F. Bente - Historical Introductions. XII. The Adiaphoristic Controversy.Important Matters of Indifference

XII. The Adiaphoristic Controversy.

136. Contents of the Leipzig Interim.

To exhibit the insidious character of the Leipzig Interim more fully, we

submit the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: "As far as

the doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall is

concerned, there is no controversy" (between the Lutherans and

Romanists). The article "Of Justification," in which the Lutheran _sola

fide_ is omitted, declares: "The merciful God does not work with man as

with a block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he be

of understanding years." Again: "And they who have thus received the

forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghost

begins faith and trust in the Son of God, love and hope, then become

heirs of eternal salvation for the Savior's sake." In the article "Of

Good Works" we read: "Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works are

so highly necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart there

would be no reception of divine grace." Again: "It is certainly true

that these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and are

necessary to salvation.... And since the virtues and good works, as has

been said, please God, they merit also a reward in this life, both

spiritual and temporal, according to God's counsel, and still more

reward in the eternal life, because of the divine promise."

The article "Of Ecclesiastical Power" runs as follows: "What the true

Christian Church gathered in the Holy Ghost, acknowledges, determines,

and teaches in regard to matters of faith is to be taught and preached,

since it neither should nor can determine anything contrary to the Holy

Scriptures." Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_

endorsement of the Council and its resolutions. In the article "Of

Ecclesiastical Ministers" we read: "And that all other ministers should

be subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to other

bishops who administer their episcopal office according to God's

command, using the same for edification and not for destruction; which

ministers should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation by

the patrons." This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishops. The article "Of Ordination"

declares: "Also, that, as has been said, upon presentation by patrons,

ministers should hereafter be ordained with Christian ceremonies by such

bishops as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should be

allowed to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presented

by the patrons and have the permission of the bishops." That was

tantamount to a restoration of the "sacrament" of episcopal ordination.

The Interim furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction of

abolished ceremonies, such as exorcism and other ceremonies of Baptism,

confirmation by bishops, auricular confession, extreme unction,

episcopal ordination, and the like. We read: "That repentance,

confession, and absolution, and what pertains thereto, be diligently

taught and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receive

of them absolution in God's stead, and be also diligently admonished and

urged to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admitted

to the highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [in

this indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in the

Interim] unless he have first confessed to the priest and received of

him absolution." Again: "Although in this country the unction [Extreme

Unction] has not been in use for many years, yet ... such unction,

according to the apostle, may be hereafter observed." Again: "That

henceforth the mass be observed in this country with ringing of bells,

with lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies." Among

the holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi and

the festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: "The images and

pictures of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be also

retained in the churches." Again: "In the churches where the canonical

hours have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung in

chapters and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals,

and also on Sundays." "Likewise, that on Fridays and Saturdays, as well

as during fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this be

observed as an external ordinance at the command of His Imperial

Majesty." The clause, "that this be observed," etc., was regarded by

Flacius and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the part

of the Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119.) Again, as to the apparel of

priests, that "a distinction be observed between ministers and secular

persons, and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate." The

Introduction of the Interim gives the assurance that the Lutherans would

obey the Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. The

Conclusion adds the humble promise: "In all other articles we are ready

... in a friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved and

Princely Graces, and to settle our differences in a Christian way." (_C.

R._ 7, 258. Jacobs, _Book of Concord,_ 2, 260.)

137. Issue in Adiaphoristic Controversy.

From the passages quoted it appears that the Leipzig Interim was

inoculated with the germs of many controversies. However, while in the

beginning its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generally

recognized and realized, the Emperor's demand for, and approval of, the

Wittenberg and Leipzig theologian's reintroduction of the Romish

ceremonies immediately created an acute situation and a great commotion

everywhere. The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latter

point in particular was called the Adiaphoristic or Interimistic

Controversy. And, as explained above, even after the Interim had become

a dead letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because its

paramount object was not merely to pass a correct judgment on past

events during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similar

situations in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Church

the spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well as

indirect denial of the Gospel-truth.

Accordingly, the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: May

Lutherans, under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, when

the Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded the

reinstitution of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies in

question be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a good

conscience, that is to say, without denying the truth and Christian

liberty, without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without giving

offense either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church,

especially its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists and

denied by their opponents.

138. Opposition to the Adiaphorists.

Prominent among the theologians who participated in the controversy

against the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, who

in Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, and

advocates of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publications

which dealt with the questions involved: "Opinion concerning the

Interim, by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548," published by Flacius without

the knowledge of Melanchthon.--"Report on the Interim by the Theologians

of Meissen," 1548.--"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesen

geschwinden Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of God in

Order to Please the Devil and the Antichrist," by John Hermann, 1548. A

Latin edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius as

its author.--"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim from

which One may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book,"

1548.--"A General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeine

Protestation und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against the

Interim and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemies

of the Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548." Waremund was a pseudonym for

Flacius.--"Against the Interim, Papal Mass, Canon, and Master Eisleben,"

1519.--"Against the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who Now

Again Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i.e._, against the New

Interim, by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549." Of this book, too,

Flacius was the author. (Preger 1, 67.)--"Apology (Entschuldigung) of

Matthias Flacius Illy. to a Certain Pastor," 1549.--"Several Letters of

the Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial,

Written 1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg," 1549, with a

preface by Flacius.--"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy., Addressed to

the University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora," 1549.--"Writing

of Matthias Flacius Illy. against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Book

of the Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Order

to Guard Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the True

Religion," 1549.--"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and Matthias

Flacius Illy. to the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding the

Question whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don the

Cassock" (_linea vestis, Chorrock_).--"Against the Extract of the

Leipzig Interim, or the Small Interim," by Flacius, 1549.--"Book

concerning True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et Falsis

Adiaphoris_), in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almost

in Its Entirety, by Flacius, 1549." This book, which is most frequently

quoted and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is found

in Schluesselburg's _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff.--"An Admonition

(Vermahnung) to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross and

Prayer, by Flacius," 1549.--"A Christian Admonition by Matthias Flacius

Illy. to be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and in

the Augsburg Confession," 1550.--"Against the Alleged Power and Primacy

of the Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavors

again to Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, by

Matthias Flacius Illy."--"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock,

D. Geitz Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy., 1552."--For a complete list

of the writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger's _Matthias

Flacius Illyricus,_ 2, 540 ff.

Even the titles of these publications indicate that the Adiaphoristic

Controversy did not lack violence and virulence. This animosity against

the Interimists was chiefly due to the fear that their policy would

finally lead to the complete undoing of the Reformation. For while

Melanchthon still believed in and hoped for, an understanding with the

Romanists, Flacius saw through their schemes and fully realized the

impending danger. In the reintroduction of Catholic ceremonies which

Melanchthon regarded as entirely harmless, Flacius beheld nothing but

the entering wedge, which would gradually be followed by the entire mass

of Romish errors and abuses and the absolute dominance of Pope and

Emperor over the Lutheran Church. The obedience demanded by the Emperor,

said Flacius, consists in this, that "we abandon our true doctrine and

adopt the godless Papacy." In all its details, he explained, the

ultimate purpose of the Interim is none other than the reestablishment

of Popery, of which even such seemingly trifling matters as the

reintroduction of the _Chorrock (linea vestis)_ were but the beginning,

as it were, the breach in the dam which was bound ultimately to result

in a complete submersion of Lutheranism. (Frank 4, 74. 76. 119.)

Since the loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther and

the Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, they

could not but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treachery

against the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted that

their opponents answer the question, "whether the Pope with his

government is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Word

of God he has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whether

he still should and must be regarded and confessed as such." And if

Luther's doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union be

effected between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and his

bishops) and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religion

of Christ? (53. 107.) On the title-page of his _Apology,_ of 1549,

Flacius declares: "The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment of

the Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple of

Christ, the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over the

Church of Christ and to grieve the godly, likewise weakening, leading

into doubt, separation and innumerable offenses." (Schaff 1, 301.)

Regarding the acknowledgment of the Pope and bishops by the Interim,

Flacius remarked: "Mark well, here the werewolf (_Baerwolf_), together

with his fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. There

is, however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: "The

Pope should use his power not for destruction, but for edification"],

they have counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In my

opinion this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to the

temple from which he has been expelled by the Finger of God." (Preger 1,

191.) Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and trembling

with fear for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthon

with want of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterized

the Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of light

and darkness, of Christ and Antichrist.

While Flacius thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors and

abettors, he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheran

pastors to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross and

persecution, and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. That

minister, he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or who

yields to a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess with

our mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of the

flock, but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant.

Flacius also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princes

and acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if they

advocated and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged both

pastors and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding the

reinstitution of the Roman ceremonies. "A government," said he in his

_Admonition,_ "no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastor

to preach the pure doctrine." When the government persecutes the truth,

we must not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christians

will sacrifice everything to a tyrannical prince, but not "the truth,

not the consolation of divine grace, nor the hope of eternal life."

(Frank 4, 68. 117.)

139. Doctrinal Position of Anti-Adiaphorists.

The theological position occupied by the opponents of the Adiaphorists

may be summarized as follows: Ceremonies which God has neither commanded

nor prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceteris

paribus_ (other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adopted

or rejected. However, under circumstances testing one's faith they may

become a matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case wherever

and whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introduction

involves a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringement

of Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemies

of the Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or an

offense to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, they

maintained, prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope and

Emperor plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romish

religion in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and the

reinstitution of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, by

Catholics as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such a

reestablishment of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzig

theologians, instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to God

for the protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded to

the demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when the

consciences of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever the

abolished rites were reinstituted. Accordingly, they declared that under

the prevailing circumstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies

was nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian love

as well.

Flacius, in particular, maintained that under the prevailing

circumstances even such ceremonies as were in themselves true adiaphora

ceased to be adiaphora and could not be reintroduced with a good

conscience, because they were forced upon the Lutherans by the enemies

of the Gospel, because they were accepted for reprehensible reasons,

such as fear of persecution and desire for external peace, and because

their reintroduction confounded the consciences, offended the weak, and

gave comfort and encouragement to the enemies of Christ. The people,

Protestants as well as Catholics, said Flacius, would regard such

reintroduction both as an admission on the part of the Lutherans that

they had been in the wrong and the Romanists in the right, and as the

beginning of a general restoration of the Papacy. Explain the

reintroduction of the ceremonies as piously as you may, said he to the

Interimists, the common people, especially the Romanists, always

impressed by ceremonies much more than by the doctrine, will infer that

those teachers who reintroduce the ceremonies approve of the Papacy in

every respect and reject the Evangelical doctrine. In his book _De Veris

et Falsis Adiaphoris_ we read: "Adversarii totum suum cultum, vel certe

praecipua capita suae religionis in ceremoniis collocant, quas cum in

nostris ecclesiis in eorum gratiam restituimus, an non videmur tum eis,

tum aliis eorum impiis cultibus assentiri? Nec dubitant, quin

quandoquidem in tantis rebus ipsis cesserimus, etiam in reliquis cessuri

simus, nostrum errorem agnoscamus, eorumque religionem veram esse

confiteamur." (Schluesselburg 13, 217.) Accordingly, Flacius contended

that under the prevailing circumstances a concession to the Romanists,

even in ceremonies harmless in themselves, was tantamount to a denial of

Lutheranism. The entire argument of the Anti-Adiaphorists was by him

reduced to the following principle or axiom: "_Nihil est adiaphoron in

casu confessionis et scandali._ Nothing is an adiaphoron when confession

and offense are involved." And wherever the Interim was enforced, the

consequences foretold by Flacius showed themselves: consciences were

confused, simple Christians were offended, and the enemies were

strengthened in their error and emboldened in their attacks and in

further demands made upon the Lutherans.

140. Sophistries of Adiaphorists Refuted.

The Wittenberg Interimists endeavored to justify their attitude by a

series of sophisms to which they also adhered in the "Final Report

(Endlicher Bericht) of the Theologians of Both Universities of Leipzig

and Wittenberg," 1570. (Frank 4, 87. 2.) By adopting the Interim, the

Wittenbergers, in reality, had assented also to doctrinally false and

dubious statements and to a number of ceremonies objectionable as such.

Yet they pleaded the guilelessness of their intentions and the

harmlessness of their procedure. They maintained that they had yielded

merely in minor matters and ceremonies, which were neither commanded nor

prohibited by the Word of God; that this was done in order to preserve

intact the central Christian truth of justification; to preserve

political peace and to save the Church from ruin; to protect the weak,

whose shoulders were not strong enough to suffer persecution; that in

their concessions they had been guided by the dictates of true wisdom,

which always chooses the lesser of two evils; and that in all this they

had merely followed the example set by Luther himself. They minimized

the entire affair, and endeavored to explain away the seriousness of the

situation. In particular they ridiculed Flacius for shouting and

sounding the fire-alarm when in reality, they said, he had discovered

nothing but a little smoke coming from a Wittenberg chimney.

But in the ears of all genuine and earnest Lutherans their sophistries

and apologies rang neither true nor sincere. The arguments which they

employed merely served to defeat their own purpose. What else, for

example, than disgust, indignation, and distrust could be the effect on

all honest Lutherans when the Wittenberg theologians, dishonestly

veiling the real facts, declared in their official "Exposition" of 1559

(when danger of persecution had passed long ago) concerning the

reintroduction of Corpus Christi that they had reintroduced this

festival all the more readily in order that they might be able to

instruct the people in the right use of the Sacrament and in the

horrible abuses and profanations of the most holy Supper of the Lord in

the circumgestation and adoration of the bread which their critics [the

Lutheran opponents of the Interimists, by their doctrine concerning the

Lord's Supper] strengthened and that they might thank God for the

purification of the temple from the Romish idol Maozim, Dan. 11, 38.

(Tschackert, 510.) Frank remarks: "One must see this passage black on

white in order to believe the Wittenbergers really capable of

stultifying themselves in such an incredible manner. It is a

monstrosity, a defense unworthy of an honest man, let alone an

Evangelical Christian." (4, 61. 113.)

The weak and insincere arguments of the Adiaphorists were thoroughly and

convincingly refuted by their opponents. To the assertion of the

Wittenbergers that the dispute was concerning mere unimportant

ceremonies which were neither commanded nor prohibited by God, Flacius

and Gallus replied (in their answer to the question of the ministers of

Meissen whether they should leave their charges rather than don the

_Chorrock, lineam vestem induere_) that even with respect to such

seemingly most trifling adiaphora as the cope (_Chorrock, vestis alba_)

one must not overlook what is attached to it. "We do not believe," they

said, "that the robber will let the traveler keep his money, although

first he only asks for his coat or similar things, at the same time,

however, not obscurely hinting that, after having taken these, he will

also demand the rest. We certainly do not doubt that you yourselves, as

well as all men endowed with a sound mind, believe that, since the

beginning is always hardest, these small beginnings of changes are at

present demanded only that a door may be opened for all the other

impieties that are to follow--_quod tantum ideo parva ista mutationum

initia iam proponantur, ut quia principia semper sunt dificillima per ea

aditus reliquis omnibus secuturis impietatibus patefiat._"

(Schluesselburg 13, 644.)

The Adiaphorists pretended that they had consented to the Interim in the

interest of the weak, who were unable to bear persecution. But the

Lutherans answered that weak Christians could not be strengthened in

their faith by teaching and persuading them to deny it and that the

enemies and persecutors of the Gospel could certainly not be regarded as

weak. (Frank 4, 78.) The protestations of the Adiaphorists that they had

made the changes in ceremonies with the very best of intentions were

answered by Flacius in _De Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_ as follows:

Hardly ever has a Christian denied Christ without endeavoring to deceive

both God and himself as to his motives. "But one must also consider, as

may be clearly shown from 1 Cor. 10, with what design (_quo animo_) the

adversaries propose such things to us, likewise, how they as well as

others interpret our act." (Schl. 13, 217.) "Even though the intention

of those who receive and use the adiaphora be not an evil one, the

question is," said Martin Chemnitz in his _Iudicium de Adiaphoris,_

"whether the opinion of the one who commands, imposes, and demands the

adiaphora is impious or wicked, whether such reception and observation

is interpreted and understood as a turning away from the confession of

the true doctrine, and whether the weak are offended and grow faint

thereby." (717.)

To the claims of the Interimists that they were but following the

example of Luther, who, for the sake of the weak, had tolerated Romish

ceremonies, etc., the Lutherans replied: Distinguish times and

conditions! Luther was dealing with Christians who in their consciences

still felt bound to the Roman usages, while the "weakness" spoken of by

Adiaphorists is not an erring conscience, but fear of persecution.

Moreover Luther tolerated existing Romish ceremonies as long as there

was hope of arriving at an agreement with the Romanists in doctrine,

while the Adiaphorists reinstitute ceremonies which have been abolished,

and this, too, in deference and obedience to irreconcilable adversaries

of the truth. Accordingly, Luther's attitude in this matter flowed from

pure love for truth and from compassion with the weak, whom he

endeavored to win for the truth, while the submission of the

Adiaphorists to the demands of their adversaries is nothing short of

unchristian denial of both true love and faith. (Frank 4, 55.) Brenz

declared: "_Adiaphora ex suis conditionibus iudicanda sunt._ Adiaphora

must be judged from their conditions. For if the condition is good, the

adiaphoron, too, is good, and its observance is commanded. If, however,

the condition is evil, the adiaphoron, too, is evil, and the observance

of it is prohibited." (Schl. 13, 562.)

Furthermore, when the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians maintained

that, in preferring the lesser evil (the Roman ceremonies) to the

greater (persecution), they had merely listened to, and followed, the

voice of true wisdom, the Lutherans replied that moral evils must not be

placed on a level with physical evils, nor guilt be incurred in order to

avoid suffering and persecution. Westphal declared in his _Explicatio

Generalis Sententiae, quod a Duobus Malis Minus sit Eligendum: "Impium

est, amoliri pericula per peccata, nec ita removentur aut minuuntur sed

accersuntur et augentur poenae._ It is wicked to avert dangers by sins,

nor are they removed or diminished in this way, but rather superinduced

and increased." (13, 251.) "It is better to take upon oneself

punishments and great dangers than to offend God and to provoke His

wrath by such offense." (250.) "It is better and easier to bear many

evils and to undergo many dangers than to be unfaithful in the least

commandment of God, and burden oneself with the guilt of even a single

sin." (251.) Our paramount duty is not to escape persecution, but to

retain a good conscience. Obey the Lord and await His help! Such was the

counsel of Flacius and the loyal Lutherans. (Frank 4, 65.)

But our Wittenberg school will be closed, our churches will be

desolated, and our preachers will be banished, exclaimed the

faint-hearted Wittenbergers. The Lutherans answered: It is our duty to

confess the truth regardless of consequences, and, at the same time, to

look to God for the protection of His Church. Flacius said, in _De Veris

et Falsis Adiaphoris:_ Confess the truth and suffer the consequences! A

Christian cannot obtain peace by offending God and serving and

satisfying tyrants. Rather be drowned by the Spaniards in the Elbe with

a millstone about one's neck than offend a Christian, deny the truth,

and surrender the Church to Satan. "Longe satius esset teste Christo

pati, ut alligata mola asinaria in medium Albis ab Hispanis

proiiceremur, quam _unicum_ parvulum Christi scandalizaremus, multo vero

magis haec et quaevis gravissima pati deberemus, quam _tam infinitis_

(ut iam fit) Christi parvulis offendiculum daremus, ecclesiam Satanae

proderemus et salvificam confessionem veritatis abiiceremus." (Schl. 13,

227.)

As to the Wittenberg School, Flacius said: "It would certainly be better

that the school were closed not one, but many years than that we, by

avoiding confession, extremely weaken our own religion as well as

strengthen the one opposed to it." (13, 231.) "As for myself, I do not

doubt that, if only the theologians had been steadfast, the Wittenberg

School would have been to-day much firmer than it is.... The Interim

sprang from the timidity of the Wittenberg theologians.... Even a

thousand Wittenberg schools ought certainly not to be valued so highly

by pious men that, in order to preserve them unimpaired, they would

rather suffer the world to be deprived of the light of the Gospel.

_Certe non tanti mille Wittenbergenses scholae piis esse debent, ut

propter earum incolumitatem velint pati orbem terrarum Evangelii luce

privari._" (232.) In a letter to Melanchthon, written in the beginning

of 1549, Brenz said: "If therefore the Church and pious ministers cannot

be preserved in any other way than by bringing reproach upon the pious

doctrine, then let us commend them to Christ, the Son of God; He will

take care of them; and in the mean time let us patiently bear our

banishment and wait for the Lord." (_C. R._ 7, 290.)

June 30, 1530, Luther had written to Melanchthon, who was then in

Augsburg: "You want to govern things according to your philosophy; you

torment yourself and do not see that this matter is not within your

power and wisdom.... If we fall, Christ, that is to say, the Ruler of

the world, falls with us; and even though He should fall, I would rather

fall with Christ than stand with the Emperor." This passage is contained

in one of the letters of Luther which Flacius published 1548 in order to

dispel Melanchthon's timidity, rouse his Lutheran consciousness, and

cure him of his vain and most dangerous disposition to save the Church

by human wisdom and shrewdness, instead of, as Luther believed, solely

by a bold confession of the truth of God's Word.

141. Theological Attitude of Flacius Sanctioned.

The theological position which Flacius and his fellow-combatants

occupied over against the Adiaphorists was embodied in the Tenth Article

of the _Formula of Concord,_ and thus endorsed by the Lutheran Church as

a whole. Frank says concerning this most excellent article which our

Church owes to the faithfulness of the Anti-Melanchthonians, notably

Flacius: "The theses which received churchly recognition in the _Formula

of Concord_ were those of Flacius." The entire matter, too, concerning

the adiaphora had been discussed so thoroughly and correctly that the

subsequent formulation and recognition of the Tenth Article caused but

little difficulties. (Frank 4, 3f.)

Even Melanchthon, though refusing to confess that he was guilty of any

doctrinal deviations, finally yielded to the arguments of his opponents

and admitted that they were right in teaching as they did regarding the

adiaphora. In his famous letter to Flacius (who, however, was not

satisfied with the manner of Melanchthon's retraction), dated September

5, 1556, he wrote with respect to the Adiaphoristic Controversy: "I knew

that even the least changes [in ceremonies] would be unwelcome to the

people. However, since the doctrine [?] was retained, I would rather

have our people submit to this servitude than forsake the ministry of

the Gospel. _Cum doctrina retineretur integra, malui nostros hanc

servitutem subire quam deserere ministerium evangelii._ And I confess

that I have given the same advice to the Francans (_Francis_). This I

have done; the doctrine of the Confession I have never changed....

Afterwards you began to contradict. I yielded; I did not fight. In

Homer, Ajax fighting with Hector is satisfied when Hector yields and

admits that the former is victor. You never come to an end with your

accusations. Where is the enemy that does such a thing as striking those

who yield and cast their arms away? Win! I yield. I do not contend

concerning those rites, and I most earnestly wish that the churches

would enjoy sweet concord. I also admit that I have sinned in this

matter, and ask forgiveness of God, that I did not flee far from those

insidious deliberations [in which the Interim was framed]. _Fateor hoc

in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi

insidiosas illas deliberationes_." (_C. R._ 8, 839.)

On January 17, 1557, Melanchthon wrote to the Saxon pastors: "I was

drawn into the insidious deliberations of the courts. Therefore, if in

any way I have either fallen or been too weak, I ask forgiveness of God

and of the Church, and I shall submit to the judgments of the Church."

(9, 61.) In the _Formula Consensus,_ written by Melanchthon at Worms, in

1557, the Interim is expressly condemned. For here we read: "With the

help of God we retain, and shall retain, the entire doctrine of

justification, agreeing with the Augsburg Confession and with the

confessions which were published in the church of Hamburg against the

book called Interim. Nor do we want any corruptions or ambiguities to be

mixed with it; and we desire most earnestly that the true doctrine in

all its articles be set forth, as far as possible, in identical and

proper forms of speech, and that ambitious innovations be avoided." (9,

369.) The _Frankfurt Recess_ of 1558, also written by Melanchthon and

signed by the princes, maintains: "Where the true Christian doctrine of

the holy Gospel is polluted or persecuted, there the adiaphora as well

as other ceremonies are detrimental and injurious." (9, 501.)