F. Bente - Historical IntroductionsXV. The Flacian Controversy

Matthias Flacius

XV. The Flacian Controversy.

167. Flacius Entrapped by Strigel.

Matthias Flacius Illyricus, one of the most learned and capable

theologians of his day and the most faithful, devoted, staunch, zealous,

and able exponent and defender of genuine Lutheranism, was the author of

the malignant controversy which bears his name. Flacius was born March

3, 1520, in Illyria hence called Illyricus. He studied in Basel,

Tuebingen, and Wittenberg. At Wittenberg he was convinced that the

doctrine of the Lutheran Church is in complete agreement with the Word

of God. Here, too, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew in 1544. In

April, 1549, he left the city on account of the Interim. He removed to

Magdeburg where he became the energetic and successful leader of the

opponents of the Interimists and Adiaphorists. He was appointed

professor at the University of Jena, founded 1547, partly in opposition

to Philippism. In December 1561, he and his adherents were banished from

Jena. When the latter returned in 1567, he was not recalled. Persecuted

by his enemies (especially Elector August of Saxony) and forsaken by his

friends, he now moved from one place to another: from Jena to

Regensburg, thence to Antwerp, to Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Strassburg

(from where he was expelled in the spring of 1573), and again to

Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he found a last asylum for himself and his

family (wife and eight children), and where he also died in a hospital,

March 11, 1575.

In the Adiaphoristic Controversy Flacius had time and again urged the

Lutherans to die rather than deny and surrender the truth. And when in

the controversy about original sin all shunned him and turned against

him he gave ample proof of the fact that he himself was imbued with the

spirit he had endeavored to kindle in others, being willing to suffer

and to be banished and persecuted rather than sacrifice what he believed

to be the truth.--The most important of his numerous books are:

_Catalogus Testium Veritatis_, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt

Papae, 1556; _Ecclesiastica Historia_, or the so-called Magdeburg

Centuries (_Centuriones_), comprising the history of the first thirteen

centuries, and published 1559-1574; _Clavis Scripturae_, of 1567; and

_Glossa Novi Testamenti_. Walther remarks: "It was a great pity that

Flacius, who had hitherto been such a faithful champion of the pure

doctrine, exposed himself to the enemies in such a manner. Henceforth

the errorists were accustomed to brand all those as Flacianists who were

zealous in defending the pure doctrine of Luther." (_Kern und Stern_,

34.)

The Flacian Controversy sprang from, and must be regarded as an episode

of, the Synergistic Controversy, in which also some champions of

Luther's theology (Amsdorf, Wigand, Hesshusius, and others) had

occasionally employed unguarded, extreme, and inadequate expressions.

Following are some of the immoderate and extravagant statements made by

Flacius: God alone converts man, the Adamic free will not only not

cooperating, "but also raging and roaring against it (_sed etiam contra

furente ac fremente_)." (Preger 2, 212.) The malice of our free will is

a "diabolical malice (_nostra diabolica malitia carnis aut liberi

arbitrii_)." By original sin man is "transformed into the image of Satan

(_ad imaginem Satanae transformatus, eiusque charactere [foeda Satanae

imagine] signatus_)." (Gieseler 3, 2, 245.) By original sin "the

substance of man is destroyed (_substantiam hominis ablatam esse_);"

after the Fall original sin is the substance of man; man's nature is

identical with sin; in conversion a new substance is created by God. In

particular, the assertions concerning the substantiality of original sin

gave rise to the so-called Flacian Controversy. After Strigel, at the

second session of the disputation in Weimar, had dilated on the

philosophical definitions of the terms "substance" and "accident"

("_accidens, quod adest vel abest praeter subiecti corruptionem_"), and

had declared that original sin was an accident which merely impeded free

will in its activity, Flacius, in the heat of the controversy,

exclaimed: "_Originale peccatum non est accidens_. Original sin is not

an accident, for the Scriptures call it flesh, the evil heart," etc.

Thus he fell into the pitfall which the wily Strigel had adroitly laid

for him. Though Flacius seemed to be loath to enter upon the matter any

further, and protested against the use of philosophical definitions in

theology, Strigel now was eager to entangle him still further, plying

him with the question: "_An negas peccatum originis esse accidens?_ Do

you deny that original sin is an accident?" Flacius answered: "_Lutherus

diserte negat esse accidens_. Luther expressly denies that it is an

accident." Strigel: "_Visne negare peccatum esse accidens?_ Do you mean

to deny that sin is an accident?" Flacius: "_Quod sit substantia, dixi

Scripturam et Lutherum affirmare._ I have said that Scripture and Luther

affirm that it is a substance." (Luthardt, 213. 216.)

After the session in which the fatal phrase had fallen from his lips,

Wigand and Musaeus expostulated with Flacius, designating (according to

later reports of theirs) his statement as "this new, perilous, and

blasphemous proposition of the ancient Manicheans (_haec nova,

periculosa et blasphema veterum Manichaeorum propositio_)." (Planck 4,

611.) Flacius declared that, "in the sudden and pressing exigency, in

the interest of truth, and against Pelagian enthusiasm, he had taken

this expression [concerning the substantiality of original sin] from

Luther's doctrine and books." (Preger 2, 324.) In the following (third)

session, however, he repeated his error, declaring: I must stand by my

statement that original sin is not an accident, but a substance,

"because the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures which employ terms

denoting substance (_quae verbis substantialibus utuntur_) are so

numerous." (Planck 4, 610; Luthardt, 216.) Also later on Flacius always

maintained that his doctrine was nothing but the teaching of the Bible

and of Luther. As to Scripture-proofs, he referred to passages in which

the Scriptures designate sin as "flesh," "stony heart," etc. Regarding

the teaching of Luther, he quoted statements in which he describes

original sin as "man's nature," "essence," "substantial sin," "all that

is born of father and mother," etc. (Preger 2, 318.)

However, the palpable mistake of Flacius was that he took the

substantial terms on which he based his theory in their original and

proper sense, while the Bible and Luther employ them in a figurative

meaning, as the _Formula of Concord_ carefully explains in its first

article, which decided and settled this controversy. (874, 50.) Here we

read: "Also to avoid strife about words, _aequivocationes vocabulorum_,

that is, words and expressions which are applied and used in various

meanings, should be carefully and distinctly explained, as when it is

said: God creates the nature of men, there by the term _nature_ the

essence, body, and soul of men are understood. But often the disposition

or vicious quality of a thing is called its nature, as when it is said:

It is the nature of the serpent to bite and poison. Thus Luther says

that sin and sinning are the disposition and nature of corrupt man.

Therefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our

nature as it is described in the _Smalcald Articles_. But sometimes the

concrete person or the subject that is, man himself with body and soul

in which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for the

reason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luther

says: 'Thy birth, thy nature, and thy entire essence is sin,' that is,

sinful and unclean. Luther himself explains that by nature-sin,

person-sin, essential sin he means that not only the words, thoughts,

and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person and essence of man

are altogether corrupted from the root by original sin." (875, 51f.)

168. Context in which Statement was Made.

In making his statement concerning the substantiality of original sin,

the purpose of Flacius was to wipe out the last vestige of spiritual

powers ascribed to natural man by Strigel, and to emphasize the doctrine

of total corruption, which Strigel denied. His fatal blunder was that he

did so in terms which were universally regarded as savoring of

Manicheism. As was fully explained in the chapter of the Synergistic

Controversy Strigel taught that free will, which belongs to the

substance and essence of man, and hence cannot be lost without the

annihilation of man himself, always includes the capacity to choose in

both directions, that also with respect to divine grace and the

operations of the Holy Spirit man is and always remains a _liberum

agens_ in the sense that he is able to decide _in utramque partem;_ that

this ability, constituting the very essence of free will, may be

weakened and impeded in its activity, but never lost entirely. If it

were lost, Strigel argued, the very substance of man and free will as

such would have to be regarded as annihilated. But now man, also after

the Fall, is still a real man, possessed of intellect and will. Hence

original sin cannot have despoiled him of this liberty of choosing _pro_

or _con_ also in matters spiritual. The loss of original righteousness

does not, according to Strigel, involve the total spiritual disability

of the will and its sole tendency and activity toward what is

spiritually evil. Moreover, despite original corruption, it is and

remains an indestructible property of man to be able, at least in a

measure, to assent to and to admit, the operations of the Holy Spirit,

and therefore and in this sense to be converted "_aliquo modo volens._"

(Planck 4, 667. 675. 681.)

It was in opposition to this Semi-Pelagian teaching that Flacius

declared original sin to be not a mere accident, but the substance of

man. Entering upon the train of thought and the phraseology suggested by

his opponent, he called substance what in reality was an accident,

though not an accident such as Strigel contended. From his own

standpoint it was therefore a shrewd move to hide his own synergism and

to entrap his opponent, when Strigel plied Flacius with the question

whether he denied that original sin was an accident. For in the context

and the sense in which it was proposed the question involved a vicious

dilemma. Answering with yes or no, Flacius was compelled either to

affirm Strigel's synergism or to expose himself to the charge of

Manicheism. Instead of replying as he did, Flacius should have cleared

the sophistical atmosphere by explaining: "If I say, 'Original sin is an

accident,' you [Strigel] will infer what I reject, _viz._, that the

corrupt will of man retains the power to decide also in favor of the

operations of the Holy Spirit. And if I answer that original sin is not

an accident (such as you have in mind), you will again infer what I

disavow, _viz._, that man, who by the Fall has lost the ability to will

in the spiritual direction, has _eo ipso_ lost the will and its freedom

entirely and as such." As it was, however, Flacius instead of adhering

strictly to the real issue--the question concerning man's cooperation in

conversion--and exposing the sophistry implied in the question put by

Strigel, most unfortunately suffered himself to be caught on the horns

of the dilemma. He blindly walked into the trap set for him by Strigel,

from which also later on he never succeeded in fully extricating

himself.

With all his soul Flacius rejected the synergism involved in Strigel's

question. His blunder was, as stated, that he did so in terms

universally regarded as Manichean. He was right when he maintained that

original sin is the inherited tendency and motion of the human mind,

will, and heart, not toward, but against God,--a direction, too, which

man is utterly unable to change. But he erred fatally by identifying

this inborn evil tendency with the substance of fallen man and the

essence of his will as such. It will always be regarded as a redeeming

feature that it was in antagonizing synergism and championing the

Lutheran _sola gratia_ that Flacius coined his unhappy proposition. And

in properly estimating his error, it must not be overlooked that he, as

will be shown in the following, employed the terms "substance" and

"accident" not in their generally accepted meaning but in a sense, and

according to a philosophical terminology, of his own.

169. Formal and Material Substance.

The terms "substance" and "accident" are defined in Melanchthon's

_Erotemata Dialectices_ as follows: "_Substantia est ens, quod revera

proprium esse habet, nec est in alio, ut habens esse a subiecto._

Substance is something which in reality has a being of its own and is

not in another as having its being from the subject." (_C. R._ 13,

528.) "_Accidens est quod non per sese subsistit, nec est pars

substantiae, sed in alio est mutabiliter._ Accident is something which

does not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeable

in something else." (522.) Melanchthon continues: "Accidentium alia sunt

separabilia ut frigus ab aqua, notitia a mente, laetitia, tristitia a

corde. Alia accidentia sunt inseparabilia, ut quantitas seu magnitudo a

substantia corporea, calor ab igni, humiditas ab aqua, non separantur...

Et quia separabilia accidentia magis conspicua sunt, ideo inde sumpta

est puerilis descriptio: Accidens est, quod adest et abest praeter

subiecti corruptionem. Whatever is present or absent without the

corruption of the subject is an accident." (_C. R._ 13, 523; Preger 2,

396. 407; Seeberg 4, 494.)

Evidently this last definition, which was employed also by Strigel, is

ambiguous, inasmuch as the word "corruption" may signify an

annihilation, or merely a perversion, or a corruption in the ordinary

meaning of the word. In the latter sense the term applied to original

sin would be tantamount to a denial of the Lutheran doctrine of _total_

corruption. When Jacob Andreae, in his disputation with Flacius, 1571,

at Strassburg, declared that accident is something which is present or

absent without _corruption_ of the subject, he employed the term in the

sense of destruction or annihilation. In the same year Hesshusius stated

that by original sin "the whole nature body and soul, substance as well

as accidents, are defiled, corrupted, and dead," of course, spiritually.

And what he understood by substance appears from his assertion: "The

being itself, the substance and nature itself, in as far as it is

nature, is not an evil conflicting with the Law of God.... Not even in

the devil the substance itself, in as far as it is substance, is a bad

thing, _i.e._, a thing conflicting with the Law." (Preger 2, 397.)

The _Formula of Concord_ carefully and correctly defines: "Everything

that is must be either _substantia_, that is, a self-existent essence,

or _accidens_, that is, an accidental matter, which does not exist by

itself essentially but is in another self-existent essence and can be

distinguished from it." "Now, then, since it is the indisputable truth

that everything that is, is either a substance or an _accidens_ that is,

either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it (as has

just been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and no

truly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this),

necessity here constrains, and no one can evade it if the question be

asked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing as

exists by itself, and is not in another, or whether it is an _accidens_,

that is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another,

and cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat that

original sin is no substance, but an accident." (877, 54; 57.)

Flacius, however, took the words "substance" and "accident" in a

different sense. He distinguished between the material and formal

substance, and the latter he regarded as man's true original essence.

This essence he explained, consisted in the original righteousness and

holiness of man, in the image of God or the will as truly free and in

proper relation toward God. He said: "Ipsum hominem _essentialiter_ sic

esse formatum, ut recta voluntas esset imago Dei, non tantum eius

accidens." (Seeberg 4, 494.) He drew the conclusion that original sin,

by which the image of God (not the human understanding and will as such)

is lost, cannot be a mere accident, but constitutes the very essence and

substance of fallen man. He argued: The image of God is the formal

essence of man, or the soul itself according to its best part, by

original sin this image is changed into its opposite: hence the change

wrought by original sin is not accidental, but substantial,--just as

substantial and essential as when wine is changed into vinegar or fire

into frost. What man has lost, said Flacius, is not indeed his material

substance (_substantia materialis_), but his true formal substance or

substantial form (_substantia formalis_ or _forma substantialis_). Hence

also original sin, or the corruption resulting from the Fall, in reality

is, and must be designated, the formal substance or substantial form of

natural man. Not all gifts of creation were lost to man by his Fall; the

most essential boon, however, the image of God, was destroyed and

changed into the image of Satan. "In homine," said Flacius, "et mansit

aliquid, et tamen quod optimum in ratione et essentia fuit, nempe imago

Dei, non tantum evanuit, sed etiam in contrarium, nempe in imaginem

diaboli, commutatum est." The devil, Flacius continued, has robbed man

of his original form (_forma_), the image of God, and stamped him with

his own diabolical form and nature. (Luthardt 215; Gieseler 3, 2, 253.)

170. Further Explanations of Flacius.

The manner in which Flacius distinguished between material and formal

substance appears from the tract on original sin (_De Peccati Originalis

aut Veteris Adami Appellationibus et Essentia_), which he appended to

his _Clavis Scripturae_ of 1567. There we read: "In this disputation

concerning the corruption of man I do not deny that this meaner matter

(_illam viliorem materiam_) or mass of man created in the beginning has

indeed remained until now, although it is exceedingly vitiated, as when

in wine or aromas the spirituous (_airy_) or fiery substance escapes,

and nothing remains but the earthy and watery substance; but I hold that

the substantial form or the formal substance (_formam substantialem aut

substantiam formalem_) has been lost, yea, changed into its opposite.

But I do not speak of that external and coarse form (although it too, is

corrupted and weakened very much) which a girl admires in a youth, or

philosophy also in the entire man, according to which he consists of

body and soul, has an erect stature two feet, hands, eyes, ears, and the

like, is an animal laughing, counting, reasoning, etc.; but I speak of

that most noble substantial form (_nobilissima substantialis forma_)

according to which especially the heart itself or rather the rational

soul, was formed in such a manner that his very essence might be the

image of God and represent Him, and that his substantial powers,

intellect and will, and his affections might be conformed to the

properties of God, represent, truly acknowledge, and most willingly

embrace Him." (Preger 2, 314; Gieseler 3, 2, 254.)

Again: "In this manner, therefore, I believe and assert that original

sin is a substance, because the rational soul (as united with God) and

especially its noblest substantial powers, namely, the intellect and

will which before had been formed so gloriously that they were the true

image of God and the fountain of all justice, uprightness, and piety,

and altogether essentially like unto gold and gems, are now, by deceit

of Satan, so utterly perverted that they are the true and living image

of Satan, and, as it were, filthy or rather consisting of an infernal

flame, not otherwise than when the sweetest and purest mass, infected

with the most venomous ferment, is altogether and substantially changed

and transformed into a lump of the same ferment." (Gieseler 3, 2, 254.)

Original sin "is not a mere accident in man, but his inverted and

transformed essence or new form itself, just as when a most wholesome

medicine is changed into the most baneful poison." "The matter remains,

but it receives a new form, namely, the image of Satan." "Man, who in

his essential form was the image of God, has in his essential form

become the image of Satan." "This change may be compared to the change

which the golden image of a beautiful man undergoes when it is

transformed into the image of a dragon, the matter at the same time

being corrupted." (Preger 2, 214. 217. 325.)

Dilating on the substantiality of original sin, Flacius furthermore

declared: "Original malice in man is not something different from the

evil mind or stony heart itself, not something that destroys him

spiritually as a disease consumes him bodily, but it is ruined and

destroyed nature itself (_sed est tantum ipsa perditissima et iam

destructissima natura_). Original malice was not, as many now think

infused from without into Adam in such a way as when poison or some

other bad substance is thrown or poured into good liquor, so that by

reason of the added bad substance also the rest becomes noxious, but in

such a way as when good liquor or bread itself is perverted so that now

it is bad as such and poisonous or rather poison (_ut illud per se iam

malum ac venenatum aut potius venenum sit_)." (Preger 2, 313.)

Also concerning the body and soul of fallen man Flacius does not

hesitate to affirm that, since they are permeated and corrupted by

original sin, "these parts themselves are sin, _eas ipsas [partes,

corpus et animam] esse illud nativum malum, quod cum Deo pugnat._" "Some

object," says Flacius, "that the creature of God must be distinguished

from sin, which is not of God. I answer: now do separate, if you can,

the devil from his inherent wickedness!... How can the same thing be

separated from itself! We therefore can not distinguish them in any

other way than by stating that with respect to his first creation and

also his present preservation man, even as the devil himself, is of God,

but that with respect to this horrible transformation (_ratione istius

horrendae metamorphoseos_) he is of the devil, who, by the force of the

efficacious sentence and punishment of angry God: 'Thou shalt die,' not

only captured us to be his vilest slaves, but also recast, rebaked, and

changed, or, so to speak, metamorphosed us into another man, as the

Scripture says, even as he [the devil] himself is inverted." All parts,

talents, and abilities of man, Flacius contends, are "evil and mere

sins," because they all oppose God. "What else are they than armed

unrighteousness!" he exclaims. Even the natural knowledge of God "is

nothing but the abominable source of idolatry and of all superstitions."

(Preger 316f.; Gieseler 3, 2, 255.)

That the fundamental view of Flacius, however, was much farther apart

from Manicheism than some of his radical phrases imply, appears from his

"_Gnowthi seauton, De Essentia Originalis Institutiae,_" of 1568. After

admitting that Augustine, Luther, and the _Apology of the Augsburg

Confession_ are correct when they define original sin as an inordinate

disposition, a disorder (_ataxia_), perversion, and confusion of the

parts of man, Flacius proceeds: "The substantial form of a certain thing

for the most part, consists in the right position and disposition of the

parts; as, for example, if a human body were born which had its eyes,

ears, and mouth on the belly or feet, and, _vice versa,_ the toes on the

head, no one would say that it was properly a man, but rather a monster.

... It appears, therefore, that the inordinate disposition of the parts

produces an altogether new body or thing. Thus, forsooth, the horrible

perturbation of the soul has also produced, as it were a new kind of

monster fighting against God." (Preger 2, 409.) Accordingly, it was not

man's body and soul as such, but the alteration of the relation of his

powers toward one another and the consequent corruption of these powers,

that Flacius had in mind when he designated original sin as the new

substantial form, or substance, of sinful man.

Flacius expressly denied that the fall of man or his conversion involved

a physical change. "I do not teach a physical regeneration," he

declared, "nor do I say that two hearts are created, but I say that this

most excellent part of the soul or of man is once more established, or

that the image of God is recast and transformed out of the image of

Satan, even as before the image of God was transformed into the image of

Satan. _Physicam renascentiam non assero nec dico duo corda creari, sed

dico istam praestantissimam animae aut hominis partem denuo condi aut ex

imagine Satanae refundi aut transformari imaginem Dei, sicut antea imago

Dei fuit transformata in imaginem Satanae._" (Seeberg 4, 495.) Gieseler

pertinently remarks: "It is apparent that Flacius did not deviate from

the common concept of original sin, but from the concepts of substance

and accident, but that here, too, he was uncertain, inasmuch as he

employed the terms _substantia, forma substantialis,_ and _substantia

formalis_ promiscuously." (3, 2, 255.)

If not necessarily involved in, it was at least in keeping with his

extreme position and extravagant phraseology concerning original sin

when Flacius, in his _De Primo et Secundo Capite ad Romanos, quatenus

Libero Arbitrio Patrocinari Videntur,_ rejected the doctrine of an

inborn idea of God and of His Law inscribed in the heart of natural

man. On Rom. 1, 19 he comments: It is only from the effects in the world

that man infers the existence of a supreme cause. And with respect to

Rom. 2, 15 he maintains that Paul's statements were to be understood,

not of a law written in the heart of man, but of a knowledge which the

heathen had derived by inference, from experience, or from tradition of

the fathers. On this point Strigel, no doubt was correct when he

objected: If the knowledge of God's existence were really extinguished

from the heart, there could be no discipline among men; and if man had

no inborn knowledge of the Law, then there could be no such thing as

conscience which condemns him when he sins. The fact that man fears

punishments even when there is no government to fear, as was the case

with Alexander when he had murdered Clitus, proves that in the heart

there is a certain knowledge both of God and of His Law. (Preger 2,

213.) However, Flacius did not, as Strigel seems to insinuate, deny that

natural man has an obscure knowledge of God's existence and Law, but

merely maintained that this knowledge was not inborn or inherited, but

acquired from without.

171. Controversy Precipitated by Flacius.

Though Flacius, when he first made his statement concerning the

substantiality of original sin may not have felt absolutely sure of the

exact meaning, bearing, and correctness of his position, yet the facts

do not warrant the assumption that afterwards he was in any way

diffident or wavering in his attitude. Whatever his views on this

subject may have been before 1560--after the fatal phrase had fallen

from his lips, he never flinched nor flagged in zealously defending it.

Nor was he ever disposed to compromise the matter as far as the

substance of his doctrine was concerned. In 1570 Spangenberg of

Mansfeld, who sided with Flacius, suggested that he retain his meaning,

but change his language: "_Teneat Illyricus mentem, mutet linguam._" To

this Flacius consented. On September 28 1570, he published his _Brief

Confession,_ in which he agreed to abstain from the use of the term

"substance." However, what he suggested as a substitute, _viz._, that

original sin be defined as the nature of man (the word "nature," as he

particularly emphasized, to be taken not in a figurative, but in its

proper meaning), was in reality but another way of repeating his error.

The same was the case in 1572, when Flacius, opposed and sorely pressed

by the ministerium of Strassburg (whence he was banished the following

year), offered to substitute for the word "substance" the phrase

"essential powers." (Preger 2, 371.) Two years later, at the public

disputation in Langenau, Silesia, where Flacius defended his doctrine

with favorable results for himself against Jacob Coler [born 1537;

studied in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1564 pastor in Lauban, Upper Lausatia

(Oberlausitz); 1573 in Neukirch; 1574 he opposed Leonard Crentzheim and

Flacius; 1575 professor in Frankfort; afterwards active first as

Praepositus in Berlin and later on as Superintendent in Mecklenburg,

published _Disputatio De Libero Arbitrio;_ died March 7, 1612], he

declared that he did not insist on his phrase as long as the doctrine

itself was adopted and original sin was not declared to be a mere

accident. But this, too, was no real retraction of his error. (Preger 2,

387.) In a similar way Flacius repeatedly declared himself willing to

abstain from the use of the word "substance" in connection with his

doctrine concerning original sin, but with conditions and limitations

which made his concessions illusory, and neither did nor could satisfy

his opponents.

At the disputation in Weimar, 1560, Wigand and Musaeus, as stated,

warned Flacius immediately after the session in which he had made his

statement. Schluesselburg relates: "Immediately during the disputation,

as I frequently heard from their own lips, Dr. Wigand, Dr. Simon

Musaeus, and other colleagues of his who attended the disputation ...

admonished Illyricus in a brotherly and faithful manner to abstain from

this new, perilous and blasphemous proposition of the ancient

Manicheans, which would cause great turmoil in the Church of God, and to

refute the error of Victorin [Strigel] concerning free will not by means

of a false proposition, but with the Word of God. However, intoxicated

with ambition, and relying, in the heat of the conflict, too much on the

acumen and sagacity of his own mind, Illyricus haughtily spurned the

brotherly and faithful admonitions of all his colleagues." (_Catalogus_

2, 4.) In his book _De Manichaeismo Renovato_ Wigand himself reports:

"Illyricus answered [to the admonition of his colleagues to abstain from

the Manichean phrase] that he had been drawn into this discussion by his

opponent against his own will. But what happened? Contrary to the

expectations of his colleagues, Illyricus in the following session

continued, as he had begun, to defend this insanity." (Preger 2, 324;

Planck 4, 611.) However, it does not appear that after the disputation

his friends pressed the matter any further, or that they made any

efforts publicly to disavow the Flacian proposition.

In 1567 Flacius published his tract _De Peccati Originalis aut Veteris

Adami Appellationibus et Essentia,_ "On the Appellations and Essence of

Original Sin or the Old Adam," appending it to his famous _Clavis

Scripturae_ of the same year. He had written this tract probably even

before 1564. In 1566 he sent it to Simon Musaeus, requesting his opinion

and the opinion of Hesshusius, who at that time was celebrating his

marriage with the daughter of Musaeus. In his answer, Musaeus approved

the tract, but desired that the term "substance" be explained as meaning

not the matter, but the form of the substance to which Hesshusius also

agreed. After the tract had appeared, Musaeus again wrote to Flacius,

June 21, 1568, saying that he agreed with his presentation of original

sin. At the same time, however, he expressed the fear that the bold

statement which Flacius had retained, "Sin is substance," would be

dangerously misinterpreted. (Preger 2, 327.) And before long a storm was

brewing, in which animosity registered its highest point, and a

veritable flood of controversial literature (one publication following

the other in rapid succession) was poured out upon the Church, which was

already distracted and divided by numerous and serious theological

conflicts.

By the publication of this treatise Flacius, who before long also was

harassed and ostracized everywhere, had himself made a public

controversy unavoidable. In the conflict which it precipitated, he was

opposed by all parties, not only by his old enemies, the Philippists,

but also by his former friends. According to the maxim: _Amicus Plato,

amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas,_ they now felt constrained,

in the interest of truth, to turn their weapons against their former

comrade and leader. Flacius himself had made it impossible for his

friends to spare him any longer. Nor did he deceive himself as to the

real situation. In a letter written to Wigand he reveals his fear that

the Lutherans and Philippists, then assembled at the Colloquium in

Altenburg (held from October 21, 1568, to March, 1569, between the

theologians of Thuringia and those of Electoral Saxony), would unite in

a public declaration against his teaching. Wigand whose warning Flacius

had disregarded at Weimar, wrote to Gallus: Flacius has forfeited the

right to request that nothing be published against him, because he

himself has already spread his views in print. And before long Wigand

began to denounce publicly the Flacian doctrine as "new and prolific

monsters, _monstra nova et fecunda._"

172. Publications Pro and Con.

According to Preger the first decided opposition to the Flacian teaching

came from Moerlin and Chemnitz, in Brunswick, to whom Flacius had also

submitted his tract for approval. Chemnitz closed his criticism by

saying: It is enough if we are able to retain what Luther has won

(_parta tueri_), let us abandon all desires to go beyond (_ulterius

quaerere_) and to improve upon him. (Preger 2, 328.) Moerlin

characterized Flacius as a vain man, and dangerous in many respects.

Flacius answered in an objective manner, betraying no irritation

whatever. (332.) In a letter of August 10, 1568, Hesshusius, who now had

read the tract more carefully charged Flacius with teaching that Satan

was a creator of substance, and before long refused to treat with him

any further. In September of the same year Flacius published his _Gnothi

seauton_ against the attacks of the Synergists and Philippists, notably

Christopher Lasius [who studied at Strassburg and Wittenberg, was active

in Goerlitz, Greussen, Spandau, Kuestrin, Cottbus, and Senftenberg,

wrote _Praelibationes Dogmatis Flaciani de Prodigiosa Hominis

Conversione;_ died 1572]. In the same year Hesshusius prepared his

_Analysis,_ which was approved by Gallus and the Jena theologians.

Realizing that all his former friends had broken with him entirely,

Flacius, in January 1570, _published_ his _Demonstrations Concerning the

Essence of the Image of God and the Devil,_ in which he attacked his

opponents, but without mentioning their names. His request for a private

discussion was bluntly rejected by the Jena theologians. Wigand, in his

_Propositions on Sin_ of May 5, 1570, was the first publicly to attack

Flacius by name. About the same time Moerlin's _Themata de Imagine Dei_

and Chemnitz's _Resolutio_ appeared. The former was directed "against

the impious and absurd proposition that sin is a substance", the latter,

against the assertion "that original sin is the very substance of man,

and that the soul of man itself is original sin." Hesshusius also

published his _Letter to M. Flacius Illyricus in the Controversy whether

Original Sin is a Substance._ Flacius answered in his _Defense of the

Sound Doctrine Concerning Original Righteousness and Unrighteousness, or

Sin,_ of September 1, 1570. Hesshusius published his _Analysis,_ in

which he repeated the charge that Flacius made the devil a creator of

substance.

In his _Brief Confession,_ of September 28 1570, Flacius now offered to

abstain from the use of the term "substance" in the manner indicated

above. A colloquium, however, requested by Flacius and his friends on

the basis of this Confession, was declined by the theologians of Jena.

Moreover, in answer to the _Brief Confession,_ Hesshusius published

(April 21, 1571) his _True Counter-Report,_ in which he again repeated

his accusation that Flacius made the devil a creator of substance. He

summarized his arguments as follows: "I have therefore proved from one

book [Flacius's tract of 1567] more than six times that Illyricus says:

_Satan condidit, fabricavit, transformavit veterem hominem, Satan est

figulus,_ that is: The devil created and made man, the devil is man's

potter." The idea of a creation out of nothing, however, was not taught

in the statements to which Hesshusius referred. (Preger 2, 348.)

Further publications by Andrew Schoppe [died after 1615], Wigand,

Moerlin, Hesshusius, and Chemnitz, which destroyed all hopes of a

peaceful settlement, caused Flacius to write his _Orthodox Confession

Concerning Original Sin._ In this comprehensive answer, which appeared

August 1, 1571, he declares "that either image, the image of God as well

as of Satan, is an essence, and that the opposite opinion diminishes the

merit of Christ." At the same time he complained that his statements

were garbled and misinterpreted by his opponents, that his was the

position of the man who asked concerning garlic and received an answer

concerning onions, that his opponents were but disputing with

imaginations of their own. (349f.)

In the same year, 1571, Wigand published a voluminous book, _On Original

Sin,_ in which he charged Flacius with teaching that original sin is the

entire carnal substance of man according to both his body and soul. In

his description of the Flacian doctrine we read: "Original sin is a

substance, as they teach. Accordingly, original sin is an animal, and

that, too, an intelligent animal. You must also add ears, eyes, mouth,

nose, arms, belly, and feet. Original sin laughs, talks, sews, sows,

works, reads, writes, preaches, baptizes, administers the Lord's Supper,

etc. For it is the substance of man that does such things. Behold, where

such men end!" Flacius replied in his _Christian and Reliable Answer to

All manner of Sophistries of the Pelagian Accident,_ 1572, protesting

that the doctrine ascribed to him was a misrepresentation of his

teaching. In the same year Wigand published _Reasons Why This

Proposition, in Controversy with the Manicheans: "Original Sin Is the

Corrupt Nature," Cannot Stand._ Here Wigand truly says: "Evil of the

substance and evil substance are not identical. _Malum substantiae et

mala substantia non sunt idem._" (Preger 2, 353. 410.)

In several publications of the same year Hesshusius asserted (quoting

testimonies to this effect from Augustine), that the Flacian doctrine

was identical with the tenets of the Manicheans, in substance as well as

terms. Flacius answered in _De Augustini et Manichaeorum Sententia, in

Controversia Peccati,_ 1572, in which he declared: "I most solemnly

condemn the Manichean insanity concerning two creators. I have always

denied that original sin is something, or has ever been something

outside of man; I have never ascribed to this sin any materiality of its

own." (355.) This book was followed by another attack by Hesshusius and

an answer, in turn, by Flacius.

In the same year Hesshusius, in order to prevent further accessions to

Flacianism, published his _Antidote (Antidoton) against the Impious and

Blasphemous Dogma of Matthias Flacius Illyricus by which He Asserts that

Original Sin Is Substance._ In this book, which was republished in 1576

and again in 1579, Hesshusius correctly argued: "If original sin is the

substance of the soul, then we are compelled to assert one of two

things, _viz._, either that Satan is the creator of substances or that

God is the creator and preserver of sin. _Si substantia animae est

peccatum originis, alterum a duobus necesse est poni, videlicet, aut

Satanam esse conditorem substantiarum, aut Deum esse peccati creatorem

et sustentatorem._" (Gieseler 3, 2, 256.) At this late hour, 1572, Simon

Musaeus, too, entered the arena with his _Opinion Concerning Original

Sin, Sententia de Peccato Originali._ In it he taught "that original sin

is not a substance, but the utmost corruption of it, in matter as well

as form," and that therefore "Pelagianism no less than Manicheism is to

be excluded and condemned."

When the ministerium of Strassburg turned against Flacius, he again

published several books defending his position on the controverted

questions, which resulted in his expulsion from the city. In 1573

Flacius published an answer to Hesshusius's _Antidote_ entitled, _Solid

Refutation of the Groundless Sophistries, Calumnies, and Figments, as

also of the Most Corrupt Errors of the "Antidote" and of Other

Neopelagian Writers._ Flacius charged Hesshusius with misrepresentation,

and demanded that he swear whether he really believed to have found the

alleged errors in his writings. (Preger 2, 364ff.)

Till his death, on March 11, 1575, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, Flacius

consistently adhered to his false terminology as well as teaching,

apparently never for a moment doubting that he was but defending

Luther's doctrine. One of his last books was entitled, _Some Clear and

Splendid Testimonies of Martin Luther Concerning the Evil Essence,

Image, Form, or Shape_ (Wesen, essentia, Bild, Form oder Gestalt) _of

the Earthly Dead Adam and Concerning the Essential Transformation of

Man._ (389.) As stated above, the mistake of Flacius was that he took

literally terms denoting substance which the Bible and Luther employ in

a figurative sense.

173. Adherents of Flacius.

The chief supporters of Flacius were the Mansfeldians, Count Vollrath

and Cyriacus Spangenberg [born 1528; studied in Wittenberg; served in

Eisleben, then in Mansfeld; died in Strassburg February 10, 1604]. In

the serious dissensions which arose in Mansfeld in consequence of the

controversy on original sin, the Count and Spangenberg were opposed by

the Jena theologians and Superintendent Menzel [Jerome Menzel, born

1517; studied in Wittenberg; wrote against Spangenberg; died 1590]. As

stated above, it was Spangenberg who endeavored to bring about an

understanding between the contending parties on the principle: "_Teneat

Illyricus mentem, mutet linguam._" A colloquy was held 1572 at Castle

Mansfeld, in which Flacius and his adherents were pitted against Menzel,

Rhode, Fabricius, and others. When Fabricius declared in the

discussions: "Only in so far as our nature is not in conformity with the

Law of God is it corrupt," Flacius exclaimed: "_Non quantum_, not in as

far; but I say it is not in conformity because it is corrupt, _quia

corrupta est_." (Preger 2, 375.) Count Vollrath and his adviser, Caspar

Pflug gave Flacius a written testimony that at the colloquy he had not

been convinced, but found to be correct in the controversy on original

sin. The publication of this testimony by Flacius as also of the minutes

of the Colloquy by Count Vollrath, in 1573, resulted in a number of

further publications by Flacius and his friends as well as his

opponents. At Mansfeld the animosity against the Flacians did not

subside even after the death of Flacius in 1575. They were punished with

excommunication, incarceration, and the refusal of a Christian burial.

Count Vollrath left 1577, and died at Strassburg 1578. Spangenberg, who

also had secretly fled from Mansfeld, defended the doctrine of Flacius

in a tract, _De Peccato Originali, Concerning Original Sin_, which he

published 1586 under a pseudonym. He died without retracting or changing

his views.

Another adherent of Flacius was F. Coelestinus, professor at Jena. After

his suspension he left the city and participated in the controversy. He

published _Colloquium inter Se et Tilem. Hesshusium_. He died 1572. In

August, 1571, Court-preacher Christopher Irenaeus and Pastors Guenther

and Reinecker were dismissed in Weimar because of Flacianism. Irenaeus

published _Examen Libri Concordiae_ and many other books, in which he

contends that original sin is a substance. Pastors Wolf in Kahla,

Schneider in Altendorf, and Franke in Oberrosla were dismissed in 1572

for the same reason. They, too, entered the public arena in favor of

Flacius. At Lindau four preachers, who had identified themselves with

Flacius, were also deposed. One of them, Tobias Rupp, held a public

disputation with Andreae. In Antwerp the elders forbade their ministers

to indulge in any public polemics against Flacius. Among the supporters

of Flacius were also his son, Matthias Flacius, and Caspar Heldelin. It

may be noted here that Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland, who were deposed

at Luebeck in 1568 also taught "that original sin is the very substance

of the body and soul of man," and that Christ had assumed "the flesh of

another species" than ours. (Gieseler 3, 2, 257.)

In Regensburg four adherents of Flacius were dismissed in 1574, among

them Joshua Opitz [born 1543; died 1585]. These and others emigrated to

the Archduchy of Austria, where the Lutherans were numerous and

influential, Opitz frequently preaching to an audience of 7,000. No less

than 40 of the Lutheran ministers of Austria are said to have shared the

views of Flacius. (Preger 2, 393.) Only a few of them revealed symptoms

of fanaticism, which resulted in their dismissal. Among the latter was

Joachim Magdeburgius, then an exile at Efferding. He taught "that the

bodies of believing Christians after their death were still essential

original sin, and that God's wrath remained over them till the Day of

Judgment." (Joecher, _Lexicon_ 3, 32.) At the same time he branded as

errorists Spangenberg, Opitz, and Irenaeus, who declared their dissent.

In 1581 the Flacians in Austria issued a declaration against the

_Formula of Concord_, charging its teaching to be inconsistent with

Luther's doctrine on original sin. As late as 1604 there were numerous

Flacianists in German Austria.

174. Decision of Formula of Concord.

Seeberg remarks: "Flacius was not a heretic, but in the wrangle of his

day he was branded as such, and this has been frequently repeated." (4,

2, 495.) A similar verdict is passed by Gieseler and other historians.

But whatever may be said in extenuation of his error, it cannot be

disputed that the unfortunate phrases of Flacius produced, and were

bound to produce, most serious religious offense, as well as theological

strife, and hopeless doctrinal confusion. Even when viewed in the light

of his distinction between formal substance (man as endowed with the

image of God) and material substance (man as possessed of body and soul,

together with will and intellect), the odiousness of his terminology is

not entirely removed. It was and remained a form of doctrine and trope

or mode of teaching which the Lutherans were no more minded to tolerate

than the error of Strigel.

Accordingly, the first article of the _Formula of Concord_ rejects both

the synergistic as well as the Manichean aberrations in the doctrine of

original sin. In its Thorough Declaration we read: "Now this doctrine

[of original sin] must be so maintained and guarded that it may not

deflect either to the Pelagian or the Manichean side. For this reason

the contrary doctrine ... should also be briefly stated." (865, 16.)

Accordingly, in a series of arguments, the Flacian error is thoroughly

refuted and decidedly rejected. At the same time the _Formula of

Concord_ points out the offensiveness of the Flacian phraseology. It

refers to the controversy regarding this question as "scandalous and

very mischievous," and declares: "Therefore it is unchristian and

horrible to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy

Trinity, sanctified, and saved, and other similar expressions found in

the writings of the recent Manicheans, with which we will not offend

simple-minded people." (873, 45. 59.)

On the other hand, the _Formula of Concord_ is just as determined in

opposing every effort at extenuating the corruption wrought by original

sin. It is solicitous to explain that in designating original sin as an

accident, its corruption is not minimized in the least, if the answer

concerning the nature of this accident is not derived from philosophy

or human reason, but from the Holy Scriptures. "For the Scriptures,"

says the _Formula_, "testify that original sin is an unspeakable evil

and such an entire corruption of human nature that in it and all its

internal and external powers nothing pure or good remains, but

everything is entirely corrupt, so that on account of original sin man

in God's sight is truly spiritually dead (_plane sit emortuus_), with

all his powers dead to that which is good." (879, 60.)

Accordingly, the _Formula of Concord_ rejects the errors of Strigel and

the Semi-Pelagians, "that original sin is only external, a slight,

insignificant spot sprinkled, or a stain dashed, upon the nature of man

... along with and beneath which the nature nevertheless possesses and

retains its integrity and power even in spiritual things. Or that

original sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an external

impediment to these spiritual good powers.... They are rebuked and

rejected likewise who teach that the nature has indeed been greatly

weakened and corrupted through the Fall, but that nevertheless it has

not entirely lost all good with respect to divine, spiritual things,

and that what is sung in our churches, '_Through Adam's fall is all

corrupt, nature and essence human,_' is not true, but from natural

birth it still has something good, small, little, and inconsiderable

though it be, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability to begin, to

effect, or to help effect something in spiritual things." (865, 21ff.)

While the _Formula of Concord_ does not deny the capacity of fallen man

for salvation, it is careful in defining that this is not an active, but

a passive capacity. That is to say: Man is utterly incapable of

qualifying himself for, or of contributing in the least toward, his own

spiritual restoration; but what is impossible for man is not impossible

with God who, indeed, is able to convert man, endow him with new

spiritual powers, and lead him to eternal salvation,--a goal for the

attainment of which, in contradistinction from inanimate and other

creatures, man, being a rational creature, endowed with intellect and

will, was created by God and redeemed by Christ. In the _Formula of

Concord_ we read: "And although God, according to His just, strict

sentence, has utterly cast away the fallen evil spirits forever, He has

nevertheless, out of special, pure mercy, willed that poor fallen human

nature might again become and be capable and participant of conversion,

the grace of God, and eternal life; not from its own natural, active [or

effective] skill, aptness, or capacity (for the nature of man is

obstinate enmity against God), but from pure grace, through the gracious

efficacious working of the Holy Ghost. And this Dr. Luther calls

_capacitatem_ (_non activam, sed passivam_), which he explains thus:

_Quando patres liberum arbitrium defendunt, capacitatem libertatis eius

praedicant, quod scilicet verti potest ad bonum per gratiam Dei et fieri

revera liberum, ad quod creatum est_. That is: When the Fathers defend

the free will, they are speaking of this, that it is capable of freedom

in this sense, that by God's grace it can be converted to good, and

become truly free, for which it was created in the beginning." (889,

20.)

This accords with Luther's words in _De Servo Arbitrio_: "It would be

correct if we should designate as the power of free will that [power] by

which man, who is created for life or eternal death, is apt to be moved

by the Spirit and imbued with the grace of God. For we, too, confess

this power, _i.e._, aptitude or, as the Sophists [Scholastic

theologians] say, disposition and passive aptitude. And who does not

know that trees and animals are not endowed with it? For, as the saying

goes, heaven is not created for geese. _Hanc enim vim, hoc est,

aptitudinem, seu, ut Sophistae loquuntur, dispositivam qualitatem et

passivam aptitudinem, et nos confitemur; quam non arboribus neque

bestiis inditam esse, quis est, qui nesciat? Neque enim pro anseribus,

ut dicitur, coelum creavit._" (E. v. a. 158: St. L. 18. 1720.)

0.6pt 3f%��p � H�� 58.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>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.)