 |
| Flacius |
268.
Pacific Overtures of Flacius.
Soon
after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector of
the
school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimate
friend of
Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciously
slandered
Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the latter
submitted
the conditions on which peace might be established. However, a
letter
written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was not
answered
by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's object
merely
was to kindle hatred. (_C. R._ 8, 794.)
In May,
1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to Paul
Eber his
"Mild Proposals, _Linde Vorschlaege_, dadurch man gottselige
und
notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen den
Wittenbergischen
und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica und
den
andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben." According to these
_Proposals_,
Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by the
theologians
of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the true
Antichrist,
the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: "Good
works are
necessary to salvation," be condemned, also the errors of
Zwingli
and Osiander. "The good Lord knows," said Flacius, "that every
day and
hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of the
Adiaphorists
might be settled in a Christian manner." But he added that
he could
not be satisfied until, by repentance, "they wipe out their
sin,
denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them by
their
excuses." But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber nor
from
Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consent
of
Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accorded
the role
of a braying ass being crowned by other asses with a soiled
crown.
(Preger 2, 11. 13.)
Another offer
of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discuss
the
matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthon
wrote:
"I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, and
I would
gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before this
he has
spread things which I had neither said nor thought, wherefore
now, too,
I fear treachery (_insidias metuo_)." Timid as he was,
Melanchthon
really feared for his life at the contemplated colloquy,
because
the statement of Chytraeus: "As long as Flacius and Melanchthon
are
alive, unity will not be restored," had been reported to him in the
form:
unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not be
possible.
"None of my friends," he wrote, "is willing to attend the
colloquy,
and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him
[Flacius]
alone." (_C. R._ 8, 798.) Considering Melanchthon's answer as
insincere
and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestly
sought
peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He did
so by
publishing "_Von der Einigkeit_, Concerning Unity," a book which
he had
written before he made his pacific overtures to Melanchthon.
(Preger
2, 17. 22.)
However,
induced by a letter of Fabricius of Meissen (August 24, 1556),
Flacius
made a further effort, addressing Melanchthon in a letter of
September
1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with God
and the
Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result,
Melanchthon
wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to in
our
chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in a
qualified
way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply of
September
16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not any
triumph
or glory for himself, but "only the maintenance of truth and the
rooting
out of error," and that nothing was able to remove the offense
given by
Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of the
truth and
an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, broke
off the
correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity against
Flacius.
(Preger 2, 29f.)
269.
Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon and
Flacius.
Despite
his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himself
to be
discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace.
Embracing
an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of Lower
Saxony
concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the Lower
Saxons to
mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for this
purpose
articles, differing from the _Mild Proposals_ only in expressly
mentioning
also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and four
superintendents,
accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for the
purpose
to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: Valentin
Curtius
and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen and
Westphal;
from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; from
Brunswick:
Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January
14, 1557,
on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring with
Flacius
in Magdeburg, January 17, 1557 they unexpectedly, January 19,
arrived
in Wlttenberg, offering their services as mediators.
Melanchthon
received them in a friendly manner, but when, on the
following
day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denounced
Flacius
and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat with
the Lower
Saxons on the basis of the "Flacian theses." On January 21 the
delegation
submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: "All
corruptions
which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and that
of the
_Augsburg Confession_ shall be eliminated from the article of
justification,
in particular the corruption concerning the necessity of
good
works to salvation." Article VII requested Melanchthon to make a
public
statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of good
works,
declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church.
(Preger
2, 37.)
The
presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect on
Melanchthon.
The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such an
extent
that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a most
violent
manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherously
conspiring
with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber,
he
finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. In
his
answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavy
burdens
of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; they
therefore
ought now to have had compassion with him instead of
assaulting
him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once told
him on
leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius,
they had
presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him and
others to
cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves,
Melanchthon
objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely charged
him and
others with having taught and defended errors regarding
justification.
He declined Article VII because the publication there
required
was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his many
writings
what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2,
38. 40.)
Fearing
that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessions
detrimental
to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand,
Baumgartner,
Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, Antonius
Otto)
assembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In a
letter,
dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators not
to yield
anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist on
the
elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (_ut id iugulum
recte
iuguletis_). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meet
them in
Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to assist in winning
Melanchthon
for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flacius
remarked:
he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon
"sweet
rather than wholesome and strong medicine." (Preger 2, 42.) In a
similar
manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg to
influence
Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore the
Saxon
delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt no
resolution
before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] for
consideration.
No news having arrived by Saturday, January 23, an
additional
letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the same
spirit of
anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield,
and to
continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they said
would not
only expose them to ridicule, but greatly damage the Church.
(2, 42f.)
On the
evening of the same day Moerlin Hennig, and Westphal arrived in
Coswig.
Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted the
articles
presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. At
the same
time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh language
of
Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they had
met with
in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatened
to stone
them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a brief
consultation.
Their impression was (which they neither made any efforts
to hide)
that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not been
sufficiently
careful in seeking only the honor of God, the welfare of
the
Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held on
Sunday,
January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfaction
with the
proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to the
shocking
stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxon
delegates
to regard God higher than men, and earnestly and openly to
call the
Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates,
besides a
list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statements
culled
from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained their
strictures
on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answer
to
Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This matter
troubled
him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphorists
who had
despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, was
constantly
decreasing; having already yielded more than he should have
done, he
now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties,
the
Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the future
the
people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance.
Flacius
furthermore declared that his theses should have been either
retained
or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen.
Moerlin
answered, irritated: They had presented other articles because
Melanchthon
had declined the first; if any one was able to frame better
theses,
he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, the
delegation
returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached its
climax.
For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, and
in the
presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio had
spoken of
Flacius as "the rascal and knave (_Schalk und Bube_)," and
even
referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also a
filthy
and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in which
Flacius
and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated in
Wittenberg
and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49.) The first lines of
the
pasquil ran thus; "_Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Ab
illo
concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quae
communio
veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?_" (_C. R._ 9, 50. 235.)
Having
read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthon
could
never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, the
delegation
(with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned to
Coswig,
January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the list
of errors
to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would have
been
broken off immediately; only the charges with respect to
justification
had been transmitted; they therefore requested the
Magdeburgers
to declare their agreement with the articles already
submitted
to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgers
finally
yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and some
changes
in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but "only with a
wounded
conscience," as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, the
delegates
transmitted the modified articles together with the additions
of the
Magdeburgers to Melanchthon.
In his
answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon said
in part:
"You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion of
opinions
obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere.
And many
hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular to
me. I was
also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes.
If,
therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm in
any
matter, I ask God and the churches to forgive me and shall submit to
the
verdict of the Church.... As to the Flacian quarrels, however,
concerning
which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into which
Flacius
has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that this
affair
pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, I
cannot
decide and settle anything (_me aliquid statuere posse_).... This
now I
desire to be my last answer (_hanc volo nunc meam postremam
responsionem
esse_); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdict
of the
Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of God
govern
all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!" As to the articles
submitted
by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes and
additions
suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was not
willing
to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way to
censure
the honorable men who had participated in the deliberations
concerning
the Leipzig Interim. (_C. R._ 9, 62.)
Toward
evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with the
information
that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, and
that now
the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early next
morning
they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which they
modified
their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues their
efforts
to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors.
"We
call upon God as our witness," they said, "that we most earnestly
desire a
godly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the fault
lies not
with us, but with them, who expressly say and confess
concerning
themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn the
Adiaphoristic
errors--the real issue of the entire controversy." (_C.
R._ 9,
67.) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegation
when they
were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increased
animosity
on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts of
the Lower
Saxon theologians.
270.
Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht.
Four
weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to
Wittenberg
for the same purpose, _viz._, of mediating between
Melanchthon
and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously
requested
him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace.
The
articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke,
were more
severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus,
professor
at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned to
present
them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles
were
submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent
agitation.
The report says: "As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was
criticized,
and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a
mild
form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not
permit
them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most
earnestly,
in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but
burst
forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others,
and
finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates,
vociferating
that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors,
etc."
On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates.
When
these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he again
interrupted
them, exclaiming: "Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the
lot of
the peaceful.... I commend myself to God." After Melanchthon had
left,
Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates:
"Don't
trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr sollt
forthin
meinen Schwaeher zufrieden lassen mit solchen Haendeln_." (9,
106f.)
Regarding
the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates of
Duke
Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared in
his
answer of February 27: "I should not be astonished to have these two
conditions
[to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc.] imposed on me if
I had
been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I may
have been
lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never been
an
enemy.... Therefore I clearly state that I do not assent to these
presentations
[of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, if
I accept
them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipse
iugulem_)."
(_C. R._ 9, 104.)
The
Magdeburgers refused to participate in these efforts of Count
Albrecht,
chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace as
long as
Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenberg
friends.
But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts to
bring
about a godly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who passed
Jena on
his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on the
Adiaphoristic
question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said:
"Omit
that; let us treat of other things." Flacius also wrote to King
Christian
III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish the
Adiaphoristic
errors, but apparently without any result.
271.
Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.
The Diet
at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that
a
colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the
Lutheran
and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the
colloquy,
a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at
Frankfort-on-the-Main.
June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect
that all controversies
among the Lutherans be suspended, and the
Romanists
be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were
all
agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution
Nicholas
Gallus and several others entered their protest.
Self-evidently,
also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that
the
controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not
assent to
the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying
their
convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the
situation,
the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to
decline
the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch
Lutherans
was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the
Lutherans
was unavoidable.
Before
the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at
Worms
received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he
admonished
them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other
Lutheran
theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism,
Osiandrism
and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because
the
Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the
Leipzig
Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C.
R._ 9,
l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the
dukes of
Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their
delegates
in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John
Frederick
said it was impossible that, in defending the _Augsburg
Confession_
against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man
and speak
as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), if
they had
not previously come to an agreement among themselves and
condemned
the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeat
the
Lutherans with their own sword, _i.e._, their own polemical
publications.
(231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated
his
sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and
Sarcerius.
(232ff.)
In a
meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr.
Basilius
Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in
keeping
with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon
Erhard
Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought
to be
rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the
motion. A
breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided
that his
theologians could not participate in the colloquy with
Lutherans
who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _Augsburg
Confession_,
nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true
members
and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and
the
_Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was
temporarily
warded off by the concession on the part of the
Melanchthonians
that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely
to
express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At
the
session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding
demanded
to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians,
Calvinists,
Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servo
arbitrio_)
from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied the
Lutherans
with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander,
Major,
and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declared
evasively
that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed
in the
_Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided to
enter
their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority
threatened
to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if
they
dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which
they
rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that the
Thuringians
presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius
Pflug,
and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning
had been
opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining
Lutheran
theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who
the true
adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ were with whom,
according
to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal.
272.
Efforts of Princes to Restore Unity: Frankfort Recess.
The
Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among the
Lutherans.
It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official
publicity
to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was
unscrupulously
exploited by the Romanists also politically, their
sinister
object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed
by the
Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold.
In
particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among
the
Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _Augsburg
Confession_
to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the
Augsburg
Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the
opportunity
to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies
that were
tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran
princes,
who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to
the
Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to
bend all
their energies toward healing the breach and restoring
religious
unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made
especially
at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But
instead
of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of
the
princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of
dissension,
increasing the general distrust, and confirming the
conviction
that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger
indeed.
For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and
an
unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish
peace by
ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.
At
Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachim
of
Brandenburg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken, Christopher of Wuerttemberg,
and
Philip of Hesse discussed the religious situation and, on March 18,
1558,
signed the so-called _Frankfort Recess_ (Agreement), in which they
again
solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, the
Ecumenical
Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its
_Apology_.
(_C. R._ 9, 494.) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that the
existing
dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against the
Lutherans,
who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in their
confession.
In four articles the controverted questions concerning
justification,
good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora were
dealt
with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being based
on
Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff.; 462ff.)
When the
_Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to the
estates
who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive the
expected
approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt,
Henneberg,
Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, and
Regensburg.
The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony,
where
Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first was
entitled:
"_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio cum
sectis et
corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation of
the
Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally and
perniciously
confounded with the sects." The other: "_Grund und Ursach',
warum das
Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reason
and Cause
why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted." The chief
objections
of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have been
included
in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within the
Lutheran
Church should not have been treated as questions of minor
import.
3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false,
and not
merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerning
the
Lord's Supper are "dark, general, and ambiguous," hence
Crypto-Calvinistic.
5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous and
altogether
unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppress
theological
discussions and controversies would lead to suppression of
the truth
("binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost") and tyrannizing of the
churches
by the princes. (Preger 2, 74.)
In his
attitude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and by
Duke John
Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to sign
the
_Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth his
objection
in a special book. Elector August, in turn, charged
Melanchthon
to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducal
theologians;
which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unite
the
opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxons
to attend
a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius induced
the Duke
to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinal
differences
within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision of
this
_Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologians
participated:
Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, Simon
Musaeus,
Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November
28, 1558,
it received the sanction of the dukes. Among the
Melanchthonians
the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a special
point to
refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists,
caused
consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently its
theological
attitude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence the
breach
now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August,
Melanchthon,
in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion of
the _Book
of Confutation_. (_C. R._ 9, 763.) But contents as well as
form of
this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians in
their
position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publishing
the
_Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippicum_ or _Misnicum_), which
contained
writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_,
therefore,
instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increased
their
mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick,
the Duke
of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, on
January
20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke of
Saxony
also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, he
foiled
the plan by declining to attend.
273.
General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists.
To heal
the breach and end the public scandal, Flacius and his adherents
fervently
advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559
they
published "_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum ... pro Libera
Christiana
et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians ... for
a Free,
Christian and Lawful Synod." The document was signed by 51
superintendents,
professors, and pastors, "who after Luther's death," as
they
emphasized, "had contended orally and in writing against the
corruptions
and sects." The signatures represented theologians from
Ducal
Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, Luebeck, Rostock, Wismar, Brunswick,
Magdeburg,
Halberstadt, Koethen, Nordhausen, Schweinfurt, Regensburg,
Lindau,
Upper Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Electoral Saxony,
Nuernberg,
Augsburg, Baden, etc. Some of the first were: Amsdorf,
Musaeus,
Joachim Moerlin, Hesshusius, Max Moerlin, Gallus, Wigand,
Judex,
Westphal, John Freder of Wismar, Anton Otto of Nordhausen,
Flacius.
The _Supplication_ showed why a General Synod was necessary and
how it
was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said,
would be
to pass on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, all
participants
in the Synod having previously been pledged on the
_Augsburg
Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_,
according
to which all questions were to be decided. (Preger 2, 86f.)
The most
violent opponent of this plan was Melanchthon. Fearing that the
Flacianists
might get control of the prospective general council, he, in
advance,
denounced and branded it as a "Robber Synod (_Raeubersynode_),
advocated
by the ignorant Flacian rabble." Three weeks before his death,
March 28,
1560 he wrote: "Since they [the Flacians] cannot kill me, the
object of
these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have said
that they
would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc agunt
isti
hypocritae, ut me pellant, cum sanguinem meum haurire non possint;
et quidem
oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturos
esse in
Germania vestigium pedis_." (_C. R._ 9, 1079.) Philip of Hesse
consented
to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power of
the Jena
theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger
2, 93.)
That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due to
Elector
August, who declined to attend the synod.
274.
Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg.
In lieu
of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians,
Christopher
of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the best
means to
heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and
estates
to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561.
The
object of this assembly, he said, was neither to discuss the
differences
among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but
only to
renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and to
consider
how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous
confession
at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All
finally
consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector
August
(who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined
participation),
and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the
Palatinate.
Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from
this
assembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general
synod and
sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additional
writing,
dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes
not to
enter into an ungodly and unionistic agreement, rather to
eliminate
the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose
object
was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to
consider
their petition, and, on February 8, the last day of the
convention,
returned the documents to their authors in Jena.
After
comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, the
Naumburg
Assembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered
1530 in
Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg.
But when,
in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already
was
openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August,
demanded
that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct
explanation
of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princes
yielded,
and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in
the
Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons for
renewing
their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg.
This
Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg
Crypto-Calvinist
Cracow, also asserted that hitherto no doctrinal
corruptions
or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had been
tolerated
among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies
within
the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_.
Evidently,
to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuine
Lutherans.
Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin and
Stoessel
that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The duke
replied
that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than put
his
signature to a document in which the errors introduced by the
Philippists,
etc., were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took the
same
stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed in
accordance
with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and left
Naumburg
without any further conference with the princes. When hereupon
the
latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. As
conditions
of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface the
apostasy
during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features of
the
Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought out
clearly,
the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm be
eliminated,
and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest of
the
Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princes
closed
the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke,--hence also without
having
attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans.
The
Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the
Electors
of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of
Wuerttemberg,
Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of
other
princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any
means
stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic
Naumburg
document. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also
left
Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of
Brunswick,
Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of
Saxon-Lauenburg,
the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, Stolberg, Barby,
and a
number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg,
Augsburg,
Strassburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyal
Lutherans
were represented also in the territories of almost all the
princes
who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg
emphatically
declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his
delegate
at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the
Palatinate,
Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg
signified
their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the
views and
wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine
of the
Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the
beginning
they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense.
In the
Preface of the _Book of Concord_ signed by the Lutheran princes,
we read:
"Now, our conferences and those of our illustrious
predecessors,
which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention,
first at
Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were
recorded
in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful
settlement
which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors
and false
doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our
mind, by
this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for,
and
establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from
the
Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as
many of
us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly
reserved
it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of
time,
anything would be desired with respect to the _Augsburg
Confession_,
or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would
further
declare all things thoroughly and at length." (CONC. TRIGL. 15.)
Even
Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke
John
Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had
misled
and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg,
openly
embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent
Lutherans.
For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate
proved a
great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true
unity and
the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. And
more than
any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring
about this
result. (Preger 2, 102.)
275.
Andreae and Chemnitz.
The
theologians who were first in adopting effective methods and
measures
to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divine
truth
were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 in
Weiblingen,
Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546
he became
pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposed
because
of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he became
pastor
and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was also
professor
and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae has
been
called "the spiritual heir of John Brenz." Hoping against hope, he
incessantly
labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church.
Being a man
of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her at
numerous
occasions and in various capacities. In his pacification
efforts
he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelical
courts,
cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. With
the
consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service of
Elector
August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony till
his
dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing the
affairs
of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work of
Lutheran
pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unite
the
Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severely
criticized
also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due to
the fact
that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himself
to be
duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough to
defend
them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of the
Lord's
Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. While
thus
Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacification
which
culminated in the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_, he lacked
the
theological insight, acumen, and consistency which characterized
Martin
Chemnitz.
Martin
Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen in
Brandenburg.
As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school in
Wittenberg,
where he "rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he had
heard so
much at home, and to hear Luther preach." From 1539 to 1542 he
attended
the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied in
Frankfort-on-the-Oder;
in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthon
directed
his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school in
Koenigsberg,
and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary.
Owing to
his participation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lost
the favor
of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9,
1554, he
began his lectures on Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ before a
large and
enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of his
hearers.
In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in
1567 as
superintendent, in the city of Brunswick. He died April 8, 1586.
Chemnitz
was the prince of the Lutheran divines of his age and, next to
Luther,
the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther and
Chemnitz,
the Romanists said: "You Lutherans have two Martins; if the
second
had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (_si posterior
non
fuisset, prior non stetisset_)." Besides the two Lutheran classics:
_Examen
Concilii Tridentini_, published 1565--1573, and _De Duabus
Naturis
in Christo_, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: _Harmonia
Evangelica_,
continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed by
John
Gerhard, and _Foundations_ (_Die Fundamente_) _of the Sound
Doctrine
concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating and
Drinking
of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper_, 1569.
Andreae
and Chemnitz became acquainted with each other in 1568, when
Duke
Julius invited the former to conduct the visitation in Brunswick
together
with Chemnitz. They jointly also composed the Brunswick Church
Order of
1569, which was preceded by the _Corpus Doctrinae Iulium_,
compiled
by Chemnitz and containing the _Augsburg Confession_, the
_Apology_,
the _Smalcald Articles_, the Catechisms of Luther, and a
"short
[rather long], simple, and necessary treatise on the prevalent
corruptions."
Andreae and Chemnitz are the theologians to whom more than
any other
two men our Church owes the _Formula of Concord_ and the
unification
of our Church in the one true Christian faith as taught by
Luther.
However, it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any other
theologian,
must be credited with the theological clarity and the
correctness
which characterizes the _Formula_.
276.
First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail.
In his
first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavored
to
reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who then
were
contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at the
instance
of Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel and Duke Christopher of
Wuerttemberg,
Andreae composed his "_Confession and Brief Explanation of
Several
Controverted Articles_, according to which a Christian unity
might be
effected in the churches adhering to the _Augsburg Confession_,
and the
offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled." In five
articles
he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4.
The
Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains that
we are
neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ has
earned
for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocent
obedience,
suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousness
to all
believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teach
otherwise,
but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works are
necessary
to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after the
Fall, man
is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, though
weak,
will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual matters
his
intellect is utterly blind and his will is dead; and that hence,
unless
God creates a new volition in him, man is unable of himself, of
his own
powers, to accept the grace of God offered in Christ. It rejects
all who
teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies are
no longer
free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connected
with a
denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. It
rejects
all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes that
also the
wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the body
of
Christ, but to their damnation. It furthermore declares: Since it is
objected
that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supper
because
Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary "to
explain
the article of the incarnation of the Son of God, and to
indicate,
in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which both
natures,
divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears to
what
height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personal
union."
(Hutter, _Concordia Concors_, 110ff.)
In 1568,
at the Brunswick Visitation, referred to above, Andreae
submitted,
his five articles to Duke Julius, and succeeded in winning
him for
his plan. In the same interest he came to Wittenberg, January 9,
1569.
Furnished with letters of commendation from Duke Julius and
Landgrave
William of Hesse, he obtained an interview also with Elector
August,
who referred him to his theologians. On August 18, 1569, Andreae
held a
conference with the Wittenbergers. They insisted that the basis
of the
contemplated agreement must be the _Corpus Misnicum_
(_Philippicum_).
When Andreae, unsophisticated as he still was with
respect
to the real character of Philippism, publicly declared that the
Wittenbergers
were orthodox teachers, and that the _Corpus Misnicum_
contained
no false doctrine he was supplied with a testimonial in which
the
Wittenbergers refer to their _Corpus_, but not to Andreae's
articles,
to which also they had not fully consented. The result was
that the
Jena theologians, in particular Tilemann Hesshusius, denounced
Andreae's
efforts as a unionistic scheme and a betrayal of true
Lutheranism
in the interest of Crypto-Calvinism. They rejected Andreae's
articles
because they were incomplete, and contained no specific
rejection
of the errors of the Philippists.
At the
instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst in
Anhalt,
at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony,
Brunswick,
Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxon
theologians
declining to participate). The conference decided that a new
confession
was not needed, and unanimously recognized the _Augsburg
Confession_,
its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the Catechisms
of
Luther. Andreae was elated. In his "Report" to the Emperor and the
princes
he gloried in "the Christian unity" attained at Zerbst. But also
this
apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory rather
than
real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscription
by
formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessions
enumerated
only in as far as they agreed with the _Corpus Philippicum_.
And before
long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in the
chapter
on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make their
appearance.
The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae,
which
lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did not
sufficiently
exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was that
he
himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents of
the
Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had with
the
dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that it
was
impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union as
long as
the Crypto-Calvinists were firmly seated in the saddle.
277.
Andreae's Sermons and the Swabian Concordia.
Abandoning
his original scheme, which had merely served to increase the
animosity
among the Lutherans and to discredit himself, Andreae resolved
henceforth
to confine his peace efforts to true Lutherans, especially
those of
Swabia and Lower Saxony, and to unite them in opposition to the
Zwinglians,
Calvinists, and Philippists, who, outside of Electoral
Saxony,
were by this time generally regarded as traitors to the cause of
Lutheranism.
In 1573 he made his first move to carry out this new plan
of his by
publishing sermons which he had delivered 1572 on the
doctrines
controverted within the Lutheran Church. The title ran: "_Six
Christian
Sermons_ concerning the dissensions which from the year 1548
to this
1573d year have gradually arisen among the theologians of the
_Augsburg
Confession_, as to what attitude a plain pastor and a common
Christian
layman who may have been offended thereby should assume toward
them
according to his Catechism." These sermons treat of justification,
good
works, original sin, free will, the adiaphora, Law and Gospel, and
the
person of Christ. As the title indicates, Andreae appealed not so
much to
the theologians as to the pastors and the people of the Lutheran
Church,
concerning whom he was convinced that, adhering as they did, to
Luther's
Catechism, they in reality, at least in their hearts, were even
then, and
always had been, agreed. Andreae sent these sermons to
Chemnitz,
Chytraeus, Hesshusius, Wigand, and other theologians with the
request
that they be accepted as a basis of agreement. In the preface,
dated
February 17, 1573, he dedicated them to Duke Julius of Brunswick
whose
good will and consent in the matter he had won in 1568, when he
assisted
in introducing the Reformation in his territories. Before this
Nicholas
Selneccer, then superintendent of Wolfenbuettel, in order to
cultivate
the friendly relations between Swabia and Lower Saxony, had
dedicated
his _Instruction in the Christian Religion_ (_Institutio
Religionis
Christianae_) to the Duke of Wuerttemberg, praising the
writings
of Brenz, and lauding the services rendered by Andreae to the
duchy of
Brunswick.
The
sermons of Andreae were welcomed by Chemnitz, Westphal in Hamburg,
David
Chytraeus in Rostock, and others. They also endeavored to obtain
recognition
for them from various ecclesiastical ministries of Lower
Saxony.
But having convinced themselves that the sermonic form was not
adapted
for a confession, they, led by Chemnitz, advised that their
contents
be reduced to articles in "thesis and antithesis," and that
this be
done "with the assistance of other theologians." Andreae
immediately
acted on this suggestion and the result was what is known as
the
_Swabian Concordia_ (_Schwaebische Konkordie_)--the first draft of
the
_Formula of Concord_. This document, also called the Tuebingen Book,
was
submitted to, and approved by, the theologians of Tuebingen and by
the
Stuttgart Consistory. In substance it was an elaboration of the _Six
Sermons_
with the addition of the last two articles. It contains eleven
articles,
treating 1. Original Sin; 2. Free Will; 3. The Righteousness
of Faith
before God; 4. Good Works; 5. Law and Gospel; 6. The Third Use
of the
Law; 7. The Church Usages Called Adiaphora; 8. The Lord's Supper;
9. The
Person of Christ: 10. Eternal Election; 11. Other Factions and
Sects. In
the introduction Andreae also emphasizes the necessity of
adopting
those symbols which were afterwards received into the _Book of
Concord_.
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.)
