is present, and there\nis no will in us but towards evil. Neither God nor Satan allows a mere\nand pure volition in us; but, as you have rightly said, having lost our\nliberty, we are compelled to serve sin; that is sin and wickedness we\nwill, sin and wickedness we speak, sin and wickedness we act.\" (E. 199;\nSt. L. 1768.)\n\nIn support of his denial of man's ability in spiritual matters Luther\nquotes numerous Bible-passages, and thoroughly refutes as fallacies _a\ndebito ad posse_, etc., the arguments drawn by Erasmus from mandatory\nand conditional passages of Scripture. His own arguments he summarizes\nas follows: \"For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and\npreordains everything, also, that He can neither be deceived nor\nhindered in His foreknowledge and predestination furthermore that\nnothing occurs without His will (a truth which reason itself is\ncompelled to concede), then, according to the testimony of the selfsame\nreason, there can be no free will in man or angel or any creature.\nLikewise, if we believe Satan to be the prince of the world, who is\nperpetually plotting and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all\nhis might, so that he does not release captive men unless he be driven\nout by the divine power of the Spirit, it is again manifest that there\ncan be no such thing as free will. Again, if we believe original sin to\nhave so ruined us that, by striving against what is good, it makes most\ntroublesome work even for those who are led by the Spirit, then it is\nclear that in man devoid of the Spirit nothing is left which can turn\nitself to good, but only [what turns itself] to evil. Again, if the\nJews, following after righteousness with all their might rushed forth\ninto unrighteousness, and the Gentiles, who were following after\nunrighteousness, have freely and unexpectingly attained to\nrighteousness, it is likewise manifest, even by very deed and\nexperience, that man without grace can will nothing but evil. In brief,\nif we believe Christ to have redeemed man by His blood, then we are\ncompelled to confess that the whole man was lost; else we shall make\nChrist either superfluous, or the Redeemer only of the vilest part [of\nman] which is blasphemous and sacrilegious.\" (E. 366; St. L. 1969.)\n\n237. Relation of Man's Will toward God's Majesty.\n\nAccording to Luther man has power over things beneath himself, but not\nover God in His majesty. We read: \"We know that man is constituted lord\nof the things beneath him, over which he has power and free will, that\nthey may obey him and do what he wills and thinks. But the point of our\ninquiry is whether he has a free will toward God, so that God obeys and\ndoes what man wills; or, whether it is not rather God who has a free\nwill over man, so that the latter wills and does what God wills, and can\ndo nothing but what God has willed and does. Here the Baptist says that\nman can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven: wherefore\nfree will is nothing.\" (E. 359, St. L. 1957.)\n\nGod as revealed in the Word may, according to Luther, be opposed and\nresisted by man, but not God in His majesty. We read: \"Lest any one\nshould suppose this to be my own distinction, [let him know that] I\nfollow Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist (2\nThess. 2, 4) that he will exalt himself above every God that is\nproclaimed and worshiped, plainly indicating that one may be exalted\nabove God, so far as He is proclaimed and worshiped, that is, above the\nWord and worship by which God is known to us, and maintains intercourse\nwith us. Nothing, however, can be exalted above God as He is in His\nnature and majesty (as not worshiped and proclaimed); rather, everything\nis under His powerful hand.\" (E. 221; St. L. 1794.)\n\nGod in His majesty is supreme and man cannot resist His omnipotence, nor\nthwart His decrees, nor foil His plans, nor render His omniscience\nfallible. Luther: \"For all men find this opinion written in their\nhearts, and, when hearing this matter discussed, they, though against\ntheir will, acknowledge and assent to it, first, that God is omnipotent,\nnot only as regards His power, but also, as stated His action; else He\nwould be a ridiculous God; secondly, that He knows and foreknows all\nthings, and can neither err nor be deceived. These two things, however,\nbeing conceded by the hearts and senses of all men they are presently,\nby an inevitable consequence, compelled to admit that, even as we are\nnot made by our own will, but by necessity, so likewise we do nothing\naccording to the right of free will, but just as God has foreknown and\nacts by a counsel and an energy which is infallible and immutable. So,\nthen, we find it written in all hearts alike that free will [defined as\na power independent of God's power] is nothing, although this writing\n[in the hearts of men] be obscured through so many contrary disputations\nand the great authority of so many persons who during so many ages have\nbeen teaching differently.\" (E. 268; St. L. 1851.)\n\nThe very idea of God and omnipotence involves that free will is not, and\ncannot be, a power independent of God. Luther: \"However, even natural\nreason is obliged to confess that the living and true God must be such a\none who by His freedom imposes necessity upon us, for, evidently, He\nwould be a ridiculous God or, more properly, an idol, who would either\nforesee future events in an uncertain way, or be deceived by the events,\nas the Gentiles have asserted an inescapable fate also for their gods.\nGod would be equally ridiculous if He could not do or did not do all\nthings, or if anything occurred without Him. Now, if foreknowledge and\nomnipotence are conceded, it naturally follows as an irrefutable\nconsequence that we have not been made by ourselves, nor that we live or\ndo anything by ourselves, but through His omnipotence. Since, therefore,\nHe foreknew that we should be such [as we actually are], and even now\nmakes, moves, and governs us as such, pray, what can be imagined that is\nfree in us so as to occur differently than He has foreknown or now\nworks? God's foreknowledge and omnipotence, therefore, conflict directly\nwith our free will [when defined as a power independent of God]. For\neither God will be mistaken in foreknowing, err also in acting (which is\nimpossible), or we shall act, and be acted upon, according to His\nforeknowledge and action. By the omnipotence of God, however, I do not\nmean that power by which He can do many things which He does not do but\nthat active omnipotence by means of which He powerfully works all things\nin all, in which manner Scripture calls Him omnipotent. This omnipotence\nand prescience of God, I say, entirely abolish the dogma of free will.\nNor can the obscurity of Scripture or the difficulty of the matter be\nmade a pretext here. The words are most clear, known even to children;\nthe subject-matter is plain and easy, judged to be so even by the\nnatural reason common to all, so that ever so long a series of ages,\ntimes, and persons writing and teaching otherwise will avail nothing.\"\n(E. 267; St. L. 1849.)\n\nAccording to Luther, therefore, nothing can or does occur independently\nof God, or differently from what His omniscience has foreseen. Luther:\n\"Hence it follows irrefutably that all things which we do, and all\nthings which happen, although to us they seem to happen changeably and\ncontingently, do in reality happen necessarily and immutably, if one\nviews the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious and cannot be\nthwarted since it is God's natural power itself. It is also wise, so\nthat it cannot be deceived. And since His will is not thwarted, the work\nitself cannot be prevented, but must occur in the very place, time,\nmanner, and degree which He Himself both foresees and wills.\" (E. 134;\nSt. L. 1692.)\n\n238. God Not the Cause of Sin.\n\nRegarding God's relation to the sinful actions of men, Luther held that\nGod is not the cause of sin. True, His omnipotence impels also the\nungodly; but the resulting acts are evil because of man's evil nature.\nHe writes: \"Since, therefore, God moves and works all in all, He\nnecessarily moves and acts also in Satan and in the wicked. But He acts\nin them precisely according to what they are and what He finds them to\nbe (_agit in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit_). That\nis to say, since they are turned away [from Him] and wicked, and [as\nsuch] are impelled to action by divine omnipotence, they do only such\nthings as are averse [to God] and wicked, just as a horseman driving a\nhorse which has only three or two [sound] feet (_equum tripedem vel\nbipedem_) will drive him in a manner corresponding to the condition of\nthe horse (_agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est_), _i.e._, the horse\ngoes at a sorry gait. But what can the horseman do? He drives such a\nhorse together with sound horses, so that it sadly limps along, while\nthe others take a good gait. He cannot do otherwise unless the horse is\ncured. Here you see that when God works in the wicked and through the\nwicked, the result indeed is evil (_mala quidem fieri_), but that\nnevertheless God cannot act wickedly, although He works that which is\nevil through the wicked; for He being good, cannot Himself act wickedly,\nalthough He uses evil instruments, which cannot escape the impulse and\nmotion of His power. The fault, therefore, is in the instruments, which\nGod does not suffer to remain idle, so that evil occurs, God Himself\nimpelling them, but in no other manner than a carpenter who, using an ax\nthat is notched and toothed, would do poor work with it. Hence it is\nthat a wicked man cannot but err and sin continually, because, being\nimpelled by divine power, he is not allowed to remain idle, but wills,\ndesires, and acts according to what he is (_velit, cupiat, faciat\ntaliter, qualis ipse est_).\" (E. 255; St. L. 1834.) \"For although God\ndoes not make sin, still He ceases not to form and to multiply a nature\nwhich, the Spirit having been withdrawn is corrupted by sin, just as\nwhen a carpenter makes statues of rotten wood. Thus men become what\ntheir nature is, God creating and forming them of such nature.\" (E. 254;\nSt. L. 1833.)\n\nThough God works all things in all things the wickedness of an action\nflows from the sinful nature of the creature. Luther: \"Whoever would\nhave any understanding of such matters, let him consider that God works\nevil in us, _i.e._, through us, not by any fault of His, but through our\nown fault. For since we are by nature evil, while God is good, and since\nHe impels us to action according to the nature of His omnipotence, He,\nwho Himself is good, cannot do otherwise than do evil with an evil\ninstrument, although, according to His wisdom, He causes this evil to\nturn out unto His own glory and to our salvation.\" (E. 257; St. L.\n1837.) \"For this is what we assert and contend, that, when God works\nwithout the grace of His Spirit [in His majesty, outside of Word and\nSacrament], He works all in all, even in the wicked; for He alone moves\nall things, which He alone has created, and drives and impels all things\nby virtue of His omnipotence, which they [the created things] cannot\nescape or change, but necessarily follow and obey, according to the\npower which God has given to each of them--such is the manner in which\nall, even wicked, things cooperate with Him. Furthermore, when He acts\nby the Spirit of Grace in those whom He has made righteous, _i.e._, in\nHis own kingdom, He in like manner impels and moves them; and, being new\ncreatures, they follow and cooperate with Him; or rather, as Paul says,\nthey are led by Him.\" (E. 317; St. L. 1908.) \"For we say that, without\nthe grace of God, man still remains under the general omnipotence of\nGod, who does, moves, impels all things, so that they take their course\nnecessarily and without fail, but that what man, so impelled, does, is\nnothing, _i.e._, avails nothing before God, and is accounted nothing but\nsin.\" (E. 315; St. L. 1906.)\n\nThough everything occurs as God has foreseen, this, according to Luther,\ndoes not at all involve that man is coerced in his actions. Luther: \"But\npray, are we disputing now concerning coercion and force? Have we not in\nso many books testified that we speak of the necessity of immutability?\nWe know ... that Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ. But we\naffirm that, if God foreknew it, this volition would certainly and\nwithout fail occur in this very Judas.... We are not discussing the\npoint whether Judas became a traitor unwillingly or willingly, but\nwhether at the time foreappointed by God it infallibly had to happen\nthat Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ.\" (E. 270; St. L. 1853.)\nAgain: \"What is it to me that free will is not coerced, but does what it\ndoes willingly? It is enough for me to have you concede that it must\nnecessarily happen, that he [Judas] does what he does of his own\nvolition, and that he cannot conduct himself otherwise if God has so\nforeknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will betray, or that he will\nchange his mind about it,--whichever of the two He shall have foreknown\nwill necessarily come to pass, else God would be mistaken in foreknowing\nand foretelling,--which is impossible. Necessity of consequence effects\nthis: if God foreknows an event, it necessarily happens. In other words,\nfree will is nothing\" [it is not a power independent of God or able to\nnullify God's prescience]. (E. 272; St. L. 1855.)\n\nTo wish that God would abstain from impelling the wicked is, according\nto Luther, tantamount to wishing that He cease to be God. Luther: \"There\nis still this question which some one may ask, 'Why does God not cease\nto impel by His omnipotence, in consequence of which the will of the\nwicked is moved to continue being wicked and even growing worse?' The\nanswer is: This is equivalent to desiring that God cease to be God for\nthe sake of the wicked, since one wishes His power and action to cease,\n_i.e._, that He cease to be good, lest they become worse!\" (E. 259; St.\nL. 1839.)\n\n239. Free Will a Mere Empty Title.\n\nLuther considers free will (when defined as an ability in spiritual\nmatters or as a power independent of God) a mere word without anything\ncorresponding to it in reality (_figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine\nre_, E.v.a. 5, 230), because natural will has powers only in matters\ntemporal and subject to reason, but none in spiritual things, and\nbecause of itself and independently of God's omnipotence it has no power\nwhatever. We read: \"Now it follows that free will is a title altogether\ndivine and cannot belong to any other being, save only divine majesty,\nfor He, as the Psalmist sings [Ps. 115, 3], can do and does all that He\nwills in heaven and in earth. Now, when this title is ascribed to men,\nit is so ascribed with no more right than if also divinity itself were\nascribed to them,--a sacrilege than which there is none greater.\nAccordingly it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this word\nwhen they intended to speak of human power, and to reserve it\nexclusively for God, thereupon also to remove it from the mouth and\ndiscourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their\nGod. And if they would at all ascribe some power to man, they should\nhave taught that it be called by some other name than 'free will,'\nespecially since we all know and see that the common people are\nmiserably deceived and led astray by this term, for by it they hear and\nconceive something very far different from what theologians mean and\ndiscuss. 'Free will' is too magnificent, extensive, and comprehensive a\nterm; by it common people understand (as also the import and nature of\nthe word require) a power which can freely turn to either side, and\nneither yields nor is subject to any one,\" (E. 158; St. L. 1720.)\n\nIf the term \"free will\" be retained, it should, according to Luther, be\nconceived of as a power, not in divine things, but only in matters\nsubject to human reason. We read: \"So, then, according to Erasmus, free\nwill is the power of the will which is able of itself to will and not to\nwill the Word and work of God, whereby it is led to things which exceed\nboth its comprehension and perception. For if it is able to will and not\nto will, it is able also to love and to hate. If it is able to love and\nto hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to keep the Law and to\nbelieve the Gospel. For if you will or do not will, a certain thing, it\nis impossible that by that will you should not be able to do something\nof the work, even though, when hindered by another, you cannot complete\nit.\" (E. 191; St. L. 1759.) \"If, then, we are not willing to abandon\nthis term altogether, which would be the safest and most pious course to\nfollow, let us at least teach men to use it in good faith (_bona fide_)\nonly in the sense that free will be conceded to man, with respect to\nsuch matters only as are not superior, but inferior to himself, _i.e._,\nman is to know that, with regard to his means and possessions, he has\nthe right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to his\nfree will; although also even this is directed by the free will of God\nalone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or in\nthings pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but is\nthe captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of the\nwill of Satan.\" (E. 160; St. L. 1722.) \"Perhaps you might properly\nattribute some will (_aliquod arbitrium_) to man, but to attribute free\nwill to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of all\nwho hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which can\ndo and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without being\nhindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free who\nacts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety do\nwe call men or angels truly free, who, to say nothing of sin and death,\nlive under the most complete authority of God, unable to subsist for a\nmoment by their own power.\" (E. 189; St. L. 1756.)\n\nLost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is no\nhealth. We read: \"When it has been conceded and settled that free will,\nhaving lost its freedom, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to\nwill anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressions\nthan that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. My\ngrammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title of\nliberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. If\nhere I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure and\nambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot call\nhealth that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, I\nbelieve to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away with\nmonstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which we\naffirm that man has free will, and in the same breath assert that he,\nhaving lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and can will nothing\ngood? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use of\nspeech. The _Diatribe_ is rather to be accused of blurting out its words\nas if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does not\nconsider, I say, what it means, and what it all includes, if I declare:\nMan has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to\nwill anything good.\" (E. 200; St. L. 1769.)\n\nSatan causes his captives to believe themselves free and happy. Luther:\n\"The Scriptures set before us a man who is not only bound, wretched,\ncaptive, sick, dead, but who (through the operation of Satan, his\nprince) adds this plague of blindness to his other plagues, that he\nbelieves himself to be free, happy, unfettered, strong, healthy, alive.\nFor Satan knows that, if man were to realize his own misery, he would\nnot be able to retain any one in his kingdom, because God could not but\nat once pity and help him who recognizes his misery and cries for\nrelief. For throughout all Scripture He is extolled and greatly praised\nfor being nigh unto the contrite in heart, as also Christ testifies,\nIsaiah 61, 1. 2, that He has been sent to preach the Gospel to the poor\nand to heal the broken-hearted. Accordingly, it is Satan's business to\nkeep his grip on men, lest they recognize their misery, but rather take\nit for granted that they are able to do everything that is said.\" (E.\n213; St. L. 1785.)\n\n240. The Gospel to be Our Only Guide.\n\nAccording to _De Servo Arbitrio_ God's majesty and His mysterious\njudgments and ways must not be searched, nor should speculations\nconcerning them be made the guide of our faith and life. Luther says:\n\"Of God or of the will of God proclaimed and revealed, and offered to\nus, and which we meditate upon, we must treat in a different way than of\nGod in so far as He is not proclaimed, not revealed, and not offered to\nus, and is not the object of our meditations. For in so far as God hides\nHimself, and desires not to be known of us, we have nothing to do with\nHim. Here the saying truly applies, 'What is above us does not concern\nus.'\" (E. 221, St. L. 1794.) \"We say, as we have done before, that one\nmust not discuss the secret will of [divine] majesty, and that man's\ntemerity, which, due to continual perverseness, disregards necessary\nmatters and always attacks and encounters this [secret will], should be\ncalled away and withdrawn from occupying itself with scrutinizing those\nsecrets of divine majesty which it is impossible to approach; for it\ndwells 'in the light which no man can approach unto,' as Paul testifies,\n1 Tim. 6, 16.\" (E. 227; St. L. 1801.) This statement, that God's majesty\nmust not be investigated, says Luther, \"is not our invention, but an\ninjunction confirmed by Holy Scripture. For Paul says Rom. 9, 19-21:\n'Why doth God yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O\nman, who art thou that repliest against God?... Hath not the potter\npower,' etc.? And before him Isaiah, chapter 58, 2: 'Yet they seek Me\ndaily, and delight to know My ways, as a nation that did righteousness,\nand forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of Me the\nordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God,' These\nwords, I take it, show abundantly that it is unlawful for men to\nscrutinize the will of majesty.\" (E. 228; St. L. 1803.)\n\nInstead of searching the Scriptures, as they are commanded to do, men\nunlawfully crave to investigate the hidden judgments of God. We read:\n\"But we are nowhere more irreverent and rash than when we invade and\nargue these very mysteries and judgments which are unsearchable.\nMeanwhile we imagine that we are exercising incredible reverence in\nsearching the Holy Scriptures, which God has commanded us to search.\nHere we do not search, but where He has forbidden us to search, there we\ndo nothing but search with perpetual temerity, not to say blasphemy. Or\nis it not such a search when we rashly endeavor to make that wholly free\nforeknowledge of God accord with our liberty, and are ready to detract\nfrom the prescience of God, if it does not allow us liberty, or if it\ninduces necessity, to say with the murmurers and blasphemers, 'Why doth\nHe find fault? Who shall resist His will? What is become of the most\nmerciful God? What of Him who wills not the death of the sinner? Has He\nmade men that He might delight Himself with their torments?' and the\nlike, which will be howled out forever among the devils and the damned.\"\n(E. 266, St. L. 1848.)\n\nGod's unknowable will is not and cannot be our guide. Luther: \"The\n_Diatribe_ beguiles herself through her ignorance, making no distinction\nbetween the proclaimed and the hidden God, that is between the Word of\nGod and God Himself. God does many things which He has not shown us in\nHis Word. He also wills many things concerning which He has not shown us\nin His Word that He wills them. For instance, He does not will the death\nof a sinner namely, according to His Word, but He wills it according to\nHis inscrutable will. Now, our business is to look at His Word,\ndisregarding the inscrutable will; for we must be directed by the Word,\nnot by that inscrutable will (_nobis spectandum est Verbum\nrelinquendaque illa voluntas imperscrutabilis; Verbo enim nos dirigi,\nnon voluntate illa inscrutabili oportet_). Indeed, who could direct\nhimself by that inscrutable and unknowable will? It is enough merely to\nknow that there is such an inscrutable will in God; but what, why, and\nhow far it wills, that is altogether unlawful for us to inquire into, to\nwish [to know], and to trouble or occupy ourselves with; on the\ncontrary, we should fear and adore it.\" (E. 222; St. L. 1795)\n\nInstead of investigating the mysteries of divine majesty, men ought to\nconcern themselves with God's revelation in the Gospel. Luther: \"But let\nher [human temerity] occupy herself with the incarnate God or, as Paul\nsays, with Jesus Crucified, in whom are hidden all the treasures of\nwisdom and knowledge. For through Him she has abundantly what she ought\nto know and not to know. It is the incarnate God, then, who speaks here\n[Matt. 23]: 'I would, and thou wouldest not.' The incarnate God, I say,\nwas sent for this purpose, that He might will, speak, do, suffer, and\noffer to all men all things which are necessary to salvation, although\nHe offends very many who, being either abandoned or hardened by that\nsecret will of His majesty, do not receive Him who wills, speaks, works,\noffers, even as John says: 'The light shineth in darkness, and the\ndarkness comprehendeth it not;' and again: 'He came unto His own and His\nown received Him not.'\" (E. 227f., St. L. 1802.)\n\n241. God's Grace Is Universal and Serious.\n\nAll men are in need of the saving Gospel, and it should be preached to\nall. We read in _De Servo Arbitrio_: \"Paul had said just before: 'The\nGospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;\nto the Jew first and also to the Greek,' These words are not obscure or\nambiguous: 'To the Jews and to the Greeks,' that is, to all men, the\nGospel of the power of God is necessary, in order that, believing, they\nmay be saved from the revealed wrath.\" (E. 322; St. L. 1915.) \"He [God]\nknows what, when, how, and to whom we ought to speak. Now, His\ninjunction is that His Gospel, which is necessary for all, should be\nlimited by neither place nor time, but be preached to all, at all times,\nand in all places.\" (E. 149; St. L. 1709.)\n\nThe universal promises of the Gospel offer firm and sweet consolation to\npoor sinners. Luther: \"It is the voice of the Gospel and the sweetest\nconsolation to poor miserable sinners when Ezekiel says [18, 23. 32]: 'I\nhave no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he be\nconverted and live,' Just so also the thirtieth Psalm [v. 5]: 'For His\nanger endureth but a moment; in His favor is life [His will rather is\nlife].' And the sixty-ninth [v.16]: 'For Thy loving-kindness is good\n[How sweet is Thy mercy, Lord!]' Also: 'Because I am merciful,' And that\nsaying of Christ, Matt. 11, 28: 'Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are\nheavy laden, and I will refresh you,' Also that of Exodus [20, 6], 'I\nshow mercy unto thousands of them that love Me,' Indeed, almost more\nthan half of Holy Scripture,--what is it but genuine promises of grace,\nby which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered by God to men?\nAnd what else do the words of promise sound forth than this: 'I have no\npleasure in the death of a sinner'? Is it not the same thing to say, 'I\nam merciful,' as to say, 'I am not angry,' 'I do not wish to punish,'\n'I do not wish you to die,' 'I desire to pardon,' 'I desire to spare'?\nNow, if these divine promises did not stand [firm], so as to raise up\nafflicted consciences terrified by the sense of sin and the fear of\ndeath and judgment, what place would there be for pardon or for hope?\nWhat sinner would not despair?\" (E. 218; St. L. 1791.)\n\nGod, who would have all men to be saved deplores and endeavors to remove\ndeath, so that man must blame himself if he is lost. Luther: \"God in His\nmajesty and nature therefore must be left untouched [unsearched] for in\nthis respect we have nothing to do with Him, nor did He want us to deal\nwith Him in this respect; but we deal with Him in so far as He has\nclothed Himself and come forth in His Word, by which He has offered\nHimself to us. This [Word] is His glory and beauty with which the\nPsalmist, 21, 6, celebrates Him as being clothed.\" Emphasizing the\nseriousness of universal grace, Luther continues: \"Therefore we affirm\nthat the holy God does not deplore the death of the people which He\nworks in them, but deplores the death which He finds in the people, and\nendeavors to remove (_sed deplorat mortem, quam invenit in populo, et\namovere studet_). For this is the work of the proclaimed God to take\naway sin and death, that we may be saved. For He has sent His Word and\nhealed them.\" (E. 222; St. L. 1795.) \"Hence it is rightly said, If God\nwills not death, it must be charged to our own will that we perish.\n'Rightly,' I say, if you speak of the proclaimed God. For He would have\nall men to be saved, coming, as He does, with His Word of salvation to\nall men; and the fault is in the will, which does not admit Him, as He\nsays, Matt. 23, 37: 'How often would I have gathered thy children\ntogether, and ye would not!'\" (E. 222; St.L. 1795.)\n\n242. Sola gratia Doctrine Engenders Assurance.\n\nLuther rejoices in the doctrine of _sola gratia_ because it alone is\nable to engender assurance of salvation. He writes: \"As for myself, I\ncertainly confess that, if such a thing could somehow be, I should be\nunwilling to have free will given me, or anything left in my own hand,\nwhich might enable me to make an effort at salvation; not only because\nin the midst of so many dangers and adversities and also of so many\nassaulting devils I should not be strong enough to remain standing and\nkeep my hold of it (for one devil is mightier than all men put together,\nand not a single man would be saved), but because, even if there were no\ndangers and no adversities and no devils, I should still be compelled to\ntoil forever uncertainly, and to beat the air in my struggle. For though\nI should live and work to eternity, my own conscience would never be\nsure and at ease as to how much it ought to do in order to satisfy God.\nNo matter how perfect a work might be, there would be left a doubt\nwhether it pleased God, or whether He required anything more, as is\nproved by the experience of all who endeavor to be saved by the Law\n(_iustitiariorum_), and as I, to my own great misery, have learned\nabundantly during so many years. But now, since God has taken my\nsalvation out of the hands of my will, and placed it into those of His\nown and has promised to save me, not by my own work or running, but by\nHis grace and mercy, I feel perfectly secure, because He is faithful and\nwill not lie to me; moreover, He is powerful and great, so that neither\ndevils nor adversities can crush Him, or pluck me out of His hand. No\none, says He, shall pluck them out of My hand; for My Father, who gave\nthem unto Me, is greater than all. Thus it comes to pass that, though\nnot all are saved, at least some, nay, many are, whereas by the power of\nfree will absolutely none would be saved, but every one of us would be\nlost. We are also certain and sure that we please God, not by the merit\nof our own work, but by the favor of His mercy which He has promised us,\nand that, if we have done less than we ought, or have done anything\namiss, He does not impute it to us, but, as a father, forgives and\namends it. Such is the boast of every saint in his God.\" (E. 362; St. L.\n1961f.)\n\nIn the _Apology of the Augsburg Confession_ this thought of Luther's is\nrepeated as follows: \"If the matter [our salvation] were to depend upon\nour merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless, because we never\ncould determine when we would have sufficient merit. And this\nexperienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for a\nthousand worlds, have our salvation depend upon ourselves].\" (CONC.\nTRIGL. 145, 84; compare 1079, 45f.)\n\n243. Truth of God's Majesty Serves God's Gracious Will.\n\nLuther regarded the teaching that everything is subject to God's majesty\nas being of service to His gracious will. We read: \"Two things require\nthe preaching of these truths [concerning the infallibility of God's\nforeknowledge, etc.]; the first is, the humbling of our pride and the\nknowledge of the grace of God; the second, Christian faith itself.\nFirst, God has certainly promised His grace to the humbled, _i.e._, to\nthose who deplore their sins and despair [of themselves]. But man cannot\nbe thoroughly humbled until he knows that his salvation is altogether\nbeyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works, and depends\naltogether upon the decision, counsel, will, and work of another,\n_i.e._, of God only. For as long as he is persuaded that he can do\nanything toward gaining salvation, though it be ever so little, he\ncontinues in self-confidence, and does not wholly despair of himself;\naccordingly he is not humbled before God, but anticipates, or hopes for,\nor at least wishes for, a place, a time, and some work by which he may\nfinally obtain salvation.\" (E. 153. 133; St. L. 1715. 1691.) \"More than\nonce,\" says Luther, \"I myself have been offended at it [the teaching\nconcerning God's majesty] to such an extent that I was at the brink of\ndespair, so that I even wished I had never been created a man,--until I\nlearned how salutary that despair was and how close to grace.\" (E. 268;\nSt. L. 1850.)\n\nOf the manner in which, according to Luther, the truth concerning God's\nmajesty serves the Gospel, we read: \"Moreover, I do not only wish to\nspeak of how true these things are,... but also how becoming to a\nChristian, how pious, and how necessary it is to know them. For if these\nthings are not known, it is impossible for either faith or any worship\nof God to be maintained. That would be ignorance of God indeed; and if\nwe do not know Him, we cannot obtain salvation, as is well known. For if\nyou doubt that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but\nnecessarily and immutably, or if you scorn such knowledge, how will you\nbe able to believe His promises, and with full assurance trust and rely\nupon them? When He promises, you ought to be sure that He knows what He\nis promising, and is able and willing to accomplish it, else you will\naccount Him neither true nor faithful. That, however, is unbelief,\nextreme impiety, and a denial of the most high God. But how will you be\nconfident and sure if you do not know that He certainly, infallibly,\nunchangeably, and necessarily knows, and wills, and will perform what He\npromises? Nor should we merely be certain that God necessarily and\nimmutably wills and will perform [what He has promised], but we should\neven glory in this very thing, as Paul does, Rom. 3, 4: 'Let God be\ntrue, but every man a liar.' And again, Rom. 9, 6; 4, 21; 1 Sam. 3, 19:\n'Not that the Word of God hath taken none effect.' And in another place,\n2 Tim. 2, 19: 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,\nThe Lord knoweth them that are His.' And in Titus 1, 2: 'Which God, that\ncannot lie, hath promised before the world began.' And in Heb. 11, 6:\n'He that cometh to God must believe that God is, and that He is a\nrewarder of them that hope in Him.' So, then, Christian faith is\naltogether extinguished, the promises of God and the entire Gospel fall\nabsolutely to the ground, if we are taught and believe that we have no\nneed of knowing the foreknowledge of God to be necessary and the\nnecessity of all things that must be done. For this is the only and\nhighest possible consolation of Christians in all adversities to know\nthat God does not lie, but does all things immutably, and that His will\ncan neither be resisted, nor altered, nor hindered.\" (E. 137. 264; St.\nL. 1695. 1845.)\n\n244. There Are No Real Contradictions in God.\n\nAmong the mysteries which we are unable to solve Luther enumerates the\nquestions: Why did God permit the fall of Adam? Why did He suffer us to\nbe infected with original sin? Why does God not change the evil will?\nWhy is it that some are converted while others are lost? We read: \"But\nwhy does He not at the same time change the evil will which He moves?\nThis pertains to the secrets of His majesty, where His judgments are\nincomprehensible. Nor is it our business to investigate, but to adore\nthese mysteries. If, therefore, flesh and blood here take offense and\nmurmur, let them murmur; but they will effect nothing, God will not be\nchanged on that account. And if the ungodly are scandalized and leave in\never so great numbers, the elect will nevertheless remain. The same\nanswer should be given to those who ask, 'Why did He allow Adam to fall,\nand why does He create all of us infected with the same sin when He\ncould have preserved him [Adam], and created us from something else, or\nafter first having purged the seed?' He is God, for whose will there is\nno cause or reason which might be prescribed for it as a standard and\nrule of action; for it has no equal or superior, but is itself the rule\nfor everything. If it had any rule or standard, cause or reason, it\ncould no longer be the will of God. For what He wills is right, not\nbecause He is or was in duty bound so to will, but, on the contrary,\nbecause He wills so, therefore what occurs must be right. Cause and\nreason are prescribed to a creature's will, but not to the will of the\nCreator, unless you would set another Creator over Him.\" (E. 259; St. L.\n1840.)\n\nRegarding the question why some are converted while others are not, we\nread: \"But why this majesty does not remove this fault of our will, or\nchange it in all men (seeing that it is not in the power of man to do\nso), or why He imputes this [fault of the will] to man when he cannot be\nwithout it, it is not lawful to search, and although you search much,\nyou will never discover it, as Paul says, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art\nthou that repliest against God?'\" (E. 223, St. L. 1796.) \"But as to why\nsome are touched by the Law and others are not, so that the former\nreceive, and the latter despise, the grace offered, this is another\nquestion, and one not treated by Ezekiel in this place, who speaks of\nthe preached and offered mercy of God, not of the secret and\nto-be-feared will of God, who by His counsel ordains what and what kind\nof persons He wills to be capable and partakers of His preached and\noffered mercy. This will of God must not be searched, but reverently\nadored, as being by far the most profound and sacred secret of divine\nmajesty, reserved for Himself alone, and prohibited to us much more\nreligiously than countless multitudes of Corycian Caves.\" (E. 221; St.\nL. 1794.)\n\nChristians firmly believe that in His dealings with men God is always\nwise and just and good. Luther: \"According to the judgment of reason it\nremains absurd that this just and good God should demand things that are\nimpossible of fulfilment by free will, and, although it cannot will that\nwhich is good but necessarily serves sin, should nevertheless charge\nthis to free will; and that, when He does not confer the Spirit, He\nshould not act a whit more kindly or more mercifully than when He\nhardens or permits men to harden themselves. Reason will declare that\nthese are not the acts of a kind and merciful God. These things exceed\nher understanding too far, nor can she take herself into captivity to\nbelieve God to be good, who acts and judges thus; but setting faith\naside, she wants to feel and see and comprehend how He is just and not\ncruel. She would indeed comprehend if it were said of God: 'He hardens\nnobody, He damns nobody, rather pities everybody, saves everybody,' so\nthat, hell being destroyed and the fear of death removed, no future\npunishment need be dreaded. This is the reason why she is so hot in\nstriving to excuse and defend God as just and good. _But faith and the\nspirit judge differently, believing God to be good though he were to\ndestroy all men_.\" (E. 252; St. L. 1832.) \"The reason why of the divine\nwill must not be investigated, but simply adored, and we must give the\nglory to God that, being alone just and wise, _He does wrong to none,\nnor can He do anything foolish or rash, though it may appear far\notherwise to us. Godly men are content with this answer_.\" (E. 153; St.\nL. 1714.)\n\nAccording to Luther, divine justice must be just as incomprehensible to\nhuman reason as God's entire essence. We read: \"But when we feel ill at\nease for the reason that it is difficult to vindicate the mercy and\nequity of God because He damns the undeserving, _i.e._, such ungodly men\nas are born in ungodliness, and hence cannot in any way prevent being\nand remaining ungodly and damned, and are compelled by their nature to\nsin and perish, as Paul says [Eph. 2, 3]: 'We were all the sons of wrath\neven as others,' they being created such by God Himself out of the seed\nwhich was corrupted through the sin of the one Adam,--then the most\nmerciful God is to be honored and revered in [His dealings with] those\nwhom He justifies and saves, although they are most unworthy, and at\nleast a little something ought to be credited to His divine wisdom by\nbelieving Him to be just where to us He seems unjust. For if His justice\nwere such as could be declared just by human understanding, it would\nclearly not be divine, differing nothing from human justice. But since\nHe is the one true God, and entirely incomprehensible and inaccessible\nto human reason, it is proper, nay, necessary, that His justice also be\nincomprehensible, even as Paul also exclaims, Rom. 11, 33, saying: 'O\nthe depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How\nunsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Now,\nthey would not be incomprehensible if we were able, in everything He\ndoes, to comprehend why they are just. What is man compared with God?\nHow much is our power capable of as compared with His? What is our\nstrength compared with His powers? What is our knowledge compared with\nHis wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In short,\nwhat is everything that is ours as compared with everything that is\nHis?\" (E. 363; St. L. 1962.)\n\nChristians embrace the opportunity offered by the mysterious ways of God\nto exercise their faith. Luther: \"This is the highest degree of faith,\nto believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and condemns so many,\nto believe Him just, who by His will [creating us out of sinful seed]\nnecessarily makes us damnable, thus, according to Erasmus, seeming to be\ndelighted with the torments of the wretched, and worthy of hatred rather\nthan of love. If, then, I could in any way comprehend how this God is\nmerciful and just who shows such great wrath and [seeming] injustice,\nthere would be no need of faith. But now, since this cannot be\ncomprehended there is to be an opportunity for the exercise of faith\nwhen these things are preached and published, even as when God kills,\nour faith in life is exercised in death.\" (E. 154; St. L. 1716.)\n\n245. Seeming Contradictions Solved in Light of Glory.\n\nChristians are fully satisfied that hereafter they will see and\nunderstand what they here believed, _viz_., that in His dealings with\nmen God truly is and always was absolutely just. Luther: \"If you are\npleased with God for crowning the unworthy, you ought not to be\ndispleased with Him for condemning the undeserving [who were not worse\nor more guilty than those who are crowned]. If He is just in the former\ncase, why not in the latter? In the former case He scatters favor and\nmercy upon the unworthy, in the latter He scatters wrath and severity\nupon the undeserving [who are guilty in no higher degree than those who\nare saved]. In both cases He is excessive and unrighteous before [in the\njudgment of] men but just and true in His own mind. For how it is just\nthat He crowns the unworthy is incomprehensible to us now; _but we shall\nunderstand it when we have come to that place where we shall no longer\nbelieve, but behold with our face unveiled_. So, too, how it is just\nthat He condemns the undeserving we cannot comprehend now, yet we\nbelieve it until the Son of Man shall be revealed.\" (E. 284; St. L.\n1870.) \"Of course, in all other things we concede divine majesty to God;\nonly in His judgment we are ready to deny it, and cannot even for a\nlittle while believe that He is just, since He has promised us that,\n_when he will reveal His glory, we all shall then both see and feel that\nHe has been, and is, just_.\" (E. 364; St. L. 1964.)\n\nAgain: \"Do you not think that since the light of grace has so readily\nsolved a question which could not be solved by the light of nature, the\nlight of glory will be able to solve with the greatest ease the question\nwhich in the light of the Word or of grace is unsolvable? In accordance\nwith the common and good distinction let it be conceded that there are\nthree lights--the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of\nglory. In the light of nature it is unsolvable that it should be just\nthat the good are afflicted while the wicked prosper. The light of\ngrace, however, solves this [mystery]. In the light of grace it is\nunsolvable how God may condemn him who cannot by any power of his own do\notherwise than sin and be guilty. There the light of nature as well as\nthe light of grace declares that the fault is not in wretched man, but\nin the unjust God. For they cannot judge otherwise of God, who crowns a\nwicked man gratuitously without any merits, and does not crown another,\nbut condemns him, who perhaps is less, or at least not more wicked [than\nthe one who is crowned]. _But the light of glory pronounces a different\nverdict_, and when it arrives, it will show God, whose judgment is now\nthat of incomprehensible justice, to be a Being of most just and\nmanifest justice, which meanwhile we are to believe, admonished and\nconfirmed by the example of the light of grace, which accomplishes a\nlike miracle with respect to the light of nature.\" (E. 365; St. L.\n1965.)\n\n246. Statements Made by Luther before Publication of \"De Servo\nArbitrio.\"\n\nWherever Luther touches on predestination both before and after 1525,\nessentially the same thoughts are found, though not developed as\nextensively as in _De Servo Arbitrio_. He consistently maintains that\nGod's majesty must be neither denied nor searched, and that Christians\nshould be admonished to look and rely solely upon the revealed universal\npromises of the Gospel. In his _Church Postil_ of 1521 we read: \"The\nthird class of men who also approve this [the words of Paul, Rom. 11,\n34. 35: 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His\ncounselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed\nunto Him again?'] are those who indeed hear the Word of Revelation. For\nI am not now speaking of such as deliberately persecute the Word (they\nbelong to the first class, who do not at all inquire about God) but of\nthose who disregard the revelation and led by the devil, go beyond and\nbeside it, seeking to grasp the ways and judgments of God which He has\nnot revealed. Now, if they were Christians, they would be satisfied and\nthank God for giving His Word, in which He shows what is pleasing to\nHim, and how we are to be saved. But they suffer the devil to lead them,\ninsist on seeking other revelations, ponder what God may be in His\ninvisible majesty, how He secretly governs the world, and what He has in\nparticular decreed for each one in the future. For nature and human\nreason cannot desist; they will meddle in His judgment with their\nwisdom, sit in His most secret council, instruct Him and master Him.\nThis is the pride of the foul fiend, who was cast into the abyss of hell\nfor trying to meddle in [matters of] divine majesty, and who in the same\nway eagerly seeks to bring man to fall, and to cast him down with\nhimself, as he did in Paradise in the beginning, tempting also the\nsaints and even Christ with the same thing, when he set Him on the\npinnacle of the Temple, etc. Against such in particular St. Paul here\nintroduces these words [Rom. 11, 34. 35] to the inquisitive questions of\nwise reason: Why did God thus punish and reject the Jews while He\npermitted the condemned heathen to come to the Gospel? Again, Why does\nHe govern on this wise, that wicked and evil men are exalted while the\npious are allowed to undergo misfortune and be suppressed? Why does He\ncall Judas to be an apostle and later on reject him while He accepts the\nmurderer and malefactor? By them [his words, Rom. 11] Paul would order\nsuch to cease climbing up to the secret Majesty, and to adhere to the\nrevelation which God has given us. For such searching and climbing is\nnot only in vain, but also harmful. Though you search in all eternity,\nyou will never attain anything, but only break your neck.\"\n\n\"But if you desire to proceed in the right way, you can do no better\nthan busying yourself with His Word and works, in which He has revealed\nHimself and permits Himself to be heard and apprehended, to wit, how He\nsets before you His Son Christ upon the cross. That is the work of your\nredemption. There you can certainly apprehend God, and see that He does\nnot wish to condemn you on account of your sins if you believe, but to\ngive you eternal life, as Christ says: 'God so loved the world that He\ngave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life,' (John 3, 16.) In this Christ, says\nPaul, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2, 3.)\nAnd that will be more than enough for you to learn, study, and consider.\nThis lofty revelation of God will also make you marvel and will engender\na desire and love for God. It is a work which in this life you will\nnever finish studying; a work of which, as Peter says, even the angels\ncannot see enough, but which they contemplate unceasingly with joy and\ndelight. (1 Pet. 1, 12.)\"\n\n\"This I say that we may know how to instruct and direct those (if such\nwe should meet with) who are being afflicted and tormented by such\nthoughts of the devil to tempt God, when he entices them to search the\ndevious ways of God outside of revelation, and to grope about trying to\nfathom what God plans for them--whereby they are led into such doubt and\ndespair that they know not how they will survive. Such people must be\nreminded of these words [Rom. 11], and be rebuked with them (as St. Paul\nrebukes his Jews and wiseacres) for seeking to apprehend God with their\nwisdom and to school Him, as His advisers and masters, and for dealing\nwith Him by themselves without means, and for giving Him so much that He\nmust requite them again. For nothing will come of it; He has carefully\nbuilt so high that you will not thus scale Him by your climbing. His\nwisdom, counsel, and riches are so great that you will never be able to\nfathom or to exhaust them. Therefore be glad that He permits you to know\nand receive these things somewhat by revelation.\" (E. 9, 15 sqq.; St. L.\n12, 641 sqq.)\n\nIn a sermon on 2 Pet. 1, 10, delivered in 1523 and published in 1524,\nLuther said: \"Here a limit [beyond which we may not go] has been set for\nus how to treat of predestination. Many frivolous spirits, who have not\nfelt much of faith, tumble in, strike at the top, concerning themselves\nfirst of all with this matter, and seek to determine by means of their\nreason whether they are elected in order to be certain of their\nstanding. From this you must desist, it is not the hilt of the matter.\nIf you would be certain, you must attain to this goal by taking the way\nwhich Peter here proposes. Take another, and you have already gone\nastray; your own experience must teach you. If faith is well exercised\nand stressed, you will finally become sure of the matter, so that you\nwill not fail.\" (E. 52, 224, St. L. 9, 1353.)\n\nAfter a discussion at Wittenberg with a fanatic from Antwerp, in 1525,\nLuther wrote a letter of warning to the Christians of Antwerp, in which\nhe speaks of God's will with respect to sin in an illuminating manner as\nfollows: \"Most of all he [the fanatic] fiercely contended that God's\ncommand was good, and that God did not desire sin, which is true without\na doubt; and the fact that we also confessed this did not do us any\ngood. But he would not admit that, although God does not desire sin, He\nnevertheless permits (_verhaengt_) it to happen, and such permission\ncertainly does not come to pass without His will. For who compels Him to\npermit it? Aye, how could He permit it if it was not His will to permit\nit? Here he exalted his reason, and sought to comprehend how God could\nnot desire sin, and still, by permitting sin, will it, imagining that he\ncould exhaust the abyss of divine majesty: how these two wills may exist\nside by side.... Nor do I doubt that he will quote me to you as saying\nthat God desires sin. To this I would herewith reply that he wrongs me,\nand as he is otherwise full of lies, so also he does not speak the truth\nin this matter. I say that God has forbidden sin, and does not desire\nit. This will has been revealed to us, and it is necessary for us to\nknow it. But in what manner God permits or wills sin, this we are not to\nknow; for He has not revealed it. St. Paul himself would not and could\nnot know it, saying, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest\nagainst God?' Therefore I beseech you in case this spirit should trouble\nyou much with the lofty question regarding the secret will of God, to\ndepart from him and to speak thus: 'Is it too little that God instructs\nus in His public [proclaimed] will, which He has revealed to us? Why,\nthen, do you gull us seeking to lead us into that which we are forbidden\nto know, are unable to know, and which you do not know yourself? Let the\nmanner in which that comes to pass be commended to God; it suffices us\nto know that He desires no sin. In what way, however, He permits or\nwills sin, this we shall leave unanswered (_sollen wir gehen lassen_).\nThe servant is not to know his master's secrets but what his master\nenjoins upon him, much less is a poor creature to explore and desire to\nknow the secrets of the majesty of its God,'--Behold, my dear friends,\nhere you may perceive that the devil always makes a practise of\npresenting unnecessary, vain, and impossible things in order thereby to\ntempt the frivolous to forsake the right path. Therefore take heed that\nyou abide by that which is needful, and which God has commanded us to\nknow, as the wise man says: 'Do not inquire for that which is too high\nfor you, but always remain with that which God has commanded you,' We\nall have work enough to learn all our lifetime God's command and His Son\nChrist.\" (E. 53, 345; St. L. 10, 1531; Weimar 18, 549f.)\n\n247. Statements Made by Luther in 1528.\n\nIn a letter of comfort written July 20, 1528, Luther says: \"A few days\nago my dear brother Caspar Cruciger, Doctor of Divinity, informed me\nwith grief that on his various visitations he learned from your friends\nthat you are afflicted with abnormal and strange thoughts pertaining to\nGod's predestination, and are completely confused by them; also that you\ngrow dull and distracted on account of them, and that finally it must be\nfeared that you might commit suicide,--from which Almighty God may\npreserve you!... Your proposition and complaints are: God Almighty knows\nfrom eternity who are to be and who will be saved, be they dead, living\nor still to live in days to come,--which is true, and shall and must be\nconceded; for He knows all things, and there is nothing hidden from Him,\nsince He has counted and knows exactly the drops in the sea, the stars\nin the heavens, the roots, branches, twigs, leaves of all trees, also\nall the hair of men. From this you finally conclude that, do what you\nwill, good or evil, God still knows whether you shall be saved or not\n(which is indeed true) yet, at the same time, you think more of\ndamnation than of salvation and on that account you are faint-hearted,\nnor do you know how God is minded toward you; hence you grow dispirited\nand altogether doubtful.\"\n\n\"Against this I, as a servant of my dear Lord Jesus Christ, give you\nthis advice and comfort, that you may know how God Almighty is disposed\ntoward you, whether you are elected unto salvation or damnation.\nAlthough God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in\nall creatures must come to pass according to His will (_iuxta decretum\nvoluntatis suae_), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye,\nHis command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them\npartakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He\nsays: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked\nturn and live. Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners\nwho live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not\nseparate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts,\ninspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east\nto west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent,\nand make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is\n'rich unto all that call upon Him,' Rom. 10, 12. This, however requires\ntrue and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair\nand is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the\nrighteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon\nall.' Mark these words, _in omnes, super omnes_ (unto all, upon all),\nwhether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovel\nunder the banner of the sinners.\" \"Think also as constantly and\nearnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort\nyourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill\nwinds will cease and pass entirely.\"\n\n\"Thus we are to comfort our hearts and consciences, silence and resist\nthe evil thoughts by and with the divine Scriptures. For one must not\nspeculate about God's Word, but be still, drop reason and, holding the\nWord to be true, believe it, and not cast it to the winds, nor give the\nEvil Spirit so much power as to suffer ourselves to be overcome, and\nthus to sink and perish. For the Word, by which all things and creatures\nin all the wide world, no matter what they are called, have been created\nand made and by which all that lives and moves is still richly\npreserved, is true and eternal; and it must be accounted and held to be\ngreater and more important, mightier and more powerful than the\nfluttering, empty, and vain thoughts which the devil inspires in men.\nFor the Word is true, but the thoughts of men are useless and vain. One\nmust also think thus: God Almighty has not created, predestinated, and\nelected us to perdition, but to salvation, as Paul asserts, Eph. 1, 4;\nnor should we begin to dispute about God's predestination from the Law\nor reason, but from the grace of God and the Gospel, which is proclaimed\nto all men.\" \"Hence these and similar thoughts about God's\npredestination must be judged and decided from the Word of God's grace\nand mercy. When this is done, there remains no room or occasion for a\nman thus to pester and torment himself,--which neither avails anything\neven if he should draw the marrow out of his bones, leaving only skin\nand hair.\" (E. 54, 21ff.)\n\n248. Statements Made by Luther in 1531 and 1533.\n\nIn a letter of comfort, dated April 30, 1531, Luther refers to the fact\nthat he, too, had passed through temptation concerning predestination.\n\"For,\" says he, \"I am well acquainted with this malady, having lain in\nthis hospital sick unto eternal death. Now, in addition to my prayer I\nwould gladly advise and comfort you, though writing is weak in such an\naffair. However, I shall not omit what I am able to do (perhaps God will\nbless it), and show you how God helped me out of this affliction, and by\nwhat art I still daily maintain myself against it. In the first place,\nyou must be firmly assured in your heart that such thoughts are without\ndoubt the inspiration and the fiery darts of the foul fiend.... Hence it\nis certain that they do not proceed from God, but from the devil, who\ntherewith plagues a heart that man may become an enemy of God and\ndespair,--all of which God has strictly forbidden in the First\nCommandment, bidding men to trust, love, and praise Him--whereby we\nlive. Secondly: When such thoughts come to you, you must learn to ask\nyourself, 'Friend, in what commandment is it written that I must think\nor treat of this?'... Fourthly: The chief of all the commandments of God\nis that we picture before our eyes His dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.\nHe is to be the daily and the chief mirror of our heart, in which we see\nhow dear we are to God, and how much He has cared for us as a good God,\nso that He even gave His dear Son for us.\"\n\n\"Here, here, I say, and nowhere else, a man can learn the true art of\npredestination. Then it will come to pass that you believe on Christ.\nAnd if you believe, then you are called; if you are called, then you are\nalso surely predestinated. Do not suffer this mirror and throne of grace\nto be plucked from the eyes of your heart. On the contrary when such\nthoughts come and bite like fiery serpents, then under no circumstances\nlook at the thoughts or the fiery serpents, but turn your eyes away from\nthem and look upon the brazen serpent, _i.e._, Christ delivered for us.\nThen, by the grace of God, matters will mend.\" (St. L. 10, 1744 sq.; E.\n54, 228.)\n\nIn Luther's _House Postil_ of 1533 we read: \"From the last passage:\n'Many are called, but few are chosen,' wiseacres draw various false and\nungodly conclusions. They argue: He whom God has elected is saved\nwithout means; but as for him who is not elected, may he do what he\nwill, be as pious and believing as he will, it is nevertheless ordained\nthat he must fall and cannot be saved; hence I will let matters take\nwhat course they will. If I am to be saved, it is accomplished without\nmy assistance; if not, all I may do and undertake is nevertheless in\nvain. Now every one may readily see for himself what sort of wicked,\nsecure people develop from such thoughts. However, in treating of the\npassage from the Prophet Micah on the day of Epiphany, we have\nsufficiently shown that one must guard against such thoughts as against\nthe devil, undertake another manner of studying and thinking of God's\nwill, and let God in His majesty and with respect to election untouched\n[unsearched]; for there He is incomprehensible. Nor is it possible that\na man should not be offended by such thoughts, and either fall into\ndespair or become altogether wicked and reckless.\"\n\n\"But whoever would know God and His will aright must walk the right way.\nThen he will not be offended, but be made better. The right way,\nhowever, is the Lord Jesus Christ, as He says: 'No one cometh unto the\nFather but by Me,' Whoever knows the Father aright and would come unto\nHim must first come to Christ and learn to know Him, _viz_., as follows:\nChrist is God's Son, and is almighty, eternal God. What does the Son of\nGod now do? He becomes man for our sakes, is made under the Law to\nredeem us from the Law, and was Himself crucified in order to pay for\nour sins. He rises again from the dead, in order by His resurrection to\npave the way to eternal life for us, and to aid us against eternal\ndeath. He sits at the right hand of God in order to represent us, to\ngive us the Holy Spirit, to govern and lead us by Him, and to protect\nHis believers against all tribulations and insinuations of Satan. That\nmeans knowing Christ rightly.\"\n\n\"Now when this knowledge has been clearly and firmly established in your\nheart, then begin to ascend into heaven and make this conclusion: Since\nthe Son of God has done this for the sake of men, how, then, must God's\nheart be disposed to us, seeing that His Son did it by the Father's will\nand command? Is it not true that your own reason will compel you to say:\nSince God has thus delivered His only-begotten Son for us, and has not\nspared Him for our sakes, He surely cannot harbor evil intentions\nagainst us? Evidently He does not desire our death, for He seeks and\nemploys the very best means toward assisting us to obtain eternal life.\nIn this manner one comes to God in the right way, as Christ Himself\ndeclares, John 3, 16: God so loved the world that He gave His\nonly-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,\nbut have everlasting life. Now contrast these thoughts with those that\ngrow out of the former opinion, and they will be found to be the\nthoughts of the foul fiend, which must offend a man, causing him either\nto despair, or to become reckless and ungodly, since he can expect\nnothing good from God.\"\n\n\"Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are\ncalled', _i.e._, God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen,\n_i.e._, He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved.\nThis is an altogether wicked explanation. For how is it possible for one\nwho holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God,\nwhose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us are\nsaved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man\nfirst learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing\nbut devilish blasphemy. Hence the sense of this passage, 'Many are\ncalled,' etc., is far different. For the preaching of the Gospel is\ngeneral and public, so that whoever will may hear and accept it.\nFurthermore, God has it preached so generally and publicly that every\none should hear, believe, and accept it, and be saved. But what happens?\nAs the Gospel states: 'Few are chosen,' _i.e._, few conduct themselves\ntoward the Gospel in such a manner that God has pleasure in them. For\nsome do not hear and heed it; others hear it, but do not cling to it,\nbeing loath either to risk or suffer anything for it; still others hear\nit, but are more concerned about money and goods, or the pleasures of\nthe world. This, however, is displeasing to God, who has no pleasure in\nsuch people. This Christ calls 'not to be chosen,' _i.e._, conducting\noneself so that God has no pleasure in one. Those men are chosen of God\nand well-pleasing to Him who diligently hear the Gospel, believe in\nChrist, prove their faith by good fruits, and suffer on that account\nwhat they are called to suffer.\"\n\n\"This is the true sense, which can offend no one, but makes men better,\nso that they think: Very well, if I am to please God and be elected, I\ncannot afford to live so as to have an evil conscience, sin against\nGod's commandments, and be unwilling to resist sin; but I must go to\nchurch, and pray God for His Holy Spirit; nor must I permit the Word to\nbe taken out of my heart, but resist the devil and his suggestions, and\npray for protection, patience, and help. This makes good Christians,\nwhereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either\nbecome reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes,\nthinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not;\nwhy, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; for\nyou are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your\nSavior, who has paid for your sin. Remember this command and obey it. If\nyou notice that you are lacking faith, or that your faith is weak, pray\nGod to grant you His Holy Ghost, and do not doubt that Christ is your\nSavior, and that if you believe in Him, _i.e._, if you take comfort in\nHim, you shall by Him be saved. Dear Lord Jesus Christ, grant this unto\nus all! Amen.\" (E. 1, 204; St. L. 13, 199.)\n\n249. Statements Made by Luther in 1538 and 1545.\n\nIn his remarks of 1538 on Matt. 11, 25. 26, Luther says: \"Christ speaks\nespecially against those who would be wise and judge in religious\nmatters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, which\nis overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teaching\nand by judging. Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when He\nconceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to be\nover and not under God. Not as though He hid it in fact or desired to\nhide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entire\nheaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preaching\nwhich the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden from\nthem through their own fault, since they do not want to have it--as is\nwritten Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not,' Lo, they see,\n_i.e._, they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly and\npublicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it and\nrefuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their own\nblindness. And so, on the other hand, He reveals it to the babes; for\nthe babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth is\nrevealed since they wish and desire it.\" (W. 7, 133.)\n\nIn a letter giving comfort concerning predestination, dated August 8,\n1545, Luther wrote: \"My dear master and friend N. has informed me that\nyou are at times in tribulation about God's eternal predestination, and\nrequested me to write you this short letter on that matter. Now to be\nsure, this is a sore tribulation. But to overcome it one must know that\nwe are forbidden to understand this or to speculate about it. For what\nGod wants to conceal we should be glad not to know. This is the apple\nthe eating of which brought death upon Adam and Eve and upon all their\nchildren, when they wanted to know what they were not to know. For as it\nis sin to commit murder, to steal, or to curse, so it is also sin to\nbusy oneself searching such things. As an antidote to this God has given\nus His Son, Jesus Christ. Of Him we must daily think; in Him we must\nconsider ourselves (_uns in ihm spiegeln_). Then predestination will\nappear lovely. For outside of Christ everything is only danger, death,\nand the devil; in Him, however, there is nothing but peace and joy. For\nif one forever torments himself with predestination, all one gains is\nanguish of soul. Hence flee and avoid such thoughts as the affliction of\nthe serpent of Paradise, and, instead, look upon Christ. God preserve\nyou!\" (E. 56, 140; St. L. 10. 1748.)\n\n250. Statements Made by Luther in His Commentary on Genesis.\n\nLuther's _caeterum censeo_, that we are neither to deny nor to search\nthe hidden God (who cannot be apprehended in His bare majesty--_qui in\nnuda sua maiestate non potest apprehendi_, E., Op. Lat. 2, 171), but to\nadhere to the revelation He has given us in the Gospel, is repeated\nagain and again also in his _Commentary on Genesis_, which was begun in\n1536 and completed in 1545. In the explanation of chap. 26, 9 we read,\nin part: \"I gladly take occasion from this passage to discuss the\nquestion concerning doubt, concerning God and God's will. For I hear\nthat everywhere among the nobles and magnates profane sayings are spread\nconcerning predestination or divine prescience. For they say: 'If I am\npredestinated, I shall be saved, whether I have done good or evil. If I\nam not predestinated, I shall be damned, without any regard whatever to\nmy works.' Against these ungodly sayings I would gladly argue at length\nif my ill health would permit. For if these sayings are true, as they\nbelieve them to be, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His\nsuffering and resurrection, and whatever He did for the salvation of the\nworld, is entirely abolished. What would the prophets and the entire\nHoly Scriptures profit us? what the Sacraments? Let us therefore abandon\nand crush all this,\" all these ungodly sayings.\n\nLuther proceeds: \"These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm\nknowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it is\nuseful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain,\nand being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, as\notherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by His\npromises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this is\nto be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless flee\nto Him who is unchangeable. For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal.\n3, 6: 'I am the Lord, I change not,' and Rom. 11, 29: 'For the gifts and\ncalling of God are without repentance.' Accordingly, in the book _De\nServo Arbitrio_ and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish\nwhen we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For\none must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God.\nConcerning God, in so far as He has not been revealed to us, there is no\nfaith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply the\nsaying: What is above us does not concern us (_Quae supra nos, nihil ad\nnos_). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond or\nwithout the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by them\nnothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition,\nbecause they are occupied with an unsearchable object, _i.e._, the\nunrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteries\nconcealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so much\nthat they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, or\nglory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see My\nback parts; but My face shall not be seen. _Posteriora mea tibi\nostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris_.' For this curiosity is\noriginal sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to God\nby natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vain\nendeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto the\nFather but by Me.' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, there\nis no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible God\nwhom you will not make visible.\"\n\nWith special reference to his book _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther continues:\n\"It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my\ndeath many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all\nmanner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have\nwritten that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time\n(and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the\nrevealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: '_Er heisst Jesus Christ, der\nHerr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott_,' 'Jesus Christ it is, of\nSabaoth Lord, and there's none other God.' But they will pass by all\nthese passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You,\ntherefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that we\nmust not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, but\nacquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of the\nWord. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvation\nand say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on the\nSon hath everlasting life,' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnation\nor wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things I\nhave set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit them\norally, too, _viva voce;_ hence I am excused--_ideo sum excusatus_.\"\n(E., Op. Exeg. 6, 200. 292. 300; CONC. TRIGL. 897f.)\n\n251. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace.\n\nIt has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalled\nhis book _De Servo Arbitrio_, and retracted, changed and essentially\nmodified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently,\nabandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his\n_Glaubenslehre_ (4, 1, 37): \"In the beginning of the Reformation [before\n1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the\nbackground. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore\nSemi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of\npredestination, Luther, in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ with an overbold\ndefiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his\nposition. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine,\nbut in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation\nof the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the\nmerits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace;\nand he even opposed that doctrine [of _De Servo Arbitrio_] expressly as\nerroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on\nthat subject.\" Endorsing Philippi's view as \"according well with the\nfacts in the case,\" J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther\nwith \"absolute predestinarianism,\" remarks: \"But this is certain: the\nolder Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism\ninto the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God\nand on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (_in omnes,\nsuper omnes_) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who\nbelieve.\" (_Conf. Hist._, 336.)\n\nTime and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by\nsynergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts.\nLuther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of\npredestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always\na messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of\ngrace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and\nteaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His\nmerits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In _De\nServo Arbitrio_ Luther truly says: \"We, too, teach nothing else than\nChrist Crucified.\" (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons\nand books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the\nidea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the\ncenter of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very\ngradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means\nof grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were\nproducts of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace\nand pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The\nbent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and\nScriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the\nquestion of predestination to such an extent as he did in _De Servo\nArbitrio_, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the\nrationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental\nChristian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his\nsalvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just\nsuch an answer as he gave in _De Servo Arbitrio_. Wherever the occasion\ndemanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's\nmajesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the\nuniversal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.\n\nNor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther\nlater on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine,\n--a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians.\n(Frank 1, 129. 135. 125.) In his criticism of the _Book of Confutation_,\ndated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: \"As to free\nwill, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of\nRotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the\nbeginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the\ndisposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (_und\nsich besser erklaeret_); and we believe, if a synod were held and one\nwould hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this\narticle.\" (_C. R._ 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this\nassertion was false, as appeared from Luther's _Commentary on Genesis_\nand his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger\n2, 82.) Schaff writes: \"The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first\nasserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book _De Servo Arbitrio;_\nbut this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a\nwretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that\nLuther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July\n9], 1637, as one of his very best.\" (_Creeds_ 1, 303.) In his letter to\nCapito, Luther says: \"_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte\n'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum_,'\" thus endorsing _De Servo\nArbitrio_ in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before\nthis Luther had said at his table: \"Erasmus has written against me in\nhis booklet _Hyperaspistes_, in which he endeavors to defend his book\n_On Free Will_, against which I wrote my book _On the Enslaved Will_,\nwhich as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to\nrefute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil\ntogether with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is\nthe immutable truth of God.\" (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous\nendeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence\nhas been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or\nchanged his doctrine of grace.\n\nLuther's extensive reference to _De Servo Arbitrio_ in his _Commentary\non Genesis_, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been\ninterpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the _Formula of\nConcord_ these expositions of Luther's merely \"repeat and explain\" his\nformer position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his\nformer fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his\nown, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by\nquoting from his books--\"_post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent\nin medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt_.\"\nMoreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his\nstatements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had\nexpressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but\nlook upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us--\n\"_addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus.... Ideo sum excusatus_.\"\n(CONC. TRIGL., 898.) Luther's entire theological activity, before as\nwell as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in\n_De Servo Arbitrio, viz._, that we must neither deny nor investigate or\nbe concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed\nHimself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the\nmeans of grace.\n\n252. Luther's Doctrine Approved by Formula of Concord.\n\nFlacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared at\nthe colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context,\nLuther's statements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ contained no inapt\nexpressions (_nihil incommodi_). He added: \"I do not want to be the\nreformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussion\nconcerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. _Nolo reformator\nesse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamus\nsanae ecclesiae_.\" (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255.) In Article II of the\n_Formula of Concord_ the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondage\nof the will together with his declarations in his _Commentary on\nGenesis_. In referring to this matter the _Formula_ gives utterance to\nthe following thoughts: 1. that in _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther\n\"elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also by\nthe _Formula of Corcord_] well and thoroughly, _egregie et solide_\"; 2.\nthat \"afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition\nof the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;\" 3. that in this\nexposition also \"his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar\ndisputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute\nnecessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful\nway against all misunderstanding and perversion;\" 4. that the _Formula\nof Concord_ \"appeals and refers others\" to these deliverances of Luther.\n(CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44.)\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_, therefore, endorsed Luther's _De Servo\nArbitrio_ without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever,\nand, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essential\nthoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. The\nsaid articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther's\ndoctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man's\nsalvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particular\nthey reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and the\ninability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergism\nin man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousness\nof the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of grace\nand for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways;\nthe mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all are\nequally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem in\nthe light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never were\ncontradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well as\nof free will, therefore, the _Formula of Concord_ is not a compromise\nbetween synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther over\nthe later Melanchthon.\n\n253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord.\n\nThe attitude of the _Formula of Concord_ with respect to Luther's _De\nServo Arbitrio_ was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. They\nexpressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its public\nendorsement by the _Formula of Concord_. In 1569 the theologians of\nDucal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine \"set\nforth most luminously and skilfully (_summa luce et dexteritate\ntraditum_)\" in _De Servo Arbitrio_, the _Commentary on Genesis_, and\nother books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133.) That the authors of the\n_Formula of Concord_ were fully conscious of their agreement with\nLuther's _De Servo Arbitrio_ and his _Commentary on Genesis_ appears\nalso from the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, composed 1582 by\nKirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther with\nerrors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the\n_Formula or Concord_, endorse and defend his position, _viz_., that we\nmust neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospel\nfor an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us.\n\nIn this _Apology_ the opening paragraph of the section defending Article\nXI of the _Formula of Concord_ against the Neustadt theologians reads as\nfollows: \"In their antilog [antilogia--attack on Article XI of the\n_Formula of Concord_] regarding God's eternal election and\npredestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in this\narticle the doctrine of the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula of\nConcord_] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book _De\nServo Arbitrio_, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appeal\nto Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the _Book of Concord_ with\ncondemning Luther, who in the book called _Servum Arbitrium_ maintained\nthe proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary and\nuseful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (_Versehung_)\nis certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, these\nwords of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also well\nknow how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of the\nFirst Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his.\" (Fol.\n204a.) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we cited\nabove (p. 223f.), the _Apology_ continues: \"With this explanation of\nLuther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadt\ntheologians] wish to brood over it any further and in their\ninvestigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth of\nthis mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] and\nsuffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content to\nadhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and lead\nand direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life to\ncome.\" (405a.)\n\n254. Agreement of Apology with Formula of Concord and Luther.\n\nDoctrinally also, the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ is in agreement\nwith both Luther and the _Formula of Concord_. This appears from the\nfollowing excerpts: \"Nor does the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula\nof Concord_] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejects\nsome; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in\n_De Servo Arbitrio_ against Erasmus that it is the highest degree of\nfaith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless most\nmerciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient cause\nof such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponents\nteaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all men\nshould put their finger on their lips and first say with the Apostle\nPaul, Rom. 11, 20: '_Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt_--Because of\nunbelief they were broken off,' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin is\ndeath.' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lord\ndoes not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, all\nmen, etc. (which He is certainly able to do--_das er doch wohl\nkoennte_), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]:\n'_Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viae\neius_--How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding\nout,' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing and\nefficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent.\"\n\"But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election of\nthe elect, you must also admit the other thing, _viz_., that in God\nHimself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart from\nsin,' etc., then we declare that we are not at all minded to make God\nthe author [_Ursacher_] of reprobation (the cause of which properly lies\nnot in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause of\nthe damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of the\nProphet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hast\ndestroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' Nor do we intend to search\nour dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. For\nit is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the more\nwe occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from our\ndear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us.\" (206.)\n\nThe _Apology_ continues: \"Likewise the _Book of Concord_ [_Formula of\nConcord_] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the same\nmanner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called through\nthe public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade us\nto infer with them that God is an efficient [_wirkliche_] cause of the\nreprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His mere\ncounsel [_fuer sich aus blossem Rat_] to reject and cast them away\neternally, even irrespective of their sin [_auch ausserhalb der\nSuende_]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, it\nis sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments are\nunsearchable,' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us\nthe victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Whatever goes beyond this\nour Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life.\"\n\n\"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the _Book of Concord_ did not\ndistinguish between _malum culpae, i.e._, sin which God neither wills,\nnor approves, nor works, and _malum poenae_, or the punishments which He\nwills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not to\ndiscuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matter\nconcerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summary\nstatement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere this\ndistinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there any\none among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, is\npleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as a\nblasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318\n[edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evil\nacts and works, from which it is apparent that the _Book_ [_Formula_]\n_of Concord_ does not at all teach that God is the author of _malum\nculpae_ or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works the\npunishments of sins.\" (206 b.)\n\n255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax.\n\nEmphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and the\npossibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally\ndamned, the _Apology_ proceeds: \"And why should we not also reject [the\nproposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is\nundoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected\nand damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and\nthere is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still\nalive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his last\nend; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody\nmight have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12,\n39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of\neternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no\nreprobate can be converted and saved.... It is therefore the meaning\nneither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12,\n39] that God, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people,\nsolely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them to\ndamnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and\ncorrect understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate and\nimpenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to\nbecome more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and\nwickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that\nHe, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins,\nhas foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convert\nthemselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, we\nshall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this\nblasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also\nof sin, God has decreed to reject eternally these or others....\" (207.)\n\nWith respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read:\n\"They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word God declares what\nHe approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes\nto work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret\ncounsel in no other way than by working in man, _viz_., through\nconversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or\nhardened and damned.... With regard to this we give the following\ncorrect answer, _viz_.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on\na dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secret\ncounsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed\nHimself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the\nwords of Luther himself, _viz_., that concerning God, so far as He has\nnot been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word,\nthere is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of\nHim, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together\nwith our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments\nof God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel,\npurpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some to\ndamnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His\nsecret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that\nthrough the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards\nthem and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it\nwritten in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that all\nshould be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained\nsome to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that\nthey cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they\nprove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy\nScriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ,\ncontrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread\nit in all Christendom.\" (108 b.)\n\n256. Apology on God's Mysterious Judgments and Ways.\n\nConcerning the mysterious judgments and ways of God the _Apology_ says:\n\"At the same time we do not deny that God does not work alike in all\nmen, enlightening all,--for neither does He give His Word to all,--and\nthat nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and that\nnobody can justly accuse Him of any unfaithfulness, envy, or tyranny,\nalthough He does not, as said, give His Word to all and enlighten them.\nBut we add that, when arriving at this mystery, one should put his\nfinger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [_gruebeln_--from\nthe facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of God's universal serious\ngrace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments,\nand His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as our\nopponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, God has\nordained that some should be damned. For as to what God holds and has\ndecreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Nor\nshould one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonder\nlife, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of God by which we are\ncalled to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us.\nAnd this Word, or revealed will, of God concerning the giving rest to\nall those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible,\nunwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of God, with\nwhich alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing that\nconflicts with the will revealed in the Word of God should be inferred\nfrom it, even as God Himself in His Word has not directed us to it.\nBecause of the fact, therefore, that not all accept this call, we must\nnot declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin,\nGod in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent to\ndamnation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has not\nbeen revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that God's\njudgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible.\"\n\n\"It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning this\narticle should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicurean\nsecurity, when in this doctrine it is taught that God, from His mere\ncounsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some to\ndamnation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hears\nthis, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into these\nEpicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His free\npurpose and without regard to sin, God has ordained to damnation, then\nyou cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those who\nshall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you must\nnevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join our\nopponents in giving occasion for such things. God also shall protect us\nfrom it.\" (209.)\n\nAgain: \"They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universal\npromises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain to\nbelievers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, _viz_., that the\npromises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers,\nwho labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. But\ntheir [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying that\nsome are ordained to damnation from the free purpose of God, also\nwithout regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though He\ncalls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them,\n--which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horror\nagainst such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine.\" (209 b.)\n\n\nXXII. Article XII of the Formula of Concord: Of Other Heretics and\nSects.\n\n257. Purpose of Article XII.\n\nThe purpose of the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_ was\nnot only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward off\nfuture controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of the\nPapists and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple,\ntheir assertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and had\nabandoned the _Augsburg Confession_, and that the Reformation was bound\nto end in utter confusion and dissolution. The _Formula of Concord_ was\nto leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers a\nunited front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists,\nthe errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidently\nalso against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom the\nRomanists slanderously identified them.\n\nSummarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the _Formula of\nConcord_ declares: \"First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errors\nwhich were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodox\nChurch, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures.\nSecondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which are\nrejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary\nof the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the\n_Formula of Concord_]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors which\ncaused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt with\nand refuted in the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_.\"\n(857, 17ff.) Among the errors rejected in the _Augsburg Confession_ and\nthe subsequent Lutheran symbols were those also of the Anabaptists,\nAntitrinitarians, and others. (CONC. TRIGL. 42, 6; 44, 4; 46, 3; 48, 7;\n50, 3. 4; 138, 66; 244, 52; 310, 13; 356, 43; 436, 49; 744, 55; 746,\n58.) And this is the class of errorists which Article XII of the\n_Formula of Concord_ makes it a special point to characterize summarily\nand reject by name. Before this the _Book of Confutation_, composed 1559\nby the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejected\nthe doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and the\nAnabaptists.\n\nFrom the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg,\n1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans with\nthe Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsible\nfor their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the _Formula of\nConcord_. For here we read: \"However, lest there be silently ascribed to\nus the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects\n(which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly\nstole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room\nwas given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere\nteachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the\nPapacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feel\nthe manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their\nsimplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was not\npapistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly,\nbefore all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship with\ntheir errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and\nall, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the\nprophets and apostles, and to our Christian _Augsburg Confession_, well\ngrounded in God's Word.\" (1097, 7f.)\n\n258. The Anabaptists.\n\nThe Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders were\nConrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called\n_Blaurock_, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. In\nrapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol,\nAustria, Moravia, etc. Because of their attitude toward the civil\ngovernment the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treated\naccordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed in\nZurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists in\nthe autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation of\nmore than 1,100 \"Apostolic Brethren,\" as the Anabaptists there called\nthemselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529,\nauthorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women of\nevery age, by fire or sword \"without previous inquisition by spiritual\njudges.\" They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about\n1,000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2,000) had been executed in Tyrol\nand Goerz.\n\nThe most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonists\nwere Hubmaier, Denk, Dachser, and Hans Hutt. Besides these we mention:\nLudwig Haetzer, published a translation of the prophets from the Hebrew,\n1527, for which he was praised by Luther, was executed as adulterer\nFebruary 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldier\nand son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14,\n1527, impassionate in his writings against the \"old and new Papists,\"\n_i.e._, Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ in\nthe Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; Christian\nEntfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, and\nlater on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a former\npriest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; Joerg\nHaug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed\n1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer,\nformer Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, an\nAntitrinitarian, executed 1528; Ulrich Hugwald, professor in Basel;\nMelchior Rinck, pastor in Hesse; Pilgram Marbeck; Jacob Buenderlin;\nJacob Kautz, preacher and author in Worms; Clemens Ziegler; Peter\nRiedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequently\nimprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacher\nand prolific author, who died in prison at Strassburg, 1543.\n(Tschackert, 148ff.; Schlottenloher, _Philipp Ulhart, ein Augsburger\nWinkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der \"Schwaermer\" und \"Wiedertaeufer,\"_\n1523--1529, p. 59ff.)\n\nThe various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the Twelfth\nArticle of the _Formula of Concord_. The Epitome remarks: \"The\nAnabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one\ncontends for more, another for less errors; however they all in common\npropound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the\nchurch, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic\nlife.\" (839, 2.) Urbanus Regius said in his book _Against the New\nBaptistic Order:_ \"Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of these\nerrors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to do\nan injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the Baptistic\nOrder as John Denk and Balthasar Friedberger,\" Hubmaier.\n(Schlottenloher, 80.)\n\nWhile some of the Anabaptists, as Hubmaier, were more conservative,\nothers (Denk, Schiemer) went so far as to deny even the doctrine of the\nTrinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infant\nbaptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means of\ngrace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was not\nfaith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism,\nsensation-faith (_Gefuehlsglaube_), and the law of love as exemplified\nby Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: \"Whoever follows\nthe voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himself\nthe true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist the\nevil.\" (153.) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning,\nSalminger said: \"Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifies\nwill be received by God.\" Schlottenloher remarks: \"It was medieval\nmysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consuming\ndesire for the complete union of the soul with God and the Spirit.\"\n(83.)\n\n259. Balthasar Hubmaier.\n\nHubmaier (Hubmoer, Friedberger, Pacimontanus) was born at Friedberg,\nnear Augsburg, and studied under Eck. In 1512 he became Doctor and\nprofessor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522\npastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had read\nthe books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. In\nJanuary, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now \"he\nproclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself,\" referring in\nparticular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the same\nyear he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which he\ncontinued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published his\nbook _Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers_, which was directed\nagainst Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich,\nwhither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants in\ntheir rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputation\nwith Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from which\nhe was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped to\nNicolsburg, Moravia, where, under the protection of a powerful nobleman,\nhe developed a feverish activity and rebaptized about 12,000 persons.\nWhen the persecutions of the Anabaptists began, Hubmaier was arrested,\nand after sulphur and powder had been well rubbed into his long beard,\nhe was burned at the stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days after,\nhis wife, with a stone about her neck, was thrust from the bridge into\nthe Danube.\n\nHubmaier denounced infant baptism as \"an abominable idolatry.\" He\ntaught: Children are incapable of making the public confession required\nby Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs us\nof the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptized\nwhile in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: \"Since\nthe alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receive\nwater-baptism according to the institution of Christ cannot be charged\nwith anabaptism.\"\n\nConcerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: \"Here it is apparent that\nthe bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewise\nthe wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that He\nhas shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins.\" \"In\nthe Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spiritually\nand by faith only.\" In the Supper of Christ \"bread is bread and wine is\nwine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the right\nhand of God, His Father.\"\n\nHubmaier did not regard the Word as a means of grace nor Baptism and the\nLord's Supper as gracious acts of God, but as mere works of man. \"In\nbelievers,\" he says, \"God works both to will and to do, by the inward\nanointing of His Holy Spirit.\" Concerning church discipline he taught:\nWhere the Christian ban is not established and used according to the\ncommand of Christ, there sin, shame, and vice control everything. A\nperson who is expelled must be denied all communion until he repents. In\nconnection with his deliverances on the ban, Hubmaier, after the fashion\nof the Papists, made the Gospel of Christian liberty as preached by\nLuther responsible for the carnal way in which many abused it. The\nsocialistic trend of Anabaptism, however, was not developed by Hubmaier.\n(Tschackert 132. 172. 234.)\n\n260. Dachser and Hutt.\n\nJacob Dachser was one of the most zealous members and leaders of the\nlarge Anabaptistic congregation in Augsburg, where he was also\nimprisoned, 1527. He, not Langenmantel, is the author of the\n\"_Offenbarung von den wahrhaftigen Wiedertaeufern_. Revelation of the\nTrue Anabaptists,\" secretly published by the Anabaptistic printer Philip\nUlhart in Augsburg and accepted as a sort of confession by the council\nheld by the Anabaptists in the fall of 1527 at Augsburg. The book of\nUrban Regius: \"_Wider den neuen Tauforden notwendige Warnung an alle\nChristenglaeubigen_--Against the new Baptistic Order, a Necessary\nWarning to All Christians,\" was directed against Dachser's _Revelation_.\nIn 1529 Dachser published his _Form and Order of Spiritual Songs_, the\nfirst hymn-book of the Anabaptists, containing hymns of Luther,\nSperatus, Muenzer, Hutt, Pollio, and Dachser.\n\nIn his _Revelation_ Dachser said: \"The entire world is against each\nother; we don't know any more where the truth is. While all are\nconvinced that the Pope has erred and deceived us, the new preachers, by\nreviling and maligning each other, betray that they, too, are not sent\nby God.\" \"In their pulpits the false teachers [Lutherans, etc.]\nthemselves confess that the longer they preach, the less good is done.\nBut since they do not forsake a place where they see no fruits of their\ndoctrine, they thereby reveal that they are not sent by God.\" \"God draws\nus to Himself through the power which is in us, and warns us against\nwickedness and through the Teacher Christ, who in His Word has taught us\nthe will of God.\" \"Christ sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to all\ncreatures and to baptize such as believe. And such as obey this command\nare called 'Anabaptists'!\" \"By our evil will original purity has been\ndefiled; from this uncleanness we must purge our heart. Who does not\nfind this uncleanness in himself, neither without nor within, is a true\nchild of God, obedient to the Word of God. Who, in accordance with the\ncommand of Christ, preaches and baptizes such as believe, is not an\nAnabaptist, but a cobaptist [_Mittaeufer_] of Christ and the Apostles.\"\n\"All such as preach, teach, and baptize otherwise than Christ commanded,\nare the real Anabaptists [opponents of Baptism], acting contrary to the\nSon of God, by first baptizing, instead of first teaching and awaiting\nfaith, as Christ commanded.\" \"We need but strive with Christ to do the\nwill of the Father then we receive from God through the Holy Ghost the\npower to fulfil the divine command.\" (Schlottenloher, 72ff.)\n\nHans Hutt (Hut), a restless bookbinder in Franconia, attended the\nAnabaptistic council in Augsburg, where he was opposed by Regius and\nincarcerated. He died 1527 in an attempt to escape from prison. As a\npunishment his body was burned. Hutt must not be confounded with Jacob\nHuter or Hueter, an Anabaptist in Tyrol. The followers of Hans Hutt in\nthe city of Steyr developed the socialistic tendencies of Anabaptism.\nThey taught: Private ownership is sinful; all things are to be held in\ncommon; Judgment Day is imminent; then the Anabaptists will reign with\nChrist on earth. Some also taught that finally the devil and all the\ndamned would be saved; others held that there is neither a devil nor a\nhell, because Christ had destroyed them. (Tschackert 134ff. 141. 153.)\nArticle XVII of the _Augsburg Confession_ condemns \"the Anabaptists, who\nthink that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and\ndevils...; also others, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions,\nthat before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession\nof the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.\"\n(CONC. TRIGL., 51)\n\n261. John Denk.\n\nDenk, who was called the \"Archbaptist,\" the \"Bishop,\" \"Pope,\" and\n\"Apollo\" of the Anabaptists, was born in Bavaria and trained in Basel.\nIn 1523 he became Rector of St. Sebald in Nuernberg where he was opposed\nby Osiander. Banished in the following year, he escaped to St. Gallen.\nExpelled again, he fled to Augsburg. Here he was rebaptized by immersion\nand became an active member of the Anabaptistic \"Apostolic Brethren,\"\nwho at that time numbered about 1,100 persons. Denk was the leader of\nthe council held by the Anabaptists in 1527 in Augsburg. Expelled from\nthe city, Denk died during his flight, 1527, at Basel. His \"Retraction,\n_Widerruf_\" (a title probably chosen by the printer), published 1527\nafter his death, does not contain a retraction, but a summary of his\nteaching. (Schlottenloher, 84.) The mystic mind of Denk runs a good deal\nin the channels of the author of the \"German Theology, _Deutsche\nTheologie_,\" and of his pantheistic contemporary, Sebastian Franck.\n\nDenk taught: God is one, and the source of unity. To return from all\ndivisions to this unity must be our constant aim. The only way is entire\nsurrender to God and submission in tranquillity. He says: \"Nothing is\nnecessary for this salvation [reunion with God] but to obey Him who is\nin us, and to be tranquil and wait for Him in the true real Sabbath and\ntranquillity, losing ourselves and all that is ours, so that God may\nboth work and suffer in us. He who is in us is ready every hour and\nmoment to follow, if we are but willing. His hour is always, but ours is\nnot. He calls and stretches forth His arms the entire day, always ready;\nnobody answers Him, nobody admits Him or suffers Him to enter. Do but\nseek the Lord, then you will find Him; yea, He is already seeking you;\nonly suffer yourselves to be found. Indeed He has already found you, and\neven now is knocking. Do but open unto Him and let Him in. Apprehend and\nknow the Lord, even as you are apprehended and known of Him.\"\n\nDenk held that the source of religious and moral knowledge is not the\nScriptures, but the voice of God in the heart of man, or Christ Himself,\nwho speaks and writes the divine Law into the hearts of those who are\nHis. [Before Denk, Thomas Muenzer had said: \"_Was Bibel! Bibel, Bubel,\nBabel!_\"] Whoever has this divine Law in his heart lacks nothing that is\nneeded to fulfil the will of God. According to Denk a man may be saved\nwithout the preaching of the Word, without the Scriptures, and without\nany knowledge of the historical Christ and His work. Nor can the\nScriptures be understood without heeding the revelation of God in our\nown bosom. The Scriptures must indeed be regarded as higher than \"all\nhuman treasures, but not as high as God's Word\" [in our own bosom].\nBaptism is a mere outward sign that one has joined the number of\nbelievers; hence it can be administered to such only as are conscious of\ntheir faith. Ceremonies in themselves are not sin, says Denk, \"but\nwhoever imagines to obtain grace through them, either by Baptism or by\nthe Breaking of Bread, is given to superstition.\" (Tschackert, 143;\nMeusel, _Handl_. 2, 142.)\n\n262. The Schwenckfeldians.\n\nCaspar Schwenckfeldt, of Ossig in Liegnitz a descendent of a noble\nfamily in Silesia, was born 1490 and studied in Cologne. In 1524 he\nhelped to introduce the Reformation in Liegnitz. He was twice in\nWittenberg; 1522, when he met Carlstadt and Thomas Muenzer and 1525,\nwhen he visited Luther. He endeavored to interest Luther in the\nformation of conventicles, and particularly in his mystical theory\nconcerning the Lord's Supper, which he considered the correct middle\nground on which Lutherans and Zwinglians might compromise. But Luther\nhad no confidence in the enthusiast, whom he characterized as a \"mad\nfool,\" \"possessed by the devil.\" He said: \"In Silesia Schwenckfeldt has\nkindled a fire which as yet has not been quenched and will burn on him\neternally.\"\n\nBecause of the troubles and dissensions created in Liegnitz,\nSchwenckfeldt, in 1529, was compelled to leave. Having removed to\nStrassburg he was zealous in propagating his enthusiasm in Southern\nGermany by establishing conventicles of \"Lovers of the Glory of Christ,\"\nas the adherents of Schwenckfeldt called themselves. At a colloquy in\nTuebingen, 1535, he promised not to disquiet the Church. In 1539 he\npublished his _Summary of Several Arguments that Christ according to His\nHumanity Is To-day No Creature, but Entirely Our God and Lord_. He\ncalled it the doctrine of the \"Deification of the Flesh of Christ.\" When\nthis teaching was rejected as Eutychianism, Schwenckfeldt published his\n_Large Confession_, 1540. At the convention of Smalcald, also 1540, his\nviews were condemned and his books prohibited and burned. Compelled to\nleave Strassburg, he spent the remainder of his life in Augsburg, in\nSpeier and in Ulm (where he died, December 10, 1561). Schwenckfeldt\nexchanged controversial writings with many contemporary theologians,\nwhom he kept in constant excitement. In Liegnitz he was supported by the\nministers Valentin Krautwald, Fabian Eckel, Sigismund Werner, and\nValerius Rosenheyn. His adherents were called \"Neutrals,\" because they\ndeclined to affiliate with any of the existing churches.\n\n263. Schwenckfeldt's Doctrine.\n\nIn 1526 Schwenckfeldt wrote to Paul Speratus: Since by the preaching of\nthe Gospel as set forth by Luther so few people amended their lives, the\nthought had occurred to him that \"something must still be lacking,\nwhatever that may be.\" Endeavoring to supply this defect, Schwenckfeldt\ntaught: Grace cannot be imparted by any creature, bodily word, writing,\nor sacrament, but only by the omnipotent, eternal Word proceeding from\nthe mouth of God. Whatever is external is a mere symbol and image of\nGod, able neither to bring God into the soul nor to produce faith or an\ninward experience of divine life. \"Mark well\" says he, \"God is not in\nneed of external things and means for His internal grace and spiritual\naction. For even Christ, according to the flesh, was a hindrance to\ngrace and [the Spirit] of God, and had to be translated into the\nheavenly mode of being that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come to\nus.... Whoever endeavors to come from without and through external means\ninto the inner [the heart] does not understand the course of grace. God\nworks without all means and pictures.... Man must forget and drop\neverything, and be free and tranquil for the inbreathing [_Einsprechen_,\ninspiration], and be drawn away from all creatures, giving himself up to\nGod altogether.\"\n\nSchwenckfeldt continues: The Holy Spirit enters the quiet soul only\nthrough the eternal Word, which \"proceeds from the mouth of God without\nmeans and not at all through Scripture, external Word, Sacrament, or any\ncreature in heaven or on earth. God wants to have this honor reserved\nsolely to Himself through Himself [without any means] He wants to pardon\nman, teach him, impart the Holy Spirit to him, and save him. He does not\nwant to grant His grace, and effect illumination and salvation through\nany creature; for even the flesh of Christ was not a sufficient\ninstrument for this purpose before He was glorified, translated into the\nheavenly places, and removed from our eyes.\" \"Scripture is for the\nexternal man; the Holy Spirit teaches everything to the elect inwardly\nand is not in need of Scripture to give faith to them and to save them.\"\nSchwenckfeldt, who employed the term \"revelation\" for this immediate\noperation of God, was inconsistent in not rejecting Scripture,\npreaching, etc., altogether. But when admitting these, he adds that he\ndistinguishes \"God's own inner work from the external service.\"\n\nSelf-evidently, these views concerning the means of grace had a\ncorrupting influence also on other doctrines. Saving faith, according to\nSchwenckfeldt, is not trust in God's promise of pardon for Christ's\nsake, but an immediate mystical relation of the soul to God.\nJustification, says he, \"is not only forgiveness and non-imputation of\nsin, but also renewal of the heart.\" \"We must seek our justification and\nrighteousness not in Christ according to His first state [of\nhumiliation], in a manner historical,\" but according to His state of\nglorification, in which He governs the Church. In order to enhance the\n\"glory of Christ\" and have it shine and radiate in a new light,\nSchwenckfeldt taught the \"deification of the flesh of Christ,\" thus\ncorrupting the doctrine of the exaltation and of the person of Christ in\nthe direction of Monophysitism. And the more his views were opposed, the\nmore he was enamored of, and engrossed by, them, calling himself the\n\"confessor and lover of the glory of Christ.\"\n\nConcerning the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeldt taught that the deified\nhumanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeed\nthrough bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of any\nmedium), internally, spiritually. The words of institution mean: My\nbody, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, _i.e._, a food\nfor souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, _i.e._, a\ndrink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of God. Baptism, says\nSchwenckfeldt, is the \"baptizing of the heavenly High Priest Jesus\nChrist, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and by\nfire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, but\ndetrimental to the baptism of Christ.\" (Tschackert, 159ff.)\n\n264. The Antitrinitarians.\n\nThe first article of the _Augsburg Confession_ makes a special point of\nrejecting not only the ancient, but also the \"modern Samosatenes,\"\n_i.e._, the Antitrinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformation\nbegan their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most of\nthese \"modern Arians and Antitrinitarians,\" as they are called in the\nTwelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_ came from the skeptical\ncircles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists and\nEpicureans the _Apology_ remarks: \"Many [in Italy and elsewhere] even\npublicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, they\napprove such things only as are in harmony with human reason, and\nregard the rest as fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets.\" (CONC.\nTRIGL., 235, 28; _C. R._ 9, 763.) Pope Leo X was generally regarded as\nbeing one of those who spoke of the profitable \"fables concerning\nChrist.\"\n\nAccording to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, a\nfanatic (_Rumpelgeist_) there taught: \"Every man has the Holy Spirit.\nThe Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (_ingenium et ratio\nnaturalis_). Every man believes. There is neither hell nor damnation.\nEvery one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do unto\nmy neighbor as I would have him do unto me--to desire which is faith.\nThe Law is not violated by evil lust as long as I do not consent to\nlust. Who has not the Holy Ghost has no sin for he has no reason.\" (E.\n53, 344; St. L. 21a 730; Enders 5, 147.)\n\nIn his report on the Marburg Colloquy, October 5, 1529, Melanchthon\nremarks: \"We have heard that some of them [the Strassburgers] speak of\nthe Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not God by nature. (_C.\nR._ 1, 1099.) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spoken\nincorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a book\nagainst the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted to\nbe published.\" (1103.)\n\nIn a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: \"Your undertaking [of\npublishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christian\nand wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles of\nfaith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the one\nconcerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be derided\nconfidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably assisted not\nonly by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which they\nflatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers and\nothers, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sow\ntheir seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paul\nsays [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (_gar sehr um sich fressen_)\nand promote godlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laugh\nso complacently and are so happy that one can hardly believe it.\" (St.\nL. 14, 326; Enders 9, 252.)\n\nSome Antitrinitarians who affiliated with the Anabaptists have already\nbeen referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creed\nbecause of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, as\nstated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied the\ntripersonality of God and the preexistence of the Logos, and\nblasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as\n\"superstition\" and the trust in His satisfaction as \"drinking on the\nscore of Christ (_ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi_).\" According to\nDenk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselves\nwhich we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed of\nthe divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461.) It was of Denk that\nCapito wrote, 1526: \"At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald denied\nthat the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for this\nreason he was expelled.\" (Plitt, _Augustana_ 1, 153.)\n\nAt Strassburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, with\ndenying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527\nUrban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining that\nChrist was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same year\nAlthamer of Nuernberg published his book _Against the New Jews and\nArians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ_. In 1529\nOsiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: \"It is well known,\nand may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradict\nthe sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from which\nit follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ.\" \"Christ\nis not the natural, true Son of God,\" such was also the accusation made\nby Justus Menius in his book concerning the _Doctrines and Secrets of\nthe Anabaptists_. In his _Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius said\n\"Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of Jesus\nChrist.... This was their chief article that they despised the written\nWord, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of Jesus\nChrist the eternal Son of God.\"\n\n265. Franck, Campanus, Ochino, Servetus, Blandrata, etc.\n\nSebastian Franck and John Campanus must also be numbered among the\nAntitrinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in the\nvicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soap\nmanufacturing, writing, and printing. Campanus appeared in Wittenberg,\n1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther and\nZwingli by explaining the words: \"This is My body\" to mean: This is a\nbody created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: \"Against the Entire\nWorld after the Apostles--_Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum_,\" in\nwhich he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied the\npersonality of the Holy Spirit. \"He argues,\" says Melanchthon, who in\nhis letters frequently refers to the \"blasphemies of Campanus,\" \"that\nChrist is not God; that the Holy Spirit is not God; that original sin is\nan empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform into\nphilosophy.\" (_C. R._ 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132.) When\nCampanus endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished from\nSaxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminence\nof Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their property\nand declined to work any longer. Campanus was imprisoned for twenty\nyears and died 1575.\n\nProminent among the numerous Antitrinitarians who came from Italy were\nOchino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. Bernardino\nOchino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renowned\npulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in order\nto escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurich\nfrom 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defended\npolygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his _Thirty Dialogs_,\npublished 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of\nChrist, and of the atonement. (_Herzog R_. 14, 256.)--Michael Servetus\nwas born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, at\nHagenau, Alsace, he published _De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII_. He\nwas opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his\n_Christianismi Restitutio_, a voluminous book, which he published in\n1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanic\ndoctrine, and at the same time rejects original sin and infant baptism.\nThe result was that, while passing through Geneva on his way to Italy,\nhe was arrested at the instance of Calvin, tried, condemned, and burned\nat the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also by\nMelanchthon. (_C. R._ 8, 362; 9, 763.)--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554,\nuttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italian\ncongregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. He\ndied 1564.--John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italian\nfugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerning\nthe Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Antitrinitarian\nerrors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (_Herzog R_. 6, 518.)\n\nGeorge Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for his\nliberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania.\nHere he published his _Confessio Antitrinitaria_, and was instrumental\nin introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In\n1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. He\ntaught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that there\nwere two natures in Christ.\n\n266. Davidis and Socinus.\n\nFrancis Davidis in Transylvania was an Antitrinitarian of the most\nradical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 he\njoined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 and\npublicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduce\nUnitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked the\ndoctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 he\npublished his views in _De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et\nSpiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo_. He contended that the doctrine of\nthe Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ,\nthough born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in the\ndecree of God, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanating\nfrom God for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and the\nLord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the nobility had\nbeen won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent of\nthe Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty was\nproclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were\ntolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The Catholic\nStephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitarians\nfrom his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579,\nDavidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring it\nto be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Three\ndays after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings instituted\nagainst him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced to\nimprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesying\nthe final downfall of all \"false dogmas,\" meaning, of course, the\ndoctrines which he had combated.\n\nIn Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-minded\nnobility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and later\non also fugitive Antitrinitarians. Among these were the Italians Francis\nLismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however,\nlacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, the\npreexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continued\nuntil Faustus Socinus (born at Siena 1539, died 1604 in Poland) arrived.\nHe was the nephew of the skeptical and liberal-minded Laelius Socinus\n(Lelio Sozzini) who left Italy in 1542, when the Inquisition was\nestablished there, and died in Zurich, 1562.\n\nFaustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncle\nLaelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the first\nchapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire program\nof Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata to\noppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) as\ntaught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland,\nwhere he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: the\nAnabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ,\netc., and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland was\nrapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about\n1,000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638\nthe school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachers\nand ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banished\nas traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism were\nconfirmed.\n\nThe chief source of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian doctrine is the\nRacovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latin\nlanguage under the title: \"_Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom of\nPoland_ which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord Jesus\nChrist is that One God of Israel.\" It teaches: There is but one divine\nperson; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity of\nChrist is false; as a reward for His sinless life, God has given Christ\nall power in heaven and on earth; as such, as God's representative\n(_homo Deus factus_, the man made God), He may be adored; there is no\noriginal sin; with the help of God, that is to say, with the\ncommandments and promises of God revealed by Christ, man may acquire\nsalvation; he is able to keep these commandments, though not perfectly;\nman's shortcomings are pardoned by God on account of his good intention;\nan atonement by Christ is not required for this purpose; moreover, the\ndoctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by His\ndeath Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandments\nare adherents of Christ; these will participate in His dominion; the\nwicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing as\neternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason and\nserves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous for\nChristians, because all matters pertaining to religion are contained\nbetter and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473.)\n\nEvidently, in every detail, Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism are\nabsolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence of\nChristianity. The _Apology_ declares that the deniers of the doctrine of\nthe Holy Trinity \"are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters,\nand insult God.\" (103, 1.) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII of\nthe _Formula of Concord_. (843, 30; 1103, 39.)\n\n\nXXIII. Origin, Subscription, Character, etc., of Formula of Concord.\n\n267. Lutherans Yearning for a Godly Peace.\n\nA holy zeal for the purity and unity of doctrine is not at all\nincompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnest\ndesire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a truly\nChristian and godly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth.\nAlso in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther's\ndeath faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire for\nsuch a godly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased.\nWhile Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of a\nunionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union based\non the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the Lutheran\nConfessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that the\ncontroversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Church\nshould never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor with\nany teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth.\n\nAs a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peace\nwere made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians,\nespecially the theologians who had not participated in the\ncontroversies, but for all that were no less concerned about the\nmaintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at the\nexpense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flacius\nand Gallus published their _Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen\nSachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen_. In this Appeal\nthey urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had not\nparticipated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chief\ndifferences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two following\nyears Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interest\ninfluential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthon\nand his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in the\nmatter.\n\nAt the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber,\nSchnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discuss\nthe conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing to\ndisagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, they\ndemanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines of\nZwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by the\nWittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7.)\n\n268. Pacific Overtures of Flacius.\n\nSoon after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector of\nthe school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimate\nfriend of Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciously\nslandered Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the latter\nsubmitted the conditions on which peace might be established. However, a\nletter written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was not\nanswered by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's object\nmerely was to kindle hatred. (_C. R._ 8, 794.)\n\nIn May, 1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to Paul\nEber his \"Mild Proposals, _Linde Vorschlaege_, dadurch man gottselige\nund notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen den\nWittenbergischen und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica und\nden andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben.\" According to these\n_Proposals_, Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by the\ntheologians of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the true\nAntichrist, the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: \"Good\nworks are necessary to salvation,\" be condemned, also the errors of\nZwingli and Osiander. \"The good Lord knows,\" said Flacius, \"that every\nday and hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of the\nAdiaphorists might be settled in a Christian manner.\" But he added that\nhe could not be satisfied until, by repentance, \"they wipe out their\nsin, denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them by\ntheir excuses.\" But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber nor\nfrom Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consent\nof Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accorded\nthe role of a braying ass being crowned by other asses with a soiled\ncrown. (Preger 2, 11. 13.)\n\nAnother offer of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discuss\nthe matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthon\nwrote: \"I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, and\nI would gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before this\nhe has spread things which I had neither said nor thought, wherefore\nnow, too, I fear treachery (_insidias metuo_).\" Timid as he was,\nMelanchthon really feared for his life at the contemplated colloquy,\nbecause the statement of Chytraeus: \"As long as Flacius and Melanchthon\nare alive, unity will not be restored,\" had been reported to him in the\nform: unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not be\npossible. \"None of my friends,\" he wrote, \"is willing to attend the\ncolloquy, and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him\n[Flacius] alone.\" (_C. R._ 8, 798.) Considering Melanchthon's answer as\ninsincere and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestly\nsought peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He did\nso by publishing \"_Von der Einigkeit_, Concerning Unity,\" a book which\nhe had written before he made his pacific overtures to Melanchthon.\n(Preger 2, 17. 22.)\n\nHowever, induced by a letter of Fabricius of Meissen (August 24, 1556),\nFlacius made a further effort, addressing Melanchthon in a letter of\nSeptember 1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with God\nand the Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result,\nMelanchthon wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to in\nour chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in a\nqualified way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply of\nSeptember 16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not any\ntriumph or glory for himself, but \"only the maintenance of truth and the\nrooting out of error,\" and that nothing was able to remove the offense\ngiven by Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of the\ntruth and an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, broke\noff the correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity against\nFlacius. (Preger 2, 29f.)\n\n269. Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon and\nFlacius.\n\nDespite his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himself\nto be discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace.\nEmbracing an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of Lower\nSaxony concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the Lower\nSaxons to mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for this\npurpose articles, differing from the _Mild Proposals_ only in expressly\nmentioning also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and four\nsuperintendents, accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for the\npurpose to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: Valentin\nCurtius and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen and\nWestphal; from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; from\nBrunswick: Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January\n14, 1557, on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring with\nFlacius in Magdeburg, January 17, 1557 they unexpectedly, January 19,\narrived in Wlttenberg, offering their services as mediators.\n\nMelanchthon received them in a friendly manner, but when, on the\nfollowing day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denounced\nFlacius and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat with\nthe Lower Saxons on the basis of the \"Flacian theses.\" On January 21 the\ndelegation submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: \"All\ncorruptions which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and that\nof the _Augsburg Confession_ shall be eliminated from the article of\njustification, in particular the corruption concerning the necessity of\ngood works to salvation.\" Article VII requested Melanchthon to make a\npublic statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of good\nworks, declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church.\n(Preger 2, 37.)\n\nThe presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect on\nMelanchthon. The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such an\nextent that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a most\nviolent manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherously\nconspiring with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber,\nhe finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. In\nhis answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavy\nburdens of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; they\ntherefore ought now to have had compassion with him instead of\nassaulting him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once told\nhim on leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius,\nthey had presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him and\nothers to cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves,\nMelanchthon objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely charged\nhim and others with having taught and defended errors regarding\njustification. He declined Article VII because the publication there\nrequired was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his many\nwritings what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2,\n38. 40.)\n\nFearing that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessions\ndetrimental to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand,\nBaumgartner, Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, Antonius\nOtto) assembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In a\nletter, dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators not\nto yield anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist on\nthe elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (_ut id iugulum\nrecte iuguletis_). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meet\nthem in Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to assist in winning\nMelanchthon for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flacius\nremarked: he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon\n\"sweet rather than wholesome and strong medicine.\" (Preger 2, 42.) In a\nsimilar manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg to\ninfluence Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore the\nSaxon delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt no\nresolution before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] for\nconsideration. No news having arrived by Saturday, January 23, an\nadditional letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the same\nspirit of anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield,\nand to continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they said\nwould not only expose them to ridicule, but greatly damage the Church.\n(2, 42f.)\n\nOn the evening of the same day Moerlin Hennig, and Westphal arrived in\nCoswig. Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted the\narticles presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. At\nthe same time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh language\nof Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they had\nmet with in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatened\nto stone them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a brief\nconsultation. Their impression was (which they neither made any efforts\nto hide) that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not been\nsufficiently careful in seeking only the honor of God, the welfare of\nthe Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held on\nSunday, January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfaction\nwith the proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to the\nshocking stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxon\ndelegates to regard God higher than men, and earnestly and openly to\ncall the Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates,\nbesides a list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statements\nculled from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained their\nstrictures on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answer\nto Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This matter\ntroubled him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphorists\nwho had despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, was\nconstantly decreasing; having already yielded more than he should have\ndone, he now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties,\nthe Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the future\nthe people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance.\nFlacius furthermore declared that his theses should have been either\nretained or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen.\nMoerlin answered, irritated: They had presented other articles because\nMelanchthon had declined the first; if any one was able to frame better\ntheses, he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, the\ndelegation returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached its\nclimax. For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, and\nin the presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio had\nspoken of Flacius as \"the rascal and knave (_Schalk und Bube_),\" and\neven referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also a\nfilthy and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in which\nFlacius and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated in\nWittenberg and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49.) The first lines of\nthe pasquil ran thus; \"_Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Ab\nillo concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quae\ncommunio veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?_\" (_C. R._ 9, 50. 235.)\n\nHaving read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthon\ncould never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, the\ndelegation (with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned to\nCoswig, January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the list\nof errors to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would have\nbeen broken off immediately; only the charges with respect to\njustification had been transmitted; they therefore requested the\nMagdeburgers to declare their agreement with the articles already\nsubmitted to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgers\nfinally yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and some\nchanges in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but \"only with a\nwounded conscience,\" as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, the\ndelegates transmitted the modified articles together with the additions\nof the Magdeburgers to Melanchthon.\n\nIn his answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon said\nin part: \"You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion of\nopinions obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere.\nAnd many hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular to\nme. I was also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes.\nIf, therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm in\nany matter, I ask God and the churches to forgive me and shall submit to\nthe verdict of the Church.... As to the Flacian quarrels, however,\nconcerning which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into which\nFlacius has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that this\naffair pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, I\ncannot decide and settle anything (_me aliquid statuere posse_).... This\nnow I desire to be my last answer (_hanc volo nunc meam postremam\nresponsionem esse_); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdict\nof the Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of God\ngovern all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!\" As to the articles\nsubmitted by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes and\nadditions suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was not\nwilling to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way to\ncensure the honorable men who had participated in the deliberations\nconcerning the Leipzig Interim. (_C. R._ 9, 62.)\n\nToward evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with the\ninformation that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, and\nthat now the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early next\nmorning they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which they\nmodified their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues their\nefforts to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors.\n\"We call upon God as our witness,\" they said, \"that we most earnestly\ndesire a godly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the fault\nlies not with us, but with them, who expressly say and confess\nconcerning themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn the\nAdiaphoristic errors--the real issue of the entire controversy.\" (_C.\nR._ 9, 67.) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegation\nwhen they were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increased\nanimosity on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts of\nthe Lower Saxon theologians.\n\n270. Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht.\n\nFour weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to\nWittenberg for the same purpose, _viz._, of mediating between\nMelanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously\nrequested him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace.\nThe articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke,\nwere more severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus,\nprofessor at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned to\npresent them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles\nwere submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent\nagitation. The report says: \"As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was\ncriticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a\nmild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not\npermit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most\nearnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but\nburst forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others,\nand finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates,\nvociferating that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors,\netc.\" On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates.\nWhen these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he again\ninterrupted them, exclaiming: \"Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the\nlot of the peaceful.... I commend myself to God.\" After Melanchthon had\nleft, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates:\n\"Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr sollt\nforthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden lassen mit solchen Haendeln_.\" (9,\n106f.)\n\nRegarding the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates of\nDuke Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared in\nhis answer of February 27: \"I should not be astonished to have these two\nconditions [to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc.] imposed on me if\nI had been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I may\nhave been lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never been\nan enemy.... Therefore I clearly state that I do not assent to these\npresentations [of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, if\nI accept them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipse\niugulem_).\" (_C. R._ 9, 104.)\n\nThe Magdeburgers refused to participate in these efforts of Count\nAlbrecht, chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace as\nlong as Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenberg\nfriends. But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts to\nbring about a godly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who passed\nJena on his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on the\nAdiaphoristic question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said:\n\"Omit that; let us treat of other things.\" Flacius also wrote to King\nChristian III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish the\nAdiaphoristic errors, but apparently without any result.\n\n271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.\n\nThe Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that\na colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the\nLutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the\ncolloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at\nFrankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect\nthat all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and the\nRomanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were\nall agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution\nNicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest.\nSelf-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that\nthe controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not\nassent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying\ntheir convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the\nsituation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to\ndecline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch\nLutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the\nLutherans was unavoidable.\n\nBefore the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at\nWorms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he\nadmonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other\nLutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism,\nOsiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because\nthe Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the\nLeipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C.\nR._ 9, l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the\ndukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their\ndelegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John\nFrederick said it was impossible that, in defending the _Augsburg\nConfession_ against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man\nand speak as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), if\nthey had not previously come to an agreement among themselves and\ncondemned the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeat\nthe Lutherans with their own sword, _i.e._, their own polemical\npublications. (231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated\nhis sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and\nSarcerius. (232ff.)\n\nIn a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr.\nBasilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in\nkeeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon\nErhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought\nto be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the\nmotion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided\nthat his theologians could not participate in the colloquy with\nLutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _Augsburg\nConfession_, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true\nmembers and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and\nthe _Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was\ntemporarily warded off by the concession on the part of the\nMelanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely\nto express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At\nthe session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding\ndemanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians,\nCalvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servo\narbitrio_) from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied the\nLutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander,\nMajor, and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declared\nevasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed\nin the _Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided to\nenter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority\nthreatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if\nthey dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which\nthey rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that the\nThuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius\nPflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning\nhad been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining\nLutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who\nthe true adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ were with whom,\naccording to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal.\n\n272. Efforts of Princes to Restore Unity: Frankfort Recess.\n\nThe Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among the\nLutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official\npublicity to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was\nunscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, their\nsinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed\nby the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold.\nIn particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among\nthe Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _Augsburg\nConfession_ to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the\nAugsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the\nopportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies\nthat were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran\nprinces, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to\nthe Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to\nbend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoring\nreligious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made\nespecially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But\ninstead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of\nthe princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of\ndissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming the\nconviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger\nindeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and\nan unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish\npeace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.\n\nAt Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachim\nof Brandenburg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken, Christopher of Wuerttemberg,\nand Philip of Hesse discussed the religious situation and, on March 18,\n1558, signed the so-called _Frankfort Recess_ (Agreement), in which they\nagain solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, the\nEcumenical Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its\n_Apology_. (_C. R._ 9, 494.) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that the\nexisting dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against the\nLutherans, who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in their\nconfession. In four articles the controverted questions concerning\njustification, good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora were\ndealt with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being based\non Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff.; 462ff.)\n\nWhen the _Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to the\nestates who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive the\nexpected approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt,\nHenneberg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, and\nRegensburg. The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony,\nwhere Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first was\nentitled: \"_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio cum\nsectis et corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation of\nthe Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally and\nperniciously confounded with the sects.\" The other: \"_Grund und Ursach',\nwarum das Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reason\nand Cause why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted.\" The chief\nobjections of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have been\nincluded in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within the\nLutheran Church should not have been treated as questions of minor\nimport. 3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false,\nand not merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerning\nthe Lord's Supper are \"dark, general, and ambiguous,\" hence\nCrypto-Calvinistic. 5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous and\naltogether unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppress\ntheological discussions and controversies would lead to suppression of\nthe truth (\"binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost\") and tyrannizing of the\nchurches by the princes. (Preger 2, 74.)\n\nIn his attitude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and by\nDuke John Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to sign\nthe _Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth his\nobjection in a special book. Elector August, in turn, charged\nMelanchthon to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducal\ntheologians; which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unite\nthe opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxons\nto attend a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius induced\nthe Duke to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinal\ndifferences within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision of\nthis _Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologians\nparticipated: Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, Simon\nMusaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November\n28, 1558, it received the sanction of the dukes. Among the\nMelanchthonians the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a special\npoint to refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists,\ncaused consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently its\ntheological attitude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence the\nbreach now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August,\nMelanchthon, in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion of\nthe _Book of Confutation_. (_C. R._ 9, 763.) But contents as well as\nform of this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians in\ntheir position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publishing\nthe _Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippicum_ or _Misnicum_), which\ncontained writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_,\ntherefore, instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increased\ntheir mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick,\nthe Duke of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, on\nJanuary 20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke of\nSaxony also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, he\nfoiled the plan by declining to attend.\n\n273. General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists.\n\nTo heal the breach and end the public scandal, Flacius and his adherents\nfervently advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559\nthey published \"_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum ... pro Libera\nChristiana et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians ... for\na Free, Christian and Lawful Synod.\" The document was signed by 51\nsuperintendents, professors, and pastors, \"who after Luther's death,\" as\nthey emphasized, \"had contended orally and in writing against the\ncorruptions and sects.\" The signatures represented theologians from\nDucal Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, Luebeck, Rostock, Wismar, Brunswick,\nMagdeburg, Halberstadt, Koethen, Nordhausen, Schweinfurt, Regensburg,\nLindau, Upper Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Electoral Saxony,\nNuernberg, Augsburg, Baden, etc. Some of the first were: Amsdorf,\nMusaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Hesshusius, Max Moerlin, Gallus, Wigand,\nJudex, Westphal, John Freder of Wismar, Anton Otto of Nordhausen,\nFlacius. The _Supplication_ showed why a General Synod was necessary and\nhow it was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said,\nwould be to pass on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, all\nparticipants in the Synod having previously been pledged on the\n_Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_,\naccording to which all questions were to be decided. (Preger 2, 86f.)\n\nThe most violent opponent of this plan was Melanchthon. Fearing that the\nFlacianists might get control of the prospective general council, he, in\nadvance, denounced and branded it as a \"Robber Synod (_Raeubersynode_),\nadvocated by the ignorant Flacian rabble.\" Three weeks before his death,\nMarch 28, 1560 he wrote: \"Since they [the Flacians] cannot kill me, the\nobject of these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have said\nthat they would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc agunt\nisti hypocritae, ut me pellant, cum sanguinem meum haurire non possint;\net quidem oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturos\nesse in Germania vestigium pedis_.\" (_C. R._ 9, 1079.) Philip of Hesse\nconsented to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power of\nthe Jena theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger\n2, 93.) That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due to\nElector August, who declined to attend the synod.\n\n274. Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg.\n\nIn lieu of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians,\nChristopher of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the best\nmeans to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and\nestates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561.\nThe object of this assembly, he said, was neither to discuss the\ndifferences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but\nonly to renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and to\nconsider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous\nconfession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All\nfinally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector\nAugust (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined\nparticipation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the\nPalatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from\nthis assembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general\nsynod and sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additional\nwriting, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes\nnot to enter into an ungodly and unionistic agreement, rather to\neliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose\nobject was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to\nconsider their petition, and, on February 8, the last day of the\nconvention, returned the documents to their authors in Jena.\n\nAfter comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, the\nNaumburg Assembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered\n1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg.\nBut when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already\nwas openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August,\ndemanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct\nexplanation of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princes\nyielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in\nthe Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons for\nrenewing their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg.\nThis Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg\nCrypto-Calvinist Cracow, also asserted that hitherto no doctrinal\ncorruptions or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had been\ntolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies\nwithin the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_.\n\nEvidently, to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuine\nLutherans. Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin and\nStoessel that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The duke\nreplied that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than put\nhis signature to a document in which the errors introduced by the\nPhilippists, etc., were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took the\nsame stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed in\naccordance with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and left\nNaumburg without any further conference with the princes. When hereupon\nthe latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. As\nconditions of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface the\napostasy during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features of\nthe Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought out\nclearly, the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm be\neliminated, and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest of\nthe Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princes\nclosed the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke,--hence also without\nhaving attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans.\n\nThe Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the\nElectors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of\nWuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of\nother princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any\nmeans stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic\nNaumburg document. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also\nleft Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of\nBrunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of\nSaxon-Lauenburg, the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, Stolberg, Barby,\nand a number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg,\nAugsburg, Strassburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyal\nLutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all the\nprinces who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg\nemphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his\ndelegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the\nPalatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg\nsignified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the\nviews and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine\nof the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the\nbeginning they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense.\nIn the Preface of the _Book of Concord_ signed by the Lutheran princes,\nwe read: \"Now, our conferences and those of our illustrious\npredecessors, which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention,\nfirst at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were\nrecorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful\nsettlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors\nand false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our\nmind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for,\nand establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from\nthe Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as\nmany of us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly\nreserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of\ntime, anything would be desired with respect to the _Augsburg\nConfession_, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would\nfurther declare all things thoroughly and at length.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 15.)\nEven Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke\nJohn Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had\nmisled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg,\nopenly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent\nLutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate\nproved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true\nunity and the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. And\nmore than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring\nabout this result. (Preger 2, 102.)\n\n275. Andreae and Chemnitz.\n\nThe theologians who were first in adopting effective methods and\nmeasures to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divine\ntruth were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 in\nWeiblingen, Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546\nhe became pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposed\nbecause of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he became\npastor and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was also\nprofessor and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae has\nbeen called \"the spiritual heir of John Brenz.\" Hoping against hope, he\nincessantly labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church.\nBeing a man of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her at\nnumerous occasions and in various capacities. In his pacification\nefforts he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelical\ncourts, cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. With\nthe consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service of\nElector August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony till\nhis dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing the\naffairs of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work of\nLutheran pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unite\nthe Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severely\ncriticized also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due to\nthe fact that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himself\nto be duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough to\ndefend them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of the\nLord's Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. While\nthus Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacification\nwhich culminated in the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_, he lacked\nthe theological insight, acumen, and consistency which characterized\nMartin Chemnitz.\n\nMartin Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen in\nBrandenburg. As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school in\nWittenberg, where he \"rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he had\nheard so much at home, and to hear Luther preach.\" From 1539 to 1542 he\nattended the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied in\nFrankfort-on-the-Oder; in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthon\ndirected his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school in\nKoenigsberg, and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary.\nOwing to his participation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lost\nthe favor of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9,\n1554, he began his lectures on Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ before a\nlarge and enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of his\nhearers. In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in\n1567 as superintendent, in the city of Brunswick. He died April 8, 1586.\nChemnitz was the prince of the Lutheran divines of his age and, next to\nLuther, the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther and\nChemnitz, the Romanists said: \"You Lutherans have two Martins; if the\nsecond had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (_si posterior\nnon fuisset, prior non stetisset_).\" Besides the two Lutheran classics:\n_Examen Concilii Tridentini_, published 1565--1573, and _De Duabus\nNaturis in Christo_, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: _Harmonia\nEvangelica_, continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed by\nJohn Gerhard, and _Foundations_ (_Die Fundamente_) _of the Sound\nDoctrine concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating and\nDrinking of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper_, 1569.\n\nAndreae and Chemnitz became acquainted with each other in 1568, when\nDuke Julius invited the former to conduct the visitation in Brunswick\ntogether with Chemnitz. They jointly also composed the Brunswick Church\nOrder of 1569, which was preceded by the _Corpus Doctrinae Iulium_,\ncompiled by Chemnitz and containing the _Augsburg Confession_, the\n_Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, the Catechisms of Luther, and a\n\"short [rather long], simple, and necessary treatise on the prevalent\ncorruptions.\" Andreae and Chemnitz are the theologians to whom more than\nany other two men our Church owes the _Formula of Concord_ and the\nunification of our Church in the one true Christian faith as taught by\nLuther. However, it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any other\ntheologian, must be credited with the theological clarity and the\ncorrectness which characterizes the _Formula_.\n\n276. First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail.\n\nIn his first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavored\nto reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who then\nwere contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at the\ninstance of Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel and Duke Christopher of\nWuerttemberg, Andreae composed his \"_Confession and Brief Explanation of\nSeveral Controverted Articles_, according to which a Christian unity\nmight be effected in the churches adhering to the _Augsburg Confession_,\nand the offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled.\" In five\narticles he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4.\nThe Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains that\nwe are neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ has\nearned for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocent\nobedience, suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousness\nto all believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teach\notherwise, but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works are\nnecessary to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after the\nFall, man is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, though\nweak, will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual matters\nhis intellect is utterly blind and his will is dead; and that hence,\nunless God creates a new volition in him, man is unable of himself, of\nhis own powers, to accept the grace of God offered in Christ. It rejects\nall who teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies are\nno longer free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connected\nwith a denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. It\nrejects all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes that\nalso the wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the body\nof Christ, but to their damnation. It furthermore declares: Since it is\nobjected that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supper\nbecause Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary \"to\nexplain the article of the incarnation of the Son of God, and to\nindicate, in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which both\nnatures, divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears to\nwhat height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personal\nunion.\" (Hutter, _Concordia Concors_, 110ff.)\n\nIn 1568, at the Brunswick Visitation, referred to above, Andreae\nsubmitted, his five articles to Duke Julius, and succeeded in winning\nhim for his plan. In the same interest he came to Wittenberg, January 9,\n1569. Furnished with letters of commendation from Duke Julius and\nLandgrave William of Hesse, he obtained an interview also with Elector\nAugust, who referred him to his theologians. On August 18, 1569, Andreae\nheld a conference with the Wittenbergers. They insisted that the basis\nof the contemplated agreement must be the _Corpus Misnicum_\n(_Philippicum_). When Andreae, unsophisticated as he still was with\nrespect to the real character of Philippism, publicly declared that the\nWittenbergers were orthodox teachers, and that the _Corpus Misnicum_\ncontained no false doctrine he was supplied with a testimonial in which\nthe Wittenbergers refer to their _Corpus_, but not to Andreae's\narticles, to which also they had not fully consented. The result was\nthat the Jena theologians, in particular Tilemann Hesshusius, denounced\nAndreae's efforts as a unionistic scheme and a betrayal of true\nLutheranism in the interest of Crypto-Calvinism. They rejected Andreae's\narticles because they were incomplete, and contained no specific\nrejection of the errors of the Philippists.\n\nAt the instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst in\nAnhalt, at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony,\nBrunswick, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxon\ntheologians declining to participate). The conference decided that a new\nconfession was not needed, and unanimously recognized the _Augsburg\nConfession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the Catechisms\nof Luther. Andreae was elated. In his \"Report\" to the Emperor and the\nprinces he gloried in \"the Christian unity\" attained at Zerbst. But also\nthis apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory rather\nthan real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscription\nby formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessions\nenumerated only in as far as they agreed with the _Corpus Philippicum_.\nAnd before long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in the\nchapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make their\nappearance. The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae,\nwhich lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did not\nsufficiently exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was that\nhe himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents of\nthe Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had with\nthe dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that it\nwas impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union as\nlong as the Crypto-Calvinists were firmly seated in the saddle.\n\n277. Andreae's Sermons and the Swabian Concordia.\n\nAbandoning his original scheme, which had merely served to increase the\nanimosity among the Lutherans and to discredit himself, Andreae resolved\nhenceforth to confine his peace efforts to true Lutherans, especially\nthose of Swabia and Lower Saxony, and to unite them in opposition to the\nZwinglians, Calvinists, and Philippists, who, outside of Electoral\nSaxony, were by this time generally regarded as traitors to the cause of\nLutheranism. In 1573 he made his first move to carry out this new plan\nof his by publishing sermons which he had delivered 1572 on the\ndoctrines controverted within the Lutheran Church. The title ran: \"_Six\nChristian Sermons_ concerning the dissensions which from the year 1548\nto this 1573d year have gradually arisen among the theologians of the\n_Augsburg Confession_, as to what attitude a plain pastor and a common\nChristian layman who may have been offended thereby should assume toward\nthem according to his Catechism.\" These sermons treat of justification,\ngood works, original sin, free will, the adiaphora, Law and Gospel, and\nthe person of Christ. As the title indicates, Andreae appealed not so\nmuch to the theologians as to the pastors and the people of the Lutheran\nChurch, concerning whom he was convinced that, adhering as they did, to\nLuther's Catechism, they in reality, at least in their hearts, were even\nthen, and always had been, agreed. Andreae sent these sermons to\nChemnitz, Chytraeus, Hesshusius, Wigand, and other theologians with the\nrequest that they be accepted as a basis of agreement. In the preface,\ndated February 17, 1573, he dedicated them to Duke Julius of Brunswick\nwhose good will and consent in the matter he had won in 1568, when he\nassisted in introducing the Reformation in his territories. Before this\nNicholas Selneccer, then superintendent of Wolfenbuettel, in order to\ncultivate the friendly relations between Swabia and Lower Saxony, had\ndedicated his _Instruction in the Christian Religion_ (_Institutio\nReligionis Christianae_) to the Duke of Wuerttemberg, praising the\nwritings of Brenz, and lauding the services rendered by Andreae to the\nduchy of Brunswick.\n\nThe sermons of Andreae were welcomed by Chemnitz, Westphal in Hamburg,\nDavid Chytraeus in Rostock, and others. They also endeavored to obtain\nrecognition for them from various ecclesiastical ministries of Lower\nSaxony. But having convinced themselves that the sermonic form was not\nadapted for a confession, they, led by Chemnitz, advised that their\ncontents be reduced to articles in \"thesis and antithesis,\" and that\nthis be done \"with the assistance of other theologians.\" Andreae\nimmediately acted on this suggestion and the result was what is known as\nthe _Swabian Concordia_ (_Schwaebische Konkordie_)--the first draft of\nthe _Formula of Concord_. This document, also called the Tuebingen Book,\nwas submitted to, and approved by, the theologians of Tuebingen and by\nthe Stuttgart Consistory. In substance it was an elaboration of the _Six\nSermons_ with the addition of the last two articles. It contains eleven\narticles, treating 1. Original Sin; 2. Free Will; 3. The Righteousness\nof Faith before God; 4. Good Works; 5. Law and Gospel; 6. The Third Use\nof the Law; 7. The Church Usages Called Adiaphora; 8. The Lord's Supper;\n9. The Person of Christ: 10. Eternal Election; 11. Other Factions and\nSects. In the introduction Andreae also emphasizes the necessity of\nadopting those symbols which were afterwards received into the _Book of\nConcord_.\n\n278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia.\n\nOn March 22, 1574, Andreae sent the _Swabian Concordia_ to Duke Julius\nand Chemnitz with the request to examine it and to have it discussed in\nthe churches of Lower Saxony. On the twelfth of May the Duke ordered\nChemnitz to prepare an opinion on the book and to present it to the\nclergy for their examination and approval. Under the leadership of\nChemnitz numerous conferences were held, and the various criticisms\noffered led to a revision of the document. This work was begun in April,\n1575, by the theological faculty of Rostock. Apart from numerous changes\nand additions everywhere, the articles on Free Will and on the Lord's\nSupper were completely remodeled by Chytraeus and Chemnitz.\n\nThe new confession, known as the _Swabian [Lower] Saxon Concordia_, was\nsubscribed by the theologians and pastors of the duchies of Brunswick,\nMecklenburg, Mansfeld, Hoya, and Oldenburg. It acknowledges as its\ndoctrinal basis the Holy Scriptures, the three Ecumenical Creeds, the\n_Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and\nLuther's two Catechisms. It discusses the following articles in the\nfollowing order: 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Of\nthe Righteousness of Faith before God; 4. Of Good Works, 5. Of the Law\nand the Gospel; 6. Of the Third Use of the Law of God; 7. Of the Holy\nSupper; 8. Of God's Eternal Providence and Election; 9. Of Church Usages\nwhich are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 10. Of Free Will or\nHuman Powers; 11. Of Other Factions and Sects which have Never\nAcknowledged the _Augsburg Confession_.\n\nWhile this new _Concordia_ was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, to\nwhom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied with\nits form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticized\nthe unevenness of its style, its frequent use of Latin technical terms,\nits quotations (now approved, now rejected) from Melanchthon, etc.\nParticularly regarding the last mentioned point they feared that the\nreferences to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence they\npreferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which was\ndone in the _Formula of Concord_ as finally adopted.\n\n279. The Maulbronn Formula.\n\nThe movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received a\npowerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse of\nCrypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking the\nPhilippists, God had removed the chief obstacle of a godly and general\npeace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began to\ndisappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed to\nthe dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peace\nembracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the public\nexposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by Count\nHenneberg and other princes, _viz._, that the Wittenberg theologians\nwere universally suspected, and that peace could not be established\nuntil their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrines\nof the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown in\nthe chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists of\nElectoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists rather\nthan Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic _Exegesis\nPerspicua_ of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector that\nfor years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologians\nand unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, were\nsecret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitz\nremarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the article\non the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention.\n(Richard, 426.)\n\nAmong Lutherans generally the humiliating events in Saxony increased the\nfeeling of shame at the conditions prevailing within their Church as\nwell as the earnest desire for a genuine and lasting peace in the old\nLutheran truths. And now Elector August, who, despite his continued\nanimosity against Flacius, always wished to be a true Lutheran, but up\nto 1574 had not realized that the Philippistic type of doctrine dominant\nin his country departed from Luther's teaching, was determined to\nsatisfy this universal longing for unity and peace. Immediately after\nthe unmasking of the Philippists he took measures to secure the\nrestoration of orthodox Lutheranism in his own lands. At the same time\nhe placed himself at the head of the larger movement for the\nestablishment of religious peace among the Lutherans generally by the\nelaboration and adoption of a doctrinal formula settling the pending\ncontroversies. To restore unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, which\nhis own theologians had done so much to disturb, was now his uppermost\ndesire. He prosecuted the plan of pacification with great zeal and\nperseverance. He also paid the heavy expenses (80,000 gulden), incurred\nby the numerous conventions, etc. And when, in the interest of such\npeace and unity, the theologians were engaged in conferences the pious\nElector and his wife were on their knees, asking God that He would crown\ntheir labor with success.\n\nThe specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript of\nNovember 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians,\nappointed by the various Lutheran princes \"meet in order to deliberate\nhow, by the grace of God, all [the existing various _corpora doctrinae_]\nmight be reduced to one _corpus_ which we all could adopt, and that this\nbook or _corpus doctrinae_ be printed anew and the ministers in the\nlands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby.\" Before this\nElector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to take\nthe initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg,\nDuke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask a\nnumber of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question as\nto how a document might be prepared which would serve as a beginning to\nbring about true Christian concord among the churches of the _Augsburg\nConfession_. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttemberg\ncourt-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgart\nprovost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and several\ntheologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November\n14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach were\nordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. The\ndocument which they submitted was discussed with theologians from\nHenneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribed\nJanuary 19, 1576.\n\nThe _Maulbronn Formula_, as the document was called, differs from the\n_Swabian-Saxon Concordia_ in being much briefer (about half as\nvoluminous), in avoiding technical Latin terms, in making no reference\nwhatever to Melanchthon, in quoting from Luther's works only, and in\nomitting such doctrinal points (Anabaptism, Schwenckfeldianism,\nAntitrinitarianism, etc.) as had not been controverted among the\nLutherans. Following the order of the _Augustana_, this _Formula_ treats\nthe following articles. 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ;\n3. Of Justification of Faith 4. Of the Law and Gospel; 5. Of Good Works;\n6. Of the Holy Supper of Our Lord Christ; 7. Of Church Usages, Called\nAdiaphora or Things Indifferent; 8. Of Free Will; 9. Of the Third Use of\nGod's Law.\n\n280. The Torgau Book.\n\nOn February 9, 1576, the _Maulbronn Formula_, approved by Count Ludwig\nof Wuerttemberg, Margrave Carl of Baden, and Count George Ernest of\nHenneberg, was transmitted to Elector August, who had already received a\ncopy of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia from Duke Julius of Brunswick. The\nElector submitted both to Andreae for an opinion, whom formal reasons\ninduced to decide in favor of the _Maulbronn Formula_. At the same time\nAndreae advised the Elector to arrange a general conference of prominent\ntheologians to act and decide in this matter, suggesting as two of its\nmembers Chemnitz and Chytraeus of Rostock. This being in agreement with\nhis own plans, the Elector, at the convention at Lichtenberg, February\n15, 1576 submitted the suggestions of Andreae to twelve of his own\ntheologians, headed by Nicholas Selneccer, then professor in Leipzig.\n[Selneccer was born December 6, 1530. In 1550 he took up his studies in\nWittenberg, where he was much impressed and influenced by Melanchthon.\nIn 1557 he was appointed court-preacher in Dresden. Beginning with 1565\nafter the banishment of Flacius and his colleagues, he was professor in\nJena. He returned to Leipzig in 1568. In 1570 he accepted a call from\nDuke Julius as court-preacher and superintendent in Brunswick, but\nreturned to Leipzig in 1574. Before the unmasking of the\nCrypto-Calvinists his theological attitude lacked clearness and\ndetermination. Ever after, however, he was the leader of the Lutheran\nforces in Electoral Saxony. At the Lichtenberg Convention, convoked\nFebruary 16, 1576, by Elector August, Selneccer successfully advocated\nthe removal of the Wittenberg Catechism, the _Consensus Dresdensis_, and\nthe _Corpus Philippicum_. In their place he recommended the adoption of\na new _corpus doctrinae_ containing the three Ecumenical Creeds, the\n_Unaltered Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_,\nthe Catechisms of Luther, and, if desired, Luther's _Commentary on\nGalatians_. Finally he advised that the electors and princes arrange a\nconvention of such representative theologians as, _e.g._, Chytraeus,\nChemnitz, Andreae, and Marbach, to discuss the doctrinal differences.\nSelneccer's recommendations were adopted by the convention and\ntransmitted to Elector August. Though contributing little to the\ncontents of the _Formula of Concord_, Selneccer heartily cooperated in\nits preparation, revision, and adoption. In 1580, of his own accord, he\npublished the Latin _Book of Concord_, which was followed in 1584 by an\nedition authorized by the princes. Selneccer also participated in\npreparing the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, first published 1582 in\nMagdeburg. In May, 1589, after the Crypto-Calvinistic reaction under\nChristian I, Selneccer, whom the Calvinists hated more than others of\nthe theologians who had participated in the promulgation of the _Formula\nof Concord_, was deposed, harassed, and reduced to poverty because of\nhis testimony against Chancellor Crell and his earnest and continued\nwarnings against the Calvinists. After the death of Christian I,\nSelneccer was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, five\ndays before his death, May 24, 1592.]\n\nHaving through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained the\nconsent of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also in\naccordance with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector August\nimmediately made arrangements for the contemplated general convention of\ntheologians. It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, and\nattended by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in the\nLichtenberg convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [General\nSuperintendent of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor in\nFrankfurt-on-the-Oder; born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [born\nFebruary 26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister in\nTuebingen when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 in\nWittenberg, where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from\n1551 till his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgau\ndeliberations, in which much time was spent on the articles of Original\nSin and Free Will, was the so-called _Torgau Book_. On the seventh of\nJune the theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of the\nSwabian-Saxon and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, had\nagreed on a _corpus doctrinae_.\n\nThe _Torgau Book_ was essentially the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_, recast\nand revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to the\ndesirable features (enumerated above) of the _Maulbronn Formula_. The\nmajority decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should be\nretained, but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotations\nfrom Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the\n_Maulbronn Formula_. The _Torgau Book_ contained the twelve articles of\nthe later _Formula of Concord_ and in the same sequence; Article IX, \"Of\nthe Descent of Christ into Hell,\" had been added at Torgau. The Book was\nentitled: \"_Opinion_ as to how the dissensions prevailing among the\ntheologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ may, according to the Word of\nGod, be agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner.\" It was signed as\n\"their faith, doctrine, and confession\" by the six men who were chiefly\nresponsible for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz,\nNicholas Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher\nCornerus. The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving to\nAlmighty God for the blessed results of their labors and the happy\ntermination and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccer\ndelivering the sermon. Similar services were held at other places,\nnotably in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony.\n\nIn a letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the Torgau\nConvention: \"Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from,\nbeyond, above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought of\nall. I was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that these\nthings were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me.\ncertainly a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward the\nrestoration of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination of\ncorruptions, toward the establishment of a godly confession.\" In a\nletter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in a\nsimilar vein, saying: \"Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almost\noverwhelmed with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau]\nbrought to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the right\nhand of the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since the\ntruth no longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute to\nthe restoration of good feeling.\" (Richard, 428. 430.)\n\n281. The Bergic Book or the Formula of Concord.\n\nIn accordance with the recommendation of the Torgau convention the\nElector of Saxony examined the _Torgau Book_ himself and had copies of\nit sent to the various Lutheran princes and estates in Germany with the\nrequest to have it tested by their theologians, and to return their\nopinions and censures to Dresden. Of these (about 25) the majority were\nfavorable. The churches in Pomerania and Holstein desired that\nMelanchthon's authority be recognized alongside of Luther's. On the\nother hand, Hesshusius and Wigand demanded that Flacius, Osiander,\nMajor, Melanchthon, and other \"originators and patrons of corruptions\"\nbe referred to by name and condemned as errorists. Quite a number of\ntheologians objected to the _Torgau Book_ because it was too bulky. To\nmeet this objection the _Epitome_, a summary of the contents of the\n_Torgau Book_, was prepared by Andreae with the consent of the Elector.\nOriginally its title read: \"_Brief Summary_ of the articles which,\ncontroverted among the theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ for many\nyears, were settled in a Christian manner at Torgau in the month of\nJune, 1576, by the theologians which there met and subscribed.\"\n\nAfter most of the censures had arrived, the \"triumvirate\" of the\n_Formula of Concord_ (as Chytraeus called them 1581), Andreae,\nSelneccer, and Chemnitz, by order of the Elector met on March 1, 1577,\nat Cloister Bergen, near Magdeburg, for the consideration of the\ncriticisms and final editing of the new confession. They finished their\nwork on March 14. Later when other criticisms arrived and a further\nrevision took place (also at Bergen, in May 1577), Musculus, Cornerus,\nand Chytraeus were added to their number. Though numerous changes,\nadditions, and omissions were made at Bergen, and in Article IX the\npresent form was substituted for the sermon of Luther, the doctrinal\nsubstance of the _Torgau Book_ remained unchanged. The chief object of\nthe revisers was to eliminate misunderstandings and to replace ambiguous\nand dark terms with clear ones. At the last meeting of the six revisers\n(at Bergen, in May) the _Solid Declaration_ was quickly and finally\nagreed upon, only a few changes of a purely verbal and formal nature\nbeing made. On May 28, 1577, the revised form of the _Torgau Book_ was\nsubmitted to Elector August. It is known as the _Bergic Book_, or the\n_Solid Declaration_, or the _Formula of Concord_, also as the _Book of\nConcord_ (a title which was afterwards reserved for the collection of\nall the Lutheran symbols). Of course, the _Epitome_, prepared by\nAndreae, was also examined and approved by the revisers at Cloister\nBergen.\n\nIn order to remove a number of misunderstandings appearing after the\ncompletion of the _Bergic Book_, a \"Preface\" (Introduction to the _Book\nof Concord_) was prepared by the theologians and signed by the princes.\nThe _Catalog of Testimonies_, added first with the caption \"Appendix\"\nand later without the same, or omitted entirely, is a private work of\nAndreae and Chemnitz, and not a part of the confession. Its special\npurpose is to prove that the Lutheran doctrine concerning the person of\nChrist and the majesty of His human nature as set forth in Article VII\nof the _Formula of Concord_, is clearly taught by the Scriptures as well\nas by the Fathers of the ancient Church. The _Formula of Concord_\n(German) was first published at Dresden, 1580, as a part of the _Book of\nConcord_. The first authentic Latin edition appeared in Leipzig, 1584.\n(Compare chapter on \"The Book of Concord.\")\n\n282. Subscription to the Formula of Concord.\n\nOriginally Elector August planned to submit the _Bergic Book_ to a\ngeneral convention of the evangelical estates for approval. But fearing\nthat this might lead to new discussions and dissensions, the six\ntheologians, in their report (May 28, 1577) on the final revision of the\n_Bergic Book_, submitted and recommended a plan of immediate\nsubscription instead of an adoption at a general convention. Consenting\nto their views, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg forthwith sent\ncopies of the _Bergic Book_ to such princes and estates as were expected\nto consent. These were requested to multiply the copies, and everywhere\nto circulate and submit them for discussion and subscription. As a\nresult the _Formula of Concord_ was signed by the electors of Saxony, of\nBrandenburg, and of the Palatinate; furthermore by 20 dukes and princes,\n24 counts, 4 barons, 35 imperial cities, and about 8,000 pastors and\nteachers embracing about two-thirds of the Lutheran territories of\nGermany.\n\nThe first signatures were those of Andreae, Selneccer, Musculus,\nCornerus, Chytraeus, and Chemnitz, who on May 29, 1577, signed both the\n_Epitome_ and the _Thorough Declaration_ the latter with the following\nsolemn protestation: \"Since now, in the sight of God and of all\nChristendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall\ncome after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all\nthe controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is\nour faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by\nGod's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of\nJesus Christ, and give an account of it and that we will neither\nprivately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it but, by\nthe help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after\nmature deliberation we have, in God's fear and with the invocation of\nHis name, attached our signatures with our own hands.\" (1103, 40 CONC.\nTRIGL. 1103, 40; 842, 31.)\n\nKolde remarks: \"Wherever the civil authorities were in favor of the\n_Bergic Book_, the pastors and teachers also were won for its\nsubscription. That the wish of the ruler contributed to this result\ncannot be denied and is confirmed by the Crypto-Calvinistic troubles\nreappearing later on in Saxony. But that the influence of the rulers\nmust not be overestimated, appears, apart from other things from the\nfrequent additions to the signatures 'With mouth and heart (_cum ore et\ncorde_).'\" Self-evidently the Crypto-Calvinists as well as other\nerrorists had to face the alternative of either subscribing or being\nsuspended from the ministry. The very object of the _Formula of Concord_\nwas to purge the Lutheran Church from Calvinists and others who were not\nin sympathy and agreement with the Lutheran Confessions and constituted\na foreign and disturbing element in the Lutheran Church.\n\nAs to the manner in which the _Formula_ was submitted for subscription,\nit was certainly not indifferentistic, but most solemn and serious, and\nperhaps, in some instances, even severe. Coercion, however, was nowhere\nemployed for obtaining the signatures. At any rate, no instance is\nrecorded in which compulsion was used to secure its adoption. Moreover,\nthe campaign of public subscription, for which about two years were\nallowed, was everywhere conducted on the principle that such only were\nto be admitted to subscription as had read the _Formula_ and were in\ncomplete agreement with its doctrinal contents. Yet it was probably true\nthat some, as Hutter assumes, signed with a bad conscience [Hutter:\n\"_Deinde esto: subscripserunt aliqui mala conscientia Formulae\nConcordiae\";_ Mueller, _Einleitung_, 115]; for among those who affixed\ntheir names are quite a few of former Crypto-Calvinists--men who had\nalways found a way of escaping martyrdom, and, also in this instance,\nmay have preferred the retaining of their livings to following their\nconviction. The fact is that no other confession can be mentioned in the\nelaboration of which so much time, labor, and care was expended to bring\nout clearly the divine truth, to convince every one of its complete\nharmony with the Bible and the Lutheran symbols, and to hear and meet\nall objections, as was the case with respect to the _Formula of\nConcord_.\n\n\"In reply to the criticism [of the Calvinists in the _Neustadt\nAdmonition_, etc.] that it was unjust for only six theologians to write\na Confession for the whole Church, and that a General Synod should have\nbeen held before the signing of the Confession, the Convention of\nQuedlinburg, in 1583, declared it untrue that the _Formula of Concord_\nhad been composed by only six theologians, and reminded the critics how,\non the contrary, the articles had first been sent, a number of times, to\nall the Lutheran churches in Germany; how, in order to consider them,\nsynods and conferences had been held on every side, and the articles had\nbeen thoroughly tested, how criticisms had been made upon them; and how\nthe criticisms had been conscientiously taken in hand by a special\ncommission. The Quedlinburg Convention therefore declared in its minutes\nthat, indeed, 'such a frequent revision and testing of the _Christian\nBook of Concord_, many times repeated, is a much greater work than if a\nGeneral Synod had been assembled respecting it to which every province\nwould have commissioned two or three theologians, who in the name of all\nthe rest would have helped to test and approve the book. For in that way\nonly one synod would have been held for the comparing and testing of\nthis work, but, as it was, many synods were held; and it was sent to\nmany provinces, which had it tested by the weighty and mature judgment\nof their theologians, in such manner as has never occurred in the case\nof any book or any matter of religion since the beginning of\nChristianity, as is evident from the history of the Church,'... We are\nsolemnly told [by Andreae, Selneccer, etc.] that no one was forced by\nthreats to sign the _Formula of Concord_, and that no one was tempted to\ndo so by promises. We know that no one was taken suddenly by surprise.\nEvery one was given time to think. As the work of composition extended\nthrough years, so several years were given for the work of signing. We\nvery much doubt whether the Lutheran Church to-day could secure any\ndemocratic subscription so clean, so conscientious, so united, or so\nlarge as that which was given to the _Book of Concord_.\" (Schmauk,\n663f.)\n\n283. Subscription in Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg, etc.\n\nIn Electoral Saxony, where Crypto-Calvinism had reigned supreme for many\nyears, prevailing conditions naturally called for a strict procedure.\nFor Calvinists could certainly not be tolerated as preachers in Lutheran\nchurches or as teachers in Lutheran schools. Such was also the settled\nconviction and determination of Elector August. When he learned that the\nWittenberg professors were trying to evade an unqualified subscription,\nhe declared: By the help of God I am determined, as long as I live to\nkeep my churches and schools pure and in agreement with the _Formula of\nConcord_. Whoever does not want to cooperate with me may go, I have no\ndesire for him. God protect me, and those belonging to me, from Papists\nand Calvinists--I have experienced it. (Richard, 529.)\n\nThe Elector demanded that every pastor affix his own signature to the\n_Formula_. Accordingly, in every place, beginning with Wittenberg, the\ncommissioners addressed the ministers and schoolteachers, who had been\nsummoned from the smaller towns and villages, read the _Formula_ to\nthem, exhorted them to examine it and to express their doubts or\nscruples, if they had any, and finally demanded subscription of all\nthose who could not bring any charge of false doctrine against it.\nAccording to Planck only one pastor, one superintendent (Kolditz, who\nlater on subscribed), and one schoolteacher refused to subscribe. (6,\n560.) Several professors in Leipzig and Wittenberg who declined to\nacknowledge the _Formula_ were dismissed.\n\nHowever, as stated, also in Electoral Saxony coercion was not employed.\nMoreover, objections were listened to with patience, and time was\nallowed for consideration. Indeed, in the name of the Elector every one\nwas admonished not to subscribe against his conscience. I. F. Mueller\nsays in his _Historico-Theological Introduction to the Lutheran\nSymbols_: \"At the Herzberg Convention, 1578, Andreae felt justified in\nstating: 'I can truthfully say that no one was coerced to subscribe or\nbanished on that account. If this is not true, the Son of God has not\nredeemed me with His blood; for otherwise I do not want to become a\npartaker of the blood of Christ.' Pursuant to this declaration the\nopponents were publicly challenged to mention a single person who had\nsubscribed by compulsion, but they were unable to do so. Moreover, even\nthe Nuernbergers, who did not adopt the _Formula of Concord_,\nacknowledged that the signatures had been affixed without employment of\nforce.\" (115.) True, October 8, 1578, Andreae wrote to Chemnitz: \"We\ntreated the pastors with such severity that a certain truly good man and\nsincere minister of the church afterwards said to us in the lodging\nthat, when the matter was proposed so severely, his mind was seized with\na great consternation which caused him to think that he, being near\nMount Sinai, was hearing the promulgation of the Mosaic Law (_se animo\nadeo consternato fuisse, cum negotium tam severiter proponeretur, ut\nexistimaret, se monti Sinai proximum legis Mosaicae promulgationem\naudire_).... I do not believe that anywhere a similar severity has been\nemployed.\" (116.) But the term \"severity\" here employed does not mean\nforce or compulsion, but merely signifies religious seriousness and\nmoral determination to eliminate Crypto-Calvinism from the Lutheran\nChurch in Electoral Saxony. The spirit in which also Andreae desired\nthis matter to be conducted appears from his letter of November 20,\n1579, to Count Wolfgang, in which he says: Although as yet some\nministers in his country had not subscribed to the _Formula_, he should\nnot make too much of that, much less press or persuade them; for whoever\ndid not subscribe spontaneously and with a good conscience should\nabstain from subscribing altogether much rather than pledge himself with\nword and hand when his heart did not concur--_denn wer es nicht mit\nseinem Geist und gutem Gewissen tue, bleibe viel besser davon, als dass\ner sich mit Worten und mit der Hand dazu bekenne und das Herz nicht\ndaran waere_. (115.)\n\nAlso Selneccer testifies to the general willingness with which the\nministers in Saxony affixed their signatures. With respect to the\nuniversities of Wittenberg and Leipzig, however, he remarks that there\nsome were found who, while willing to acknowledge the first part of the\n_Book of Concord_, begged to be excused from signing the _Formula_, but\nthat they had been told by the Elector: If they agreed with the first\npart, there was no reason why they should refuse to sign the second,\nsince it was based on the first. (Carpzov, _Isagoge_ 20.) While thus in\nElectoral Saxony subscription to the _Formula_ was indeed demanded of\nall professors and ministers, there is not a single case on record in\nwhich compulsion was employed to obtain it.\n\nIn Brandenburg the clergy subscribed unconditionally, spontaneously, and\nwith thankfulness toward God and to their \"faithful, pious ruler for his\nfatherly care of the Church.\" Nor was any opposition met with in\nWuerttemberg, where the subscription was completed in October, 1577. In\nMecklenburg the ministers were kindly invited to subscribe. Such as\nrefused were suspended and given time for deliberation, with the proviso\nthat they abstain from criticizing the _Formula_ before the people. When\nthe superintendent of Wismar and several pastors declined finally to\nadopt the _Formula_, they were deposed.\n\nAccordingly, it was in keeping with the facts when the Lutheran electors\nand princes declared in the Preface to the _Formula of Concord_ \"that\ntheir theologians, ministers, and schoolteachers\" \"did with glad heart\nand heartfelt thanks to God the Almighty voluntarily and with\nwell-considered courage adopt, approve, and subscribe this _Book of\nConcord_ [_Formula of Concord_] as the true and Christian sense of the\n_Augsburg Confession_, and did publicly testify thereto with heart,\nmouth and hand. Wherefore also this Christian Agreement is not the\nconfession of some few of our theologians only, but is called, and is in\ngeneral, the unanimous confession of each and every one of the ministers\nand schoolteachers of our lands and provinces.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 12f.)\n\n284. Where and Why Formula of Concord was Rejected.\n\nApart from the territories which were really Calvinistic (Anhalt, Lower\nHesse, the Palatinate, etc.), comparatively few of the German princes\nand estates considered adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ declined\nto accept the _Formula of Concord_ because of any doctrinal\ndisagreement. Some refused to append their names for political reasons;\nothers, because they were opposed on principle to a new symbol. With\nstill others, notably some of the imperial cities, it was a case of\nreligious particularism, which would not brook any disturbance of its\nown mode of church-life. Also injured pride, for not having been\nconsulted in the matter, nor called upon to participate in the\npreparation and revision of the _Formula_, was not altogether lacking as\na motive for withholding one's signature. In some instances personal\nspite figured as a reason. Because Andreae had given offense to Paul von\nEitzen, Holstein rejected the _Formula_, stating that all the articles\nit treated were clearly set forth in the existing symbols. Duke Julius\nof Brunswick, though at first most zealous in promoting the work of\npacification and the adoption of the _Book of Concord_, withdrew in\n1583, because Chemnitz had rebuked him for allowing his son to be\nconsecrated Bishop of Halberstadt. (Kolde, 73f.) However, despite the\nunfriendly attitude of Duke Julius, some of the Brunswick theologians\nopenly declared their agreement with the _Formula_ as well as their\ndetermination by the help of God, to adhere to its doctrine. No doubt\nbut that much more pressure was exercised in hindering than in urging\nLutherans to subscribe to the _Formula_. For the reasons enumerated the\n_Formula of Concord_ was not adopted in Brunswick, Wolfenbuettel,\nHolstein, Hesse, Pomerania (where however, the _Formula_ was received\nlater), Anhalt, the Palatinate (which, after a short Lutheran\ninterregnum, readopted the Heidelberg Catechism under John Casimir,\n1583), Zweibruecken, Nassau, Bentheim, Tecklenburg, Solms, Ortenburg,\nLiegnitz, Brieg, Wohlau, Bremen, Danzig, Magdeburg, Nuernberg,\nWeissenburg, Windsheim, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Worms, Speyer,\nStrassburg.\n\nIn Sweden and Denmark, Frederick II issued an edict, July 24, 1580,\nforbidding (for political reasons) the importation and publication of\nthe _Formula of Concord_ on penalty of execution and confiscation of\nproperty. He is said to have cast the two elegantly bound copies of the\n_Formula_ sent him by his sister, the wife of Elector August of Saxony,\ninto the fireplace. Later on, however, the _Formula_ came to be esteemed\nalso in the Danish Church and to be regarded as a symbol, at least in\nfact, if not in form.\n\nWhile some of the original signatories subsequently withdrew from the\n_Formula of Concord_ a larger number acceded to it. Among the latter\nwere Holstein, Pomerania, Krain, Kaernthen, Steiermark, etc. In Sweden\nthe _Formula_ was adopted 1593 by the Council of Upsala; in Hungary, in\n1597. With few exceptions the Lutheran synods in America and Australia\nall subscribed also to the _Formula of Concord_.\n\n285. Formula Not a New Confession Doctrinally.\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ purified the Lutheran Church from Romanism,\nCalvinism, indifferentism, unionism, synergism, and other errors and\nunsound tendencies. It did so, not by proclaiming new exclusive laws and\ndoctrines, but by showing that these corruptions were already excluded\nby the spirit and letter of the existing Lutheran symbols. Doctrinally\nthe _Formula of Concord_ is not a new confession, but merely a\nrepetition and explanation of the old Lutheran confessions. It does not\nset forth or formulate a new faith or tenets hitherto unknown to the\nLutheran Church. Nor does it correct, change, or in any way modify any\nof her doctrines. On the contrary its very object was to defend and\nmaintain the teaching of her old symbols against all manner of attacks\ncoming from without as well as from within the Lutheran Church. The\n_Formula_ merely presents, repeats, reaffirms explains, defends, clearly\ndefines, and consistently applies the truths directly or indirectly,\nexplicitly or implicitly confessed and taught in the antecedent Lutheran\nconfessions. The _Augsburg Confession_ concludes its last paragraph: \"If\nthere is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are\nready God willing, to present ampler information (_latiorem\ninformationem_) according to the Scriptures.\" (94, 7.) Close scrutiny\nwill reveal the fact that in every detail the _Formula_ must be regarded\nas just such an \"ampler information, according to the Scriptures.\" The\nLutheran Church, therefore, has always held that whoever candidly adopts\nthe _Augsburg Confession_ cannot and will not reject the _Formula of\nConcord_ either.\n\nAs for the _Formula_ itself, it most emphatically disclaims to be\nanything really new. In their Preface to the _Book of Concord_ the\nLutheran princes declared: \"We indeed (to repeat in conclusion what we\nhave mentioned several times above) have wished, in this work of\nconcord, _in no way to devise anything new_, or to depart from the truth\nof the heavenly doctrine, which our ancestors (renowned for their piety)\nas well as we ourselves have acknowledged and professed. We mean that\ndoctrine, which, having been derived from the prophetic and apostolic\nScriptures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the _Augsburg\nConfession_, presented in the year 1530 to Emperor Charles V, of\nexcellent memory, then in the _Apology_, which was added to this, in the\n_Smalcald Articles_, and lastly in both the Catechisms of that excellent\nman, Dr. Luther. _Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a\nfinger's breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the\nphrases which are found in them_, but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us,\nto persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly\nagreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this\ntrue norm and declaration of the pure doctrine.\" (CONC. TRIGL. 23.) In\nthe Comprehensive Summary we read: \"We [the framers and signers of the\n_Formula of Concord_] have declared to one another with heart and mouth\nthat we will not make or receive _a separate or new confession of our\nfaith_, but confess the public common writings which always and\neverywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in\nall the churches of the _Augsburg Confession_ before the dissensions\narose among those who accept the _Augsburg Confession_, and as long as\nin all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to the pure\ndoctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it.\"\n(851, 2. 9.) The _Formula of Concord_ therefore did not wish to offer\nanything that was new doctrinally. It merely expressed the consensus of\nall loyal Lutherans, and applied the truths contained in the existing\nsymbols to the questions raised in the various controversies.\n\n286. Formula a Reaffirmation of Genuine Lutheranism.\n\nTo restore Luther's doctrine, such was the declared purpose of the\npromoters and authors of the _Formula of Concord_. And in deciding the\ncontroverted questions, they certainly did most faithfully adhere to\nLuther's teaching. The _Formula_ is an exact, clear, consistent, and\nguarded statement of original Lutheranism purified of all foreign\nelements later on injected into it by the Philippists and other\nerrorists. It embodies the old Lutheran doctrine, as distinguished not\nmerely from Romanism and Calvinism, but also from Melanchthonianism and\nother innovations after the death of Luther. Surely Luther would not\nhave hesitated to endorse each and all of its articles or doctrinal\nstatements. Even Planck, who poured contempt and sarcasm on the loyal\nLutherans, admits: \"It was almost beyond controversy that the _Formula_,\nin every controverted article, established and authorized precisely the\nview which was most clearly sanctioned by the _Unaltered Augsburg\nConfession_, by its _Apology_ according to the edition of the year 1531,\nby the _Smalcald Articles_, and by the Catechisms of Luther.\" (6, 697.)\nThis complete agreement with Luther also accounts for the fact that the\n_Formula_ was immediately acknowledged by two-thirds of the Protestants\nin Germany.\n\nAs for Luther, the _Formula of Concord_ regards him as the God-given\nReformer and teacher of the Church. We read: \"By the special grace and\nmercy of the Almighty the doctrine concerning the chief articles of our\nChristian religion (which under the Papacy had been horribly obscured by\nhuman teachings and ordinances) _were explained and purified again from\nGod's Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory_.\" (847, 1.) Again:\n\"In these last times God, out of special grace has brought the truth of\nHis Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy _through the\nfaithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther_.\" (851, 5.)\nLuther is spoken of as \"this highly illumined man,\" \"the hero illumined\nwith unparalleled and most excellent gifts of the Holy Ghost,\" \"the\nleading teacher of the _Augsburg Confession_.\" (980, 28; 983, 34.) \"Dr.\nLuther,\" says the _Formula_, \"is to be regarded as the most\ndistinguished (_vornehmste, praecipuus_) teacher of the Churches which\nconfess the _Augsburg Confession_, whose entire doctrine as to sum and\nsubstance is comprised in the articles of the _Augsburg Confession_.\"\n(985, 41.) Again: \"Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood\nthe true and proper meaning of the _Augsburg Confession_, and who\nconstantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it,\nshortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article [of\nthe Lord's Supper] with great zeal in his last Confession.\" (983, 33.)\nAccordingly, only from Luther's writings quotations are introduced by\nthe _Formula_ to prove the truly Lutheran character of a doctrine. In\nthis respect Luther was considered the highest authority, outweighing by\nfar that of Melanchthon or any other Lutheran divine. Everywhere\nLuther's books are referred and appealed to, _e.g._, his \"beautiful and\nglorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians,\" his\nbook concerning Councils, his _Large Confession_, his _De Servo\nArbitrio_, his _Commentary on Genesis_, his sermon of 1533 at Torgau,\netc. (925, 28; 937, 67; 823, 21; 897, 43; 827, 2; 1051, 1; cf. 1213ff.)\n\nLuther's doctrine, according to the _Formula of Concord_, is embodied in\nthe old Lutheran symbols, and was \"collected into the articles and\nchapters of the _Augsburg Confession_.\" (851, 5.) The _Augsburg\nConfession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the _Small_ and\nthe _Large Catechism_, says the _Formula_, \"have always been regarded as\nthe norm and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory,\nhas admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against\nthe Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his\ndoctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as\nfar as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works\nhas given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings.\"\n(853, 9.) According to the _Formula_ there were no dissensions among the\nLutherans \"as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous\nadherence to the pure doctrine of the divine Word _as the sainted Dr.\nLuther explained it_.\" (851, 2.) Melanchthon, Agricola, Osiander, Major,\nand the Philippists, departing from Luther, struck out on paths of their\nown, and thus gave rise to the controversies finally settled by the\n_Formula of Concord_.\n\nAs for the _Formula of Concord_ itself, the distinct object also of its\npromoters and authors was to restore, reaffirm, and vindicate the\ndoctrine of Luther. In a letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and\nWigand, Andreae giving an account of the results of the Torgau\nConvention, remarks: \"For this I dare affirm and promise sacredly that\nthe illustrious Elector of Saxony is bent on this alone that the\ndoctrine of Luther, which has been partly obscured, partly corrupted,\npartly condemned openly or secretly, shall again be restored pure and\nunadulterated in the schools and churches, and accordingly Luther shall\nlive, _i.e._, Christ, whose faithful servant Luther was--_adeoque\nLutherus, hoc est, Christus, cuius fidelis minister Lutherus fuit,\nvivat_. What more do you desire? Here [in the _Torgau Book_] nothing is\ncolored, nothing is dressed up, nothing is concealed, but everything is\nin keeping with the spirit of Luther which is Christ's. _Nihil hic\nfucatum, nihil palliatum, nihil tectum est, sed iuxta spiritum Lutheri,\nqui Christi est_.\" (Schaff 1, 339.) Also the _Formula of Concord_,\ntherefore, contains Luther's theology.\n\nIt has been asserted that the _Formula of Concord_ is a compromise\nbetween Luther and Melanchthon, a \"synthesis or combination of the two\nantagonistic forces of the Reformation, a balance of mutually\ndestructive principles,\" etc. The _Formula_, says also Seeberg\nrepresents a \"Melanchthonian Lutheranism.\" But the plain truth is that\nthe _Formula_ is a complete victory of Luther over the later Melanchthon\nas well as the other errorists who had raised their heads within the\nLutheran Church. It gave the floor, not to Philip, but to Martin. True,\nit was the avowed object of the _Formula_ to restore peace to the\nLutheran Church, but not by compromising in any shape or form the\ndoctrine of Luther, which, its authors were convinced, is nothing but\ndivine truth itself. In thesis and antithesis, moreover, the _Formula_\ntakes a clearly defined stand against all the errorists of those days:\nAnabaptists, Schwenckfeldians, Antitrinitarians, Romanists, Zwinglians,\nCalvinists, Crypto-Calvinists, Adiaphorists, Antinomians, Synergists,\nMajorists, the later Flacianists, etc. It did not acknowledge, or leave\nroom for, any doctrines or doctrinal tendencies deviating in the least\nfrom original genuine Scriptural Lutheranism. At every point it occupied\nthe old Lutheran ground. Everywhere it observed a correct balance\nbetween two errors (_e.g._, Romanism and Zwinglianism, Calvinism and\nsynergism, Majorism and antinomianism); it steered clear of Scylla as\nwell as Charybdis avoiding errors to the right as well as pitfalls to\nthe left. The golden highway of truth on which it travels was not\nMelanchthon nor a middle ground between Luther and Melanchthon, but\nsimply Luther and the truths which he had brought to light again.\n\nMelanchthonianism may be defined as an effort to inoculate Lutheranism\nwith a unionistic and Calvinistic virus. The distinct object of the\n_Formula_, however, was not merely to reduce, but to purge the Lutheran\nChurch entirely from, this as well as other leaven. The _Formula's_\ntheology is not Lutheranism modified by, but thoroughly cleansed from,\nantinomianism, Osiandrianism, and particularly from Philippism.\nAccordingly, while in the _Formula_ Luther is celebrated and quoted as\nthe true and reliable exponent of Lutheranism, Melanchthon is nowhere\nappealed to as an authority in this respect. It is only in the _Preface\nof the Book of Concord_ that his writings are referred to as not to be\n\"rejected and condemned\", but the proviso is added, \"in as far as\n(_quatenus_) they agree throughout with the norm laid down in the _Book\nof Concord_.\" (16.)\n\n287. Scripture Sole Standard and Rule.\n\nFrom the high estimation in which Luther was held by the _Formula of\nConcord_ it has falsely been inferred that this Confession accords\nLuther the \"highest authority\" as Hase says, or considers him \"the\nregulative and almost infallible expounder\" of the Bible, as Schaff\nasserts. (_Creeds_ 1, 313.) But according to the _Formula_ the supreme\narbiter and only final rule in all matters of religion is the inspired\nWord of God; and absolutely all human teachers and books, including\nLuther and the Lutheran symbols, are subject to its verdict. When, after\nLuther's death, God permitted doctrinal controversies to distract the\nChurch, His purpose, no doubt, being also to have her fully realize not\nonly that Luther's doctrine is in complete harmony with Scripture, but,\nin addition, that in matters of faith and doctrine not Luther, not the\nChurch, not the symbols, nor any other human authority but His Word\nalone is the sole rule and norm. The _Formula_ certainly learned this\nlesson well. In its opening paragraph we read: \"We believe, teach, and\nconfess that the sole rule and standard according to which both all\ndoctrines and all teachers should be estimated and judged are the\nprophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament\nalone.... Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers,\nwhatever name they bear must not be regarded as equal to the Holy\nScriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them.\" (777, 1.)\nAnd in this, too, the _Formula_ was conscious of being in agreement with\nLuther. Luther himself, it declares, \"has expressly drawn this\ndistinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the\nonly standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man\nshould be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be\nsubjected.\" (853, 9.) Scripture is, and always must remain, the only\n_norma normans_, the standard that rules everything,--such was the\nattitude of the _Formula of Concord_.\n\nAccordingly, the proof proper for the truth of any doctrinal statement\nis taken by the _Formula_ neither from the Lutheran symbols nor the\nwritings of Luther, but from the Word of God. And the only reason why\nthe promoters and framers of the _Formula_ were determined to restore\nthe unadulterated teaching of Luther was because, in the controversies\nfollowing his death, they had thoroughly convinced themselves that, on\nthe one hand, the doctrines proclaimed by Luther were nothing but the\npurest gold mined from the shafts of God's Word, and that, on the other\nhand, the various deviations from Luther's teaching, which had caused\nthe dissensions, were aberrations not only from the original Lutheran\nConfessions, but also from Holy Scripture. The thirty years of\ntheological discussion had satisfied the Lutherans that to adhere to the\nBible was tantamount to adhering to the teaching of Luther, and _vice\nversa_. Accordingly, the _Formula_ also declared it as its object to\nprove that the doctrines it presented were in harmony with the Bible, as\nwell as with the teaching of Luther and the _Augsburg Confession_. (856,\n19.) This agreement with the Word of God and the preceding Lutheran\nsymbols constitutes the _Formula_ a Lutheran confession, which no one\nwho is a true Lutheran can reject or, for doctrinal reasons, refuse to\naccept.\n\n288. Formula Benefited Lutheran Church.\n\nIt has frequently been asserted that the _Formula of Concord_ greatly\ndamaged Lutheranism, causing bitter controversies, and driving many\nLutherans into the fold of Calvinism, _e.g._, in the Palatinate (1583),\nin Anhalt, in Hesse, and in Brandenburg (1613). Richard says: \"The\n_Formula of Concord_ was the cause of the most bitter controversies,\ndissensions, and alienations. The position taken by the adherents of the\n_Formula of Concord_ that this document is the true historical and\nlogical explanation of the older confessions and is therefore the test\nand touchstone of Lutheranism, had the effect, as one extreme generates\na counter-extreme, of driving many individual Lutherans and many\nLutheran churches into the Calvinistic fold, as that fold was\nrepresented in Germany by the Heidelberg Catechism as the chief\nconfession of faith.\" (516.)\n\nBut this entire view is founded on indifferentism and unionism flowing\nfrom the false principle that quality must be sacrificed to quantity,\neternal truth to temporal peace and unity to external progress and\ntemporary success. Viewed in the light of God's Word, error is the\ncentrifugal force and the real cause of dissension and separations among\nChristians, while divine truth always acts as a centripetal or a truly\nunifying power. The _Formula_ therefore, standing clearly as it does for\ndivine truth only, cannot be charged with causing dissension and\nbreeding trouble among Christians. It settled many controversies and\nhealed dissensions, but produced none. True, the _Formula_ was condemned\nby many, but with no greater justice and for no other reasons than those\nfor which the truths of God's Word have always been assailed by their\nenemies.\n\nNor is the statement correct that the _Formula of Concord_ drove loyal\nLutherans out of their own churches into Calvinistic folds. It clearly\nstated what, according to God's Word and their old confessions,\nLutherans always will believe, teach, and confess, as also what they\nalways must reject as false and detrimental to the cause of the Church\nof Christ; however, in so doing, it did not drive Lutherans into the\nranks of the Calvinists, but drove masked Calvinists out of the ranks of\nloyal Lutherans into those folds to which they really belonged. Indeed,\nthe _Formula_ failed to make true Lutherans of all the errorists; but\nneither did the _Augsburg Confession_ succeed in making friends and\nLutherans of all Papists, nor the Bible, in making Christians of all\nunbelievers. However, by clearly stating its position in thesis and\nantithesis, the _Formula_ did succeed in bringing about a wholesome\nseparation, ridding the Lutheran Church of antagonistic spirits, unsound\ntendencies, and false doctrines. In fact, it saved the Church from slow,\nbut sure poisoning at the hands of the Crypto-Calvinists; it restored\npurity, unity, morale, courage, and hope when she was demoralized,\ndistracted, and disfigured by many dissensions and corruptions.\nWhatever, by adopting the _Formula of Concord_ the Lutheran Church\ntherefore may have lost in extension, it won in intention; what it lost\nin numbers, it won in unity, solidity, and firmness in the truth.\n\nTrue, the _Formula of Concord_ completely foiled Melanchthon's plan of a\nunion between the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the basis of the\nVariata of 1540,--a fact which more than anything else roused the ire of\nPhilippists and Calvinists. But that was an ungodly union, contrary to\nthe Word of God; a union involving a denial of essential Christian\ntruths; a union incompatible with the spirit of Lutheranism, which\ncannot survive where faith is gagged and open confession of the truth is\nsmothered; a union in which Calvinism, engrafted on Lutheranism, would\nhave reduced the latter to a mere feeder of a foreign life. However,\nthough it shattered the ungodly plans of the Philippists and Calvinists,\nthe _Formula_ did not in the least destroy the hope of, or block the way\nfor, a truly Christian agreement. On the contrary, it formulated the\nonly true basis for such a union, which it also realized among the\nLutherans. And if the Lutheran and Reformed churches will ever unite in\na true and godly manner it must be done on the basis of the truths set\nforth by the _Formula_.\n\n289. Necessity of Formula of Concord.\n\nSeveral Lutheran states, as related above, declined to accept the\n_Formula of Concord_, giving as their reason for such action that there\nwas no need of a new confession. The fact, however, that the _Formula_\nwas adopted by the great majority of Lutheran princes, professors,\npreachers, and congregations proves conclusively that they were of a\ndifferent opinion. A new confession was necessary, not indeed because\nnew truths had been discovered which called for confessional coining or\nformulation, but because the old doctrines, assailed by errorists, were\nin need of vindication, and the Lutheran Church, distracted by prolonged\ntheological warfare, was sorely in need of being restored to unity,\npeace, and stability. The question-marks suspended everywhere in Germany\nafter Luther's death were: Is Lutheranism to die or live? Are its old\nstandards and doctrines to be scrapped or vindicated? Is the Church of\nLuther to remain, or to be transformed into a unionistic or Reformed\nbody? Is it to retain its unity, or will it become a house divided\nagainst itself and infested with all manner of sects?\n\nEvidently, then, if the Lutheran Church was not to go down ingloriously,\na new confession was needed which would not only clear the religious and\ntheological atmosphere, but restore confidence, hope, and normalcy. A\nconfession was needed which would bring out clearly the truths for which\nLutherans must firmly stand if they would be true to God, true to His\nWord, true to their Church, true to themselves, and true to their\ntraditions. A confession was needed which would draw exactly, clearly,\nand unmistakably the lines which separate Lutherans, not only from\nRomanists, but also from Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists,\nunionists, and the advocates of other errors and unsound tendencies.\nBeing essentially the Church of the pure Word and Sacrament, the only\nway for the Lutheran Church to maintain her identity and independence\nwas to settle her controversies not by evading or compromising the\ndoctrinal issues involved, but by honestly facing and definitely\ndeciding them in accordance with her principles: the Word of God and the\nold confessions. Particularly with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's\nSupper, Melanchthon by constantly altering the _Augsburg Confession_,\nhad muddied the water to such an extent that the adoption of the\n_Augustana_ was no longer a clear test of Lutheran orthodoxy and\nloyalty. Even Calvin, and the German Reformed generally subscribed to\nit, \"in the sense,\" they said, \"in which Melanchthon has explained it.\"\nThe result was a corruption of Lutheranism and a pernicious Calvinistic\npropaganda in Lutheran territories. A new confession was the only means\nof ending the confusion and checking the invasion.\n\n290. Formula Fully Met Requirements.\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_ was just such a confession as the situation\ncalled for. The Preface to the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, signed\nby Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, remarks that the purpose of the\n_Formula_ was \"to establish and propagate unity in the Lutheran churches\nand schools, and to check the Sacramentarian leaven and other\ncorruptions and sects.\" This purpose was fully attained by the\n_Formula_. It maintained and vindicated the old Lutheran symbols. It\ncleared our Church from all manner of foreign spirits which threatened\nto transform its very character. It settled the controversies by\nrendering a clear and correct decision on all doctrinal questions\ninvolved. It unified our Church when she was threatened with hopeless\ndivision, anarchy, and utter ruin. It surrounded her with a wall of fire\nagainst all her enemies. It made her a most uncomfortable place for such\nopponents of Lutheranism as Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, etc. It\ninfused her with confidence, self-consciousness, conviction, a clear\nknowledge of her own position over against the errors of other churches\nand sects, and last, but not least, with a most remarkable vitality.\n\nWherever and whenever, in the course of time, the _Formula of Concord_\nwas ignored, despised, or rejected, the Lutheran Church fell an easy\nprey to unionism and sectarianism; but wherever and whenever the\n_Formula_ was held in high esteem, Lutheranism flourished and its\nenemies were confounded. Says Schaff: \"Outside of Germany the Lutheran\nChurch is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes with the change of\nlanguage and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. This is the\ncase with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans,\nwho adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday,\nchurch discipline, and other points.\" But the fact is that, since Schaff\nwrote the above, the Lutheran Church developed and flourished nowhere as\nin America, owing chiefly to the return of American Lutherans to their\nconfessions, including the _Formula of Concord_. The _Formula of\nConcord_ fully supplied the dire need created by the controversies after\nLuther's death; and, despite many subsequent controversies, also in\nAmerica, down to the present day, no further confessional deliverances\nhave been necessary, and most likely such will not be needed in the\nfuture either.\n\nThe _Formula of Concord_, therefore, must ever be regarded as a great\nblessing of God. \"But for the _Formula of Concord_,\" says Krauth, \"it\nmay be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the\nworld. It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding to\ndeath; and crises were at hand in history in which Lutheranism was\nessential to the salvation of the Reformatory interest in Europe. The\nThirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay\nindeed in the future of another century, yet it was fought and settled\nin the Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirate,\nthe sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery and\ndivision in the Church of the Reformation would have done what the arts\nand arms of Rome failed to do. But the miracle of restoration was\nwrought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Lutheran\nChurch had become the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg,\ndespite the storm, the mildew, and the worm, had ripened into the full\nround fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession in which the\nChristian Church has ever embodied her faith.\" (Schmauk, 830.)\n\n291. Formula Attacked and Defended.\n\nDrawing accurately and deeply, as it did, the lines of demarcation\nbetween Lutheranism, on the one hand, and Calvinism, Philippism, etc.,\non the other, and thus also putting an end to the Calvinistic propaganda\nsuccessfully carried on for decades within the Lutheran Church, the\n_Formula of Concord_ was bound to become a rock of offense and to meet\nwith opposition on the part of all enemies of genuine Lutheranism within\nas well as without the Lutheran Church. Both Romanists and Calvinists\nhad long ago accustomed themselves to viewing the Lutheran Church as\nmoribund and merely to be preyed upon by others. Accordingly, when,\ncontrary to all expectations, our Church, united by the _Formula_, rose\nonce more to her pristine power and glory, it roused the envy and\ninflamed the ire and rage of her enemies. Numerous protests against the\n_Formula_, emanating chiefly from Reformed and Crypto-Calvinistic\nsources, were lodged with Elector August and other Lutheran princes.\nEven Queen Elizabeth of England sent a deputation urging the Elector not\nto allow the promulgation of the new confession. John Casimir of the\nPalatinate, also at the instigation of the English queen, endeavored to\norganize the Reformed in order to prevent its adoption. Also later on\nthe Calvinists insisted that a general council (of course, participated\nin by Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists) should have been held to decide\non its formal and final adoption!\n\nNumerous attacks on the _Formula of Concord_ were published 1578, 1579,\n1581, and later, some of them anonymously. They were directed chiefly\nagainst its doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, the\nmajesty of the human nature of Christ, and eternal election,\nparticularly its refusal to solve, either in a synergistic or in a\nCalvinistic manner, the mystery presented to human reason in the\nteaching of the Bible that God alone is the cause of man's salvation,\nwhile man alone is the cause of his damnation. In a letter to Beza,\nUrsinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, shrewdly advised\nthe Reformed to continue accepting the _Augsburg Confession_, but to\nagitate against the _Formula_. He himself led the Reformed attacks by\npublishing, 1581, \"_Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae_, Christian\nAdmonition Concerning the Book of Concord,\" also called \"_Admonitio\nNeostadiensis_, Neustadt Admonition.\" Its charges were refuted in the\n\"Apology or Defense of the Christian Book of Concord--_Apologia oder\nVerantwortung des christlichen Konkordienbuchs_, in welcher die wahre\nchristliche Lehre, so im Konkordienbuch verfasst, mit gutem Grunde\nheiliger, goettlicher Schrift verteidiget, die Verkehrung aber und\nKalumnien, so von unruhigen Leuten wider gedachtes christliche Buch\nausgesprenget, widerlegt worden,\" 1583 (1582). Having been prepared by\ncommand of the Lutheran electors, and composed by Kirchner, Selneccer,\nand Chemnitz, and before its publication also submitted to other\ntheologians for their approval, this guardedly written _Apology_, also\ncalled the Erfurt Book, gained considerable authority and influence.\n\nThe Preface of this Erfurt Book enumerates, besides the Christian\nAdmonition of Ursinus and the Neustadt theologians, the following\nwritings published against the _Formula of Concord_: 1. _Opinion and\nApology_ (_Bedencken und Apologie_) of Some Anhalt Theologians; 2.\n_Defense_ (_Verantwortung_) of the Bremen Preachers; Christian Irenaeus\non Original Sin; _Nova Novorum_ (\"ein famos Libell\"); other libelli,\nsatyrae et pasquilli; _Calumniae et Scurrilia Convitia of Brother Nass_\n(_Bruder Nass_); and the history of the _Augsburg Confession_ by\nAmbrosius Wolf, in which the author asserts that from the beginning the\ndoctrine of Zwingli and Calvin predominated in all Protestant churches.\nThe theologians of Neustadt, Bremen, and Anhalt replied to the Erfurt\nApology; which, in turn, called forth counter-replies from the\nLutherans. Beza wrote: _Refutation of the Dogma Concerning the\nFictitious Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ_. In 1607 Hospinian\npublished his _Concordia Discors_,\" [tr. note: sic on punctuation] to\nwhich Hutter replied in his _Concordia Concors_. The papal detractors of\nthe _Formula_ were led by the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin, who in 1589\npublished his _Judgment of the Book of Concord_.\n\n292. Modern Strictures on Formula of Concord.\n\nDown to the present day the _Formula of Concord_ has been assailed\nparticularly by unionistic and Reformed opponents of true Lutheranism.\nSchaff criticizes: \"Religion was confounded with theology, piety with\northodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism.\" (1, 259.)\nHowever, the subjects treated in the _Formula_ are the most vital\ndoctrines of the Christian religion: concerning sin and grace, the\nperson and work of Christ, justification and faith, the means of grace,\n--truths without which neither Christian theology nor Christian religion\ncan remain; \"Here, then,\" says Schmauk, \"is the one symbol of the ages\nwhich treats almost exclusively of Christ--of His work, His presence,\nHis person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran Church. One might\nalmost say that the _Formula of Concord_ is a developed witness of\nLuther's explanation of the Second and Third Articles of the Apostles'\nCreed, meeting the modern errors of Protestantism, those cropping up\nfrom the sixteenth to the twentieth century, in a really modern way.\"\n(751.) Tschackert also designates the assertion that the authors of the\n_Formula of Concord_ \"abandoned Luther's idea of faith and established a\ndead scholasticism\" as an unjust charge. (478.) Indeed, it may be\nquestioned whether the doctrine of grace, the real heart of\nChristianity, would have been saved to the Church without the _Formula_.\n\nR. Seeberg speaks of the \"ossification of Lutheran theology\" caused by\nthe _Formula of Concord_, and Tschackert charges it with transforming\nthe Gospel into a \"doctrine.\" (571.) But what else is the Gospel of\nChrist than the divine doctrine or statement and proclamation of the\ntruth that we are saved, not by our own works, but by grace and faith\nalone, for the sake of Christ and His merits? The _Formula of Concord_\ntruly says: \"_The Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man\nshould believe_, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God,\nnamely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and\nborne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins,\nthrough whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain\nforgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the\npunishments of sins, and eternally saved.\" (959, 20.) Says Schmauk: \"The\n_Formula of Concord_ was ... the very substance of the Gospel and of the\n_Augsburg Confession_, kneaded through the experience of the first\ngeneration of Protestantism, by incessant and agonizing conflict, and\ncoming forth from that experience as a true and tried teaching, a\nstandard recognized by many.\" (821.) The _Formula of Concord_ is truly\nScriptural, not only because all its doctrines are derived from the\nBible, but also because the burden of the Scriptures, the doctrine of\njustification, is the burden also of all its expositions the living\nbreath, as it were, pervading all its articles.\n\nAnother modern objection to the _Formula_ is that it binds the future\ngenerations to the _Book of Concord_. This charge is correct, for the\n_Formula_ expressly states that its decisions are to be \"a public,\ndefinite testimony, not only for those now living, but also for our\nposterity, what is and should remain (_sei und bleiben solle--esseque\nperpetuo debeat_) the unanimous understanding and judgment of our\nchurches in reference to the articles in controversy.\" (857, 16.)\nHowever, the criticism implied in the charge is unwarranted. For the\nLutheran Confessions, as promoters, authors, and signers of the\n_Formula_ were fully persuaded, are in perfect agreement with the\neternal and unchangeable Word of God. As to their contents, therefore,\nthey must always remain the confession of every Church which really is\nand would remain loyal to the Word of God.\n\n293. Formula Unrefuted.\n\nFrom the day of its birth down to the present time the _Formula of\nConcord_ has always been in the limelight of theological discussion. But\nwhat its framers said in praise of the _Augsburg Confession_, _viz._,\nthat, in spite of numerous enemies, it had remained unrefuted, may be\napplied also to the _Formula_: it stood the test of centuries and\nemerged unscathed from the fire of every controversy. It is true today\nwhat Thomasius wrote 1848 with special reference to the _Formula_:\n\"Numerous as they may be who at present revile our Confession, not one\nhas ever appeared who has refuted its chief propositions from the\nBible.\" (_Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. Kirche_, 227.)\n\nNor can the _Formula_ ever be refuted, for its doctrinal contents are\nunadulterated truths of the infallible Word of God. It confesses the\ndoctrine which Christians everywhere will finally admit as true and\ndivine indeed, which they all in their hearts believe even now, if not\nexplicitly and consciously, at least implicitly and in principle. The\ndoctrines of the _Formula_ are the ecumenical truths of Christendom; for\ntrue Lutheranism is nothing but consistent Christianity. The _Formula_,\nsays Krauth, is \"the completest and clearest confession in which the\nChristian Church has ever embodied her faith.\" Such being the case, the\n_Formula of Concord_ must be regarded also as the key to a godly peace\nand true unity of entire Christendom.\n\nThe authors of the _Formula_ solemnly declare: \"We entertain heartfelt\npleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and\nanxious to advance with our utmost power that unity [and peace] by which\nHis glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the\nHoly Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor\nsinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith,\nconfirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone\nthrough the sole merit of Christ.\" (1095, 95.) Such was the godly peace\nand true Christian unity restored by the _Formula of Concord_ to the\nLutheran Church. And what it did for _her_ it is able also to do for the\nChurch at large. Being in complete agreement with Scripture, it is well\nqualified to become the regeneration center of the entire present-day\ncorrupted, disrupted, and demoralized Christendom.\n\nAccordingly Lutherans, the natural advocates of a truly wholesome and\nGod-pleasing union based on unity in divine truth, will not only\nthemselves hold fast what they possess in their glorious Confession, but\nstrive to impart its blessings also to others, all the while praying\nincessantly, fervently, and trustingly with the pious framers of the\n_Formula_: \"May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the\ngrace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly\nabide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen.\"\n(837, 23.)\n\nSOLI DEO GLORIA!\n\n[tr. note: original printed text ends with a 10 page index that is not\nincluded in this transcription]","title":"Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":250280}