XII. The
Adiaphoristic Controversy.
136.
Contents of the Leipzig Interim.
To
exhibit the insidious character of the Leipzig Interim more fully, we
submit
the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: "As far as
the
doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall is
concerned,
there is no controversy" (between the Lutherans and
Romanists).
The article "Of Justification," in which the Lutheran _sola
fide_ is
omitted, declares: "The merciful God does not work with man as
with a
block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he be
of
understanding years." Again: "And they who have thus received the
forgiveness
of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghost
begins
faith and trust in the Son of God, love and hope, then become
heirs of
eternal salvation for the Savior's sake." In the article "Of
Good
Works" we read: "Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works are
so highly
necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart there
would be
no reception of divine grace." Again: "It is certainly true
that
these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and are
necessary
to salvation.... And since the virtues and good works, as has
been
said, please God, they merit also a reward in this life, both
spiritual
and temporal, according to God's counsel, and still more
reward in
the eternal life, because of the divine promise."
The
article "Of Ecclesiastical Power" runs as follows: "What the
true
Christian
Church gathered in the Holy Ghost, acknowledges, determines,
and
teaches in regard to matters of faith is to be taught and preached,
since it
neither should nor can determine anything contrary to the Holy
Scriptures."
Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_
endorsement
of the Council and its resolutions. In the article "Of
Ecclesiastical
Ministers" we read: "And that all other ministers should
be
subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to other
bishops
who administer their episcopal office according to God's
command,
using the same for edification and not for destruction; which
ministers
should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation by
the
patrons." This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and the
ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the bishops. The article "Of Ordination"
declares:
"Also, that, as has been said, upon presentation by patrons,
ministers
should hereafter be ordained with Christian ceremonies by such
bishops
as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should be
allowed
to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presented
by the
patrons and have the permission of the bishops." That was
tantamount
to a restoration of the "sacrament" of episcopal ordination.
The Interim
furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction of
abolished
ceremonies, such as exorcism and other ceremonies of Baptism,
confirmation
by bishops, auricular confession, extreme unction,
episcopal
ordination, and the like. We read: "That repentance,
confession,
and absolution, and what pertains thereto, be diligently
taught
and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receive
of them
absolution in God's stead, and be also diligently admonished and
urged to
prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admitted
to the
highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [in
this
indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in the
Interim]
unless he have first confessed to the priest and received of
him
absolution." Again: "Although in this country the unction [Extreme
Unction]
has not been in use for many years, yet ... such unction,
according
to the apostle, may be hereafter observed." Again: "That
henceforth
the mass be observed in this country with ringing of bells,
with
lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies." Among
the
holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi and
the
festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: "The images and
pictures
of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be also
retained
in the churches." Again: "In the churches where the canonical
hours
have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung in
chapters
and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals,
and also
on Sundays." "Likewise, that on Fridays and Saturdays, as well
as during
fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this be
observed
as an external ordinance at the command of His Imperial
Majesty."
The clause, "that this be observed," etc., was regarded by
Flacius
and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the part
of the
Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119.) Again, as to the apparel of
priests,
that "a distinction be observed between ministers and secular
persons,
and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate." The
Introduction
of the Interim gives the assurance that the Lutherans would
obey the
Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. The
Conclusion
adds the humble promise: "In all other articles we are ready
... in a
friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved and
Princely
Graces, and to settle our differences in a Christian way." (_C.
R._ 7,
258. Jacobs, _Book of Concord,_ 2, 260.)
137.
Issue in Adiaphoristic Controversy.
From the
passages quoted it appears that the Leipzig Interim was
inoculated
with the germs of many controversies. However, while in the
beginning
its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generally
recognized
and realized, the Emperor's demand for, and approval of, the
Wittenberg
and Leipzig theologian's reintroduction of the Romish
ceremonies
immediately created an acute situation and a great commotion
everywhere.
The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latter
point in
particular was called the Adiaphoristic or Interimistic
Controversy.
And, as explained above, even after the Interim had become
a dead
letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because its
paramount
object was not merely to pass a correct judgment on past
events
during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similar
situations
in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Church
the
spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well as
indirect
denial of the Gospel-truth.
Accordingly,
the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: May
Lutherans,
under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, when
the
Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded the
reinstitution
of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies in
question
be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a good
conscience,
that is to say, without denying the truth and Christian
liberty,
without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without giving
offense
either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church,
especially
its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists and
denied by
their opponents.
138.
Opposition to the Adiaphorists.
Prominent
among the theologians who participated in the controversy
against
the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, who
in
Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, and
advocates
of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publications
which
dealt with the questions involved: "Opinion concerning the
Interim,
by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548," published by Flacius without
the
knowledge of Melanchthon.--"Report on the Interim by the Theologians
of
Meissen," 1548.--"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesen
geschwinden
Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of God in
Order to
Please the Devil and the Antichrist," by John Hermann, 1548. A
Latin
edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius as
its
author.--"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim from
which One
may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book,"
1548.--"A
General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeine
Protestation
und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against the
Interim
and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemies
of the
Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548." Waremund was a pseudonym for
Flacius.--"Against
the Interim, Papal Mass, Canon, and Master Eisleben,"
1519.--"Against
the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who Now
Again
Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i.e._, against the New
Interim,
by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549." Of this book, too,
Flacius
was the author. (Preger 1, 67.)--"Apology (Entschuldigung) of
Matthias
Flacius Illy. to a Certain Pastor," 1549.--"Several Letters of
the
Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial,
Written
1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg," 1549, with a
preface
by Flacius.--"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy., Addressed to
the
University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora," 1549.--"Writing
of
Matthias Flacius Illy. against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Book
of the
Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Order
to Guard
Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the True
Religion,"
1549.--"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and Matthias
Flacius
Illy. to the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding the
Question
whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don the
Cassock"
(_linea vestis, Chorrock_).--"Against the Extract of the
Leipzig
Interim, or the Small Interim," by Flacius, 1549.--"Book
concerning
True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et Falsis
Adiaphoris_),
in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almost
in Its
Entirety, by Flacius, 1549." This book, which is most frequently
quoted
and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is found
in
Schluesselburg's _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff.--"An Admonition
(Vermahnung)
to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross and
Prayer,
by Flacius," 1549.--"A Christian Admonition by Matthias Flacius
Illy. to
be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and in
the
Augsburg Confession," 1550.--"Against the Alleged Power and Primacy
of the
Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavors
again to
Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, by
Matthias
Flacius Illy."--"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock,
D. Geitz
Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy., 1552."--For a complete list
of the
writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger's _Matthias
Flacius
Illyricus,_ 2, 540 ff.
Even the
titles of these publications indicate that the Adiaphoristic
Controversy
did not lack violence and virulence. This animosity against
the
Interimists was chiefly due to the fear that their policy would
finally
lead to the complete undoing of the Reformation. For while
Melanchthon
still believed in and hoped for, an understanding with the
Romanists,
Flacius saw through their schemes and fully realized the
impending
danger. In the reintroduction of Catholic ceremonies which
Melanchthon
regarded as entirely harmless, Flacius beheld nothing but
the
entering wedge, which would gradually be followed by the entire mass
of Romish
errors and abuses and the absolute dominance of Pope and
Emperor
over the Lutheran Church. The obedience demanded by the Emperor,
said
Flacius, consists in this, that "we abandon our true doctrine and
adopt the
godless Papacy." In all its details, he explained, the
ultimate
purpose of the Interim is none other than the reestablishment
of
Popery, of which even such seemingly trifling matters as the
reintroduction
of the _Chorrock (linea vestis)_ were but the beginning,
as it
were, the breach in the dam which was bound ultimately to result
in a
complete submersion of Lutheranism. (Frank 4, 74. 76. 119.)
Since the
loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther and
the
Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, they
could not
but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treachery
against
the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted that
their
opponents answer the question, "whether the Pope with his
government
is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Word
of God he
has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whether
he still
should and must be regarded and confessed as such." And if
Luther's
doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union be
effected
between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and his
bishops)
and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religion
of
Christ? (53. 107.) On the title-page of his _Apology,_ of 1549,
Flacius
declares: "The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment of
the
Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple of
Christ,
the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over the
Church of
Christ and to grieve the godly, likewise weakening, leading
into
doubt, separation and innumerable offenses." (Schaff 1, 301.)
Regarding
the acknowledgment of the Pope and bishops by the Interim,
Flacius
remarked: "Mark well, here the werewolf (_Baerwolf_), together
with his
fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. There
is,
however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: "The
Pope
should use his power not for destruction, but for edification"],
they have
counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In my
opinion
this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to the
temple
from which he has been expelled by the Finger of God." (Preger 1,
191.)
Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and trembling
with fear
for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthon
with want
of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterized
the
Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of light
and
darkness, of Christ and Antichrist.
While Flacius
thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors and
abettors,
he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheran
pastors
to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross and
persecution,
and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. That
minister,
he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or who
yields to
a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess with
our
mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of the
flock,
but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant.
Flacius
also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princes
and
acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if they
advocated
and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged both
pastors
and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding the
reinstitution
of the Roman ceremonies. "A government," said he in his
_Admonition,_
"no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastor
to preach
the pure doctrine." When the government persecutes the truth,
we must
not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christians
will
sacrifice everything to a tyrannical prince, but not "the truth,
not the
consolation of divine grace, nor the hope of eternal life."
(Frank 4,
68. 117.)
139.
Doctrinal Position of Anti-Adiaphorists.
The
theological position occupied by the opponents of the Adiaphorists
may be
summarized as follows: Ceremonies which God has neither commanded
nor
prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceteris
paribus_
(other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adopted
or
rejected. However, under circumstances testing one's faith they may
become a
matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case wherever
and
whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introduction
involves
a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringement
of
Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemies
of the
Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or an
offense
to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, they
maintained,
prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope and
Emperor
plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romish
religion
in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and the
reinstitution
of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, by
Catholics
as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such a
reestablishment
of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzig
theologians,
instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to God
for the
protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded to
the
demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when the
consciences
of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever the
abolished
rites were reinstituted. Accordingly, they declared that under
the
prevailing circumstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies
was
nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian love
as well.
Flacius,
in particular, maintained that under the prevailing
circumstances
even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora
ceased to
be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good
conscience,
because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies
of the
Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons,
such as
fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because
their
reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and
gave
comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people,
Protestants
as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard such
reintroduction
both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans that
they had
been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as the
beginning
of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain the
reintroduction
of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to the
Interimists,
the common people, especially the Romanists, always
impressed
by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer that
those
teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy in
every
respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veris
et Falsis
Adiaphoris_ we read: "Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certe
praecipua
capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas cum in
nostris
ecclesiis in eorum gratiam restituimus, an non videmur tum eis,
tum aliis
eorum impiis cultibus assentiri? Nec dubitant, quin
quandoquidem
in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessuri
simus,
nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esse
confiteamur."
(Schluesselburg 13, 217.) Accordingly, Flacius contended
that
under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists,
even in
ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of
Lutheranism.
The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by him
reduced
to the following principle or axiom: "_Nihil est adiaphoron in
casu
confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession
and
offense are involved." And wherever the Interim was enforced, the
consequences
foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences were
confused,
simple Christians were offended, and the enemies were
strengthened
in their error and emboldened in their attacks and in
further
demands made upon the Lutherans.
140.
Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted.
The
Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their attitude by a
series of
sophisms to which they also adhered in the "Final Report
(Endlicher
Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzig
and
Wittenberg," 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2.) By adopting the Interim, the
Wittenbergers,
in reality, had assented also to doctrinally false and
dubious
statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such.
Yet they
pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and the
harmlessness
of their procedure. They maintained that they had yielded
merely in
minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded nor
prohibited
by the Word of God; that this was done in order to preserve
intact
the central Christian truth of justification; to preserve
political
peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak,
whose
shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that in
their
concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom,
which
always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this they
had
merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimized
the
entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of the
situation.
In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting and
sounding
the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discovered
nothing
but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney.
But in
the ears of all genuine and earnest Lutherans their sophistries
and
apologies rang neither true nor sincere. The arguments which they
employed
merely served to defeat their own purpose. What else, for
example,
than disgust, indignation, and distrust could be the effect on
all
honest Lutherans when the Wittenberg theologians, dishonestly
veiling
the real facts, declared in their official "Exposition" of 1559
(when
danger of persecution had passed long ago) concerning the
reintroduction
of Corpus Christi that they had reintroduced this
festival
all the more readily in order that they might be able to
instruct
the people in the right use of the Sacrament and in the
horrible
abuses and profanations of the most holy Supper of the Lord in
the
circumgestation and adoration of the bread which their critics [the
Lutheran
opponents of the Interimists, by their doctrine concerning the
Lord's
Supper] strengthened and that they might thank God for the
purification
of the temple from the Romish idol Maozim, Dan. 11, 38.
(Tschackert,
510.) Frank remarks: "One must see this passage black on
white in
order to believe the Wittenbergers really capable of
stultifying
themselves in such an incredible manner. It is a
monstrosity,
a defense unworthy of an honest man, let alone an
Evangelical
Christian." (4, 61. 113.)
The weak
and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly and
convincingly
refuted by their opponents. To the assertion of the
Wittenbergers
that the dispute was concerning mere unimportant
ceremonies
which were neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Flacius
and
Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers of
Meissen
whether they should leave their charges rather than don the
_Chorrock,
lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to such
seemingly
most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_)
one must
not overlook what is attached to it. "We do not believe," they
said,
"that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, although
first he
only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time,
however,
not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he will
also
demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, as
well as
all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since the
beginning
is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are at
present
demanded only that a door may be opened for all the other
impieties
that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationum
initia
iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per ea
aditus
reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat._"
(Schluesselburg
13, 644.)
The
Adiaphorists pretended that they had consented to the Interim in the
interest
of the weak, who were unable to bear persecution. But the
Lutherans
answered that weak Christians could not be strengthened in
their
faith by teaching and persuading them to deny it and that the
enemies
and persecutors of the Gospel could certainly not be regarded as
weak.
(Frank 4, 78.) The protestations of the Adiaphorists that they had
made the
changes in ceremonies with the very best of intentions were
answered
by Flacius in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ as follows:
Hardly
ever has a Christian denied Christ without endeavoring to deceive
both God
and himself as to his motives. "But one must also consider, as
may be
clearly shown from 1 Cor. 10, with what design (_quo animo_) the
adversaries
propose such things to us, likewise, how they as well as
others
interpret our act." (Schl. 13, 217.) "Even though the intention
of those
who receive and use the adiaphora be not an evil one, the
question
is," said Martin Chemnitz in his _Iudicium de Adiaphoris,_
"whether
the opinion of the one who commands, imposes, and demands the
adiaphora
is impious or wicked, whether such reception and observation
is
interpreted and understood as a turning away from the confession of
the true
doctrine, and whether the weak are offended and grow faint
thereby."
(717.)
To the
claims of the Interimists that they were but following the
example
of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romish
ceremonies,
etc., the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times and
conditions!
Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciences
still
felt bound to the Roman usages, while the "weakness" spoken of by
Adiaphorists
is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution.
Moreover
Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as there
was hope
of arriving at an agreement with the Romanists in doctrine,
while the
Adiaphorists reinstitute ceremonies which have been abolished,
and this,
too, in deference and obedience to irreconcilable adversaries
of the
truth. Accordingly, Luther's attitude in this matter flowed from
pure love
for truth and from compassion with the weak, whom he
endeavored
to win for the truth, while the submission of the
Adiaphorists
to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short of
unchristian
denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55.) Brenz
declared:
"_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt._ Adiaphora
must be
judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, the
adiaphoron,
too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however,
the condition
is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observance
of it is
prohibited." (Schl. 13, 562.)
Furthermore,
when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintained
that, in
preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to the
greater
(persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, the
voice of
true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not be
placed on
a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order to
avoid
suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _Explicatio
Generalis
Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: "Impium
est,
amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sed
accersuntur
et augentur poenae._ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins,
nor are
they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinduced
and
increased." (13, 251.) "It is better to take upon oneself
punishments
and great dangers than to offend God and to provoke His
wrath by
such offense." (250.) "It is better and easier to bear many
evils and
to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the least
commandment
of God, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a single
sin."
(251.) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but to
retain a
good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was the
counsel
of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65.)
But our
Wittenberg school will be closed, our churches will be
desolated,
and our preachers will be banished, exclaimed the
faint-hearted
Wittenbergers. The Lutherans answered: It is our duty to
confess
the truth regardless of consequences, and, at the same time, to
look to
God for the protection of His Church. Flacius said, in _De Veris
et Falsis
Adiaphoris:_ Confess the truth and suffer the consequences! A
Christian
cannot obtain peace by offending God and serving and
satisfying
tyrants. Rather be drowned by the Spaniards in the Elbe with
a
millstone about one's neck than offend a Christian, deny the truth,
and
surrender the Church to Satan. "Longe satius esset teste Christo
pati, ut
alligata mola asinaria in medium Albis ab Hispanis
proiiceremur,
quam _unicum_ parvulum Christi scandalizaremus, multo vero
magis
haec et quaevis gravissima pati deberemus, quam _tam infinitis_
(ut iam
fit) Christi parvulis offendiculum daremus, ecclesiam Satanae
proderemus
et salvificam confessionem veritatis abiiceremus." (Schl. 13,
227.)
As to the
Wittenberg School, Flacius said: "It would certainly be better
that the
school were closed not one, but many years than that we, by
avoiding
confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well as
strengthen
the one opposed to it." (13, 231.) "As for myself, I do not
doubt
that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the Wittenberg
School
would have been to-day much firmer than it is.... The Interim
sprang
from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians.... Even a
thousand
Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highly
by pious
men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they would
rather
suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel.
_Certe
non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, ut
propter
earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luce
privari._"
(232.) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginning
of 1549,
Brenz said: "If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannot
be
preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the pious
doctrine,
then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God; He will
take care
of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear our
banishment
and wait for the Lord." (_C. R._ 7, 290.)
June 30,
1530, Luther had written to Melanchthon, who was then in
Augsburg:
"You want to govern things according to your philosophy; you
torment
yourself and do not see that this matter is not within your
power and
wisdom.... If we fall, Christ, that is to say, the Ruler of
the
world, falls with us; and even though He should fall, I would rather
fall with
Christ than stand with the Emperor." This passage is contained
in one of
the letters of Luther which Flacius published 1548 in order to
dispel
Melanchthon's timidity, rouse his Lutheran consciousness, and
cure him
of his vain and most dangerous disposition to save the Church
by human
wisdom and shrewdness, instead of, as Luther believed, solely
by a bold
confession of the truth of God's Word.
141.
Theological Attitude of Flacius Sanctioned.
The
theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatants
occupied
over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Article
of the
_Formula of Concord,_ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church as
a whole.
Frank says concerning this most excellent article which our
Church
owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notably
Flacius:
"The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formula
of
Concord_ were those of Flacius." The entire matter, too, concerning
the
adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that the
subsequent
formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused but
little
difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f.)
Even
Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of any
doctrinal
deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponents
and
admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding the
adiaphora.
In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was not
satisfied
with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September
5, 1556,
he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: "I knew
that even
the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to the
people.
However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would rather
have our
people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry of
the
Gospel. _Cum doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hanc
servitutem
subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii._ And I confess
that I
have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This I
have
done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed....
Afterwards
you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. In
Homer,
Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields and
admits
that the former is victor. You never come to an end with your
accusations.
Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking those
who yield
and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contend
concerning
those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churches
would
enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in this
matter,
and ask forgiveness of God, that I did not flee far from those
insidious
deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hoc
in re a
me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi
insidiosas
illas deliberationes_." (_C. R._ 8, 839.)
On
January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: "I was
drawn
into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if in
any way I
have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of God
and of
the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church."
(9, 61.)
In the _Formula Consensus,_ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in
1557, the
Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: "With the
help of
God we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine of
justification,
agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with the
confessions
which were published in the church of Hamburg against the
book
called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to be
mixed
with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine in
all its
articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical and
proper
forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided." (9,
369.) The
_Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon and
signed by
the princes, maintains: "Where the true Christian doctrine of
the holy
Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as well
as other
ceremonies are detrimental and injurious." (9, 501.)
