F. Bente - Historical Introductions. XVI. The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies

Andreas Osiander

XVI. The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies.

175. Osiander in Nuernberg and in Koenigsberg.

In the writings of Luther we often find passages foreboding a future

corruption of the doctrine of justification, concerning which he

declared in the _Smalcald Articles_: "Of this article nothing can be

yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever will

not abide, should sink to ruin.... And upon this article all things

depend which we teach and practise in opposition to the Pope, the devil,

and the world. Therefore we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and

not doubt, for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all

things gain the victory and suit over us." (461, 5.) Martin Chemnitz

remarks: "I frequently shudder, because Luther--I do not know by what

kind of presentiment--in his commentaries on the Letter to the Galatians

and on the First Book of Moses so often repeats the statement: 'This

doctrine [of justification] will be obscured again after my death.'"

(Walther, _Kern und Stern_, 26.)

Andrew Osiander was the first to fulfil Luther's prophecy. In 1549 he

began publicly to propound a doctrine in which he abandoned the forensic

conception of justification by imputation of the merits of Christ, and

returned to the Roman view of justification by infusion _i.e._, by

infusion of the eternal essential righteousness of the divine nature of

Christ. According to his own statement, he had harbored these views ever

since about 1522. He is said also to have presented them in a sermon

delivered at the convention in Smalcald, 1537. (Planck 4, 257.) Yet he

made no special effort to develop and publicly to disseminate his ideas

during the life of Luther. After the death of the Reformer, however,

Osiander is reported to have said: "Now that the lion is dead, I shall

easily dispose of the foxes and hares"--_i.e._, Melanchthon and the

other Lutheran theologians. (257.) Osiander was the originator of the

controversy "Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God," which

was finally settled in Article III of the _Formula of Concord_.

Osiander, lauded by modern historians as the only real "systematizer"

among the Lutherans of the first generation, was a man as proud,

overbearing, and passionate as he was gifted, keen, sagacious, learned,

eloquent, and energetic. He was born December 19, 1498, at Gunzenhausen,

Franconia, and died October 17, 1552, at Koenigsberg, where he was also

buried with high honors in the Old City Church. In 1522 he was appointed

priest at St. Lawrence's Church in the Free City of Nuernberg. Here he

immediately acted the part of a determined champion of the Reformation.

Subsequently he also participated in some of the most important

transactions of his day. He was present at the Marburg Colloquy, 1529,

where he made the personal acquaintance of Luther and the Wittenbergers.

He also took part in the discussions at the Diet in Augsburg, 1530; at

Smalcald, 1537; at Hagenau and Worms, 1540. Nor were his interests

confined to theological questions. When, at Nuernberg, 1543, the work of

Copernicus, _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium_, "Concerning the

Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies," was published for the first time,

Osiander read the proof-sheets and wrote the Preface, in which he

designated the new theory as "hypotheses," thus facilitating its

circulation also among the Catholics, until in the 17th century the book

was placed on the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, where it remained till

the 18th century.

When the Augsburg Interim was introduced in Nuernberg, Osiander

resigned, and with words of deep emotion (in a letter of November 22,

1548, addressed to the city council) he left the place where he had

labored more than a quarter of a century. January 27 1549, he arrived in

Koenigsberg. Here he was joyously received by Count Albrecht of Prussia,

whom he had gained for the Reformation in 1523. Moved by gratitude

toward Osiander, whom he honored as his "spiritual father," Count

Albrecht appointed him pastor of the Old City Church and, soon after,

first professor of theology at the University of Koenigsberg, with a

double salary, though Osiander had never received an academic degree.

The dissatisfaction which this unusual preferment caused among his

colleagues, Briessman, Hegemon, Isinder, and Moerlin, soon developed

into decided antipathy against Osiander, especially because of his

overbearing, domineering ways as well as his intriguing methods. No

doubt, this personal element added largely to the animosity and violence

of the controversy that was soon to follow, and during which the

professors in Koenigsberg are said to have carried firearms into their

academic sessions. (Schaff, _Creeds_ 1, 273.) Yet it cannot be regarded

as the real cause or even as the immediate occasion, of the conflict,

which was really brought about by the unsound, speculative, and mystical

views of Osiander on the image of God and, particularly, on

justification and the righteousness of faith,--doctrinal points on which

he deviated from the Lutheran teaching to such an extent that a

controversy was unavoidable. Evidently, his was either a case of relapse

into Romanism, or, what seems to be the more probable alternative,

Osiander never attained to a clear apprehension of the Lutheran truth

nor ever fully freed himself from the Roman doctrine, especially in its

finer and more veiled form of mysticism.

176. Opposed by Moerlin and Lutherans Generally.

Osiander, as stated, had conceived the fundamental thoughts of his

system long before he reached Koenigsberg. In 1524, when only twenty-six

years of age, he laid down the outlines of his theory in a publication

entitled: "_A Good Instruction (Ein gut Unterricht) and Faithful Advice

from the Holy Divine Scriptures What Attitude to Take in These

Dissensions Concerning Our Holy Faith and Christian Doctrine_, dealing

especially with the questions what is God's Word and what human

doctrine, what Christ and what Antichrist." Here he says: "Whoever

hears, retains, and believes the Word, receives God Himself, for God is

the Word. If, therefore, the Word of God, Christ, our Lord, dwells in us

by faith and we are one with Him, we may say with Paul: 'I live, though

not I, but Christ lives in me,' and then we are justified by faith."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 270.) In the following year, 1525, he wrote in his

_Action of the Honorable Wise Council in Nuernberg with their Preachers

(Handlung eines ehrsamen weisen Rats zu Nuernberg mit ihren

Praedikanten)_: "The one and only righteousness availing before God is

God Himself. But Christ is the Word which we apprehend by faith, and

thus Christ in us, God Himself, is our Righteousness which avails before

God." "The Gospel has two parts; the first, that Christ has satisfied

the justice of God; the other, that He has cleansed us from sin, and

justifies us by dwelling in us (_und uns rechtfertigt, so er in uns

wohnet_)." (271.) The embryonic ideas of these early publications

concerning the image of God and justification were fully developed by

Osiander in his book of 1550, _Whether the Son of God would have had to

be Incarnated (An Filius Dei fuerit Incarnandus), if Sin had Not Entered

the World;_ and especially in his confession of September, 1551,

_Concerning the Only Mediator Jesus Christ (Von dem einigen Mittler Jesu

Christo) and Justification of Faith_ which appeared also in Latin under

the title _De Unico Mediatore_, in October of the same year.

The public conflict began immediately after Osiander had entered upon

his duties at the university. In his inaugural disputation of April 5,

1549, "Concerning the Law and Gospel (De Lege et Evangelio)," Osiander's

vanity prompted him at least to hint at his peculiar views, which he

well knew were not in agreement with the doctrine taught at Wittenberg

and in the Lutheran Church at large. His colleague, Matthias Lauterwald,

a Wittenberg master, who died 1555, immediately took issue with him. On

the day following the disputation, he published theses in which he

declared: "Osiander denied that faith is a part of repentance." October

24 of the following year Osiander held a second disputation ("On

Justification, De Iustificatione") in which he came out clearly against

the doctrine hitherto taught in the Lutheran Church. But now also a

much more able and determined combatant appeared in the arena, Joachim

Moerlin, who henceforth devoted his entire life to defeat Osiandrism

and to vindicate Luther's forensic view of justification.

Moerlin (Moehrlein) was born at Wittenberg April 6, 1514, he studied

under Luther and was made Master in 1537 and Doctor in 1540; till 1543

he was superintendent in Arnstadt, Thuringia, and superintendent in

Goettingen till 1549, when he was compelled to leave because of his

opposition to the Augsburg Interim. Recommended by Elizabeth Duchess of

Braunschweig-Lueneburg, the mother-in-law of Duke Albrecht, he was

appointed preacher at the Dome of Koenigsberg in 1550. Clearly

understanding that solid comfort in life and death is possible only as

long as our faith rests solely on the _aliena iustitia_, on the

objective righteousness of Christ, which is without us, and is offered

in the Gospel and received by faith; and fully realizing also that

Christian assurance is incompatible with such a doctrine as Osiander

taught, according to which our faith is to rely on a righteous condition

within ourselves, Moerlin publicly attacked Osiander from his pulpit,

and in every way emphasized the fact that his teaching could never be

tolerated in the Lutheran Church. Osiander replied in his lectures. The

situation thus created was most intolerable. At the command of the Duke

discussions were held between Moerlin and Osiander, but without result.

In order to settle the dispute, Duke Albrecht, accordingly, on October

5, 1551, placed the entire matter before the evangelical princes and

cities with the request that the points involved be discussed at the

various synods and their verdicts forwarded to Koenigsberg. This aroused

the general interest and the deepest concern of the entire Lutheran

Church in Germany. Numerous opinions of the various synods and

theologians arrived during the winter of 1551 to 1552. With the

exception of the Wuerttemberg _Response (Responsum)_, written by John

Brenz, and the _Opinion_ of Matthew Vogel, both of whom regarded

Osiander's teaching as differing from the doctrine received by the

Lutheran Church in terms and phrases rather than in substance, they were

unfavorable to Osiander. At the same time all, including the opinions of

Brenz and Vogel, revealed the fact that the Lutherans, the theologians

of Wittenberg as well as those of Jena, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Hamburg,

etc., were firmly united in maintaining Luther's doctrine, _viz._, that

the righteousness of faith is not the essential righteousness of the Son

of God, as Osiander held but the obedience of Christ the God-man imputed

by grace to all true believers as their sole righteousness before God.

Feeling safe under the protection of Duke Albrecht, and apparently not

in the least impressed by the general opposition which his innovations

met with at the hands of the Lutherans, Osiander continued the

controversy by publishing his _Proof (Beweisung) that for Thirty Years I

have Always Taught the Same Doctrine_. And irritated by an opinion of

Melanchthon (whom Osiander denounced as a pestilential heretic),

published with offensive explanations added by the Wittenbergers, he in

the same year (April, 1552) wrote his _Refutation (Widerlegung) of the

Unfounded, Unprofitable Answer of Philip Melanchthon_. In this

immoderate publication Osiander boasted that only the Philippian rabble,

dancing according to the piping of Melanchthon, was opposed to him.

Before long, however, also such opponents of the Philippists as Flacius,

Gallus, Amsdorf, and Wigand were prominently arraigned against Osiander.

Meanwhile (May 23, 1552) Moerlin published a large volume entitled:

_Concerning the Justification of Faith_. Osiander replied in his

_Schmeckbier_ of June 24 1552, a book as keen as it was coarse. In 1552

and 1553 Flacius issued no less than twelve publications against

Osiander, one of them bearing the title: _Zwo fuernehmliche Gruende

Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier_; another: _Antidotum auf

Osiandri giftiges Schmeckbier_. (Preger 2, 551)

When the controversy had just about reached its climax, Osiander died,

October 17, 1552. Soon after, the Duke enjoined silence on both parties,

and Moerlin was banished. He accepted a position as superintendent in

Brunswick, where he zealously continued his opposition to Osiandrism as

well as to other corruptions of genuine Lutheranism. At Koenigsberg the

Osiandrists continued to enjoy the protection and favor of Duke Albrecht

and gradually developed into a quasi-political party. The leader of the

small band was John Funck, the son-in-law of Osiander and the chaplain

of the Duke. In 1566, however, the king of Poland intervened, and Funck

was executed as a disturber of the public peace. Moerlin was recalled

and served as bishop of Samland at Koenigsberg from 1567 till his death

in 1571. The _Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum_, or _Borussicum_, framed by

Moerlin and Chemnitz and adopted 1567 at Koenigsberg, rejected the

doctrines of Osiander. Moerlin also wrote a history of Osiandrism

entitled: _Historia, welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische Schwaermerei

im Lande zu Preussen erhaben_.

177. Corruptions Involved in Osiander's Teaching.

Osiander's theory of justification according to which the righteousness

of faith is the eternal, essential holiness of the divine nature of

Christ inhering and dwelling in man, consistently compelled him to

maintain that justification is not an act by which God declares a man

just, but an act by which He actually makes him inherently just and

righteous; that it is not an imputation of a righteousness existing

outside of man, but an actual infusion of a righteousness dwelling in

man; that it is not a mere acquittal from sin and guilt, but

regeneration, renewal, sanctification and internal, physical cleansing

from sin that it is not a forensic or judicial act outside of man or a

declaration concerning man's standing before God and his relation to

Him but a sort of medicinal process within man, that the righteousness

of faith is not the alien (strange, foreign) righteousness, _aliena

iustitia_ (a term employed also by Luther), consisting in the obedience

of Christ, but a quality, condition, or change effected in believers by

the essential righteousness of the divine nature dwelling in them

through faith in Christ; that faith does not justify on account of the

thing outside of man in which it trusts and upon which it relies, but

by reason of the thing which it introduces and produces in man; that,

accordingly, justification is never instantaneous and complete, but

gradual and progressive.

Osiander plainly teaches that the righteousness of faith (our

righteousness before God) is not the obedience rendered by Christ to the

divine Law, but the indwelling righteousness of God (_iustitia Dei

inhabitans_),--essentially the same original righteousness or image that

inhered in Adam and Eve before the Fall. It consists, not indeed in good

works or in "doing and suffering," but in a quality (_Art_) which

renders him who receives it just, and moves him to do and to suffer what

is right. It is the holiness (_Frommigkeit_) which consists in the

renewal of man, in the gifts of grace, in the new spiritual life, in the

regenerated nature of man. By His suffering and death, said Osiander,

Christ made satisfaction and acquired forgiveness for us, but He did not

thereby effect our justification. His obedience as such does not

constitute our righteousness before God, but merely serves to restore

it. It was necessary that God might be able to dwell in us, and so

become our life and righteousness. Faith justifies, not inasmuch as it

apprehends the merits of Christ, but inasmuch as it unites us with the

divine nature, the infinite essential righteousness of God, in which our

sins are diluted, as it were, and lost, as an impure drop disappears

when poured into an ocean of liquid purity.

According to the teaching of Osiander therefore, also the assurance that

we are justified and accepted by God does not rest exclusively on the

merits of Christ and the pardon offered in the Gospel, but must be based

on the righteous quality inhering in us. Our assurance is conditioned

not alone upon what Christ has done outside of us and for us but rather

upon what He is in us and produces in us. The satisfaction rendered by

Christ many centuries ago is neither the only ground on which God

regards us as just, nor a sufficient basis of our certainty that we are

accepted by God. Not the Christ for us, but rather the Christ in us, is

the basis both of our justification and assurance. Accordingly in order

to satisfy an alarmed sinner, it is not sufficient to proclaim the

Gospel-promise of divine absolution. In addition, an investigation is

required whether the righteousness and holiness of God is also really

found dwelling in him. While Luther had urged alarmed consciences to

trust in the merits of Christ alone for their justification and

salvation, Osiander led them to rely on the new life of divine wisdom,

holiness, and righteousness dwelling in their own hearts. From the very

beginning of the controversy, Moerlin, Melanchthon, and the Lutherans

generally were solicitous to point out that Osiander's doctrine robs

Christians of this glorious and only solid comfort that it is not a

subjective quality in their own hearts, but solely and only the

objective and absolutely perfect obedience rendered by Christ many

hundred years ago, which God regards when He justifies the wicked, and

upon which man must rely for the assurance of his acceptance and

salvation.

Consistently developed, therefore, the innovation of Osiander was bound

to vitiate in every particular the doctrine of justification restored

once more by Luther. In fact, his theory was but a revamping of just

such teaching as had driven the Lutherans out of the Church of Rome.

True, Osiander denied that by our own works we merit justification; that

our righteousness consists in our good works; that our good works are

imputed to us as righteousness. But the fact that he held a subjective

condition to be our righteousness before God gives to his doctrine an

essentially Roman stamp, no matter how widely it may differ from it in

other respects. Moehler, the renowned Catholic apologist, declared that

properly interpreted and illucidated, Osiander's doctrine was "identical

with the Roman Catholic doctrine." (Frank 2, 5. 91.) As stated before,

his teaching was Romanism in its finer and more veiled form of

mysticism.

178. Excerpts from Osiander's Writings.

In his publication of January 10, 1552 _Wider den lichtfluechtigen

Nachtraben_, Osiander endeavors to prove that he is in complete

doctrinal agreement with Luther. In it he gives the following summary,

but guarded, presentation of his views. "I understand it this way," says

he. "1. It flowed from His pure grace and mercy that God sacrificed His

only Son for us. 2. The Son became man and was made under the Law, and

He has redeemed us from the Law and from the curse of the Law. 3. He

took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, for which He suffered,

died, shed His blood, descended into hell, rose again, and thus overcame

sin, death, and hell, and merited for us forgiveness of sin,

reconciliation with God, the grace and gift of justification, and

eternal life. 4. This is to be preached in all the world. 5. Whoever

believes this and is baptized, is justified and blessed (_selig_) by

virtue of such faith. 6. Faith apprehends Christ so that He dwells in

our hearts through faith, Eph. 3, 17. 7. Christ, living in us through

faith, is our Wisdom, Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1,

30, Jer. 23, 6; 33, 16. 8. Christ, true God and man, dwelling in us

through faith, is our Righteousness according to His divine nature, as

Dr. Luther says: 'I rely on the righteousness which is God Himself; this

He cannot reject. Such is, says Luther, the simple, correct

understanding; do not suffer yourself to be led away from it.'" (Frank

2, 7f.) Seeberg cites the following passage: "But if the question be

asked what is righteousness, one must answer: Christ dwelling in us by

faith is our Righteousness according to His divinity; and the

forgiveness of sins, which is not Christ Himself, but merited by Christ,

is a preparation and cause that God offers us His righteousness, which

He is Himself." (_Dogg_. 4, 498.) Incidentally Osiander's appeal to

Luther is unwarranted. For according to him Christ is our Righteousness

because His obedience is God's obedience, the work not only of His human

nature, but, at the same time, also of His divine nature, while

according to Osiander everything that Christ did for us merely serves to

bring about the indwelling of the divine nature of Christ, whose

essential holiness is our righteousness before God. That Osiander was

not in agreement with Luther, as he claimed, appears also from his

assertion that such statements of Luther as: Christ's death is our life,

forgiveness of sins is our righteousness, etc., must be explained

figuratively, as words flowing from a joyous heart. (2, 23.)

The manner in which Osiander maintained that Christ is our Righteousness

only according to His divine nature appears from the following excerpts:

"If the question be asked according to what nature Christ, His whole

undivided person, is our Righteousness, then just as when one asks

according to what nature He is the Creator of heaven and earth, the

clear, correct, and plain answer is that He is our Righteousness

according to His divine, and not according to His human nature, although

we are unable to find, obtain or apprehend such divine righteousness

apart from His humanity." (Frank 2, 12.) Again: "When we say: Christ is

our Righteousness, we must understand His deity, which enters us through

His humanity. When Christ says: I am the Bread of Life, we must

understand His deity which comes into us through His humanity and is our

life. When He says: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink

indeed, we must take it to mean His deity which is in the flesh and

blood and is meat and drink for us. Thus, too, when John says, 1 John 1,

7: The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, we must understand the

deity of Christ which is in the blood; for John does not speak of the

blood of Christ as it was shed on the cross, but as it, united with the

flesh of Christ, is our heavenly meat and drink by faith." (23.)

Osiander, therefore, is but consistent when he reiterates that the Son

of God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are our Righteousness, because

their divine essence which by faith dwells in Christians, is one and the

same.

Osiander emphasizes that the essential righteousness of the divine

nature of Christ alone is able to save us. He says: "For of what help

would it be to you if you had all the righteousness which men and angels

can imagine, but lacked this eternal righteousness which is itself the

Son of God, according to His divine nature, with the Father and the Holy

Ghost? For no other righteousness can lift you up to heaven and bring

you to the Father. But when you apprehend this righteousness through

faith, and Christ is in you, what can you then be lacking which you do

not possess richly, superabundantly, and infinitely in His deity?"

Again: "Since Christ is ours and is in us, God Himself and all His

angels behold nothing in us but righteousness on account of the highest,

eternal, and infinite righteousness of Christ, which is His deity itself

dwelling in us. And although sin still remains in, and clings to, our

flesh, it is like an impure little drop compared with a great pure

ocean, and on account of the righteousness of Christ which is in us God

does not want to see it." (Frank 2, 100. 102.)

To this peculiarity of Osiander, according to which he seems to have had

in mind a justification by a sort of mystico-physical dilution rather

than by imputation, the _Formula of Concord_ refers as follows: "For one

side has contended that the righteousness of faith, which the apostle

calls the righteousness of God, is God's essential righteousness, which

is Christ Himself as the true, natural, and essential Son of God, who

dwells in the elect by faith and impels them to do right, and thus is

their righteousness, compared with which righteousness the sins of all

men are as a drop of water compared with the great ocean." (917, 2; 790,

2.)

In his confession _Concerning the Only Mediator_, of 1551, Osiander

expatiates on justification, and defines it as an act by which

righteousness is "infused" into believers. We read: "It is apparent that

whatever part Christ, as the faithful Mediator, acted with regard to

God, His heavenly Father, for our sakes, by fulfilling the Law and by

His suffering and death, was accomplished more than 1,500 years ago,

when we were not in existence. For this reason it cannot, properly

speaking, have been, nor be called, our justification, but only our

redemption and the atonement for us and our sins. For whoever would be

justified must believe; but if he is to believe, he must already be born

and live. Therefore Christ has not justified us who _now_ live and die;

but we are redeemed by it [His work 1,500 years ago] from God's wrath,

death, and hell.... This, however, is true and undoubted that by the

fulfilment of the Law and by His suffering and death He merited and

earned from God, His heavenly Father, this great and superabounding

grace, namely, that He not only has forgiven our sin and taken from us

the unbearable burden of the Law, but that He also _wishes to justify us

by faith in Christ, to infuse justification or the righteousness

(sondern auch uns durch den Glauben an Christum will rechtfertigen, die

Gerechtmachung eingiessen)_, and, if only we obey, through the operation

of His Holy Spirit and through the death of Christ, in which we are

embodied by the baptism of Christ, _to mortify, purge out, and entirely

destroy sin_ which is already forgiven us, but nevertheless still dwells

in our flesh and adheres to us. Therefore the _other part_ of the office

of our dear faithful Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ is now to turn

toward us in order to deal also with us poor sinners as with the guilty

party, that we acknowledge such great grace and gratefully receive it by

faith, _in order that He by faith may make us alive and just from the

death of sin, and that sin, which is already forgiven, but nevertheless

still dwells and inheres in our flesh, may be altogether mortified and

destroyed in us. And this, first of all, is the act of our

justification._" (Tschackert, 492f.; Planck 4, 268.)

That Osiander practically identified justification with regeneration,

renewal, and gradual sanctification appears from the following

quotations. To justify, says he, means "to make a just man out of an

unjust one, that is to recall a dead man to life--_ex impio iustum

facere, hoc est, mortuum ad vitam revocare._" (Seeberg 4, 499.) Again:

"Thus the Gospel further shows its power and also justifies us, _i.e._,

it makes us just, even as, and in the same degree as, He also makes us

alive (_eben und in aller Masse, wie er uns auch lebendig macht_)."

(Frank 2, 18.) "And here you see again how terribly those err who

endeavor to prove by this passage of David and Paul that our

righteousness is nothing else than forgiveness of sin; for they have

overlooked the covering of sin with the [essential] righteousness of

Christ whom we put on in Baptism; _they have also removed from

justification the renewal of the inner man effected by regeneration._"

(102.)

Osiander was fanatical in denouncing those who identified justification

with the forgiveness of sins. In his Disputation of October 24, 1550, he

declared: "The entire fulness of the deity dwells in Christ bodily,

hence in those also in whom Christ dwells.... Therefore we are just by

His essential righteousness.... Whoever does not hold this manner of our

justification is certainly a Zwinglian at heart, no matter what he may

confess with his mouth.... They also teach things colder than ice [who

hold] that we are regarded as righteous only on account of the

forgiveness of sins, and not on account of the [essential] righteousness

of Christ who dwells in us through faith. _Glacie frigidiora docent nos

tantum propter remissionem peccatorum reputari iustos, et non etiam

propter iustitiam Christi per fidem in nobis inhabitantis. Non enim tam

iniquus Deus est, ut eum pro iusto habeat, in quo verae iustitiae

prorsus nil est._" (Frank 2, 97; Tschackert, 494; Seeberg 4, 497.) They

are errorists, Osiander declared, "who say, teach, and write that the

righteousness is outside of us." (Frank 2, 100.) "The [essential]

righteousness of Christ is indeed, imputed to us, but only when it is in

us." "For God is not so unrighteous, nor such a lover of unrighteousness

that He regards him as just in whom there is absolutely nothing of the

true righteousness; as it is written, Ps. 5, 4: 'For Thou art not a God

that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee,'"

(Planck 4, 273.) Evidently, Osiander rejected or had never fully grasped

Paul's clear statement and teaching concerning the God who justifies the

ungodly, Rom. 4, 5: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him

that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

179. Attitude of Brenz and Melanchthon.

With the exception of Brenz and Vogel, who, as stated before, regarded

Osiander's doctrine as differing from the generally received view in

phraseology and mode of presentation rather than in substance, the

Lutherans everywhere were unanimous in rejecting Osiander's theory as a

recrudescence of the Romish justification not by imputation, but by

infusion. And as to Brenz, who put a milder construction on the

statements of Osiander, Melanchthon wrote October 1, 1557: "Concerning

the affair with Osiander, my writings are publicly known, which I hope

will be of benefit to many. Brenz also is agreed with us doctrinally. He

said he had advised peace, for he did not take Osiander's expressions to

be as dangerous as the opponents did, and for this reason could not as

yet condemn his person; but in doctrine he was agreed with us and would

unite in condemning Osiander if the charges made against him were

proved." Melanchthon himself fully realized the viciousness of

Osiander's error, although at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, he, too, was

opposed to condemning Osiandrism together with Zwinglianism, Majorism,

and Adiaphorism, as the theologians of Ducal Saxony demanded. (_C. R._

9, 311. 402.)

In May, 1551, Melanchthon wrote to Osiander that by the essential

righteousness of Christ renewal is effected in us, but that we have

forgiveness of sins and are reputed to be righteous on account of the

merit of Christ whose blood and death appeased the wrath of God. In his

confutation of the Osiandric doctrine, written in September, 1555, we

read: "Osiander's definition of righteousness is: Righteousness is that

which makes us do what is righteous.... Hence man is righteous by doing

what is righteous.... Thereupon Osiander, in order to say something also

concerning forgiveness of sins, tears remission of sins from

righteousness. He expressly declares that the sins are forgiven to all

men; Nero however, is damned because he does not possess the essential

righteousness; and this, he says, is God Himself, Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit.... Osiander contends that man is just on account of the

indwelling of God, or on account of the indwelling God, not on account

of the obedience of the Mediator, not by the imputed righteousness of

the Mediator through grace. And he corrupts the proposition, 'By faith

we are justified,' into, By faith we are prepared that we may become

just by something else, _viz._, the inhabiting God. Thus he in reality

says what the Papists say: 'We are righteous by our renewal,' except

that he mentions the cause where the Papists mention the effect. _Ita re

ipsa dicit, quod Papistae dicunt, sumus iusti novitate, nisi quod

nominat causam, ubi nominant Papistae effectum_. We are just when God

renews us. He therefore detracts from the honor due to the Mediator,

obscures the greatness of sin, destroys the chief consolation of the

pious, and leads them into perpetual doubt. For faith cannot exist

unless it looks upon the promise of mercy concerning the Mediator. Nor

is there an inhabitation unless the consolation is received by this

faith. And it is a preposterous way of teaching that one is to believe

first the inhabitation, afterwards forgiveness of sins (_prius credere

inhabitationem, postea remissionem peccatorum_). Since therefore this

dogma of Osiander is both false and pernicious to consciences, it must

be shunned and damned." (_C. R._ 7, 781; 8, 579ff.)

In another essay, of September, 1556, signed also by Melanchthon, the

following propositions are rejected: 1. Man becomes righteous on

account of the essential righteousness. 2. Man becomes righteous on

account of the essential righteousness of God the Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit. 3. Man becomes righteous before God on account of the indwelling

of God. 4. Righteousness consists in the indwelling of Christ, on

account of which God imputes righteousness to us.... 5. Nor must one say

there are two or more parts of justification: faith, inhabitation, good

works, etc. For justification before God is to receive forgiveness of

sins and to become acceptable to God on account of Christ.... 6. This

proposition, too, is false: The regenerate after the Fall are righteous

in the same manner as Adam was before the Fall, namely, not by

imputation, but by inhabitation or original righteousness.... 8. It is

also false when some say we are righteous by faith, namely, in a

preparative way in order afterwards to be righteous by the essential

righteousness. At bottom this is Popish and destructive of faith.... 9.

The following propositions must be rejected altogether: The obedience of

Christ is called righteousness in a tropical sense; Christ justifies

accidentally (_per accidens_). (_C. R._ 8, 561f.; 9, 3l9. 451. 455.

457.)

180. Osiander's Views on Image of God.

Osiander's corruption of the doctrine of justification was closely

connected with his peculiar view concerning the image of God (the

central idea of his entire system), of which, however, he declared that

he did not consider it essential, and would not contend with anybody

about it. Nor were the questions involved disputed to any extent or

dealt with in the _Formula of Concord_. As to Osiander, however, the

train of his thoughts runs as follows:--

The Logos, the divine Word, is the image of God, into whom His entire

essence flows in a manner and process eternal. In a temporal and

historical way the same image is destined to be realized in the nature

of man. Divine essential righteousness indwelling and efficacious in

humanity--such was the eternal plan of God. For the realization of this

purpose the Logos, God's image, was to become man, even if the human

race should not have fallen. This was necessary because in finite man

there is absolutely no similarity with the infinite essence of the

non-incarnate Logos. Without the incarnation, therefore, this infinite

dissimilarity would have remained forever (_esset et maneret simpliciter

infinita dissimilitudo inter hominem et Verbum Dei_). And in order that

man might be capable of God and share His divine nature (_capax Dei et

divinae naturae consors_), God created him according to His image;

_i.e._, according to the idea of the incarnate Logos. "God formed the

body of man," said Osiander, "that it should be altogether like unto the

future body of Christ. Thereupon He breathed into it the breath of life,

_i.e._, a rational soul together with the human spirit, adorned with the

proper powers, in such a manner that it, too, should be like unto the

future soul of Christ in everything." (Frank 2, 104.)

In the incarnate Logos, however, according to whom man was created,

humanity and divinity are personally united. When the Word was made

flesh, the divine essence was imparted to His human nature. And Christ,

in turn, imparts the same essence to all who by faith are one with Him.

From eternity the incarnate Word was destined to be the head of the

congregation in order that the essential righteousness of God might flow

from Him into His body, the believers. Before the Fall the Son of God

dwelled in Adam, making him just by God's essential righteousness. By

the Fall this righteousness was lost. Hence the redemption and atonement

of Christ were required in order again to pave the way for the renewal

of the lost image or the indwelling of God's essential righteousness in

man. The real source of this righteousness and divine life in man,

however, is not the human, but the divine nature of Christ. In the

process of justification or of making man righteous, the human nature of

Christ merely serves as a medium, or as it were, a canal, through which

the eternal essential wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of Christ's

divine nature flows into our hearts.

Christ, the "inner Word" (John 1), says Osiander, approaches man in the

"external Word" (the words spoken by Jesus and His apostles), and

through it enters the believing soul. For through Word, Sacrament, and

faith we are united with His humanity. In the Lord's Supper, for

instance, we become the flesh and blood of Christ, just as we draw the

nourishment out of natural food and transform it into our flesh and

blood. And since the humanity of Christ, with which we become one in the

manner described, is personally united with the deity, it imparts to us

also the divine essence, and, as a result, we, too, are the abode of the

essential righteousness of God. "We cannot receive the divine nature

from Christ," says Osiander, "if we are not embodied in Him by faith and

Baptism, thus becoming flesh and blood and bone of His flesh, blood, and

bone." As the branches could not partake of the nature of the vine if

they were not of the wood of the vine, even so we could not share the

divine nature of Christ if we had not, incorporated in Him by faith and

Baptism, become flesh, blood, and bone of His flesh, blood, and bone.

Accordingly, as Christ's humanity became righteous through the union

with God, the essential righteousness which moved Him to obedience

toward God, thus we also become righteous through our union with Christ

and in Him with God. (Frank 2, 104. 20ff.; Seeberg 4, 497f.)

In view of such speculative teaching, in which justification is

transformed into a sort of mystico-physical process, it is not

surprising that the charge of pantheism was also raised against

Osiander. The theologians of Brandenburg asserted that he inferred from

his doctrine that the believers in Christ are also divine persons,

because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost dwell in them essentially. But

Osiander protested: "Creatures we are and creatures we remain, no matter

how wonderfully we are renewed; but the seed of God and the entire

divine essence which is in us by grace in the same manner as it is in

Christ by nature and remains eternally in us (_das also aus Gnaden in

uns ist wie in Christo von Natur und bleibt ewiglich in uns_) is God

Himself, and no creature, and will not become a creature in us or on

account of us but will eternally remain in us true God." Frank says

concerning the doctrine of Osiander: It is not pantheism or a mixture of

the divine and human nature, "but it is a subjectivism by which the

objective foundation of salvation as taught by the Lutheran Church is

rent to the very bottom. It is a mysticism which transforms the Christ

_for us_ into the Christ _in us_, and, though unintentionally, makes the

consciousness of the _inhabitatio essentialis iustitiae_ (indwelling of

the essential righteousness) the basis of peace with God." (2, 19. 10.

13. 95. 103.) In his teaching concerning the image of God and

justification, Osiander replaced the comforting doctrine of the Bible

concerning the substitutionary and atoning work of Christ in His active

and passive obedience unto death with vain philosophical speculations

concerning divinity and humanity or the two natures of Christ. It was

not so very far beside the mark, therefore, when Justus Menius

characteized his theory as "a new alchmistic theology." (Planck 4, 257.)

181. Error of Stancarus.

The Stancarian dispute was incidental to the Osiandric conflict. Its

author was Francesco Stancaro (born in Mantua, 1501), an Italian

ex-priest, who had emigrated from Italy on account of his Protestant

views. Vain, opinionated, haughty, stubborn, and insolent as he was, he

roamed about, creating trouble wherever he appeared, first in Cracow as

professor of Hebrew, 1551 in Koenigsberg then in Frankfort-on-the-Oder,

next at various places in Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania. He died at

Stobnitz, Poland, November 12, 1574. Stancarus treated all of his

opponents as ignoramuses and spoke contemptuously of Luther and

Melanchthon, branding the latter as an antichrist. In Koenigsberg he

immediately felt called upon to interfere in the controversy which had

just flared up. He opposed Osiander in a fanatical manner, declaring

him to be the personal antichrist. The opponents of Osiander at

Koenigsberg however, were not elated over his comradeship, particularly

because he fell into an opposite error. They were glad when he resigned

and left for Frankfort the same year he had arrived at Koenigsberg. In

Frankfort, Stancarus continued the controversy, publishing, 1552, his

_Apology against Osiander--Apologia contra Osiandrum_. But he was

ignored rather than opposed by the Lutheran theologians. In 1553

Melanchthon wrote his _Answer (Responsio) Concerning Stancar's

Controversy_. Later on, 1561, when Stancarus was spreading his errors in

Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania, Calvin and the ministers of Zurich

also wrote against him. The chief publication in which Stancarus set

forth and defended his views appeared 1562, at Cracow, under the title:

_Concerning the Trinity (De Trinitate) and the Mediator, Our Lord Jesus

Christ_. As late as 1585 Wigand published his book _Concerning

Stancarism--De Stancarismo_.

Stancarus had been trained in scholastic theology and was a great

admirer of Peter Lombard. In his book _De Trinitate et Mediatore_ he

says: "One Peter Lombard is worth more than a hundred Luthers, two

hundred Melanchthons, three hundred Bullingers, four hundred Peter

Martyrs, five hundred Calvins out of whom, if they were all brayed in a

mortar, not one drop of true theology would be squeezed. _Plus valet

unus Petrus Lombardus quam centum Lutheri, ducenti Melanchthones,

trecenti Bullingeri, quadringenti Petri Martyres et quingenti Calvini,

qui omnes, si in mortario contunderentur, non exprimeretur una mica

verae theologiae._" (J. G. Walch, _Religionsstreitigkeiten_ 4, 177.)

Concerning Christ's obedience Peter Lombard taught: "_Christus Mediator

dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.... Mediator est

ergo, in quantum homo, et non in quantum Deus_. Christ is called

Mediator according to His humanity, not according to His divinity.... He

is therefore Mediator inasmuch as He is man, and not inasmuch as He is

God." (Planck 4, 451; Seeberg 4, 507.) In accordance with this teaching,

Stancarus maintained, in pointed opposition to Osiander, that Christ is

our Righteousness only according to His human nature, and not according

to His divine nature. The divine nature of Christ, Stancarus declared

must be excluded from the office of Christ's mediation and priesthood;

for if God the Son were Mediator and would do something which the Father

and the Holy Spirit could not do, then He would have a will and an

operation and hence also a nature and essence different from that of the

Father and the Holy Spirit. He wrote: "Christ, God and man, is Mediator

[and Redeemer] only according to the other nature, namely, the human,

not according to the divine; Christ made satisfaction for us according

to His human nature, but not according to His divine nature; according

to His divine nature Christ was not under the Law, was not obedient unto

death, etc." (Frank 2, 111.) Stancarus argued: "Christ is one God with

the Father and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three personal properties

of '_paternitas, filiatio, and spiratio passiva_' the three divine

persons are absolutely identical in their being and operation. Their

work is the sending of the Mediator, whose divine nature itself, in an

active way, participates in this sending; hence only the human nature of

the God-man is sent, and only the human nature of the Mediator acts in a

reconciling way. Men are reconciled by Christ's death on the cross; but

the blood shed on the cross and death are peculiar to the human nature,

not to the divine nature; hence we are reconciled by the human nature of

Christ only, and not by His divine nature (_ergo per naturam humanam

Christi tantum sumus reconciliati et non per divinam_)." (Schluesselburg

9, 216ff.)

Consistently, the Stancarian doctrine destroys both the unity of the

person of Christ and the sufficiency of His atonement. It not only

corrupts the doctrine of the infinite and truly redeeming value of the

obedience of the God-man, but also denies the personal union of the

divine and human natures in Christ. For if the divine nature is excluded

from the work of Christ, then it must be excluded also from His person,

since works are always acts of a person. And if it was a mere human

nature that died for us, then the price of our redemption is altogether

inadequate, and we are not redeemed, as Luther so earnestly emphasized

against Zwingli. (CONC. TRIGL. 1028, 44.) True, Stancarus protested:

"Christ is Mediator according to the human nature only; this exclusive

'only' does not exclude the divine nature from the person of Christ, but

from His office as Mediator." (Frank 2, 111.) However, just this was

Luther's contention, that Christ is our Mediator also according to His

divine nature, and that the denial of this truth both invalidates His

satisfaction and divides His person.

The Third Article of the _Formula of Concord_, therefore, rejects the

error of Stancarus as well as that of Osiander. Against the latter it

maintains that the active and passive obedience of Christ is our

righteousness before God: and over against the former, that this

obedience was the act of the entire person of Christ, and not of His

human nature alone. We read: "In opposition to both these parties

[Osiander and Stancarus] it has been unanimously taught by the other

teachers of the _Augsburg Confession_ that Christ is our Righteousness

not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human

nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed,

justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His

complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the

forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's

children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith

alone, out of pure grace is imputed for righteousness to all true

believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their

unrighteousness." (917, 4.)

182. Deviations of Parsimonious and Hamburg Ministers.

In 1563 a collateral controversy concerning the obedience of Christ was

raised by Parsimonius (George Karg). He was born 1512; studied under

Luther in Wittenberg; 1547 he became pastor in Schwabach, and 1556

superintendent in Ansbach; 1563 he was deposed because of erroneous

theses published in that year; he was opposed by Hesshusius and Ketzmann

in Ansbach; 1570, having discussed his difference with the theologians

in Wittenberg, Karg retracted and was restored to his office; he died

1576. In his theses on justification Parsimonius deviated from the

Lutheran doctrine by teaching that Christ redeemed us by His passive

obedience only, and by denying that His active obedience had any

vicarious merit, since as man He Himself owed such obedience to the Law

of God,--a view afterwards defended also by such Reformed divines as

John Piscator, John Camero, and perhaps Ursinus. (Schaff 1, 274.)

Over against this error the _Formula of Concord_ explains and declares:

"Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the

believer out of pure grace is the obedience suffering, and resurrection

of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid

for our sins. For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one

undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (because He is the

Lord of the Law) as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is

concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering

and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made

under the Law and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for

righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience which He

rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living

and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and

eternally saves us." (919, 16.)--

In their zealous opposition to the doctrine of Osiander according to

which the indwelling essential holiness of the divine nature of Christ

is our righteousness before God, also the Hamburg ministers went a step

too far in the opposite direction. They denied, or at any rate seemed to

deny, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity as such in believers. In their

_Response (Responsio)_ of 1552 they declared: "God is said to dwell

where He is present by His grace and benevolence, where He gives the

Word of His grace, and reveals His promises concerning His mercy and the

remission of sins, where He works by His Spirit, etc." (Frank 2, 107.)

Again: "That His indwelling pertains to His efficacy and operation

appears from many passages which describe without a figure the efficacy

and operation of Christ and of the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers."

"The dwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers signifies that they are

led by the Spirit of God." "But it cannot be proved by the Scripture

that the fulness of God dwells bodily in us as it dwells in Christ

Jesus. The inhabitation of God in us is a matter of grace, not of

nature; of gift, not of property." (107.)

In 1551 Melanchthon had written: "It must be admitted that God dwells in

our hearts, not only in such a manner that He there is efficacious,

though not present with His own essence, but that He is both present and

efficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, but

God is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile."

(_C. R._ 7, 781.) This was the view of the Lutheran theologians

generally. Article III of the _Formula of Concord_, too, is emphatic in

disavowing a personal union of the deity and humanity in believers, as

well as in asserting that God Himself, not merely His gifts, dwell in

Christians. (935, 54; 937, 65.) In addition to the aberrations

enumerated, Article III rejects also some of the Roman and the

Romanizing errors concerning justification in the Leipzig Interim, and

some views entertained by Majorists which are extensively and _ex

professo_ dealt with in Article IV. (CONC. TRIGL. 917, 5.)

58. (�5 3 � H�� 6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'> 

278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia.

On March 22, 1574, Andreae sent the _Swabian Concordia_ to Duke Julius

and Chemnitz with the request to examine it and to have it discussed in

the churches of Lower Saxony. On the twelfth of May the Duke ordered

Chemnitz to prepare an opinion on the book and to present it to the

clergy for their examination and approval. Under the leadership of

Chemnitz numerous conferences were held, and the various criticisms

offered led to a revision of the document. This work was begun in April,

1575, by the theological faculty of Rostock. Apart from numerous changes

and additions everywhere, the articles on Free Will and on the Lord's

Supper were completely remodeled by Chytraeus and Chemnitz.

The new confession, known as the _Swabian [Lower] Saxon Concordia_, was

subscribed by the theologians and pastors of the duchies of Brunswick,

Mecklenburg, Mansfeld, Hoya, and Oldenburg. It acknowledges as its

doctrinal basis the Holy Scriptures, the three Ecumenical Creeds, the

_Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and

Luther's two Catechisms. It discusses the following articles in the

following order: 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Of

the Righteousness of Faith before God; 4. Of Good Works, 5. Of the Law

and the Gospel; 6. Of the Third Use of the Law of God; 7. Of the Holy

Supper; 8. Of God's Eternal Providence and Election; 9. Of Church Usages

which are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 10. Of Free Will or

Human Powers; 11. Of Other Factions and Sects which have Never

Acknowledged the _Augsburg Confession_.

While this new _Concordia_ was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, to

whom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied with

its form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticized

the unevenness of its style, its frequent use of Latin technical terms,

its quotations (now approved, now rejected) from Melanchthon, etc.

Particularly regarding the last mentioned point they feared that the

references to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence they

preferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which was

done in the _Formula of Concord_ as finally adopted.

279. The Maulbronn Formula.

The movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received a

powerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse of

Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking the

Philippists, God had removed the chief obstacle of a godly and general

peace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began to

disappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed to

the dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peace

embracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the public

exposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by Count

Henneberg and other princes, _viz._, that the Wittenberg theologians

were universally suspected, and that peace could not be established

until their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrines

of the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown in

the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists of

Electoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists rather

than Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic _Exegesis

Perspicua_ of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector that

for years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologians

and unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, were

secret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitz

remarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the article

on the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention.

(Richard, 426.)

Among Lutherans generally the humiliating events in Saxony increased the

feeling of shame at the conditions prevailing within their Church as

well as the earnest desire for a genuine and lasting peace in the old

Lutheran truths. And now Elector August, who, despite his continued

animosity against Flacius, always wished to be a true Lutheran, but up

to 1574 had not realized that the Philippistic type of doctrine dominant

in his country departed from Luther's teaching, was determined to

satisfy this universal longing for unity and peace. Immediately after

the unmasking of the Philippists he took measures to secure the

restoration of orthodox Lutheranism in his own lands. At the same time

he placed himself at the head of the larger movement for the

establishment of religious peace among the Lutherans generally by the

elaboration and adoption of a doctrinal formula settling the pending

controversies. To restore unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, which

his own theologians had done so much to disturb, was now his uppermost

desire. He prosecuted the plan of pacification with great zeal and

perseverance. He also paid the heavy expenses (80,000 gulden), incurred

by the numerous conventions, etc. And when, in the interest of such

peace and unity, the theologians were engaged in conferences the pious

Elector and his wife were on their knees, asking God that He would crown

their labor with success.

The specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript of

November 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians,

appointed by the various Lutheran princes "meet in order to deliberate

how, by the grace of God, all [the existing various _corpora doctrinae_]

might be reduced to one _corpus_ which we all could adopt, and that this

book or _corpus doctrinae_ be printed anew and the ministers in the

lands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby." Before this

Elector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to take

the initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg,

Duke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask a

number of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question as

to how a document might be prepared which would serve as a beginning to

bring about true Christian concord among the churches of the _Augsburg

Confession_. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttemberg

court-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgart

provost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and several

theologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November

14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach were

ordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. The

document which they submitted was discussed with theologians from

Henneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribed

January 19, 1576.

The _Maulbronn Formula_, as the document was called, differs from the

_Swabian-Saxon Concordia_ in being much briefer (about half as

voluminous), in avoiding technical Latin terms, in making no reference

whatever to Melanchthon, in quoting from Luther's works only, and in

omitting such doctrinal points (Anabaptism, Schwenckfeldianism,

Antitrinitarianism, etc.) as had not been controverted among the

Lutherans. Following the order of the _Augustana_, this _Formula_ treats

the following articles. 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ;

3. Of Justification of Faith 4. Of the Law and Gospel; 5. Of Good Works;

6. Of the Holy Supper of Our Lord Christ; 7. Of Church Usages, Called

Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 8. Of Free Will; 9. Of the Third Use of

God's Law.

280. The Torgau Book.

On February 9, 1576, the _Maulbronn Formula_, approved by Count Ludwig

of Wuerttemberg, Margrave Carl of Baden, and Count George Ernest of

Henneberg, was transmitted to Elector August, who had already received a

copy of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia from Duke Julius of Brunswick. The

Elector submitted both to Andreae for an opinion, whom formal reasons

induced to decide in favor of the _Maulbronn Formula_. At the same time

Andreae advised the Elector to arrange a general conference of prominent

theologians to act and decide in this matter, suggesting as two of its

members Chemnitz and Chytraeus of Rostock. This being in agreement with

his own plans, the Elector, at the convention at Lichtenberg, February

15, 1576 submitted the suggestions of Andreae to twelve of his own

theologians, headed by Nicholas Selneccer, then professor in Leipzig.

[Selneccer was born December 6, 1530. In 1550 he took up his studies in

Wittenberg, where he was much impressed and influenced by Melanchthon.

In 1557 he was appointed court-preacher in Dresden. Beginning with 1565

after the banishment of Flacius and his colleagues, he was professor in

Jena. He returned to Leipzig in 1568. In 1570 he accepted a call from

Duke Julius as court-preacher and superintendent in Brunswick, but

returned to Leipzig in 1574. Before the unmasking of the

Crypto-Calvinists his theological attitude lacked clearness and

determination. Ever after, however, he was the leader of the Lutheran

forces in Electoral Saxony. At the Lichtenberg Convention, convoked

February 16, 1576, by Elector August, Selneccer successfully advocated

the removal of the Wittenberg Catechism, the _Consensus Dresdensis_, and

the _Corpus Philippicum_. In their place he recommended the adoption of

a new _corpus doctrinae_ containing the three Ecumenical Creeds, the

_Unaltered Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_,

the Catechisms of Luther, and, if desired, Luther's _Commentary on

Galatians_. Finally he advised that the electors and princes arrange a

convention of such representative theologians as, _e.g._, Chytraeus,

Chemnitz, Andreae, and Marbach, to discuss the doctrinal differences.

Selneccer's recommendations were adopted by the convention and

transmitted to Elector August. Though contributing little to the

contents of the _Formula of Concord_, Selneccer heartily cooperated in

its preparation, revision, and adoption. In 1580, of his own accord, he

published the Latin _Book of Concord_, which was followed in 1584 by an

edition authorized by the princes. Selneccer also participated in

preparing the _Apology of the Book of Concord_, first published 1582 in

Magdeburg. In May, 1589, after the Crypto-Calvinistic reaction under

Christian I, Selneccer, whom the Calvinists hated more than others of

the theologians who had participated in the promulgation of the _Formula

of Concord_, was deposed, harassed, and reduced to poverty because of

his testimony against Chancellor Crell and his earnest and continued

warnings against the Calvinists. After the death of Christian I,

Selneccer was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, five

days before his death, May 24, 1592.]

Having through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained the

consent of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also in

accordance with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector August

immediately made arrangements for the contemplated general convention of

theologians. It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, and

attended by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in the

Lichtenberg convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [General

Superintendent of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor in

Frankfurt-on-the-Oder; born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [born

February 26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister in

Tuebingen when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 in

Wittenberg, where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from

1551 till his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgau

deliberations, in which much time was spent on the articles of Original

Sin and Free Will, was the so-called _Torgau Book_. On the seventh of

June the theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of the

Swabian-Saxon and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, had

agreed on a _corpus doctrinae_.

The _Torgau Book_ was essentially the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_, recast

and revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to the

desirable features (enumerated above) of the _Maulbronn Formula_. The

majority decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should be

retained, but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotations

from Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the

_Maulbronn Formula_. The _Torgau Book_ contained the twelve articles of

the later _Formula of Concord_ and in the same sequence; Article IX, "Of

the Descent of Christ into Hell," had been added at Torgau. The Book was

entitled: "_Opinion_ as to how the dissensions prevailing among the

theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ may, according to the Word of

God, be agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner." It was signed as

"their faith, doctrine, and confession" by the six men who were chiefly

responsible for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz,

Nicholas Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher

Cornerus. The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving to

Almighty God for the blessed results of their labors and the happy

termination and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccer

delivering the sermon. Similar services were held at other places,

notably in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony.

In a letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the Torgau

Convention: "Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from,

beyond, above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought of

all. I was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that these

things were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me.

certainly a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward the

restoration of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination of

corruptions, toward the establishment of a godly confession." In a

letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in a

similar vein, saying: "Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almost

overwhelmed with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau]

brought to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the right

hand of the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since the

truth no longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute to

the restoration of good feeling." (Richard, 428. 430.)