F. Bente - Historical Introductions. XVII. The Antinomistic Controversy. "The Ten Commandments Are Obsolete"

XVII. The Antinomistic Controversy.

183. Distinction between Law and Gospel of Paramount Import.

Zwingli, who was a moralist and a Humanist rather than a truly

evangelical reformer, taught: "In itself the Law is nothing else than a

Gospel; that is, a good, certain message from God by means of which He

instructs us concerning His will." (Frank 2, 312.) While Zwingli thus

practically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, held

that the difference between both is as great as that between life and

death or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no one

can be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly to

distinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling of

the Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrine

of justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must be

carefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in the

Church; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaningless

without it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, the

Gospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is assailed, even

if this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality,

hit harder than the former. The cocoon of antinomianism always bursts

into antigospelism.

Majorism, the mingling of sanctification and justification, and

synergism, the mingling of nature and grace, were but veiled efforts to

open once more the doors of the Lutheran Church to the Roman

work-righteousness, which Luther had expelled. The same is true of

antinomianism in all its forms. It amounts to nothing less than apostasy

from true Evangelicalism and a return to Romanism. When Luther opposed

Agricola, the father of the Antinomians in the days of the Reformation,

he did so with the clear knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ with

its doctrine of justification by grace and faith alone was at stake and

in need of defense. "By these spirits," said he, "the devil does not

intend to rob us of the Law, but of Christ, who fulfilled the Law." (St.

L. 20, 1614; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 279; Frank 2, 268. 325.)

With the same interest in view, to save the Gospel from corruption, the

_Formula of Concord_ opposes antinomianism and urges that the

distinction between the Law and the Gospel be carefully preserved. The

opening paragraph of Article V, "Of the Law and the Gospel," reads: "As

the distinction between the Law and Gospel _is a special brilliant

light_ which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided,

and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly

explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order

that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a Law

be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and

troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise

have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity,

and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials

against the terrors of the Law." (951, 1.) The concluding paragraph of

this article declares that the proper distinction between the Law and

the Gospel must be preserved, "in order that both doctrines, that of the

Law and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one

another, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other,

_whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the

Gospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law_, as has occurred in

the Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which

they have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is

again opened in the Church of God to the Papacy." (961, 27.) The blessed

Gospel, our only comfort and consolation against the terrors of the Law,

will be corrupted wherever the Law and the Gospel are not properly

distinguished,--such, then, was the view also of the _Formula of

Concord_.

Articles V and VI of the _Formula_ treat and dispose of the issues

raised by the Antinomians. In both Luther's doctrine is maintained and

reaffirmed. Article V, "Of the Law and Gospel," teaches that, in the

proper sense of the term, everything is Law that reveals and rebukes

sin, the sin of unbelief in Christ and the Gospel included; that Gospel,

in the proper and narrow sense, is nothing but a proclamation and

preaching of grace and forgiveness of sin, that, accordingly, the Law as

well as the Gospel are needed and must be retained and preached in the

Church. This was precisely what Luther had taught. In one of his theses

against Agricola he says: "Whatever discloses sin, wrath, or death

exercises the office of the Law; Law and the disclosing of sin or the

revelation of wrath are convertible terms. _Quidquid ostendit peccatum,

iram seu mortem, id exercet officium legis; lex et ostensio peccati seu

revelatio irae sunt termini convertibiles_." Article VI "Of the Third

Use of the Law," teaches that although Christians, in as far as they are

regenerate, do the will of God spontaneously, the Law must nevertheless

be preached to them on account of their Old Adam, not only as a mirror

revealing their sins and as a check on the lusts of the flesh, but also

as a rule of their lives. This, too, is precisely what Luther had

maintained against Agricola: "The Law," said he, "must be retained [in

the Church], that the saints may know which are the works God requires."

(Drews, _Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers_, 418; _Herzog R._ I, 588;

Frank 2, 272; Tschackert, 482.)

184. Agricola Breeding Trouble.

In the Lutheran Church antinomianism appeared in a double form: one

chiefly before the other after the death of Luther. The first of these

conflicts was originated by Agricola who spoke most contemptuously and

disparagingly of the Law of God, teaching, in particular, that true

knowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, but

by the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no use

whatever for the Law of God. After Luther's death similar antinomistic

errors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg,

who maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, but

by the Gospel. Poach, Otto, and others denied that, with respect to good

works, the Law was of any service whatever to Christians after their

conversion.

Barring Carlstadt and similar spirits, John Agricola (Schnitter,

Kornschneider, Magister Islebius--Luther called him Grickel) was the

first to strike a discordant note and breed trouble within the Lutheran

Church. Born April 20, 1492, at Eisleben, he studied at Leipzig, and

from 1515 to 1516 at Wittenberg. Here he became an enthusiastic

adherent and a close friend of Luther and also of Melanchthon, after the

latter's arrival in 1518. In 1539 Luther himself declared that Agricola

had been "one of his best and closest friends." (St. L. 20, 1612.) In

1519 he accompanied both to the great debate in Leipzig. In 1525 he

became teacher of the Latin school and though never ordained, pastor of

the church in Eisleben. Being a speaker of some renown he was frequently

engaged by the Elector of Saxony, especially on his journeys--to Speyer

1526 and 1529, to Augsburg 1530, to Vienna 1535. At Eisleben, Agricola

was active also in a literary way, publishing sermons, a catechism, and,

1526, a famous collection of 300 German proverbs (the Wittenberg edition

of 1592 contains 750 proverbs).

When the new theological professorship created 1526 at Wittenberg was

given to Melanchthon, Agricola felt slighted and much disappointed. In

the following year he made his first antinomian attack upon Melanchthon.

The dispute was settled by Luther, but only for a time. In 1536

Agricola, through the influence of Luther (whose hospitality also he and

his large family on their arrival in Wittenberg enjoyed for more than

six weeks), received an appointment at the university. He rewarded his

generous friend with intrigues and repeated renewals of the antinomian

quarrels, now directing his attacks also against his benefactor. By 1540

matters had come to such a pass that the Elector felt constrained to

institute a formal trial against the secret plotter, which Agricola

escaped only by accepting a call of Joachim II as courtpreacher and

superintendent at Berlin. After Luther's death, Agricola, as described

in a preceding chapter, degraded and discredited himself by helping

Pflug and Sidonius to prepare the Augsburg Interim (1547), and by

endeavoring to enforce this infamous document in Brandenburg. He died

September 22, 1566.

Vanity, ambition, conceit, insincerity, impudence, arrogance, and

ungratefulness were the outstanding traits of Agricola's character.

Luther said that Agricola, swelled with vanity and ambition, was more

vexatious to him than any pope; that he was fit only for the profession

of a jester, etc. December 6, 1540, Luther wrote to Jacob Stratner,

courtpreacher in Berlin: "Master Grickel is not, nor ever will be, the

man that he may appear, or the Margrave may consider him to be. For if

you wish to know what vanity itself is you can recognize it in no surer

image than that of Eisleben. _Si enim velis scire, quidnam ipsa vanitas

sit, nulla certiore imagine cognosces quam Islebii._" (St. L. 21b,

2536.) Flacius reports that shortly before Luther's death, when some

endeavored to excuse Agricola, the former answered angrily: "Why

endeavor to excuse Eisleben? Eisleben is incited by the devil, who has

taken possession of him entirely. You will see what a stir he will make

after my death! _Ihr werdet wohl erfahren, was er nach meinem Tod fuer

einen Laerm wird anrichten!_" (Preger 1, 119.)

185. Agricola's Conflict with Melanchthon.

The antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the

Law, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law and

its preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as early

as 1525. In his _Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke_ of that year he

had written: "The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit.

All those who are occupied with Moses are bound to go to the devil. To

the gallows with Moses!" (Tschackert 481; _Herzog R._ 1, 688; E. 4,

423.) The public dispute began two years later when Agricola criticized

Melanchthon because in the latter's "Instructions to the Visitors of the

Churches of Saxony" (Articles of Visitation, _Articuli, de quibus

Egerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxionae_, 1527) the ministers were

urged first to preach the Law to their spiritually callous people in

order to produce repentance (contrition), and thus to prepare them for

saving faith in the Gospel the only source of truly good works.

Melanchthon had written: "Pastors must follow the example of Christ.

Since He taught repentance and remission of sins, pastors also must

teach these to their churches. At present it is common to vociferate

concerning faith, and yet one cannot understand what faith is, unless

repentance is preached. Plainly they pour new wine into old bottles who

preach faith without repentance, without the doctrine of the fear of

God, without the doctrine of the Law, and accustom the people to a

certain carnal security, which is worse than all former errors under the

Pope have been." (_C. R._ 26, 9.) Agricola considered these and similar

exhortations of Melanchthon unfriendly and Romanizing, and published his

dissent in his _130 Questions for Young Children_, where he displayed a

shocking contempt for the Old Testament and the Law of God. In

particular, he stressed the doctrine that genuine repentance

(contrition) is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only. In

letters to his friends, Agricola at the same time charged Melanchthon

with corrupting the evangelical doctrine. (Frank 2, 252.)

At a meeting held at Torgau, November 26 to 28, 1527, the differences

were discussed by Agricola and Melanchthon in the presence of Luther and

Bugenhagen. The exact issue was: Does faith presuppose contrition?

Melanchthon affirmed the question, and Agricola denied it. Luther

finally effected an agreement by distinguishing between general and

justifying faith, and by explaining that repentance (contrition),

indeed, presupposes a general faith in God, but that justifying faith

presupposes the terrors of conscience (contrition) wrought by the Law.

His decision ran "that the term faith should be applied to justifying

faith which consoles us in these terrors [produced by the threats of the

Law] but that the word repentance correctly includes a general faith,"

_viz._, that there is a God who threatens transgressors, etc. (_C. R._

1, 916.)

In agreement herewith Melanchthon wrote in the German _Unterricht der

Visitatoren_, published 1528 at Wittenberg, that, in the wider and more

general sense, the term "faith" embraces contrition and the Law, but

that in the interest of the common people the word "faith" should be

reserved for the special Christian or justifying faith in Christ. We

read: "Denn wiewohl etliche achten, man solle nichts lehren vor dem

Glauben, sondern die Busse aus und nach dem Glauben folgend lehren, auf

dass die Widersacher [Papisten] nicht sagen moegen, man widerrufe unsere

vorige Lehre, so ist aber doch anzusehen, weil [dass] die Busse und

Gesetz auch zu dem gemeinen Glauben gehoeren. Denn man muss ja zuvor

glauben, dass Gott sei, der da drohe, gebiete, schrecke usw. So sei es

fuer den gemeinen, groben Mann, dass man solche Stuecke des Glaubens

lasse bleiben unter dem Namen Busse, Gebot, Gesetz, Furcht usw., auf

dass sie desto unterschiedlicher den Glauben Christi verstehen, welchen

die Apostel _iustificantem fidem_, das ist, der da gerecht macht und

Suende vertilgt, nennen, welches der Glaube von dem Gebot und Busse

nicht tut und doch der gemeine Mann ueber dem Wort Glauben irre wird und

Fragen aufbringt ohne Nutzen." (_C. R._ 26, 51f.)

186. Luther's First Disputation against the Antinomians.

At Wittenberg, in 1537, Agricola renewed his antinomianism by secretly

and anonymously circulating a number of propositions (_Positiones inter

Fratres Sparsae_) directed against both Luther and Melanchthon, whom he

branded as "contortors of the words of Christ," urging all to resist

them in order to preserve the pure doctrine. Quotations from Luther and

Melanchthon were appended to the theses in order to show that their

teaching concerning the "mode of justification (_modus

iustificationis_)" was sometimes "pure," sometimes "impure." Agricola

wrote: "Impure [among the statements of Melanchthon and Luther] are: 1.

In the _Saxon Visitation:_ 'Since Christ commands that repentance and

remission of sins is to be preached in His name, hence the Decalog is

to be taught,' 2. Again ... 'As the Gospel therefore teaches that the

Law has been given to humiliate us, in order that we may seek Christ,'

etc. 3. In his _Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians_ Luther says

that it is the office of the Law to torment and to terrify the

conscience, that it may know Christ more readily. Many similar passages

are found in this commentary, which we reject as false, in order to

maintain the purity of the doctrine." (E., v. a. 4, 422f.; St. L. 20,

1627.)

Luther answered by publishing, December 1, 1537, the theses of Agricola

together with _Other Antinomian Articles (Alii Articuli Antinomi)_,

compiled from written and verbal expressions of Agricola and his

followers. In his introductory remarks Luther not only disowned and

emphatically condemned (_nos ab eiusmodi portentis prorsus abhorrere_)

Agricola's _Positiones inter Fratres Sparsae_, but also announced a

number of disputations against antinomianism. (E. 4, 420.) The first was

held December 18, 1537, in which Luther maintained: Contrition is

wrought by the preaching of the Law; but a man is able to make a good

resolution and to hate sin out of love toward God only after the Gospel

has comforted his alarmed conscience.

Following are some of the 39 theses discussed by Luther in his first

disputation against the Antinomians: "4. The first part of repentance,

contrition, is [wrought] by the Law alone. The other part, the good

purpose, cannot be [wrought] by the Law. 24. And they [the Antinomians]

teach perniciously that the Law of God is simply to be removed from the

church, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. 25. For the entire

Scripture teaches that repentance must begin from the Law, which also

the order of the matter itself as well as experience shows. 31.

Necessarily, then, sin and death cannot be revealed by the Word of Grace

and Solace, but by the Law. 32. Experience teaches that Adam is first

reproved as a transgressor of the Law and afterwards cheered by the

promised Seed of the woman. 33. Also David is first killed by the Law

through Nathan, saying: 'Thou art the man,' etc.--afterwards he is saved

by the Gospel, declaring: 'Thou shalt not die,' etc. [2 Sam. 12, 7. 13.]

34. Paul, prostrated by the Law, first hears: 'Why persecutest thou Me?'

Afterwards he is revived by the Gospel: 'Arise,' etc. [Acts 9, 4. 6.]

35. And Christ Himself says, Mark 1, 15: 'Repent ye and believe the

Gospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand.' 36. Again: 'Repentance and

remission of sins should be preached in His name,' [Luke 24, 47.] 37.

Likewise the Spirit first reproves the world of sin, in order to teach

faith in Christ, _i.e._, forgiveness of sin. [John 16, 8.] 38. In the

Epistle to the Romans Paul observes this method, first to teach that all

are sinners, and thereupon, that they are to be justified solely through

Christ." (Drews, 253ff.; St. L. 20, 1628ff.)

187. Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians.

Since Agricola did not appear at the first public disputation against

the Antinomians, moreover secretly [_"im Winkel"_] continued his

opposition and intrigues, Luther insisted that his privilege of

lecturing at the university be withdrawn. Thus brought to terms

Agricola, through his wife, sued for reconciliation. Luther demanded a

retraction to be made at his next disputation, which was held January

12, 1538. (Drews, 248. 334f.; _C. R._ 25, 64; 3, 482f.) Here Luther

explained that, though not necessary to justification, the Law must not

be cast out of the church, its chief object being to reveal the guilt of

sin; moreover, that the Law must be taught to maintain outward

discipline, to reveal sin, and to show Christians what works are

pleasing to God. (Drews, 418.)

Following are some of the 48 theses discussed by Luther in his second

disputation: "3. When treating of justification, one cannot say too much

against the inability of the Law [to save] and against the most

pernicious trust in the Law. 4. For the Law was not given to justify or

vivify or help in any way toward righteousness. 5. But to reveal sin and

work wrath, _i.e._, to render the conscience guilty. [Rom. 3, 20; 4,

15.] 8. In brief, as far as heaven is from the earth, so far must the

Law be separated from justification. 9. And nothing is to be taught,

said, or thought in the matter of justification but only the word of the

grace exhibited in Christ. 10. From this, however, it does not follow

that the Law is to be abolished and excluded from the preaching of [done

in] the church. 11. Indeed, just for the reason that not only is it not

necessary to justification, but also cannot effect it, it is the more

necessary to teach and urge it. 12. In order that man, who is proud and

trusts in his own powers, may be instructed that he cannot be justified

by the Law. 18. Whatever reveals sin, wrath, or death exercises the

office of the Law, whether it be in the Old or in the New Testament. 19.

For to reveal sin is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, than the

Law or an effect and the peculiar power of the Law. 20. Law and

revelation of sin or of wrath are convertible terms. 24. So that it is

impossible for sin to be, or to be known, without the Law written or

inscribed [in the heart]. 27. And since the Law of God requires our

obedience toward God, these Antinomians (_nomomachi_) abolish also

obedience toward God. 28. From this it is manifest that Satan through

these his instruments teaches about sin, repentance, and Christ in words

only (_verbaliter tantum_). 29. But in reality he takes away Christ,

repentance, sin, and the entire Scripture, together with God, its

Author. 46. For the Law, as it was before Christ, did indeed accuse us;

but under Christ it is appeased through the forgiveness of sins, and

thereafter it is to be fulfilled through the Spirit. 47. Therefore the

Law will never, in all eternity, be abolished, but will remain, either

to be fulfilled by the damned, or already fulfilled by the blessed. 48.

These pupils of the devil however, seem to think that the Law is

temporary only, which ceased under Christ even as circumcision did."

(Drews, 336ff.; St. L. 20, 1632ff.)

Following is a summary of the views expressed by Luther in his second

disputation: "Why is the Law to be taught? The Law is to be taught on

account of discipline, according to the word of Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: 'The

Law is made for the lawless,' and that by this pedagogy men might come

to Christ as Paul says to the Galatians (3, 24): 'The Law was our

schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,' In the second place, the Law is to

be taught to reveal sin, to accuse, terrify, and damn the consciences,

Rom. 3, 20: 'By the Law is the knowledge of sin;' again, chapter 4, 15:

'The Law worketh wrath,' In the third place, the Law is to be retained

that the saints may know what kind of works God requires in which they

may exercise their obedience toward God. _Lex est retinenda, ut sciant

sancti, quaenam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam exercere erga

Deum possint._" (Drews, 418; _Herzog R_. 1, 688.)

188. Third and Fourth Series of Luther's Theses against Antinomianism.

Having complied with the conditions, and publicly (also in two sermons

delivered April 23) retracted his error, and declared his assent to the

views expressed in Luther's second disputation, Agricola was again

permitted to preach and teach. As a result, Luther also, though he had

no faith in the sincerity of Agricola's retraction, did not carry out

his original plan of discussing a third and fourth series of theses

which he had prepared against antinomianism. (Drews, 419ff.; E. 4,

430ff.)

From the third series, comprising 40 theses, we quote the following: "1.

The repentance of the Papists, Turks, Jews, and of all unbelievers and

hypocrites is alike in every respect. 2. It consists in this, that they

are sorry and make satisfaction for one or several sins, and afterwards

are secure as to other sins or original sin. 5. The repentance of

believers in Christ goes beyond the actual sins, and continues

throughout life, till death. 8. For the sin in our flesh remains during

the entire time of our life, warring against the Spirit, who resists it.

[Rom. 7, 23.] 9. Therefore all works after justification are nothing

else than a continuous repentance, or a good purpose against sin. 10.

For nothing else is done than that sin, revealed by the Law and forgiven

in Christ, is swept out. 17. The Lord's Prayer, taught by the Lord

Himself to the saints and believers, is a part of repentance, containing

much of the doctrine of the Law. 18. For whoever prays it aright

confesses with his own mouth that he sins against the Law and repents.

27. Therefore also the Lord's Prayer itself teaches that the Law is

before, below, and after the Gospel (_legem esse ante, sub et post

evangelium_), and that from it repentance must begin. 30. From this it

follows that these enemies of the Law [Antinomians] must abolish also

the Lord's Prayer if they abolish the Law. 31. Indeed, they are

compelled to expunge the greatest part of the sermons of Christ Himself

from the Gospel-story. 32. For Matt. 5, 17ff. He does not only recite

the Law of Moses, but explains it perfectly, and teaches that it must

not be destroyed. 34. Everywhere throughout the Gospel He also reproves,

rebukes, threatens, and exercises similar offices of the Law. 35. So

that there never has been nor ever will be more impudent men than those

who teach that the Law should be abolished." (St. L. 20, 1636ff.; E. 4,

430ff.)

From the fourth series of 41 theses directed by Luther against the

Antinomians we quote: "12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine of

the Papists concerning repentance as of hell and the devil himself. 13.

Much more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whatever

in the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught in

reality simply wish that there be no repentance. 15. The argument:

'Whatever is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning,

nor in the middle, nor in the end, must not be taught,' etc., amounts to

nothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth that

man is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in the

beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not be

taught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders,

adulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence such

things must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing toward

justification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolished

and not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without the

Law' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without the

assistance of the Law,' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demands

fulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faith

in Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works,

without the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good works

follow spontaneously, without the Law, _i.e._, without the help or

coercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nor

necessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less for

salvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvation

are necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to save

that which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the restitution of all

things, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is not

destroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become such

as he was, and even better." (St. L. 20. 1639ff.; E. 4. 433.)

189. Luther's Third Public Disputation against the Antinomians.

Soon after his second disputation Luther obtained evidence of Agricola's

relapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was another

disputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, in

which Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled their

hearers into carnal security. He also explained that the passages culled

from his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hence

misinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressed

to consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of the

consolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them to

secure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifying

power of the Law. (Drews, 421f.; Tschackert, 482.)

From the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submit

the following: "1. The Law has dominion over man as long as he lives.

[Rom. 7, 1.] 2. But he is freed from the Law when he dies. 3.

Necessarily, therefore, man must die if he would be free from the Law.

7. These three: Law, sin, and death, are inseparable. 8. Accordingly so

far as death is still in man, in so far sin and the Law are in man. 9.

Indeed, in Christ the Law is fulfilled, sin abolished, and death

destroyed. 11. That is, when, through faith we are crucified and have

died in Christ, such things [the Law fulfilled, sin abolished, and death

destroyed] are true also in us. 13. But the fact itself and experience

testify that the just are still daily delivered to death. 14.

Necessarily, therefore, in as far as they are under death, they are

still also under the Law and sin. 15. They [the Antinomians] are

altogether inexperienced men and deceivers of souls who endeavor to

abolish the Law from the church. 16. For this is not only foolish and

wicked, but also absolutely impossible. 17. For if you would abolish the

Law, you will be compelled to abolish also sin and death. 18. For death

and sin are present by virtue of the Law, as Paul says [2 Cor. 3, 6]:

'The letter killeth,' and [1 Cor. 15, 56]: 'The strength of sin is the

Law,' 19. But since you see that the just die daily what a folly is it

to imagine that they are without the Law! 20. For if there were no Law,

there would be neither sin nor death. 21. Hence they should have first

proved that the just are altogether without sin and death. 22. Or that

they no longer live in the flesh, but are removed from the world. 23.

Then it might justly be taught that also the Law is altogether removed

from them and must not be taught in any way. 24. This they cannot prove,

but experience itself shows the contrary to their very faces. 25. So,

then, the impudence of the teachers who wish to remove the Law from the

church is extraordinary. 26. Yet it is a much greater impudence, or

rather insanity, when they assert that even the wicked should be freed

from the Law, and that it should not be preached to them. 29. If,

however, they pretend that their church or their hearers simply are all

pious men and Christians, without the Law, 30. Then it is evident that

they are altogether of unsound mind and do not know what they say or

affirm. 31. For this is nothing else than to imagine that all their

hearers have been removed from this life. 35. Thus it [the Law] is also

given to the pious, in so far as they are not yet dead and still live in

the flesh. 40. Now, in as far as Christ is raised in us, in so far we

are without Law, sin, and death. 41. But in as far as He is not yet

raised in us, in so far we are under the Law, sin, and death. 42.

Therefore the Law (as also the Gospel) must be preached, without

discrimination, to the righteous as well as to the wicked. 44. To the

pious, that they may thereby be reminded to crucify their flesh with its

affections and lusts, lest they become secure. [Gal. 5, 24.] 45. For

security abolishes faith and the fear of God, and renders the latter end

worse than the beginning. [2 Pet. 2, 20.] 46. It appears very clearly

that the Antinomians imagine sin to have been removed through Christ

essentially and philosophically or juridically (_formaliter et

philosophice seu iuridice_) 47. And that they do not at all know that

sin is removed only inasmuch as the merciful God does not impute it [Ps.

32, 2], and forgives it (_solum reputatione et ignoscentia Dei

miserentis_). 61. For if the Law is removed, no one knows what Christ

is, or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. 66. The doctrine of

the Law, therefore, is necessary in the churches, and by all means is to

be retained, as without it Christ cannot be retained. 67. For what will

you retain of Christ when (the Law having been removed which He

fulfilled) you do not know what He has fulfilled? 69. In brief, to

remove the Law and to let sin and death remain, is to hide the disease

of sin and death to men unto their perdition. 70. When death and sin are

abolished (as was done by Christ), then the Law would be removed

happily; moreover, it would be established, Rom. 3, 31." (Drews 423ff.;

St. L. 20, 1642ff.; E. 4, 436ff.)

190. Agricola's Retraction Written and Published by Luther.

Seeing his position in the Wittenberg University endangered, Agricola

was again ready to submit. And when a public retraction was demanded, he

even left it to Luther to formulate the recantation. Luther did so in a

public letter to Caspar Guettel in Eisleben, entitled, _Against the

Antinomians--Wider die Antinomer_, which he published in the beginning

of January, 1539. (St. L. 20, 1610.) In a crushing manner Luther here

denounced "the specter of the new spirits who dare thrust the Law or the

Ten Commandments out of the church and relegate it to the courthouse."

Complaining of "false brethren," Luther here says: "And I fear that, if

I had died at Smalcald [1537], I should forever have been called the

patron of such [antinomian] spirits, because they appeal to my books.

And all this they do behind my back, without my knowledge and against

my will, not even considering it worth while to inform me with as much

as a word or syllable, or at least to ask me regarding the matter. Thus

I am compelled to proceed against Magister John Agricola," etc. (1611.)

"But since he was afraid that he might not express it in a manner such

as would be considered satisfactory, he has fully authorized and also

requested me to do it [write the retraction for Agricola] as well as I

could, which, he being satisfied, I agreed to do, and herewith have

done, especially for the reason that after my death neither Master

Eisleben himself nor anybody else might be able to pretend that I had

done nothing in this matter and simply allowed everything to pass and go

on as fully satisfactory to me." (1612.)

Referring to his former statements appealed to by Agricola, Luther

continues: "I have indeed taught, and still teach, that sinners should

be led to repentance by the preaching of, and meditation upon, the

suffering of Christ, so that they may realize how great God's wrath is

over sin, seeing that there is no other help against it than that God's

Son must die for it.... But how does it follow from this that the Law

must be abandoned? I am unable to discover such an inference in my

logic, and would like to see and hear the master who would be able to

prove it. When Isaiah says, chap. 53, 8: 'For the transgression of My

people was He stricken,' tell me, dear friend, is the Law abandoned

when here the suffering of Christ is preached? What does 'for the

transgression of My people' mean? Does it not mean: because My people

have sinned against, and not kept, My Law? Or can any one imagine that

sin is something where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the Law must

with it also abolish sins. If he would allow sins to remain, he must

much more allow the Law to remain. For Rom. 6, 13 [4, 15] we read:

'Sin is not imputed where there is no law.' If there is no sin Christ

is nothing. For why does He die if there be neither Law nor sin for

which He was to die? From this we see that by this spiritism

[_Geisterei_] the devil does not mean to take away the Law, but Christ,

who fulfilled the Law. [Matt. 5, 17.] For he well knows that Christ may

well and easily be taken away, but not so the Law, which is written in

the heart." (1613f.) "Therefore I request of you, my dear Doctor

[Guettel], that, as you have done heretofore, you would continue in the

pure doctrine and preach that sinners should and must be led to

repentance not only by the sweet grace and suffering of Christ, who has

died for us, but also by the terrors of the Law." (1615.) "For whence

do we know what sin is if there is no Law and conscience? And whence

shall we learn what Christ is, what He has done for us, if we are not

to know what the Law is which He has fulfilled for us, or what sin is,

for which He has atoned? And even if we did not need the Law for us and

were able to tear it out of our hearts (which is impossible), we

nevertheless must preach it for the sake of Christ (as also is done and

must be done), in order that we may know what He has done and suffered

for us. For who could know what and for what purpose Christ has suffered

for us if no one were to know what sin or the Law is? Therefore the Law

must certainly be preached if we would preach Christ." (1616.) "This,

too, is a peculiar blindness and folly, that they imagine the revelation

of wrath to be something else than the Law (which is impossible); for

the revelation of wrath is the Law when realized and felt, as Paul says

[Rom. 4, 15]: '_Lex iram operatur_. The Law worketh wrath.'" (1618.)

By way of conclusion Luther remarked: "Let this suffice at present, for

I hope that since Master Eisleben is converted and retracts, the others,

too, who received it [the antinomian error] from him, will abandon it,

which God may help them to do! Amen." (1619.) At the same time, however

he did not withhold the opinion that Agricola's self humiliation would

hardly be of long duration. "If he continues in such humility," said

Luther, "God certainly can and will exalt him; if he abandons it, then

God is able to hurl him down again." (1612.)

191. Luther's Fourth Disputation against the Antinomians.

Luther's distrust was not unfounded, for Agricola continued secretly to

teach his antinomianism, abetted in his sentiments among others also by

Jacob Schenck [since 1536 first Lutheran pastor in Freiberg, Saxony;

1538 dismissed on account of his antinomianism 1540 professor in

Leipzig; later on deposed and finally banished from Saxony]. Indeed in

March, 1540, Agricola even lodged a complaint with the Elector, charging

Luther with "calumnies." In the first part of the following month Luther

answered these charges in a _Report to Doctor Brueck Concerning Magister

John Eisleben's Doctrine and Intrigues_. (St. L. 20, 1648ff.) About the

same time; Count Albrecht of Mansfeld denounced Agricola to the Elector

as a dangerous, troublesome man. Hereupon the Elector on June 15 1540,

opened formal legal proceedings against Agricola, who, as stated above,

removed to Berlin in August without awaiting the trial, although he had

promised with an oath not to leave before a legal decision had been

rendered. (Drews, 611.) Incensed by the treacherous conduct of Agricola,

Luther, September 10, 1540, held a final disputation on a sixth series

of theses against the Antinomians, charging them with destroying all

order human as well as divine. (St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)

Regarding Agricola's duplicity, Luther, in his _Report_ to Brueck, said

in substance: According to the statements of Caspar Guettel and

Wendelin Faber, Agricola had for years secretly agitated against the

Wittenbergers and founded a sect at Eisleben calling themselves

Minorish [Minorists]; he had branded and slandered their doctrine as

false and impure, and this, too, without conferring with them or

previously admonishing them; he had come to Wittenberg for the purpose

of corrupting and distracting the Church; his adherents had made the

statement that Eisleben would teach the Wittenbergers theology and

logic; he had inveigled Hans Lufft into printing his Postil by falsely

stating that it had been read and approved by Luther; in his dealings

with the Wittenbergers he had acted not as an honest man, let alone a

pious Christian and theologian, but treacherously and in keeping with

his antinomian principles; parading as a loyal Lutheran at public

conventions and laughing and dining with them, he had misled "his old,

faithful friend" [Luther] to confide in him, while secretly he was

acting the traitor by maligning him and undermining his work. In the

_Report_ we read: "Agricola blasphemes and damns our doctrine as impure

and false (_i.e._, the Holy Spirit Himself in His holy Law); he slanders

and defames us Wittenbergers most infamously wherever he can; and all

this he does treacherously and secretly, although we have done him no

harm, but only did well by him, as he himself must admit. He deceives

and attacks us [me], his best friend and father, making me believe that

he is our true friend. Nor does he warn me, but, like a desperate

treacherous villain, secretly works behind our back to cause the people

to forsake our doctrine and to adhere to him, thus treating us with an

ungratefulness, pride, and haughtiness such as I have not frequently met

with before." (1656.)

In his charge against Luther, Agricola had said that it was dangerous to

preach the Law without the Gospel, because it was a ministry of death

(_ministerium mortis_). Luther answered in his _Report_ to Brueck:

"Behold now what the mad fool does. God has given His Law for the very

purpose that it should bite, cut, strike, kill, and sacrifice the old

man. For it should terrify and punish the proud ignorant, secure Old

Adam and show him his sin and death, so that, being humiliated, he may

despair of himself, and thus become desirous of grace, as St. Paul says:

'The strength of sin is the Law; the sting of death is sin,'[1 Cor. 15,

56.] For this reason he also calls it _bonam, iustam, sanctam_--good,

just, holy. Again, Jeremiah [23, 29]: 'My Word is like a hammer that

breaketh the rock to pieces.' Again: '_Ego ignis consumens_, etc.--I am

a consuming fire,' Ps. 9, 21 [20]: '_Constitue legislatorem super eos,

ut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes_--Put them

in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men.'

Thus St. Paul does Rom. 1 and 2 and 3 making all the world sinners by

the Law, casting them under the wrath of God, and entirely killing them

before God. But here our dear Master Grickel appears on the scene and

invents a new theology out of his own mad and reckless fool's head and

teaches: One must not kill and reprove the people, _i.e._, one must not

preach the Law. Here he himself confesses publicly in his suit [against

Luther] that he has condemned and prohibited the preaching of the Law."

(St. L. 20, 1657.)

The _Report_ continues: "Since, now, the little angry devil who rides

Master Grickel will not tolerate the Law, _i.e., mortificantem,

irascentem, accusantem, terrentem, occidentem legem_,--the mortifying,

raging, accusing, terrifying, killing Law,--it is quite evident what he

intends to do through Master Grickel's folly (for he nevertheless wishes

to be praised as preaching the Law after and under the Gospel, etc.),

_viz._, to hide original sin and to teach the Law no further than

against future actual sins, for such is the manner of his entire Postil;

even as the Turks, Jews, philosophers, and Papists teach who regard our

nature as sound; but Master Grickel does not see that it is just this

which his little spirit [devil] aims at by his bragging and boasting,

that he, too, is preaching the Law.... Thus Christ and God are

altogether vain and lost. And is not this blindness beyond all blindness

that he does not want to preach the Law without and before the Gospel?

For are these not impossible things? How is it possible to preach of

forgiveness of sins if previously there have been no sins? How can one

proclaim life if previously there is no death? Are we to preach to

angels who have neither sin nor death concerning forgiveness of sins

and redemption from death? But how can one preach of sins or know that

there are sins, if the Law does not reveal them? For according to its

proper office the Gospel does not say who [is a sinner] and what is sin;

it does, however, indicate that there must be some great hurt, since so

great a remedy is required; but it does not say how the sin is called,

or what it is. The Law must do this. Thus Master Eisleben must in fact

(_re ipsa_) allow the Law to perform its duty (_occidere_, to kill,

etc.) prior to the [preaching of the] Gospel, no matter how decidedly

he, with words only, denies it, to spite the Wittenbergers, in order

that he also, as _novus autor_ (new author), may produce something of

his own and confuse the people and separate the churches." (1658.)

From the 20 theses which Luther treated in his last disputation against

the Antinomians we cull the following: "1. The inference of St. Paul:

'For where no law is there is no transgression' [Rom. 4, 15] is valid

not only theologically, but also politically and naturally (_non solum

theologice, sed etiam politice et naturaliter_). 2. Likewise this too:

Where there is no sin, there is neither punishment nor remission. 3.

Likewise this too: Where there is neither punishment nor remission,

there is neither wrath nor grace. 4. Likewise this too: Where there is

neither wrath nor grace, there is neither divine nor human government.

5. Likewise this too: Where there is neither divine nor human

government, there is neither God nor man. 6. Likewise this too: Where

there is neither God nor man, there is nothing except perhaps the devil.

7. Hence it is that the Antinomians, the enemies of the Law, evidently

are either devils themselves or the brothers of the devil. 8. It avails

the Antinomians nothing to boast that they teach very much of God,

Christ, grace, Law, etc. 10. This confession of the Antinomians is like

the one when the devils cried: 'Thou art the Son of the living God,'

[Luke 4, 34; 8, 28.] 12. Whoever denies that the damning Law must be

taught in reality simply denies the Law. 14. A law which does not damn

is an imagined and painted law as the chimera or tragelaphus. 15. Nor is

the political or natural law anything unless it damns and terrifies

sinners Rom. 13, 1. 5; 1 Pet. 2, 13ff. 17. What the Antinomians say

concerning God, Christ, faith, Law, grace, etc., they say without any

meaning as the parrot says its '_chaire_, Good day!' 18. Hence it is

impossible to learn theology or civil polity (_theologiam aut politiam_)

from the Antinomians. 19. Therefore they must be avoided as most

pestilential teachers of licentious living who permit the perpetration

of all crimes. 20. For they serve not Christ, but their own belly [Rom.

16, 18], and, madmen that they are, seek to please men, in order that

from them, as a man's judgment, they may gain glory." (Drews, 613; St.

L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)--Regarding Luther's disputations against the

Antinomians Planck pertinently remarks that they compel admiration for

his clear and penetrating mind, and rank among the very best of his

writings. (1, 18; Frank 2, 311.)

192. "Grickel" Remained Grickel.

At the instance of Elector Joachim, negotiations were begun with Luther,

which finally led to a sort of peaceful settlement. Agricola was

required to send (which he also did) a revocation to the preachers, the

council, and the congregation at Eisleben. However, the new and enlarged

edition (1541) of the catechism which Agricola had published in 1527

revealed the fact that also this last recantation was insincere; for in

it he repeated his antinomistic teaching, though not in the original

defiant manner. Little wonder, then, that despite the formal settlement,

cordial relations were not restored between Luther and Agricola. When

the latter visited Wittenberg in 1545, Luther refused to see the man

whom he regarded incurably dishonest. "Grickel," said he, "will remain

Grickel to all eternity, _Grickel wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickel

bleiben_."

And "Grickel" he did remain; for in 1565 he published a sermon in which

he said: "Every one who is to be appointed as teacher and preacher shall

be asked: What do you intend to teach in the church? He shall answer:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ. But when further asked: What does the Gospel

preach? he shall answer: The Gospel preaches repentance and forgiveness

of sins." Considering this a further evidence that Agricola still

adhered to, and was now ready once more to champion, his old errors, the

preachers of Mansfeld registered their protest in a publication of the

same year. A controversy, however, did not materialize, for Agricola

died the following year. (Planck 5, 1, 47; Frank 2, 267.)

193. False Propositions of Agricola.

Following are some of Agricola's radical statements concerning the Law

and the Gospel. The first thesis of his _Positions_ of 1537 reads:

"Repentance is to be taught not from the Decalog or from any law of

Moses, but from the violation of the Son through the Gospel.

_Poenitentia docenda est non ex decalogo aut ulla lege Mosis, sed ex

violatione Filii per evangelium_." (E. 4. 420.) Thesis 13: "In order to

keep the Christian doctrine pure, we must resist those [Luther and

Melanchthon] who teach that the Gospel must be preached only to such

whose hearts have previously been terrified and broken by the Law.

_Quare pro conservanda puritate doctrinae resistendum est iis, qui

docent, evangelium non praedicandum nisi animis prius quassatis et

contritis per legem_." (421.) Thesis 16: "The Law merely rebukes sin,

and that, too, without the Holy Spirit; hence it rebukes to damnation."

Thesis 17: "But there is need of a doctrine which does not only condemn

with great efficacy, but which saves at the same time; this, however, is

the Gospel, a doctrine which teaches conjointly repentance and remission

of sins." (421.) In his _Brief Summary of the Gospel_, Agricola says:

"In the New Testament and among Christians or in the Gospel we must not

preach the violation of the Law when a man breaks or transgresses the

Law, but the violation of the Son, to wit that he who does not for the

sake of the kingdom of heaven willingly omit what he should omit, and

does not do what he should do, crucifies Christ anew." (St. L. 20,

1622ff.; Frank 2, 313, Gieseler 3, 2, 137; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 265ff.)

A commingling of the Law and Gospel always results in a corruption of

the doctrines of conversion, faith, and justification. Such was the case

also with respect to Agricola, who taught that justification follows a

contrition which flows from, and hence is preceded by, love toward God.

Turning matters topsy-turvy, he taught: Repentance consists in this,

that the heart of man, experiencing the kindness of God which calls us

to Christ and presents us with His grace, turns about, apprehends God's

grace, thanks Him heartily for having spared it so graciously, begins to

repent, and to grieve heartily and sorrowfully on account of its sins,

wishes to abstain from them, and renounces its former sinful life.

"This," says Agricola, "is repentance (_poenitentia, Buessen_) and the

first stage of the new birth, the true breathing and afflation of the

Holy Spirit. After this he acquires a hearty confidence in God,

believing that He will condone his folly and not blame him for it, since

he did not know any better, although he is much ashamed of it and wishes

that it had never happened; he also resolves, since he has fared so

well, never to sin any more or to do anything that might make him

unworthy of the benefit received as if he were ungrateful and forgetful;

he furthermore learns to work out, confirm, and preserve his salvation

in fear and trembling...: this is forgiveness of sins." (Frank 2, 247.)

These confused ideas plainly show that Agricola had a false conception,

not only of the Law and Gospel, but also of original sin, repentance,

faith, regeneration, and justification. Essentially, his was the Roman

doctrine, which makes an antecedent of what in reality is an effect and

a consequence of conversion and justification. Viewed from this angle,

it occasions little surprise that Agricola consented to help formulate

and introduce the Augsburg Interim in which the essentials of

Lutheranism were denied.

194. Poach, Otto, Musculus, Neander.

The antinomistic doctrines rejected, in particular, by Article VI of the

_Formula of Concord_, were represented chiefly by Andrew Poach, Anton

Otto, Andrew Musculus, and Michael Neander. Poach, born 1516, studied

under Luther and was an opponent of the Philippists, he became pastor in

Halle in 1541; in Nordhausen, 1547; in Erfurt, 1550; Uttenbach, near

Jena, 1572, where he died 1585. At Erfurt, Poach was deposed in 1572 on

account of dissensions due to the antinomistic controversies. He signed

the _Book of Concord_.--Otto [Otho; also called Herzberger, because he

was born in Herzberg, 1505] studied under Luther; served as pastor in

Graefenthal, and from 1543 in Nordhausen where he was deposed in 1568

for adherence to Flacius. However, when Otto, while antagonizing

Majorism and synergism, in sermons on the Letter to the Galatians of

1565 rejected the Third Use of the Law, he was opposed also by Flacius,

who reminded him of the fact that here on earth the new man resembles a

child, aye, an embryo, rather than a full-fledged man.

In his zealous opposition to the Majorists, Andrew Musculus (Meusel,

born 1514; studied at Leipzig 1532-1538, then at Wittenberg; became a

zealous and passionate adherent of Luther, whom he considered the

greatest man since the days of the apostles; from 1540 till his death,

September 29, 1581, professor and pastor, later on, General

Superintendent, in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder) also made some extreme

statements. Later on, however, he cooperated in preparing and revising

the _Formula of Concord_. Musculus wrote of Luther: "There is as great a

difference between the dear old teachers and Luther as there is between

the light of the sun and that of the moon; and beyond all doubt, the

ancient fathers, even the best and foremost among them, as Hilary and

Augustine, had they lived contemporaneously with him, would not have

hesitated to deliver the lamp to him, as the saying is." (Meusel,

_Handl_. 4, 709; Richard, 450.)

The most prominent opponents of these Antinomians were the well-known

theologians Moerlin, Flacius, Wigand, and Westphal (chiefly in letters

to Poach). The controversy was carried on with moderation, and without

any special efforts to cause trouble among the people. The main issue

was not--as in the conflict with Agricola--whether the Law is necessary

in order to effect contrition and prepare men for the Gospel, but the

so-called Third Use of the Law (_tertius usus legis_), _i.e._, whether

the Law is, and is intended to be, of service to Christians after their

regeneration; in particular, whether the regenerate still need the Law

with respect to their new obedience.

The conflict with Poach arose from the Majoristic controversy. Dealing

in particular with the aberrations of Menius, the Synod at Eisenach,

1556, adopted seven theses which Menius was required to subscribe. The

first declared: "Although the proposition, Good works are necessary to

salvation, may be tolerated hypothetically and in an abstract way in the

doctrine of the Law (_in doctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari

potest_), nevertheless there are many weighty reasons why it ought and

should be avoided no less than this one: Christ is a creature." (Preger

1, 383.) While Flacius, Wigand, and Moerlin defended the thesis, Amsdorf

(who first, too, adopted it, but later on withdrew his assent; Seeberg

4, 488), Aurifaber, and especially Poach rejected it. This marked the

beginning of the so-called Second Antinomistic Controversy. Poach denied

that the Law has any promise of salvation. Even the most perfect

fulfilment of the Law, said he, is but the fulfilment of a duty which

merits no reward. The only thing one may acquire by a perfect fulfilment

is freedom from guilt and punishment. Fulfilment of our duty (_solutio

debiti_) does not warrant any claim on salvation. Yet Poach was careful

to declare that this did not apply to the fulfilment of the Law which

Christ rendered for us. Why? Poach answered: Because Christ, being the

Son of God, was not obliged to fulfil the Law. When, therefore, He did

fulfil it in our stead, He rendered satisfaction to divine justice, so

that righteousness can now be imputed to us and we become partakers of

eternal life.

Poach wrote: "It would not be correct to say: In the doctrine of the Law

all the works commanded in the Law are necessary to salvation. _In

doctrina legis omnia opera mandata in lege sunt necessaria ad salutem_."

(Schluesselburg 4, 343.) Again: "The works of Christ, which are the

fulfilment of the Law, are the merit of our salvation. Our works, which

ought to have been the fulfilment of the Law, do not merit salvation,

even though they were most perfect, as the Law requires,--which,

however, is impossible. The reason is that we are debtors to the Law.

Christ, however, is not a debtor to the Law. Even if we most perfectly

fulfilled all the commandments of God and completely satisfied the

righteousness of God, we would not be worthy of grace and salvation on

that account, nor would God be obliged to give us grace and salvation as

a debt. He justly demands the fulfilment of His Law from us as obedience

due Him from His creature, which is bound to obey its Creator. _Etiamsi

nos omnia mandata Dei perfectissime impleremus et iustitiae Dei penitus

satisfaceremus, tamen non ideo digni essemus gratia et salute, nec Deus

obligatus esset, ut nobis gratiam et salutem daret ex debito. Sed iure

requirit impletionem legis suae a nobis, ut debitam obedientiam a sua

creatura, quae conditori suo obedire tenetur_." (274.) Again: "The Law

has not the necessity of salvation, but the necessity of obligation

(_non habet lex necessitatem salutis, sed necessitatem debiti_). For, as

said, even though a man would most perfectly do the works of the Law, he

would not obtain salvation on account of these works. Nor is God under

obligation to man, but man is under obligation to God. And in the Law

God requires of man the obedience he owes; He does not require an

obedience with the promise of salvation." (276.)

As to Otto, he distinguished, in a series of Latin theses a double

office of the Law, the ecclesiastical; and political--_officium

ecclesiasticum_ and _officium politicum_. The former is to give

knowledge of sin; the latter, to coerce the old man and maintain order

among the obstinate. He denied that the Law in any way serves Christians

with respect to good works. Otto declared: "The Law is useful and

necessary neither for justification nor for any good works. But faith in

Christ the Mediator alone is useful and necessary both for justification

and the good works themselves. _Lex enim non modo ad iustificationem sed

neque ad ulla bona opera utilis et necessaria est. Sed sola fides in

Christum mediatorem utilis et necessaria est tam ad iustificationem quam

ad ipsa bona opera_." Quoting Luther, he said: "The highest art of

Christians is to know nothing of the Law, to ignore works. _Summa ars

Christianorum est nescire legem, ignorare opera_," _i.e._, in the

article of justification, as Otto did not fail to add by way of

explanation. (Luther, Weimar 40, 1, 43; Tschackert, 485.) Seeberg

remarks that in reality, Poach and Otto were merely opposed to such an

interpretation of the Third Use of the Law as made the Law a motive of

good works, and hence could not be charged with antinomianism proper.

(4, 488f.)

Planck, Frank, and other historians have fathered upon Otto also a

series of radical German theses, which, however, were composed, not by

Otto, but probably by some of his adherents. These theses, in which all

of the errors of Agricola are revamped, were discussed at the Altenburg

colloquy, 1568 to 1569; their author, however, was not mentioned. We

submit the following: "1. The Law does not teach good works, nor should

it be preached in order that we may do good works. 3. Moses knew nothing

of our faith and religion. 5. Evangelical preachers are to preach the

Gospel only, and no Law. 7. A Christian who believes should do

absolutely nothing, neither what is good nor what is evil. 10. We should

pray God that we may remain steadfast in faith till our end, without all

works. 14. The Holy Spirit does not work according to the norm or rule

of the Law, but by Himself, without the assistance of the Law. 16. A

believing Christian is _supra omnem obedientiam_, above all Law and all

obedience. 17. The rebuking sermons of the prophets do not at all

pertain to Christians. 21. The Law, good works, and new obedience have

no place in the kingdom of Christ, but in the world just as Moses and

the government of the Pope. 25. The Law has no place in the Church or in

the pulpit, but in the court-house (_Rathaus_). 28. The Third Use of the

Law is a blasphemy in theology and a monstrosity in the realm of nature

(_portentum in rerum natura_). 29. No man can be saved if the Third Use

of the Law is true and is to be taught in the Church. The Holy Spirit in

man knows nothing of the Law; the flesh, however, is betimes in need of

the Law." (Tschackert, 485; Planck 5, 1, 62.) Frank also quotes: "The

Christians or the regenerate are deified (_vergoettert_); yea, they are

themselves God and cannot sin. God has not given you His Word that you

should be saved thereby (_dass du dadurch sollst selig werden_); and

whoever seeks no more from God than salvation (_Seligkeit_) seeks just

as much as a louse in a scab. Such Christians are the devil's own,

together with all their good works." (2, 326. 275.)

Also Musculus is numbered among the theologians who were not always

sufficiently discreet and guarded in their statements concerning the

necessity of good works and the use of the Law. All expressions of the

Apostle Paul regarding the spiritual use of the Law, said Musculus, must

be understood as referring to such only as are to be justified, not to

those who are justified (_de iustificandis, non de iustificatis_). But

he added: "For these, in as far as they remain in Christ, are far

outside of and above every law. _Hi enim, quatenus in Christo manent,

longe extra et supra omnem legem sunt_." (Tschackert. 486.)

Michael Neander of Ilfeld, a friend of Otto was also suspected of

antinomianism. He denied that there is any relation whatever between the

Law and a regenerate Christian. But he, too, was careful enough to add:

"in as far as he is just or lives by the spirit, _quatenus est iustus

seu spiritu vivit_." In a letter, Neander said: "I adhere to the opinion

that the Law is not given to the just in any use or office whatsoever,

in so far as he is just or lives by the spirit.... 'For the Law,' as

Luther says in his marginal note to Jeremiah, chap. 31, 'is no longer

over us, but under us, and does not surround us any more.' Love rules

and governs all laws, and frequently something is true according to the

Law, but false according to love (_saepeque aliquid lege verum,

dilectione tamen falsum est_). For love is the statute, measure, norm,

and rule of all things on earth.... The Law only accuses and damns, and

apart from this it has no other use or office, _i.e._, the Law remains

the norm of good works to all eternity, also in hell after the Last Day,

but for the unjust and reprobate, and for the flesh in every man. To the

just, regenerated, and new man, however, it is not the norm of good

works, _i.e._, the Law does not govern, regulate, and teach the just

man; _i.e._, it is not active with respect to him as it is with respect

to an unjust man, but is rather regulated and governed and taught by the

just man. It no longer drives the just (as it did before conversion and

as it still drives the flesh), but is now driven and suffers, since as

just men we are no longer under the Law, but above the Law and lords of

the Law. How, therefore, can the Law be a norm to the just man when he

is the lord of the Law, commands the Law, and frequently does what is

contrary to the Law (_cum iustus legis sit dominus, legi imperet et

saepe legi contraria faciat_)?... When the just man meditates in the Law

of the Lord day and night, when he establishes the Law by faith, when he

loves the Law and admires the inexhaustible wisdom of the divine Law,

when he does good works written and prescribed in the Law (as indeed he

alone can), when he uses the Law aright,--all these are neither the

third, nor the fourth, nor the twelfth, nor the fiftieth use or office

of the Law,... but fruits of faith, of the Spirit, or regeneration....

But the Old Man, who is not yet new, or a part of him which is not as

yet regenerated, has need of this Law, and he is to be commanded: 'Put

on the new man; put off the old.'" (Schluesselburg 4, 61; Tschackert,

484.)

195. Melanchthon and the Philippists.

A further controversy concerning the proper distinction between the Law

and the Gospel was caused by the Philippists in Wittenberg whose

teaching was somewhat akin to that of Agricola. They held that the

Gospel, in the narrow sense of the term, and as distinguished from the

Law, is "the most powerful preaching of repentance." (Frank 2, 327.)

Taking his cue from Luther, Melanchthon, in his _Loci_ of 1521 as well

as in later writings, clearly distinguished between Law and Gospel. (_C.

R._ 21, 139; 23, 49; 12, 576.) True, he had taught, also in the

_Apology_, that, in the wider sense, the Gospel is both a preaching of

repentance and forgiveness of sin. But this, as the _Formula of Concord_

explains, was perfectly correct and in keeping with the Scriptures.

However, in repeating the statement that the Gospel embraces both the

preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins, Melanchthon was not

always sufficiently careful to preclude misapprehension and

misunderstanding. Indeed, some of the statements he made after Luther's

death are misleading, and did not escape the challenge of loyal

Lutherans.

During a disputation in 1548, at which Melanchthon presided, Flacius

criticized the unqualified assertion that the Gospel was a preaching of

repentance, but was satisfied when Melanchthon explained that the term

Gospel was here used in the wider sense, as comprising the entire

doctrine of Christ. However, when Melanchthon, during another

disputation, 1556, declared: The ministry of the Gospel "rebukes the

other sins which the Law shows, as well as the saddest of sins which is

revealed by the Gospel (_hoc tristissimum peccatum, quod in Evangelio

ostenditur_), _viz._, that the world ignores and despises the Son of

God." Flacius considered it his plain duty to register a public protest.

It was a teaching which was, at least in part, the same error that

Luther, and formerly also Melanchthon himself, had denounced when

espoused by Agricola, _viz._, that genuine contrition is wrought, not by

the Law, but by the Gospel; by the preaching, not of the violation of

the Law, but of the violation of the Son. (_C. R._ 12, 634. 640.)

These misleading statements of Melanchthon were religiously cultivated

and zealously defended by the Wittenberg Philippists. With a good deal

of animosity they emphasized that the Gospel in its most proper sense is

also a preaching of repentance (_praedicatio poenitentiae,

Busspredigt_), inasmuch as it revealed the baseness of sin and the

greatness of its offense against God, and, in particular, inasmuch as

the Gospel alone uncovered, rebuked, and condemned the hidden sin

(_arcanum peccatum_) and the chief sin of all, the sin of unbelief

(_incredulitas et neglectio Filii_), which alone condemns a man. These

views, which evidently involved a commingling of the Law and the Gospel,

were set forth by Paul Crell in his Disputation against John Wigand,

1571, and were defended in the _Propositions Concerning the Chief

Controversies of These Times_ (also of 1571), by Pezel and other

Wittenberg theologians. (Frank 2, 277. 323.)

As a consequence, the Philippists, too, were charged with antinomianism,

and were strenuously opposed by such theologians as Flacius, Amsdorf,

and Wigand. Wigand attacked the Wittenberg _Propositions_ in his book of

1571, _Concerning Antinomianism, Old and New_. Pezel answered in his

_Apology of the True Doctrine on the Definition of the Gospel_, 1571;

and Paul Crell, in _Spongia, or 150 Propositions Concerning the

Definition of the Gospel, Opposed to the Stupid Accusation of John

Wigand_, 1571. The teaching of the Philippists was formulated by Paul

Crell as follows: "Since this greatest and chief sin [unbelief] is

revealed, rebuked, and condemned by the Gospel alone, therefore also the

Gospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, a

preaching and a voice of repentance or conversion in its true and proper

sense. _A solo evangelio, cum peccatum hoc summum et praecipuum

monstretur, arguatur et damnetur expresse ac nominatim solum etiam

evangelium vere ac proprie praedicatio ac vox est poenitentiae sive

conversionis vere et proprie ita dictae_." (277. 327.)

This doctrine of the Philippists, according to which the Gospel in the

narrow and proper sense, and as distinguished from the Law, is a

preaching of repentance, was rejected by Article V of the _Formula of

Concord_ as follows: "But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses

himself as a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel,

are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the

Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing

else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does

not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of

the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again

by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through

Christ's merit." (803, 7.)

XVIII. The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy.

196. Contents and Purpose of Articles VII and VIII.

In all of its articles the _Formula of Concord_ is but a reafflrmation

of the doctrines taught and defended by Luther. The fire of prolonged

and hot controversies through which these doctrines passed after his

death had but strengthened the Lutherans in their conviction that in

every point Luther's teaching was indeed nothing but the pure Word of

God itself. It had increased the consciousness that, in believing and

teaching as they did, they were not following mere human authorities,

such as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, but the Holy Scriptures, by

which alone their consciences were bound. Articles VII and VIII of the

_Formula of Concord_, too, reassert Luther's doctrines on the Lord's

Supper and the person of Christ as being in every particular the clear

and unmistakable teaching of the divine Word,--two doctrines, by the

way, which perhaps more than any other serve as the acid test whether

the fundamental attitude of a church or a theologian is truly Scriptural

and fully free from every rationalistic and enthusiastic infection.

The Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of the

true body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, and

under the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating and

drinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing

communicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood of

Christ, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neither

a local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal and

transcendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of

the blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is

not Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real

presence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent

power of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the

Sacrament.

The Eighth Article treats of the person of Christ, of the personal union

of His two natures, of the communication of these natures as well as of

their attributes, and, in particular, of the impartation of the truly

divine majesty to His human nature and the terminology resulting

therefrom. One particular object of Article VIII is also to show that

the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the

Holy Supper, as taught by the Lutheran Church, does not, as was

contended by her Zwinglian and Calvinistic adversaries, conflict in any

way with what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ, His

human nature, His ascension, and His sitting at the right hand of God

the Father Almighty. The so-called Appendix, or Catalogus, a collection

of passages from the Bible and from the fathers of the ancient Church,

prepared by Andreae and Chemnitz was added to the _Formula of Concord_

(though not as an authoritative part of it) in further support of the

Lutheran doctrine particularly concerning the divine majesty of the

human nature of Christ.

Both articles, the seventh as well as the eighth, were incorporated in

the _Formula of Concord_ in order thoroughly to purify the Lutheran

Church from Reformed errors concerning the Lord's Supper and the person

of Christ, which after Luther's death had wormed their way into some of

her schools and churches, especially those of Electoral Saxony, and to

make her forever immune against the infection of Calvinism

(Crypto-Calvinism)--a term which, during the controversies preceding the

_Formula of Concord_ did not, as is generally the case to-day, refer to

Calvin's absolute decree of election and reprobation, but to his

doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as formulated by himself in the

_Consensus Tigurinus_ (Zurich Consensus), issued 1549. The subtitle of

this confession reads: "Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria Ministrorum

Tigurinae Ecclesiae, et D. Iohannis Calvini Ministri Genevensis

Ecclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita." In this confession,

therefore, Calvin declares his agreement with the teaching of Zwingli as

represented by his followers in Zurich, notably Bullinger. Strenuous

efforts were made by the Calvinists and Reformed everywhere to make the

_Consensus Tigurinus_ the basis of a pan-Protestant union, and at the

same time the banner under which to conquer all Protestant countries,

Lutheran Germany included, for what must be regarded as being

essentially Zwinglianism. The _Consensus_ was adopted in Switzerland,

England, France, and Holland. In Lutheran territories, too, its teaching

was rapidly gaining friends, notably in Southern Germany, where Bucer

had prepared the way for it, and in Electoral Saxony where the

Philippists offered no resistance. Garnished as it was with glittering

and seemingly orthodox phrases, the _Consensus Tigurinus_ lent itself

admirably for such Reformed propaganda. "The consequence was," says the

_Formula of Concord_, "that many great men were deceived by these fine,

plausible words--_splendidis et magnificis verbis_." (973, 6.) To

counteract this deception, to establish Luther's doctrine of the real

presence of the body and blood of Christ, and to defend it against the

sophistries of the Sacramentarians: Zwinglians, Calvinists, and

Crypto-Calvinists--such was the object of Articles VII and VIII of the

_Formula of Concord_.

197. John Calvin.

Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France. He began his studies in

Paris, 1523 preparing for theology. In 1529 his father induced him to

take up law in Orleans and Bourges. In 1531 he returned to his

theological studies in Paris. Here he experienced what he himself

describes as a "sudden conversion." He joined the Reformed congregation,

and before long was its acknowledged leader. In 1533 he was compelled to

leave France because of his anti-Roman testimony. In Basel, 1535, he

wrote the first draft of his _Institutio Religionis Christianae_. In

Geneva where he was constrained to remain by William Farel [born 1489;

active as a fiery Protestant preacher in Meaux, Strassburg, Zurich,

Bern, Basel, Moempelgard, Geneva, Metz, etc.; died 1565], Calvin

developed and endeavored to put into practise his legalistic ideal of a

theocratic and rigorous puritanical government. As a result he was

banished, 1538. He removed to Strassburg, where he was held and engaged

by Bucer. He attended the conventions in Frankfort, 1539; Hagenau, 1540;

Worms, 1540; and Regensburg, 1541. Here he got acquainted with the

Lutherans notably Melanchthon. September 13, 1541, he returned to

Geneva, where, woefully mixing State and Church, he continued his

reformatory and puritanical efforts. One of the victims of his

theocratic government was the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus, who,

at the instance of Calvin, was burned at the stake, October 27, 1553.

In 1559 Calvin established the Geneva School, which exercised a

far-reaching theological influence. He died May 27, 1564.

Calvin repeatedly expressed his unbounded admiration for Luther as a

"preeminent servant of Christ--_praeclarus Christi servus_." (_C. R._

37, 54.) In his _Answer_ of 1543 against the Romanist Pighius he said:

"Concerning Luther we testify without dissimulation now as heretofore

that we esteem him as a distinguished apostle of Christ, by whose labor

and service, above all, the purity of the Gospel has been restored at

this time. _De Luthero nunc quoque sicut hactenus non dissimulanter

testamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maxime

opera et ministerio restituta hoc tempore fuerit Evangelii puritas_."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 169.) Even after Luther had published his _Brief

Confession_, in which he unsparingly denounces the Sacramentarians

(deniers of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's

Supper), and severs all connection with them, Calvin admonished

Bullinger in a letter dated November 25, 1544, to bear in mind what a

great and wonderfully gifted man Luther was, and with what fortitude,

ability, and powerful teaching he had shattered the kingdom of

Antichrist and propagated the salutary doctrine. "I am frequently

accustomed to say," he declared, "that, even if he should call me a

devil I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent

servant of God." In the original the remarkable words of Calvin read as

follows: "_Sed haec cupio vobis in mentem venire, primum quantus sit vir

Lutherus, et quantis dotibus excellat, quanta animi fortitudine et

constantia quanta dexteritate, quanta doctrinae efficacia hactenus ad

profligandum Antichristi regnum et simul propagandam salutis doctrinam

incubuerit. Saepe dicere solitus sum, etiamsi me diabolum vocaret, me

tamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam, qui

tamen, ut pollet eximiis virtutibus, ita magnis vitiis laboret_."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 169; _C. R._ 39 [_Calvini Opp._ 11], 774.)

However, though he admired the personality of Luther, Calvin, like

Zwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg 1529, revealed a theological spirit

which was altogether different from Luther's. In particular, he was

violently opposed to Luther's doctrines of the real presence in the

Lord's Supper and of the majesty of the human nature of Christ.

Revealing his animus, Calvin branded the staunch and earnest defenders

of these doctrines as the "apes" of Luther. In his _Second Defense_

against Westphal, 1556, he exclaimed: "O Luther, how few imitators of

your excellences, but how many apes of your pious ostentation have you

left behind! _O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quam

multas vero sanctae tuae iactantiae simias reliquisti!_" (Gieseler 3, 2,

209.)

True, when in Strassburg, Calvin signed the _Augsburg Confession_ (1539

or 1540), and was generally considered a Lutheran. However, in his _Last

Admonition_ to Westphal, of 1557 and in a letter of the same year to

Martin Schalling, Calvin wrote: "Nor do I repudiate the _Augsburg

Confession_, to which I have previously subscribed, _in the sense in

which the author himself_ [Melanchthon in the _Variata_ of 1540] _has

interpreted it. Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem

volens ac libens subscripsi, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est._"

(_C. R._ 37, 148.) According to his own confession, therefore, Calvin's

subscription to the _Augustana_, at least as far as the article of the

Lord's Supper is concerned, was insincere and nugatory. In fact Calvin

must be regarded as the real originator of the second controversy on

the Lord's Supper between the Lutherans and the Reformed, even as the

first conflict on this question was begun, not by Luther, but by his

opponents, Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. For the adoption of

the _Consensus Tigurinus_ in 1549, referred to above, cannot but be

viewed as an overt act by which the Wittenberg Concord, signed 1536 by

representative Lutheran and Reformed theologians, was publicly

repudiated and abandoned by Calvin and his adherents, and whereby an

anti-Lutheran propaganda on an essentially Zwinglian basis was

inaugurated. Calvin confirmed the schism between the Lutherans and the

Reformed which Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius had originated.

198. Calvin's Zwinglianism.

The doctrine of Calvin and his adherents concerning the Lord's Supper is

frequently characterized as a materially modified Zwinglianism. Schaff

maintains that "Calvin's theory took a middle course, retaining, on the

basis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith,

and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in

Switzerland, gained much favor in Germany and opened a fair prospect for

union." (_Creeds_ 1, 280.) As a matter of fact, however, a fact admitted

also by such Calvinists as Hodge and Shedd, Calvin's doctrine was a

denial _in toto_ of the real presence as taught by Luther. (Pieper,

_Dogm._ 3, 354.) Calvin held that after His ascension Christ, according

to His human nature, was locally enclosed in heaven, far away from the

earth. Hence he denied also the real presence of Christ's body and blood

in the Holy Supper. In fact, Calvin's doctrine was nothing but a

polished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrases

approaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible. Even where

he paraded as Luther, Calvin was but Zwingli disguised (and poorly at

that) in a seemingly orthodox garb and promenading with several

imitation Lutheran feathers in his hat.

In the _Formula of Concord_ we read: "Although some Sacramentarians

strive to employ words that come as close as possible to the _Augsburg

Confession_ and the form and mode of speech in its churches, and confess

that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by

believers, still, when we insist that they state their meaning properly,

sincerely, and clearly, they all declare themselves unanimously thus:

that the true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from the

consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest

heaven is from the earth.... Therefore they understand this presence of

the body of Christ not as a presence here upon earth, but only _respectu

fidei_ (with respect to faith), that is, that our faith, reminded and

excited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates

itself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body

of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself,

together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but

nevertheless spiritual only;... consequently nothing else is received by

the mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine." (971, 2f.) This is,

and was intended to be, a presentation of Calvinism as being nothing but

Zwinglianism clothed in seemingly orthodox phrases.

That this picture drawn by the _Formula of Concord_ is not a caricature

or in any point a misrepresentation of Calvinism appears from the

_Consensus Tigurinus_ itself, where we read: "In as far as Christ is a

man, He is to be sought nowhere else than in heaven and in no other

manner than with the mind and the understanding of faith. Therefore it

is a perverse and impious superstition to include Him under elements of

this world. _Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo nec

aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perversa

et impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis huius mundi includere._"

Again: "We repudiate those [who urge the literal interpretation of the

words of institution] as preposterous interpreters." "For beyond

controversy, they are to be taken figuratively,... as when by metonymy

the name of the symbolized thing is transferred to the sign--_ut per

metonymiam ad signum transferatur rei figuratae nomen._" Again: "Nor do

we regard it as less absurd to place Christ under, and to unite Him

with, the bread than to change the bread into His body. _Neque enim

minus absurdum iudicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum pane

copulare, quam panem transubstantiare in corpus eius._" Again: "When we

say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this mode of speech expresses

a distance of place,... because the body of Christ,... being finite and

contained in heaven, as in a place, must of necessity be removed from us

by as great a distance as the heaven is removed from the earth--_necesse

est, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest a

terra._" (Niemeyer, _Collectio Confessionum_, 196.) Such was the

teaching cunningly advocated by Calvin and his adherents the

Crypto-Calvinists in Germany included but boldly and firmly opposed by

the loyal Lutherans, and finally disposed of by Articles VII and VIII of

the _Formula of Concord_.

.8pt 9�C/�t 1 P� � 3.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>1536 and completed in 1545. In the explanation of chap. 26, 9 we read,

in part: "I gladly take occasion from this passage to discuss the

question concerning doubt, concerning God and God's will. For I hear

that everywhere among the nobles and magnates profane sayings are spread

concerning predestination or divine prescience. For they say: 'If I am

predestinated, I shall be saved, whether I have done good or evil. If I

am not predestinated, I shall be damned, without any regard whatever to

my works.' Against these ungodly sayings I would gladly argue at length

if my ill health would permit. For if these sayings are true, as they

believe them to be, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His

suffering and resurrection, and whatever He did for the salvation of the

world, is entirely abolished. What would the prophets and the entire

Holy Scriptures profit us? what the Sacraments? Let us therefore abandon

and crush all this," all these ungodly sayings.

Luther proceeds: "These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm

knowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it is

useful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain,

and being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, as

otherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by His

promises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this is

to be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless flee

to Him who is unchangeable. For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal.

3, 6: 'I am the Lord, I change not,' and Rom. 11, 29: 'For the gifts and

calling of God are without repentance.' Accordingly, in the book _De

Servo Arbitrio_ and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish

when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For

one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God.

Concerning God, in so far as He has not been revealed to us, there is no

faith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply the

saying: What is above us does not concern us (_Quae supra nos, nihil ad

nos_). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond or

without the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by them

nothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition,

because they are occupied with an unsearchable object, _i.e._, the

unrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteries

concealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so much

that they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, or

glory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see My

back parts; but My face shall not be seen. _Posteriora mea tibi

ostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris_.' For this curiosity is

original sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to God

by natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vain

endeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto the

Father but by Me.' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, there

is no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible God

whom you will not make visible."

With special reference to his book _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther continues:

"It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my

death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all

manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have

written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time

(and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the

revealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: '_Er heisst Jesus Christ, der

Herr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott_,' 'Jesus Christ it is, of

Sabaoth Lord, and there's none other God.' But they will pass by all

these passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You,

therefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that we

must not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, but

acquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of the

Word. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvation

and say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on the

Son hath everlasting life,' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnation

or wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things I

have set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit them

orally, too, _viva voce;_ hence I am excused--_ideo sum excusatus_."

(E., Op. Exeg. 6, 200. 292. 300; CONC. TRIGL. 897f.)

h�8C�n d � H�� >

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