 |
| Martin Chemnitz, senior editor of the Book of Concord, was superbly trained by Luther and Chemnitz, hardened and tempered by many doctrinal battles before the Formula of Concord. |
XI. Controversies Following the Interim and Settled by the Formula of
Concord.
130.
Three Theological Parties.
In the
theological conflicts after Luther's death three parties may be
distinguished.
The first party embraced chiefly the Interimists, the
Synergists,
and the Crypto-Calvinists. They were adherents of Philip
Melanchthon,
hence called Melanchthonians or, more commonly,
Philippists,
and were led by the theologians of Electoral Saxony. Their
object
was to supplant the authority and theology of Luther by the
unionistic
and liberal views of Melanchthon. Their headquarters were the
universities
of Wittenberg and Leipzig. Some of their chief
representatives
were: Joachim Camerarius (born 1500, professor of Greek
in
Leipzig, a close friend of Melanchthon, died 1574); Paul Eber (born
1511,
professor in Wittenberg, died 1568); Caspar Cruciger, Jr. (born
1525,
professor in Wittenberg, died at Cassel 1597); Christopher Pezel
(born
1539, professor in Wittenberg, died 1600 or 1604); George Major
(Meier;
born 1502, professor in Wittenberg, died 1574); Caspar Peucer
(doctor
of medicine, son-in-law of Melanchthon; born 1525, imprisoned
from 1574
till 1586 died 1602); Paul Crell (born 1531, professor in
Wittenberg,
died 1579); John Pfefflnger (born 1493, professor in
Leipzig,
died 1573); Victorin Strigel (born 1524, 1548 professor in
Jena,
died in Heidelberg 1569); John Stoessel (born 1524, died in prison
1576);
George Cracow (born 1525, professor of jurisprudence in
Wittenberg,
privy counselor in Dresden, died in prison 1575).
The
second party, the so-called Gnesio-Lutherans (genuine Lutherans),
was
represented chiefly by the theologians of Ducal Saxony and embraced
such
staunch and loyal men as Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Matthias
Judex,
Moerlin, Tileman Hesshusius, Timann, Westphal, and Simon Musaeus.
Though
some of these leaders were later discredited by falling into
extreme
positions themselves, they all proved to be valiant champions of
Luther
and most determined opponents of the Philippists. The strongholds
of this
party were Magdeburg and the University of Jena, founded by the
sons of
John Frederick in 1547. Led by Flacius, this university
unflinchingly
opposed the modified and unionistic Lutheranism advocated
by the
Philippists at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Seeberg says, in
substance:
The Gnesio-Lutherans were opposed to the philosophy of the
Philippists
and stood for "the simple Biblical truth as Luther had
understood
it." Even when opposed by the government, they defended the
truth,
and were willing to suffer the consequences. Strict doctrinal
discipline
was exercised by them. They opposed with equal determination
the
errors also of their fellow-combatants: Amsdorf, Flacius, Poach, and
others.
Intellectually they were superior to the Philippists. Seeberg
concludes:
"In the forms of their time (which were not outgrown by any
one of
the Philippists either) they preserved to the Church genuine
Luther-treasures--_echtes
Luthergut._" (_Dogmengeschichte_ 4, 2, 482.)
The
third, or center-party, was composed of the loyal Lutherans who took
no
conspicuous part in the controversies, but came to the front when the
work of
pacification began. They were of special service in settling the
controversies,
framing the Formula of Concord, and restoring a true and
godly
peace to our Church. Prominent among them were Brenz, Andreae,
Chemnitz,
Selneccer, Chytraeus, Cornerus, Moerlin, and others. These
theologians
were, on the one hand, opposed to all unnecessary
logomachies
_i.e._, controversies involving no doctrinal differences,
and, at
the same time, were most careful not to fall into any extreme
position
themselves. On the other hand, however, they approved of all
controversies
really necessary in the interest of truth, rejected and
condemned
all forms of indifferentism and unionism, and strenuously
opposed
every effort at sacrificing, veiling, or compromising any
doctrine
by ambiguous formulas for the sake of external peace or any
other
policy whatsoever. (CONC. TRIGL., 855f.)
131.
Various Theological Controversies.
Following
is a synopsis and summary of the main controversies within the
Lutheran
Church after the death of Luther, which were settled in the
first
eleven articles of the Formula of Concord. The sequence of these
articles,
however, is not strictly historical and chronological, but
dogmatic.
In the main, the arrangement of the Augsburg Confession is
observed.
The first
of these controversies was the so-called Adiaphoristic
Controversy,
from 1548 to 1555, in which the Wittenberg and Leipzig
theologians
(Melanchthon, Eber, Pfeffinger, etc.) defended the Leipzig
Interim
and the reintroduction of Romish ceremonies into the Lutheran
Church.
They were opposed by the champions of a consistent and
determined
Lutheranism, led by Flacius, who declared: "_Nihil est
adiaphoron
in statu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron
in case
of confession and offense." The controversy was decided by
Article
X.
The
second is the Majoristic Controversy, from 1551 to 1562, in which
George
Major and Justus Menius defended the phrase of Melanchthon that
good
works are necessary to salvation. They were opposed by the loyal
Lutherans,
of whom Amsdorf, however, lapsed into the opposite error:
Good
works are detrimental to salvation. This controversy was settled
by
Article IV.
The third
is the Synergistic Controversy, from 1555 to 1560, in which
Pfeffinger,
Eber, Major, Crell, Pezel, Strigel, and Stoessel held with
Melanchthon
that man by his own natural powers cooperates in his
conversion.
Their opponents (Amsdorf, Flacius, Hesshusius, Wigand,
Gallus,
Musaeus, and Judex) taught, as formulated by Flacius: "_Solus
Deus
convertit hominem.... Non excludit voluntatem, sed omnem efficaciam
et
operationem eius...._ God alone converts man.... He does not exclude
the will,
but all efficaciousness and operation of the same." This
controversy
was decided and settled by Article II.
The
fourth is the Flacian Controversy, from 1560 to 1575, in which
Flacius,
supported by Cyriacus Spangenberg, Christian Irenaeus, Matthias
Wolf, I.
F. Coelestinus, Schneider, and others, maintained that original
sin is
not an accident, but the very substance of fallen man. The
Lutherans,
including the Philippists, were practically unanimous in
opposing
this error. It was decided by Article I.
The fifth
was the Osiandristic and the Stancarian Controversy, from 1549
to 1566,
in which Andrew Osiander denied the forensic character of
justification,
and taught that Christ is our righteousness only
according
to His divine nature, while Stancarus contended that Christ is
our
righteousness according to His human nature only. Both, Osiander as
well as
Stancarus, were opposed by Melanchthon, Flacius, and practically
all other
Lutherans, the Philippists included. This controversy was
settled
by Article III.
The sixth
was the Antinomistic Controversy, from 1527 to 1556, in which
various
false views concerning the Law and the Gospel were defended,
especially
by John Agricola who maintained that repentance (contrition)
is not
wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel (a view which, in a
modified
form was later on defended also by Wittenberg Philippists),
and,
after Luther's death, by Poach and Otto, who rejected the so-called
Third Use
of the Law. The questions involved in these Antinomian
controversies
were decided by Articles V and VI.
The
seventh was the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, from 1560 to 1574,
in which
the Philippists in Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Dresden (Peucer,
Cracow,
Stoessel, etc.) endeavored gradually to supplant Luther's
doctrines
concerning the Lord's Supper and the majesty of the human
nature of
Christ by the Calvinistic teachings on these points. These
secret
and dishonest enemies of Lutheranism were opposed by true
Lutherans
everywhere, notably by the theologians of Ducal Saxony. In
1574 they
were publicly unmasked as deceivers and Calvinistic schemers.
The
controversy was settled by Articles VII and VIII.
The two
last controversies were of a local nature. The first was chiefly
confined
to Hamburg, the second to Strassburg. In the former city John
Aepinus
taught that Christ's descent into hell was a part of His
suffering
and humiliation. He was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg.
In
Strassburg John Marbach publicly denounced Zanchi, a
Crypto-Calvinist,
for teaching that faith, once engendered in a man,
cannot be
lost. The questions involved in these two articles are dealt
with in
Articles IX and XI, respectively.
132.
Conflicts Unavoidable.
When
describing the conflicts after Luther's death, historians
frequently
deplore "the dreadful controversies of these dark days of
doctrinal
extremists and the polemical spirit of rigid Lutheranism." G.
J.
Planck, in particular, characterized them all as useless quarrels and
personal
wranglings of narrow-minded, bigoted adherents of Luther, who
vitiated
original Lutheranism by making it essentially a matter of "pure
doctrine."
To the present day indifferentistically inclined historians
are wont
to mar their pages with similar views.
True,
"pure doctrine," "unity in the pure doctrine of the
Gospel," such
was the
shibboleth of the faithful Lutherans over against the
Melanchthonians
and other errorists. But this was neither reprehensible
doctrinalism
nor a corruption of original Lutheranism, but the very
principle
from which it was born and for which Luther contended
throughout
his life--a principle of life or death for the Lutheran
Church.
It was the _false_ doctrine of justification which made Luther a
most
miserable man. It was the _pure_ doctrine as taught by St. Paul
which
freed his conscience, transported him into Paradise, as he himself
puts it,
and made him the Reformer of the Church. Ever since, purity of
doctrine
was held, by Luther and all true Lutheran theologians, to be of
paramount
import to Christianity and the Church. Fully realizing that
adulteration
of any part of the Christian doctrine was bound to infect
also the
doctrine of faith and justification and thus endanger
salvation,
they earnestly warned against, and opposed, every deviation
from the
clear Word of God, no matter how insignificant it might appear.
They
loved the truth more than external peace, more even than their own
lives.
Hence they found it impossible to be silent, apathetic, and
complacent
spectators while the Philippists and others denied, attacked,
and
corrupted the truth taught by Luther from the Word of God.
Accordingly,
since the Leipzig Interim involved and maintained doctrines
and
principles subversive of genuine Lutheranism and was prepared,
introduced,
and defended by the very men who were regarded as pillars of
the
Lutheran Church, it was evident from the outset that this document
must of necessity
precipitate most serious internal troubles. From the
moment
the Wittenbergers cast the Interim as a firebrand into the
Church, a
domestic warfare was unavoidable,--if indeed any true
disciples
of Luther still remained in the Church of which he, and not
Melanchthon,
was the founder. While the Augsburg Interim resulted in an
external
theological warfare of the Lutherans against the Romanists,
the
Leipzig Interim added a most serious domestic conflict, which
conscientious
Lutherans could not evade, though it well-nigh brought our
Church to
the brink of destruction. For now the issue was not merely how
to resist
the Pope and the Romanists, but, how to purge our own Church
from the
Interimists and their pernicious principles. And as long as the
advocates
of the Interim or of other aberrations from the old Lutheran
moorings
refused to abandon their errors, and nevertheless insisted on
remaining
in the Church, there was no real unity in the truth. Hence
there
could also be no true peace and brotherly harmony among the
Lutherans.
And the way to settle these differences was not indifferently
to ignore
them, nor unionistically to compromise them by adopting
ambiguous
formulas, but patiently to discuss the doctrines at issue
until an
agreement in the truth was reached, which finally was done by
means of
the Formula of Concord.
True,
these controversies endangered the very existence of our Church.
But the
real cause of this was not the resistance which the loyal
Lutherans
offered to the errorists, nor even the unseemly severity by
which the
prosecution of these controversies was frequently marred, but
the
un-Lutheran spirit and the false principles and doctrines manifested
and
defended by the opponents. In so far as divine truth was defended
and error
opposed, these controversies were truly wars to end war, and
to
establish real peace and true unity within our Church. A cowardly
surrender
to the indifferentistic spirit, the unionistic policy, the
false
principles, and the erroneous doctrines of the Interimists would
have been
tantamount to a complete transformation of our Church and a
total
annihilation of genuine Lutheranism.
The
manner in which these controversies were conducted, it is true, was
frequently
such as to obstruct, rather than further, mutual
understanding
and peace. As a rule, it is assumed that only the genuine
Lutherans
indulged in unseemly polemical invective, and spoke and wrote
in a
bitter and spiteful tone. But the Melanchthonians were to say the
least,
equally guilty. And when censuring this spirit of combativeness,
one must
not overlook that the ultimate cause of the most violent of
these
controversies was the betrayal of the Lutheran Church by the
Interimists;
and that the severity of the polemics of the loyal
Lutherans
did not, at least not as a rule, emanate from any personal
malice
toward Melanchthon, but rather from a burning zeal to maintain
sound
Lutheranism, and from the fear that by the scheming and the
indifference
of the Philippists the fruits of Luther's blessed work
might be
altogether lost to the coming generations. The "peace-loving"
Melanchthon
started a conflagration within his own church in order to
obtain a
temporal and temporary peace with the Romanists; while the
loyal
Lutherans, inasmuch as they fought for the preservation of genuine
Lutheranism,
stood for, and promoted, a truly honorable, godly, and
lasting
peace on the basis of eternal truth. And while the latter fought
honestly
and in the open, the Philippists have never fully cleared
themselves
from the charges of duplicity, dishonesty, and dissimulation.
133.
Melanchthon Prime Mover of Conflicts.
The
Leipzig Interim was the signal for a general and prolonged warfare
within
the Lutheran Church. It contained the germs of various doctrinal
errors,
and produced a spirit of general distrust and suspicion, which
tended to
exaggerate and multiply the real differences. Schmauk says:
"The
seeds of the subsequent controversies are all to be found in the
Leipzig
Interim." (595.) At any rate, most of the controversies after
Luther's
death flowed from, or were in some way or other connected with,
this
unfortunate document. Such is the view also of the Formula of
Concord,
which declares that the thirty years' controversies which it
settled
originated especially in the Interim. (857, 19; 947, 29.)
Yet the
Interim was rather the occasion than the ultimate cause of these
conflicts.
Long before the flames of open discord burst forth, the
embers of
secret doctrinal dissension had been glowing under the
surface.
Even during the life of Luther much powder had been secretly
stored up
for which the Interim furnished the spark. This is proved,
among
other things, by Luther's predictions (referred to in the
preceding
chapter) concerning his own colleagues. And above all it was
the
"peace-loving" Philip who first and most successfully sowed the
dragon's
teeth of discord. Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations from the
teachings
of Luther and from his own former position must be regarded as
the last
cause of both the Leipzig Interim and the lamentable
controversies
that followed in its wake. Indeed, a tragic sight to
behold:
The co-laborer of Luther, the servant of the Reformation second
only to
Luther, the Praeceptor Germaniae, the ardent and anxious lover
of peace,
etc.--untrue to his confiding friend, disloyal to the cause of
the
Reformation, and the chief cause of strife and dissension in the
Lutheran
Church! And withal, Melanchthon, mistaking external union for
real
unity and temporal peace with men for true peace with God, felt
satisfied
that he had spent the efforts of his entire life in the
interest
of the true welfare of the Church! Shortly before his death
(April
19, 1560) he expressed his joy that now he would be delivered
from the
"fury of the theologians." On a sheet of paper found on his
table
were written a number of reasons why he feared death less. One of
them was:
"_Liberaberis ab aerumnis et a rabie teologorum._ You will be
delivered
from toils and from the fury of the theologians." (_C. R._ 9,
1098.)
Thus even in the face of death he did not realize that he himself
was the
chief cause of the conflicts that had embittered his declining
years!
134.
Melanchthon's Humanistic and Unionistic Tendencies.
Till
about 1530 Melanchthon seems to have been in complete harmony with
Luther,
and to have followed him enthusiastically. To propagate, coin,
and bring
into scholastic form the Christian truths once more brought to
light by
the Reformer he considered to be his peculiar mission. But his
secret
letters and, with gradually increasing clearness and boldness,
also his
publications show that later on he began to strike out on paths
of his
own, and to cultivate and disseminate doctrines incompatible with
the
Lutheranism of Luther. In a measure, these deviations were known
also to
the Wittenberg students and theologians, to Cordatus, Stifel,
Amsdorf,
the Elector John Frederick, Brueck, and Luther, who also called
him to
account whenever sufficient evidence warranted his doing so.
(_Lehre
und Wehre_ 1908, 61ff.)
In a
letter to Cordatus, dated April 15, 1537, Melanchthon was bold
enough to
state that he had made many corrections in his writings and
was glad
of the fact: "_Multa ultro correxi in libellis meis et
correxisse
me gaudeo._" (_C. R._ 3, 342.) In discussing the squabble
between
Cordatus and Melanchthon whether good works are necessary for
salvation,
Luther is reported by the former to have said, in 1536: "To
Philip I
leave the sciences and philosophy and nothing else. But I shall
be
compelled to chop off the head of philosophy, too." (Kolde,
_Analecta,_
266.) Melanchthon, as Luther put it, was always troubled by
his
philosophy; that is to say, instead of subjecting his reason to the
Word of
God, he was inclined to balance the former against the latter.
The truth
is that Melanchthon never fully succeeded in freeing himself
from his
original humanistic tendencies, a fact which gave his mind a
moralistic
rather than a truly religious and Scriptural bent. Even
during
the early years of the Reformation when he was carried away with
admiration
for Luther and his work, the humanistic undercurrent did not
disappear
altogether. January 22, 1525, he wrote to Camerarius: "_Ego
mihi
conscius sum, non ullam ob causam unquam tetheologekenai, nisi at
mores
meos emendarem_. I am conscious of the fact that I have never
theologized
for any other reason than to improve my morals." (_C. R._ 1,
722.)
Such, then, being his frame of mind, it was no wonder that he
should
finally desert Luther in most important points, lapse into
synergism
and other errors, and, in particular value
indifferentistically
doctrinal convictions, notably on the real presence
in the
Lord's Supper and the person of Christ. "Over against Luther,"
says
Schaff, "Melanchthon represented the unionistic and liberal type of
Lutheranism."
(_Creeds,_ 1, 259.) This is correct; but the stricture
must be
added that, since unionism and liberalism are incompatible with
the very
essence of Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism as such was in
reality
not a "type," but a denial of Lutheranism.
Melanchthon
lacked the simple faith in, and the firm adherence and
implicit
submission to, the Word of God which made Luther the undaunted
and
invincible hero of the Reformation. Standing four-square on the
Bible and
deriving from this source of divine power alone all his
theological
thoughts and convictions, Luther was a rock, firm and
immovable.
With him every theological question was decided and settled
conclusively
by quoting a clear passage from the Holy Scriptures, while
Melanchthon,
devoid of Luther's single-minded and whole-hearted devotion
to the
Word of God, endeavored to satisfy his reason as well.
Consequently
he lacked assurance and firm conviction, wavered and
vacillated,
and was never fully satisfied that the position he occupied
was
really the only correct one, while, on the other hand, he endeavored
to
present his views concerning some of the disputed doctrines in
ambiguous
and indefinite terms. "We have twenty-eight large volumes of
Melanchthon's
writings," says C. P. Krauth, "and, at this hour,
impartial
and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on
some of
the profoundest questions of church doctrine, on which
Melanchthon
was writing all his life!" (_Conservative Ref.,_ 291;
Schmauk,
748.) This indefinite and wavering attitude towards divine
truth,
the natural consequence of the humanistic bent of his mind,
produced
in Melanchthon a general tendency and proneness to surrender or
compromise
doctrinal matters in the interest of policy, and to barter
away
eternal truth for temporal peace. It made him an indifferentist and
a
unionist, always ready to strike a bargain also in matters pertaining
to
Christian faith, and to cover doctrinal differences with ambiguous
formulas.
While Luther's lifelong attitude on matters of Christian
doctrine
is characterized by the famous words spoken by him at Worms in
1521:
"_Ich kann nicht anders,_ I cannot do otherwise," Melanchthon,
treating
even questions of faith as matters of expediency rather than of
conscience,
was the man who, as a rule, could also do otherwise, and who
was great
in manufacturing "Polish boots," as the ambiguous phrases by
which he
endeavored to unite opposing parties were called by the
Lutherans
in Reuss.
In order
to preserve peace with the Romanists at Augsburg in 1530, he
did not
hesitate to sacrifice Lutheran truths and to receive into the
bargain a
number of what he considered minor papal errors. In his
subsequent
overtures to the Reformed he was more than willing to make
similar
concessions. The spirit of Melanchthon was the spirit of
religious
indifference and of unionism, which, though thoroughly
eliminated
by the Formula of Concord, was from time to time revived
within
the Lutheran Church by such men as Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf,
Neander,
and, in our own country, by S. S. Schmucker.
The
unionistic tendencies and doctrinal corruptions which Melanchthon
injected
into Lutheranism were all the more dangerous to our Church
because
they derived special weight and prestige from the fact that
Luther
had unstintingly praised his gifts, his books, and the services
he had
rendered the Church (St. L. 18, 1671; 23, 1152), that he was now
generally
regarded as Luther's successor with regard to theological
leadership
of the Church; and that he was gratefully admired as the
Praeceptor
Germaniae by a host of loyal pupils, who made it a point also
to
cultivate just those theological peculiarities of Master Philip, as
they
called him, in which he differed from Luther.
135.
Melanchthon's "Shameful Servitude."
That
Melanchthon failed our Church in the Interim emergency as well as
in the
subsequent controversies is generally ascribed to the fact that
he lacked
the bracing influence and assistance of Luther. No doubt,
there is
a good deal of truth in this assumption. But the true reason
why he
did not measure up to the demands of the times and the
expectations
of our Church were not mere moral weaknesses, but rather
the
errors and false principles to which he was wedded. How could
Melanchthon
have approved himself a leader of the Lutherans when he was
out of
sympathy with them, doubted some of their most cherished
doctrines,
and long ago had struck out on a path deviating from that
mapped
out by Luther? True, the bracing which he received from Luther in
the past
had repeatedly kept him from publicly sacrificing the truth,
but even
in these instances he did not always yield because he was
really
convinced, but because he feared the uncompromising spirit of
Luther.
That fear
of an open conflict with Luther which, he felt, would result
in a
crushing defeat for himself, bulked large among the motives which
prompted
him to maintain a semblance of true orthodoxy as long as Luther
lived, is
clearly admitted by Melanchthon himself. In his notorious and
most
discreditable letter to Carlowitz (counselor of Elector Maurice),
written
April 28, 1548, eight days after the meeting at Celle, where he
had
debauched his conscience by promising submission to the religious
demands
of the Emperor, Melanchthon, pouring forth his feelings and
revealing
his true inwardness and his spirit of unionism and
indifferentism
as much as admitted that in the past he had been
accustomed
to hiding his real views. Here he declared in so many words
that it
was not he who started, and was responsible for, the religious
controversy
between the Lutherans and Romanists, but rather Luther whose
contentious
spirit (he said) also had constantly increased the rupture,
and that
under Luther he had suffered "a most shameful servitude."
In the
original the letter reads, in part, as follows: "Totum enim me
tibi
[Carlowitz] aperio.... Ego, cum decreverit princeps etiamsi quid
non
probabo, tamen nihil seditiose faciam, sed vel tacebo, vel cedam,
vel
feram, quidquid accidet. _Tuli etiam antea servitutem paene
deformem,_
cum saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua filoneikia erat
non
exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi serviret. Et
scio,
omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita aliqua in
gubernatione
vitia modeste et arte ferenda et dissimulanda esse....
Fortassis
natura sum ingenio servili." (_C. R._ 6, 879f.)
Even
before Melanchthon had, in private letters to his friends,
displayed
a similar vein of ill will toward Luther, whom he evidently
feared
because of his own secret doctrinal deviations. (_Lehre und
Wehre_
1908, 61. 68.) No doubt, as stated above, fear was also among the
motives
which induced him to identify himself with the Leipzig Interim.
But
evidently his own theological attitude, too, differed little from
the
spirit pervading this document. At any rate, the letter to Carlowitz
does not
support the assumption that Melanchthon really outraged his own
convictions
when he wrote and adopted the Interim. As a matter of fact,
he also
continued to defend the Interim; and it was as late as 1556
before he
was ready to make even a qualified admission of one of the
errors
connected with it.
While,
therefore, the Lutheran Church will always gratefully acknowledge
the
splendid services which Melanchthon rendered in the work of Luther's
Reformation,
it must at the same time be admitted and cannot be gainsaid
that, in
the last analysis, Melanchthon, by reason of his deviations
from
Luther, which will be set forth more fully in the following, was
the
ultimate cause and originator of most of the dissensions which began
to
distract the Lutheran Church soon after the death of Luther. Andrew
Musculus,
who assisted in drafting the _Formula of Concord,_ brought out
this fact
(though in terms too strong) when he characterized Melanchthon
as a
"philosophical theologian and a patriarch of all heretics."
(Meusel,
_Handl._ 4, 710.) In a way, Melanchthon may even be regarded as
the
indirect cause of the Smalcald War and its unfortunate issue,
inasmuch,
namely, as his vacillating and compromising attitude and his
incompetent
leadership created conditions of internal weakness among the
Lutherans,
which invited the aggression of Pope and Emperor.
>�1:R< � �_� Normal style='tab-stops:45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>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.)
