F. Bente - Historical Introductions. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace

251. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace.

It has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalled

his book _De Servo Arbitrio_, and retracted, changed and essentially

modified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently,

abandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his

_Glaubenslehre_ (4, 1, 37): "In the beginning of the Reformation [before

1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the

background. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore

Semi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of

predestination, Luther, in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ with an overbold

defiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his

position. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine,

but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation

of the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the

merits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace;

and he even opposed that doctrine [of _De Servo Arbitrio_] expressly as

erroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on

that subject." Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with the

facts in the case," J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther

with "absolute predestinarianism," remarks: "But this is certain: the

older Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism

into the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God

and on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (_in omnes,

super omnes_) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who

believe." (_Conf. Hist._, 336.)

Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by

synergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts.

Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of

predestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always

a messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of

grace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and

teaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His

merits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In _De

Servo Arbitrio_ Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else than

Christ Crucified." (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons

and books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the

idea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the

center of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very

gradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means

of grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were

products of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace

and pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The

bent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and

Scriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the

question of predestination to such an extent as he did in _De Servo

Arbitrio_, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the

rationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental

Christian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his

salvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just

such an answer as he gave in _De Servo Arbitrio_. Wherever the occasion

demanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's

majesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the

universal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.

Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther

later on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine,

--a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians.

(Frank 1, 129. 135. 125.) In his criticism of the _Book of Confutation_,

dated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: "As to free

will, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of

Rotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the

beginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the

disposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (_und

sich besser erklaeret_); and we believe, if a synod were held and one

would hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this

article." (_C. R._ 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this

assertion was false, as appeared from Luther's _Commentary on Genesis_

and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger

2, 82.) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first

asserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book _De Servo Arbitrio;_

but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a

wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that

Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July

9], 1637, as one of his very best." (_Creeds_ 1, 303.) In his letter to

Capito, Luther says: "_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte

'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum_,'" thus endorsing _De Servo

Arbitrio_ in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before

this Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me in

his booklet _Hyperaspistes_, in which he endeavors to defend his book

_On Free Will_, against which I wrote my book _On the Enslaved Will_,

which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to

refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil

together with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is

the immutable truth of God." (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous

endeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence

has been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or

changed his doctrine of grace.

Luther's extensive reference to _De Servo Arbitrio_ in his _Commentary

on Genesis_, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been

interpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the _Formula of

Concord_ these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" his

former position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his

former fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his

own, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by

quoting from his books--"_post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent

in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt_."

Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his

statements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had

expressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but

look upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us--

"_addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus.... Ideo sum excusatus_."

(CONC. TRIGL., 898.) Luther's entire theological activity, before as

well as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in

_De Servo Arbitrio, viz._, that we must neither deny nor investigate or

be concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed

Himself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the

means of grace.

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

Flacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared at

the colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context,

Luther's statements in _De Servo Arbitrio_ contained no inapt

expressions (_nihil incommodi_). He added: "I do not want to be the

reformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussion

concerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. _Nolo reformator

esse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamus

sanae ecclesiae_." (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255.) In Article II of the

_Formula of Concord_ the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondage

of the will together with his declarations in his _Commentary on

Genesis_. In referring to this matter the _Formula_ gives utterance to

the following thoughts: 1. that in _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther

"elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also by

the _Formula of Corcord_] well and thoroughly, _egregie et solide_"; 2.

that "afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition

of the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;" 3. that in this

exposition also "his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar

disputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute

necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful

way against all misunderstanding and perversion;" 4. that the _Formula

of Concord_ "appeals and refers others" to these deliverances of Luther.

(CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44.)

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, endorsed Luther's _De Servo

Arbitrio_ without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever,

and, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essential

thoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. The

said articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther's

doctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man's

salvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particular

they reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and the

inability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergism

in man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousness

of the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of grace

and for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways;

the mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all are

equally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem in

the light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never were

contradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well as

of free will, therefore, the _Formula of Concord_ is not a compromise

between synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther over

the later Melanchthon.

253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord.

The attitude of the _Formula of Concord_ with respect to Luther's _De

Servo Arbitrio_ was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. They

expressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its public

endorsement by the _Formula of Concord_. In 1569 the theologians of

Ducal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine "set

forth most luminously and skilfully (_summa luce et dexteritate

traditum_)" in _De Servo Arbitrio_, the _Commentary on Genesis_, and

other books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133.) That the authors of the

_Formula of Concord_ were fully conscious of their agreement with

Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_ and his _Commentary on Genesis_ appears

also from the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, composed 1582 by

Kirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther with

errors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the

_Formula or Concord_, endorse and defend his position, _viz_., that we

must neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospel

for an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us.

In this _Apology_ the opening paragraph of the section defending Article

XI of the _Formula of Concord_ against the Neustadt theologians reads as

follows: "In their antilog [antilogia--attack on Article XI of the

_Formula of Concord_] regarding God's eternal election and

predestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in this

article the doctrine of the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula of

Concord_] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book _De

Servo Arbitrio_, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appeal

to Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the _Book of Concord_ with

condemning Luther, who in the book called _Servum Arbitrium_ maintained

the proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary and

useful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (_Versehung_)

is certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, these

words of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also well

know how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of the

First Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his." (Fol.

204a.) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we cited

above (p. 223f.), the _Apology_ continues: "With this explanation of

Luther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadt

theologians] wish to brood over it any further and in their

investigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth of

this mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] and

suffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content to

adhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and lead

and direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life to

come." (405a.)

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

Doctrinally also, the _Apology of the Book of Concord_ is in agreement

with both Luther and the _Formula of Concord_. This appears from the

following excerpts: "Nor does the _Christian Book of Concord_ [_Formula

of Concord_] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejects

some; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in

_De Servo Arbitrio_ against Erasmus that it is the highest degree of

faith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless most

merciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient cause

of such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponents

teaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all men

should put their finger on their lips and first say with the Apostle

Paul, Rom. 11, 20: '_Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt_--Because of

unbelief they were broken off,' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin is

death.' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lord

does not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, all

men, etc. (which He is certainly able to do--_das er doch wohl

koennte_), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]:

'_Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viae

eius_--How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding

out,' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing and

efficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent."

"But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election of

the elect, you must also admit the other thing, _viz_., that in God

Himself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart from

sin,' etc., then we declare that we are not at all minded to make God

the author [_Ursacher_] of reprobation (the cause of which properly lies

not in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause of

the damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of the

Prophet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hast

destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' Nor do we intend to search

our dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. For

it is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the more

we occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from our

dear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us." (206.)

The _Apology_ continues: "Likewise the _Book of Concord_ [_Formula of

Concord_] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the same

manner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called through

the public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade us

to infer with them that God is an efficient [_wirkliche_] cause of the

reprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His mere

counsel [_fuer sich aus blossem Rat_] to reject and cast them away

eternally, even irrespective of their sin [_auch ausserhalb der

Suende_]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, it

is sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments are

unsearchable,' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us

the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Whatever goes beyond this

our Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life."

"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the _Book of Concord_ did not

distinguish between _malum culpae, i.e._, sin which God neither wills,

nor approves, nor works, and _malum poenae_, or the punishments which He

wills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not to

discuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matter

concerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summary

statement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere this

distinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there any

one among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, is

pleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as a

blasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318

[edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evil

acts and works, from which it is apparent that the _Book_ [_Formula_]

_of Concord_ does not at all teach that God is the author of _malum

culpae_ or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works the

punishments of sins." (206 b.)

255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax.

Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and the

possibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally

damned, the _Apology_ proceeds: "And why should we not also reject [the

proposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is

undoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected

and damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and

there is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still

alive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his last

end; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody

might have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12,

39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of

eternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no

reprobate can be converted and saved.... It is therefore the meaning

neither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12,

39] that God, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people,

solely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them to

damnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and

correct understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate and

impenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to

become more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and

wickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that

He, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins,

has foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convert

themselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, we

shall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this

blasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also

of sin, God has decreed to reject eternally these or others...." (207.)

With respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read:

"They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word God declares what

He approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes

to work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret

counsel in no other way than by working in man, _viz_., through

conversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or

hardened and damned.... With regard to this we give the following

correct answer, _viz_.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on

a dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secret

counsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed

Himself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the

words of Luther himself, _viz_., that concerning God, so far as He has

not been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word,

there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of

Him, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together

with our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments

of God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel,

purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some to

damnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His

secret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that

through the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards

them and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it

written in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that all

should be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained

some to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that

they cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they

prove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy

Scriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ,

contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread

it in all Christendom." (108 b.)

256. Apology on God's Mysterious Judgments and Ways.

Concerning the mysterious judgments and ways of God the _Apology_ says:

"At the same time we do not deny that God does not work alike in all

men, enlightening all,--for neither does He give His Word to all,--and

that nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and that

nobody can justly accuse Him of any unfaithfulness, envy, or tyranny,

although He does not, as said, give His Word to all and enlighten them.

But we add that, when arriving at this mystery, one should put his

finger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [_gruebeln_--from

the facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of God's universal serious

grace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments,

and His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as our

opponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, God has

ordained that some should be damned. For as to what God holds and has

decreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Nor

should one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonder

life, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of God by which we are

called to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us.

And this Word, or revealed will, of God concerning the giving rest to

all those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible,

unwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of God, with

which alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing that

conflicts with the will revealed in the Word of God should be inferred

from it, even as God Himself in His Word has not directed us to it.

Because of the fact, therefore, that not all accept this call, we must

not declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin,

God in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent to

damnation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has not

been revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that God's

judgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible."

"It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning this

article should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicurean

security, when in this doctrine it is taught that God, from His mere

counsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some to

damnation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hears

this, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into these

Epicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His free

purpose and without regard to sin, God has ordained to damnation, then

you cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those who

shall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you must

nevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join our

opponents in giving occasion for such things. God also shall protect us

from it." (209.)

Again: "They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universal

promises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain to

believers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, _viz_., that the

promises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers,

who labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. But

their [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying that

some are ordained to damnation from the free purpose of God, also

without regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though He

calls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them,

--which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horror

against such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine." (209 b.)

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

Sects.

257. Purpose of Article XII.

The purpose of the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_ was

not only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward off

future controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of the

Papists and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple,

their assertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and had

abandoned the _Augsburg Confession_, and that the Reformation was bound

to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The _Formula of Concord_ was

to leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers a

united front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists,

the errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidently

also against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom the

Romanists slanderously identified them.

Summarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the _Formula of

Concord_ declares: "First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errors

which were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodox

Church, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures.

Secondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which are

rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary

of the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the

_Formula of Concord_]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors which

caused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt with

and refuted in the first eleven articles of the _Formula of Concord_."

(857, 17ff.) Among the errors rejected in the _Augsburg Confession_ and

the subsequent Lutheran symbols were those also of the Anabaptists,

Antitrinitarians, and others. (CONC. TRIGL. 42, 6; 44, 4; 46, 3; 48, 7;

50, 3. 4; 138, 66; 244, 52; 310, 13; 356, 43; 436, 49; 744, 55; 746,

58.) And this is the class of errorists which Article XII of the

_Formula of Concord_ makes it a special point to characterize summarily

and reject by name. Before this the _Book of Confutation_, composed 1559

by the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejected

the doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and the

Anabaptists.

From the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg,

1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans with

the Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsible

for their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the _Formula of

Concord_. For here we read: "However, lest there be silently ascribed to

us the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects

(which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly

stole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room

was given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere

teachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the

Papacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feel

the manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their

simplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was not

papistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly,

before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship with

their errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and

all, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the

prophets and apostles, and to our Christian _Augsburg Confession_, well

grounded in God's Word." (1097, 7f.)

258. The Anabaptists.

The Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders were

Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called

_Blaurock_, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. In

rapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol,

Austria, Moravia, etc. Because of their attitude toward the civil

government the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treated

accordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed in

Zurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists in

the autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation of

more than 1,100 "Apostolic Brethren," as the Anabaptists there called

themselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529,

authorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women of

every age, by fire or sword "without previous inquisition by spiritual

judges." They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about

1,000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2,000) had been executed in Tyrol

and Goerz.

The most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonists

were Hubmaier, Denk, Dachser, and Hans Hutt. Besides these we mention:

Ludwig Haetzer, published a translation of the prophets from the Hebrew,

1527, for which he was praised by Luther, was executed as adulterer

February 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldier

and son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14,

1527, impassionate in his writings against the "old and new Papists,"

_i.e._, Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ in

the Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; Christian

Entfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, and

later on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a former

priest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; Joerg

Haug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed

1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer,

former Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, an

Antitrinitarian, executed 1528; Ulrich Hugwald, professor in Basel;

Melchior Rinck, pastor in Hesse; Pilgram Marbeck; Jacob Buenderlin;

Jacob Kautz, preacher and author in Worms; Clemens Ziegler; Peter

Riedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequently

imprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacher

and prolific author, who died in prison at Strassburg, 1543.

(Tschackert, 148ff.; Schlottenloher, _Philipp Ulhart, ein Augsburger

Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der "Schwaermer" und "Wiedertaeufer,"_

1523--1529, p. 59ff.)

The various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the Twelfth

Article of the _Formula of Concord_. The Epitome remarks: "The

Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one

contends for more, another for less errors; however they all in common

propound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the

church, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic

life." (839, 2.) Urbanus Regius said in his book _Against the New

Baptistic Order:_ "Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of these

errors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to do

an injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the Baptistic

Order as John Denk and Balthasar Friedberger," Hubmaier.

(Schlottenloher, 80.)

While some of the Anabaptists, as Hubmaier, were more conservative,

others (Denk, Schiemer) went so far as to deny even the doctrine of the

Trinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infant

baptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means of

grace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was not

faith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism,

sensation-faith (_Gefuehlsglaube_), and the law of love as exemplified

by Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: "Whoever follows

the voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himself

the true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist the

evil." (153.) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning,

Salminger said: "Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifies

will be received by God." Schlottenloher remarks: "It was medieval

mysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consuming

desire for the complete union of the soul with God and the Spirit."

(83.)

259. Balthasar Hubmaier.

Hubmaier (Hubmoer, Friedberger, Pacimontanus) was born at Friedberg,

near Augsburg, and studied under Eck. In 1512 he became Doctor and

professor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522

pastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had read

the books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. In

January, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now "he

proclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself," referring in

particular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the same

year he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which he

continued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published his

book _Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers_, which was directed

against Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich,

whither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants in

their rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputation

with Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from which

he was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped to

Nicolsburg, Moravia, where, under the protection of a powerful nobleman,

he developed a feverish activity and rebaptized about 12,000 persons.

When the persecutions of the Anabaptists began, Hubmaier was arrested,

and after sulphur and powder had been well rubbed into his long beard,

he was burned at the stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days after,

his wife, with a stone about her neck, was thrust from the bridge into

the Danube.

Hubmaier denounced infant baptism as "an abominable idolatry." He

taught: Children are incapable of making the public confession required

by Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs us

of the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptized

while in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: "Since

the alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receive

water-baptism according to the institution of Christ cannot be charged

with anabaptism."

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: "Here it is apparent that

the bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewise

the wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that He

has shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins." "In

the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spiritually

and by faith only." In the Supper of Christ "bread is bread and wine is

wine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the right

hand of God, His Father."

Hubmaier did not regard the Word as a means of grace nor Baptism and the

Lord's Supper as gracious acts of God, but as mere works of man. "In

believers," he says, "God works both to will and to do, by the inward

anointing of His Holy Spirit." Concerning church discipline he taught:

Where the Christian ban is not established and used according to the

command of Christ, there sin, shame, and vice control everything. A

person who is expelled must be denied all communion until he repents. In

connection with his deliverances on the ban, Hubmaier, after the fashion

of the Papists, made the Gospel of Christian liberty as preached by

Luther responsible for the carnal way in which many abused it. The

socialistic trend of Anabaptism, however, was not developed by Hubmaier.

(Tschackert 132. 172. 234.)

260. Dachser and Hutt.

Jacob Dachser was one of the most zealous members and leaders of the

large Anabaptistic congregation in Augsburg, where he was also

imprisoned, 1527. He, not Langenmantel, is the author of the

"_Offenbarung von den wahrhaftigen Wiedertaeufern_. Revelation of the

True Anabaptists," secretly published by the Anabaptistic printer Philip

Ulhart in Augsburg and accepted as a sort of confession by the council

held by the Anabaptists in the fall of 1527 at Augsburg. The book of

Urban Regius: "_Wider den neuen Tauforden notwendige Warnung an alle

Christenglaeubigen_--Against the new Baptistic Order, a Necessary

Warning to All Christians," was directed against Dachser's _Revelation_.

In 1529 Dachser published his _Form and Order of Spiritual Songs_, the

first hymn-book of the Anabaptists, containing hymns of Luther,

Speratus, Muenzer, Hutt, Pollio, and Dachser.

In his _Revelation_ Dachser said: "The entire world is against each

other; we don't know any more where the truth is. While all are

convinced that the Pope has erred and deceived us, the new preachers, by

reviling and maligning each other, betray that they, too, are not sent

by God." "In their pulpits the false teachers [Lutherans, etc.]

themselves confess that the longer they preach, the less good is done.

But since they do not forsake a place where they see no fruits of their

doctrine, they thereby reveal that they are not sent by God." "God draws

us to Himself through the power which is in us, and warns us against

wickedness and through the Teacher Christ, who in His Word has taught us

the will of God." "Christ sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to all

creatures and to baptize such as believe. And such as obey this command

are called 'Anabaptists'!" "By our evil will original purity has been

defiled; from this uncleanness we must purge our heart. Who does not

find this uncleanness in himself, neither without nor within, is a true

child of God, obedient to the Word of God. Who, in accordance with the

command of Christ, preaches and baptizes such as believe, is not an

Anabaptist, but a cobaptist [_Mittaeufer_] of Christ and the Apostles."

"All such as preach, teach, and baptize otherwise than Christ commanded,

are the real Anabaptists [opponents of Baptism], acting contrary to the

Son of God, by first baptizing, instead of first teaching and awaiting

faith, as Christ commanded." "We need but strive with Christ to do the

will of the Father then we receive from God through the Holy Ghost the

power to fulfil the divine command." (Schlottenloher, 72ff.)

Hans Hutt (Hut), a restless bookbinder in Franconia, attended the

Anabaptistic council in Augsburg, where he was opposed by Regius and

incarcerated. He died 1527 in an attempt to escape from prison. As a

punishment his body was burned. Hutt must not be confounded with Jacob

Huter or Hueter, an Anabaptist in Tyrol. The followers of Hans Hutt in

the city of Steyr developed the socialistic tendencies of Anabaptism.

They taught: Private ownership is sinful; all things are to be held in

common; Judgment Day is imminent; then the Anabaptists will reign with

Christ on earth. Some also taught that finally the devil and all the

damned would be saved; others held that there is neither a devil nor a

hell, because Christ had destroyed them. (Tschackert 134ff. 141. 153.)

Article XVII of the _Augsburg Confession_ condemns "the Anabaptists, who

think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and

devils...; also others, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions,

that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession

of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed."

(CONC. TRIGL., 51)

261. John Denk.

Denk, who was called the "Archbaptist," the "Bishop," "Pope," and

"Apollo" of the Anabaptists, was born in Bavaria and trained in Basel.

In 1523 he became Rector of St. Sebald in Nuernberg where he was opposed

by Osiander. Banished in the following year, he escaped to St. Gallen.

Expelled again, he fled to Augsburg. Here he was rebaptized by immersion

and became an active member of the Anabaptistic "Apostolic Brethren,"

who at that time numbered about 1,100 persons. Denk was the leader of

the council held by the Anabaptists in 1527 in Augsburg. Expelled from

the city, Denk died during his flight, 1527, at Basel. His "Retraction,

_Widerruf_" (a title probably chosen by the printer), published 1527

after his death, does not contain a retraction, but a summary of his

teaching. (Schlottenloher, 84.) The mystic mind of Denk runs a good deal

in the channels of the author of the "German Theology, _Deutsche

Theologie_," and of his pantheistic contemporary, Sebastian Franck.

Denk taught: God is one, and the source of unity. To return from all

divisions to this unity must be our constant aim. The only way is entire

surrender to God and submission in tranquillity. He says: "Nothing is

necessary for this salvation [reunion with God] but to obey Him who is

in us, and to be tranquil and wait for Him in the true real Sabbath and

tranquillity, losing ourselves and all that is ours, so that God may

both work and suffer in us. He who is in us is ready every hour and

moment to follow, if we are but willing. His hour is always, but ours is

not. He calls and stretches forth His arms the entire day, always ready;

nobody answers Him, nobody admits Him or suffers Him to enter. Do but

seek the Lord, then you will find Him; yea, He is already seeking you;

only suffer yourselves to be found. Indeed He has already found you, and

even now is knocking. Do but open unto Him and let Him in. Apprehend and

know the Lord, even as you are apprehended and known of Him."

Denk held that the source of religious and moral knowledge is not the

Scriptures, but the voice of God in the heart of man, or Christ Himself,

who speaks and writes the divine Law into the hearts of those who are

His. [Before Denk, Thomas Muenzer had said: "_Was Bibel! Bibel, Bubel,

Babel!_"] Whoever has this divine Law in his heart lacks nothing that is

needed to fulfil the will of God. According to Denk a man may be saved

without the preaching of the Word, without the Scriptures, and without

any knowledge of the historical Christ and His work. Nor can the

Scriptures be understood without heeding the revelation of God in our

own bosom. The Scriptures must indeed be regarded as higher than "all

human treasures, but not as high as God's Word" [in our own bosom].

Baptism is a mere outward sign that one has joined the number of

believers; hence it can be administered to such only as are conscious of

their faith. Ceremonies in themselves are not sin, says Denk, "but

whoever imagines to obtain grace through them, either by Baptism or by

the Breaking of Bread, is given to superstition." (Tschackert, 143;

Meusel, _Handl_. 2, 142.)

262. The Schwenckfeldians.

Caspar Schwenckfeldt, of Ossig in Liegnitz a descendent of a noble

family in Silesia, was born 1490 and studied in Cologne. In 1524 he

helped to introduce the Reformation in Liegnitz. He was twice in

Wittenberg; 1522, when he met Carlstadt and Thomas Muenzer and 1525,

when he visited Luther. He endeavored to interest Luther in the

formation of conventicles, and particularly in his mystical theory

concerning the Lord's Supper, which he considered the correct middle

ground on which Lutherans and Zwinglians might compromise. But Luther

had no confidence in the enthusiast, whom he characterized as a "mad

fool," "possessed by the devil." He said: "In Silesia Schwenckfeldt has

kindled a fire which as yet has not been quenched and will burn on him

eternally."

Because of the troubles and dissensions created in Liegnitz,

Schwenckfeldt, in 1529, was compelled to leave. Having removed to

Strassburg he was zealous in propagating his enthusiasm in Southern

Germany by establishing conventicles of "Lovers of the Glory of Christ,"

as the adherents of Schwenckfeldt called themselves. At a colloquy in

Tuebingen, 1535, he promised not to disquiet the Church. In 1539 he

published his _Summary of Several Arguments that Christ according to His

Humanity Is To-day No Creature, but Entirely Our God and Lord_. He

called it the doctrine of the "Deification of the Flesh of Christ." When

this teaching was rejected as Eutychianism, Schwenckfeldt published his

_Large Confession_, 1540. At the convention of Smalcald, also 1540, his

views were condemned and his books prohibited and burned. Compelled to

leave Strassburg, he spent the remainder of his life in Augsburg, in

Speier and in Ulm (where he died, December 10, 1561). Schwenckfeldt

exchanged controversial writings with many contemporary theologians,

whom he kept in constant excitement. In Liegnitz he was supported by the

ministers Valentin Krautwald, Fabian Eckel, Sigismund Werner, and

Valerius Rosenheyn. His adherents were called "Neutrals," because they

declined to affiliate with any of the existing churches.

263. Schwenckfeldt's Doctrine.

In 1526 Schwenckfeldt wrote to Paul Speratus: Since by the preaching of

the Gospel as set forth by Luther so few people amended their lives, the

thought had occurred to him that "something must still be lacking,

whatever that may be." Endeavoring to supply this defect, Schwenckfeldt

taught: Grace cannot be imparted by any creature, bodily word, writing,

or sacrament, but only by the omnipotent, eternal Word proceeding from

the mouth of God. Whatever is external is a mere symbol and image of

God, able neither to bring God into the soul nor to produce faith or an

inward experience of divine life. "Mark well" says he, "God is not in

need of external things and means for His internal grace and spiritual

action. For even Christ, according to the flesh, was a hindrance to

grace and [the Spirit] of God, and had to be translated into the

heavenly mode of being that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come to

us.... Whoever endeavors to come from without and through external means

into the inner [the heart] does not understand the course of grace. God

works without all means and pictures.... Man must forget and drop

everything, and be free and tranquil for the inbreathing [_Einsprechen_,

inspiration], and be drawn away from all creatures, giving himself up to

God altogether."

Schwenckfeldt continues: The Holy Spirit enters the quiet soul only

through the eternal Word, which "proceeds from the mouth of God without

means and not at all through Scripture, external Word, Sacrament, or any

creature in heaven or on earth. God wants to have this honor reserved

solely to Himself through Himself [without any means] He wants to pardon

man, teach him, impart the Holy Spirit to him, and save him. He does not

want to grant His grace, and effect illumination and salvation through

any creature; for even the flesh of Christ was not a sufficient

instrument for this purpose before He was glorified, translated into the

heavenly places, and removed from our eyes." "Scripture is for the

external man; the Holy Spirit teaches everything to the elect inwardly

and is not in need of Scripture to give faith to them and to save them."

Schwenckfeldt, who employed the term "revelation" for this immediate

operation of God, was inconsistent in not rejecting Scripture,

preaching, etc., altogether. But when admitting these, he adds that he

distinguishes "God's own inner work from the external service."

Self-evidently, these views concerning the means of grace had a

corrupting influence also on other doctrines. Saving faith, according to

Schwenckfeldt, is not trust in God's promise of pardon for Christ's

sake, but an immediate mystical relation of the soul to God.

Justification, says he, "is not only forgiveness and non-imputation of

sin, but also renewal of the heart." "We must seek our justification and

righteousness not in Christ according to His first state [of

humiliation], in a manner historical," but according to His state of

glorification, in which He governs the Church. In order to enhance the

"glory of Christ" and have it shine and radiate in a new light,

Schwenckfeldt taught the "deification of the flesh of Christ," thus

corrupting the doctrine of the exaltation and of the person of Christ in

the direction of Monophysitism. And the more his views were opposed, the

more he was enamored of, and engrossed by, them, calling himself the

"confessor and lover of the glory of Christ."

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeldt taught that the deified

humanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeed

through bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of any

medium), internally, spiritually. The words of institution mean: My

body, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, _i.e._, a food

for souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, _i.e._, a

drink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of God. Baptism, says

Schwenckfeldt, is the "baptizing of the heavenly High Priest Jesus

Christ, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and by

fire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, but

detrimental to the baptism of Christ." (Tschackert, 159ff.)

264. The Antitrinitarians.

The first article of the _Augsburg Confession_ makes a special point of

rejecting not only the ancient, but also the "modern Samosatenes,"

_i.e._, the Antitrinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformation

began their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most of

these "modern Arians and Antitrinitarians," as they are called in the

Twelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_ came from the skeptical

circles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists and

Epicureans the _Apology_ remarks: "Many [in Italy and elsewhere] even

publicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, they

approve such things only as are in harmony with human reason, and

regard the rest as fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets." (CONC.

TRIGL., 235, 28; _C. R._ 9, 763.) Pope Leo X was generally regarded as

being one of those who spoke of the profitable "fables concerning

Christ."

According to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, a

fanatic (_Rumpelgeist_) there taught: "Every man has the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (_ingenium et ratio

naturalis_). Every man believes. There is neither hell nor damnation.

Every one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do unto

my neighbor as I would have him do unto me--to desire which is faith.

The Law is not violated by evil lust as long as I do not consent to

lust. Who has not the Holy Ghost has no sin for he has no reason." (E.

53, 344; St. L. 21a 730; Enders 5, 147.)

In his report on the Marburg Colloquy, October 5, 1529, Melanchthon

remarks: "We have heard that some of them [the Strassburgers] speak of

the Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not God by nature. (_C.

R._ 1, 1099.) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spoken

incorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a book

against the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted to

be published." (1103.)

In a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: "Your undertaking [of

publishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christian

and wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles of

faith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the one

concerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be derided

confidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably assisted not

only by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which they

flatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers and

others, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sow

their seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paul

says [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (_gar sehr um sich fressen_)

and promote godlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laugh

so complacently and are so happy that one can hardly believe it." (St.

L. 14, 326; Enders 9, 252.)

Some Antitrinitarians who affiliated with the Anabaptists have already

been referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creed

because of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, as

stated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied the

tripersonality of God and the preexistence of the Logos, and

blasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as

"superstition" and the trust in His satisfaction as "drinking on the

score of Christ (_ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi_)." According to

Denk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselves

which we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed of

the divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461.) It was of Denk that

Capito wrote, 1526: "At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald denied

that the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for this

reason he was expelled." (Plitt, _Augustana_ 1, 153.)

At Strassburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, with

denying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527

Urban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining that

Christ was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same year

Althamer of Nuernberg published his book _Against the New Jews and

Arians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ_. In 1529

Osiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: "It is well known,

and may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradict

the sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from which

it follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ." "Christ

is not the natural, true Son of God," such was also the accusation made

by Justus Menius in his book concerning the _Doctrines and Secrets of

the Anabaptists_. In his _Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius said

"Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of Jesus

Christ.... This was their chief article that they despised the written

Word, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of Jesus

Christ the eternal Son of God."

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

Sebastian Franck and John Campanus must also be numbered among the

Antitrinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in the

vicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soap

manufacturing, writing, and printing. Campanus appeared in Wittenberg,

1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther and

Zwingli by explaining the words: "This is My body" to mean: This is a

body created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: "Against the Entire

World after the Apostles--_Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum_," in

which he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied the

personality of the Holy Spirit. "He argues," says Melanchthon, who in

his letters frequently refers to the "blasphemies of Campanus," "that

Christ is not God; that the Holy Spirit is not God; that original sin is

an empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform into

philosophy." (_C. R._ 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132.) When

Campanus endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished from

Saxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminence

of Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their property

and declined to work any longer. Campanus was imprisoned for twenty

years and died 1575.

Prominent among the numerous Antitrinitarians who came from Italy were

Ochino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. Bernardino

Ochino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renowned

pulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in order

to escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurich

from 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defended

polygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his _Thirty Dialogs_,

published 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of

Christ, and of the atonement. (_Herzog R_. 14, 256.)--Michael Servetus

was born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, at

Hagenau, Alsace, he published _De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII_. He

was opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his

_Christianismi Restitutio_, a voluminous book, which he published in

1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanic

doctrine, and at the same time rejects original sin and infant baptism.

The result was that, while passing through Geneva on his way to Italy,

he was arrested at the instance of Calvin, tried, condemned, and burned

at the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also by

Melanchthon. (_C. R._ 8, 362; 9, 763.)--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554,

uttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italian

congregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. He

died 1564.--John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italian

fugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerning

the Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Antitrinitarian

errors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (_Herzog R_. 6, 518.)

George Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for his

liberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania.

Here he published his _Confessio Antitrinitaria_, and was instrumental

in introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In

1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. He

taught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that there

were two natures in Christ.

266. Davidis and Socinus.

Francis Davidis in Transylvania was an Antitrinitarian of the most

radical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 he

joined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 and

publicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduce

Unitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked the

doctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 he

published his views in _De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et

Spiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo_. He contended that the doctrine of

the Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ,

though born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in the

decree of God, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanating

from God for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and the

Lord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the nobility had

been won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent of

the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty was

proclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were

tolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The Catholic

Stephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitarians

from his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579,

Davidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring it

to be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Three

days after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings instituted

against him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced to

imprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesying

the final downfall of all "false dogmas," meaning, of course, the

doctrines which he had combated.

In Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-minded

nobility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and later

on also fugitive Antitrinitarians. Among these were the Italians Francis

Lismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however,

lacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, the

preexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continued

until Faustus Socinus (born at Siena 1539, died 1604 in Poland) arrived.

He was the nephew of the skeptical and liberal-minded Laelius Socinus

(Lelio Sozzini) who left Italy in 1542, when the Inquisition was

established there, and died in Zurich, 1562.

Faustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncle

Laelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the first

chapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire program

of Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata to

oppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) as

taught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland,

where he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: the

Anabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ,

etc., and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland was

rapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about

1,000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638

the school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachers

and ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banished

as traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism were

confirmed.

The chief source of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian doctrine is the

Racovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latin

language under the title: "_Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom of

Poland_ which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ is that One God of Israel." It teaches: There is but one divine

person; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity of

Christ is false; as a reward for His sinless life, God has given Christ

all power in heaven and on earth; as such, as God's representative

(_homo Deus factus_, the man made God), He may be adored; there is no

original sin; with the help of God, that is to say, with the

commandments and promises of God revealed by Christ, man may acquire

salvation; he is able to keep these commandments, though not perfectly;

man's shortcomings are pardoned by God on account of his good intention;

an atonement by Christ is not required for this purpose; moreover, the

doctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by His

death Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandments

are adherents of Christ; these will participate in His dominion; the

wicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing as

eternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason and

serves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous for

Christians, because all matters pertaining to religion are contained

better and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473.)

Evidently, in every detail, Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism are

absolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence of

Christianity. The _Apology_ declares that the deniers of the doctrine of

the Holy Trinity "are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters,

and insult God." (103, 1.) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII of

the _Formula of Concord_. (843, 30; 1103, 39.)

XXIII. Origin, Subscription, Character, etc., of Formula of Concord.

267. Lutherans Yearning for a Godly Peace.

A holy zeal for the purity and unity of doctrine is not at all

incompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnest

desire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a truly

Christian and godly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth.

Also in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther's

death faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire for

such a godly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased.

While Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of a

unionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union based

on the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the Lutheran

Confessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that the

controversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Church

should never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor with

any teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth.

As a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peace

were made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians,

especially the theologians who had not participated in the

controversies, but for all that were no less concerned about the

maintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at the

expense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flacius

and Gallus published their _Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen

Sachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen_. In this Appeal

they urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had not

participated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chief

differences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two following

years Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interest

influential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthon

and his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in the

matter.

At the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber,

Schnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discuss

the conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing to

disagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, they

demanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines of

Zwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by the

Wittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7.)

74.�-v�3 0 �� H�� 4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>Luther to remain, or to be transformed into a unionistic or Reformed

body? Is it to retain its unity, or will it become a house divided

against itself and infested with all manner of sects?

Evidently, then, if the Lutheran Church was not to go down ingloriously,

a new confession was needed which would not only clear the religious and

theological atmosphere, but restore confidence, hope, and normalcy. A

confession was needed which would bring out clearly the truths for which

Lutherans must firmly stand if they would be true to God, true to His

Word, true to their Church, true to themselves, and true to their

traditions. A confession was needed which would draw exactly, clearly,

and unmistakably the lines which separate Lutherans, not only from

Romanists, but also from Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists,

unionists, and the advocates of other errors and unsound tendencies.

Being essentially the Church of the pure Word and Sacrament, the only

way for the Lutheran Church to maintain her identity and independence

was to settle her controversies not by evading or compromising the

doctrinal issues involved, but by honestly facing and definitely

deciding them in accordance with her principles: the Word of God and the

old confessions. Particularly with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's

Supper, Melanchthon by constantly altering the _Augsburg Confession_,

had muddied the water to such an extent that the adoption of the

_Augustana_ was no longer a clear test of Lutheran orthodoxy and

loyalty. Even Calvin, and the German Reformed generally subscribed to

it, "in the sense," they said, "in which Melanchthon has explained it."

The result was a corruption of Lutheranism and a pernicious Calvinistic

propaganda in Lutheran territories. A new confession was the only means

of ending the confusion and checking the invasion.

290. Formula Fully Met Requirements.

The _Formula of Concord_ was just such a confession as the situation

called for. The Preface to the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, signed

by Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, remarks that the purpose of the

_Formula_ was "to establish and propagate unity in the Lutheran churches

and schools, and to check the Sacramentarian leaven and other

corruptions and sects." This purpose was fully attained by the

_Formula_. It maintained and vindicated the old Lutheran symbols. It

cleared our Church from all manner of foreign spirits which threatened

to transform its very character. It settled the controversies by

rendering a clear and correct decision on all doctrinal questions

involved. It unified our Church when she was threatened with hopeless

division, anarchy, and utter ruin. It surrounded her with a wall of fire

against all her enemies. It made her a most uncomfortable place for such

opponents of Lutheranism as Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, etc. It

infused her with confidence, self-consciousness, conviction, a clear

knowledge of her own position over against the errors of other churches

and sects, and last, but not least, with a most remarkable vitality.

Wherever and whenever, in the course of time, the _Formula of Concord_

was ignored, despised, or rejected, the Lutheran Church fell an easy

prey to unionism and sectarianism; but wherever and whenever the

_Formula_ was held in high esteem, Lutheranism flourished and its

enemies were confounded. Says Schaff: "Outside of Germany the Lutheran

Church is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes with the change of

language and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. This is the

case with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans,

who adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday,

church discipline, and other points." But the fact is that, since Schaff

wrote the above, the Lutheran Church developed and flourished nowhere as

in America, owing chiefly to the return of American Lutherans to their

confessions, including the _Formula of Concord_. The _Formula of

Concord_ fully supplied the dire need created by the controversies after

Luther's death; and, despite many subsequent controversies, also in

America, down to the present day, no further confessional deliverances

have been necessary, and most likely such will not be needed in the

future either.

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, must ever be regarded as a great

blessing of God. "But for the _Formula of Concord_," says Krauth, "it

may be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the

world. It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding to

death; and crises were at hand in history in which Lutheranism was

essential to the salvation of the Reformatory interest in Europe. The

Thirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay

indeed in the future of another century, yet it was fought and settled

in the Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirate,

the sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery and

division in the Church of the Reformation would have done what the arts

and arms of Rome failed to do. But the miracle of restoration was

wrought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Lutheran

Church had become the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg,

despite the storm, the mildew, and the worm, had ripened into the full

round fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession in which the

Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." (Schmauk, 830.)

291. Formula Attacked and Defended.

Drawing accurately and deeply, as it did, the lines of demarcation

between Lutheranism, on the one hand, and Calvinism, Philippism, etc.,

on the other, and thus also putting an end to the Calvinistic propaganda

successfully carried on for decades within the Lutheran Church, the

_Formula of Concord_ was bound to become a rock of offense and to meet

with opposition on the part of all enemies of genuine Lutheranism within

as well as without the Lutheran Church. Both Romanists and Calvinists

had long ago accustomed themselves to viewing the Lutheran Church as

moribund and merely to be preyed upon by others. Accordingly, when,

contrary to all expectations, our Church, united by the _Formula_, rose

once more to her pristine power and glory, it roused the envy and

inflamed the ire and rage of her enemies. Numerous protests against the

_Formula_, emanating chiefly from Reformed and Crypto-Calvinistic

sources, were lodged with Elector August and other Lutheran princes.

Even Queen Elizabeth of England sent a deputation urging the Elector not

to allow the promulgation of the new confession. John Casimir of the

Palatinate, also at the instigation of the English queen, endeavored to

organize the Reformed in order to prevent its adoption. Also later on

the Calvinists insisted that a general council (of course, participated

in by Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists) should have been held to decide

on its formal and final adoption!

Numerous attacks on the _Formula of Concord_ were published 1578, 1579,

1581, and later, some of them anonymously. They were directed chiefly

against its doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, the

majesty of the human nature of Christ, and eternal election,

particularly its refusal to solve, either in a synergistic or in a

Calvinistic manner, the mystery presented to human reason in the

teaching of the Bible that God alone is the cause of man's salvation,

while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In a letter to Beza,

Ursinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, shrewdly advised

the Reformed to continue accepting the _Augsburg Confession_, but to

agitate against the _Formula_. He himself led the Reformed attacks by

publishing, 1581, "_Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae_, Christian

Admonition Concerning the Book of Concord," also called "_Admonitio

Neostadiensis_, Neustadt Admonition." Its charges were refuted in the

"Apology or Defense of the Christian Book of Concord--_Apologia oder

Verantwortung des christlichen Konkordienbuchs_, in welcher die wahre

christliche Lehre, so im Konkordienbuch verfasst, mit gutem Grunde

heiliger, goettlicher Schrift verteidiget, die Verkehrung aber und

Kalumnien, so von unruhigen Leuten wider gedachtes christliche Buch

ausgesprenget, widerlegt worden," 1583 (1582). Having been prepared by

command of the Lutheran electors, and composed by Kirchner, Selneccer,

and Chemnitz, and before its publication also submitted to other

theologians for their approval, this guardedly written _Apology_, also

called the Erfurt Book, gained considerable authority and influence.

The Preface of this Erfurt Book enumerates, besides the Christian

Admonition of Ursinus and the Neustadt theologians, the following

writings published against the _Formula of Concord_: 1. _Opinion and

Apology_ (_Bedencken und Apologie_) of Some Anhalt Theologians; 2.

_Defense_ (_Verantwortung_) of the Bremen Preachers; Christian Irenaeus

on Original Sin; _Nova Novorum_ ("ein famos Libell"); other libelli,

satyrae et pasquilli; _Calumniae et Scurrilia Convitia of Brother Nass_

(_Bruder Nass_); and the history of the _Augsburg Confession_ by

Ambrosius Wolf, in which the author asserts that from the beginning the

doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin predominated in all Protestant churches.

The theologians of Neustadt, Bremen, and Anhalt replied to the Erfurt

Apology; which, in turn, called forth counter-replies from the

Lutherans. Beza wrote: _Refutation of the Dogma Concerning the

Fictitious Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ_. In 1607 Hospinian

published his _Concordia Discors_," [tr. note: sic on punctuation] to

which Hutter replied in his _Concordia Concors_. The papal detractors of

the _Formula_ were led by the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin, who in 1589

published his _Judgment of the Book of Concord_.

292. Modern Strictures on Formula of Concord.

Down to the present day the _Formula of Concord_ has been assailed

particularly by unionistic and Reformed opponents of true Lutheranism.

Schaff criticizes: "Religion was confounded with theology, piety with

orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism." (1, 259.)

However, the subjects treated in the _Formula_ are the most vital

doctrines of the Christian religion: concerning sin and grace, the

person and work of Christ, justification and faith, the means of grace,

--truths without which neither Christian theology nor Christian religion

can remain; "Here, then," says Schmauk, "is the one symbol of the ages

which treats almost exclusively of Christ--of His work, His presence,

His person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran Church. One might

almost say that the _Formula of Concord_ is a developed witness of

Luther's explanation of the Second and Third Articles of the Apostles'

Creed, meeting the modern errors of Protestantism, those cropping up

from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, in a really modern way."

(751.) Tschackert also designates the assertion that the authors of the

_Formula of Concord_ "abandoned Luther's idea of faith and established a

dead scholasticism" as an unjust charge. (478.) Indeed, it may be

questioned whether the doctrine of grace, the real heart of

Christianity, would have been saved to the Church without the _Formula_.

R. Seeberg speaks of the "ossification of Lutheran theology" caused by

the _Formula of Concord_, and Tschackert charges it with transforming

the Gospel into a "doctrine." (571.) But what else is the Gospel of

Christ than the divine doctrine or statement and proclamation of the

truth that we are saved, not by our own works, but by grace and faith

alone, for the sake of Christ and His merits? The _Formula of Concord_

truly says: "_The Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man

should believe_, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God,

namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and

borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins,

through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain

forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the

punishments of sins, and eternally saved." (959, 20.) Says Schmauk: "The

_Formula of Concord_ was ... the very substance of the Gospel and of the

_Augsburg Confession_, kneaded through the experience of the first

generation of Protestantism, by incessant and agonizing conflict, and

coming forth from that experience as a true and tried teaching, a

standard recognized by many." (821.) The _Formula of Concord_ is truly

Scriptural, not only because all its doctrines are derived from the

Bible, but also because the burden of the Scriptures, the doctrine of

justification, is the burden also of all its expositions the living

breath, as it were, pervading all its articles.

Another modern objection to the _Formula_ is that it binds the future

generations to the _Book of Concord_. This charge is correct, for the

_Formula_ expressly states that its decisions are to be "a public,

definite testimony, not only for those now living, but also for our

posterity, what is and should remain (_sei und bleiben solle--esseque

perpetuo debeat_) the unanimous understanding and judgment of our

churches in reference to the articles in controversy." (857, 16.)

However, the criticism implied in the charge is unwarranted. For the

Lutheran Confessions, as promoters, authors, and signers of the

_Formula_ were fully persuaded, are in perfect agreement with the

eternal and unchangeable Word of God. As to their contents, therefore,

they must always remain the confession of every Church which really is

and would remain loyal to the Word of God.

293. Formula Unrefuted.

From the day of its birth down to the present time the _Formula of

Concord_ has always been in the limelight of theological discussion. But

what its framers said in praise of the _Augsburg Confession_, _viz._,

that, in spite of numerous enemies, it had remained unrefuted, may be

applied also to the _Formula_: it stood the test of centuries and

emerged unscathed from the fire of every controversy. It is true today

what Thomasius wrote 1848 with special reference to the _Formula_:

"Numerous as they may be who at present revile our Confession, not one

has ever appeared who has refuted its chief propositions from the

Bible." (_Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. Kirche_, 227.)

Nor can the _Formula_ ever be refuted, for its doctrinal contents are

unadulterated truths of the infallible Word of God. It confesses the

doctrine which Christians everywhere will finally admit as true and

divine indeed, which they all in their hearts believe even now, if not

explicitly and consciously, at least implicitly and in principle. The

doctrines of the _Formula_ are the ecumenical truths of Christendom; for

true Lutheranism is nothing but consistent Christianity. The _Formula_,

says Krauth, is "the completest and clearest confession in which the

Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." Such being the case, the

_Formula of Concord_ must be regarded also as the key to a godly peace

and true unity of entire Christendom.

The authors of the _Formula_ solemnly declare: "We entertain heartfelt

pleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and

anxious to advance with our utmost power that unity [and peace] by which

His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the

Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor

sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith,

confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone

through the sole merit of Christ." (1095, 95.) Such was the godly peace

and true Christian unity restored by the _Formula of Concord_ to the

Lutheran Church. And what it did for _her_ it is able also to do for the

Church at large. Being in complete agreement with Scripture, it is well

qualified to become the regeneration center of the entire present-day

corrupted, disrupted, and demoralized Christendom.

Accordingly Lutherans, the natural advocates of a truly wholesome and

God-pleasing union based on unity in divine truth, will not only

themselves hold fast what they possess in their glorious Confession, but

strive to impart its blessings also to others, all the while praying

incessantly, fervently, and trustingly with the pious framers of the

_Formula_: "May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the

grace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly

abide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen."

(837, 23.)

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

[tr. note: original printed text ends with a 10 page index that is not

included in this transcription]

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Historical Introductions to the

Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, by Friedrich Bente