F. Bente - Historical Introductions.Melanchthon's Public Attitude

Eight Reformers - an early Photoshop.

199. Melanchthon's Public Attitude.

As stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received with

increasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in Southern

Germany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymen

who secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. They

were called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because,

while they subscribed to the _Augsburg Confession_, claimed to be loyal

Lutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church,

they in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoring

to suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them the

views of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly that

Melanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what the

latter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubt

that Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. In

fact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regarded

as the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists.

True, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord's

Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the

Zwinglians and their "profane" teaching in an _Opinion_ on Carlstadt's

doctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God and

man, _i.e._, with His body and blood is present in the Supper. (_C. R._

1, 760.) In September of the following year he wrote to Philip Eberbach:

"Know that Luther's teaching [concerning the Lord's Supper] is very old

in the Church. _Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesia

esse_." (823.) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also to

Eberbach. In an _Opinion_ of May 15 1529: "I am satisfied that I shall

not agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingli

and his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament." (1067.) June

20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: "I would rather die than see our people

become contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. _Nam mori

malim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare_. My dear

Jerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed to

death on account of this matter." (_C. R._ 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2,

1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the

Zwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these

profane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can

be upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the

ancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther

does." (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies of

ancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are

now being printed." (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored

to show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian,

Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of

institution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.)

According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine

in the _Augsburg Confession_ and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2,

142. 212.)

At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer

claimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his _Opinion

Concerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians_, written in August,

1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can

be present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot

be anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is

contrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local;

also, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be in

different places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that

the body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so

that it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth

and reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with

the bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that

they [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is

not necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that

it can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some

other secret way by which different places are as one point present at

the same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and

real presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes

to accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare

to say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without

geometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word

'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the Holy

Spirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but of

the body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that the

body of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with the

bread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body of

Christ is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, _i.e._, by

imagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men by

saying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'by

contemplation of faith,' _i.e._, by imagination. 14. We teach that

Christ's body is truly and really present with the bread or in the

bread. 15. Although we say that the body of Christ is really present,

Luther does not say that it is present locally, namely, in some mass, by

circumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or the

entire Christ is present to all creatures.... We deny

transubstantiation, and that the body is locally in the bread," etc. (2,

222. 311. 315.)

Such were the views of Melanchthon in and before 1530. And publicly and

formally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an _Opinion_

written 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: "If

Christ were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with us

essentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, He

gives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always.

This sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting.... Therefore

I conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread and

wine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here we

must cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, _viz._, how Christ

ascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else."

(2. 801.) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, which

plainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also by

unworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff.) In 1537 he subscribed to the

_Smalcald Articles_, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of the

real presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that "bread and wine

in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and

received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians." (CONC.

TRIGL. 493, 1.) In his letter to Flacius of September 5, 1556,

Melanchthon solemnly declared: "I have never changed the doctrine of the

Confession." (_C. R._ 8, 841.) September 6, 1557, he wrote: "We all

embrace and retain the Confession together with the _Apology_ and the

confession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua." (9, 260.)

Again, in November of the same year: "Regarding the Lord's Supper, we

retain the _Augsburg Confession_ and _Apology_." (9, 371.) In an

_Opinion_ of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper

the Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner that

when we use it, ["]He gives us with the bread and wine His body," etc.,

and that Zwingli was wrong when he declared "that it is a mere outward

sign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is a

mere sign by which Christians know each other." (9, 472f.) Several

months before his death, in his preface to the _Corpus Philippicum_,

Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper "Christ is truly and

substantially present and truly administered to those who take the body

and blood of Christ," and that in it "He gives His body and blood to him

who eats and drinks." (Richard. 389.)

200. Melanchthon's Private Views.

While Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the manner

indicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he had

inwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of a

stranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to the

doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for the

authority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Luther

put it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clear

words of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became a

wavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging toward

Luther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error,

he was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, and

the immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May

24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted and

doubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Know that for ten years

neither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on this

matter," the Lord's Supper. (_C. R._ 3, 537.) And his doubts led to a

departure from his own former position,--a fact for which also

sufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. "Already in 1531," says

Seeberg, "Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough to

the effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of the

divinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body and

the bread. _Ep._, p.85." (_Dogg._ 4, 2, 447.)

That Melanchthon's later public statements and protestations concerning

his faithful adherence to the doctrine of the _Augsburg Confession_ must

be more or less discounted, appears, apart from other considerations,

from his own admission that he was wont to dissimulate in these and

other matters; from his private letters, in which he favorably refers to

the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution; from his

communication to Philip of Hesse with regard to Luther's article on the

Lord's Supper at Smalcald, referred to in a previous chapter; from the

changes which he made 1540 in Article X of the _Augsburg Confession_;

from his later indefinite statements concerning the real presence in the

Holy Supper; from his intimate relations and his cordial correspondence

with Calvin; from his public indifference and neutrality during the

eucharistic controversy with the Calvinists; and from his unfriendly

attitude toward the champions of Luther in this conflict.

201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer.

That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities

rather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that

Oecolampadius's _Dialogus_ of 1530--which endeavored to show that the

symbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in

the writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine,

and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 217), says, was

written "with greater exactness (_accuratius_) than he is otherwise wont

to write"--made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is

shown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer,

he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a

result, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the

Zwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the

conference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong

terms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating

and drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is

truly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's _Opinion_ in this

matter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa das

unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi

gegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib

Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den

Zaehnen zerbissen werde." (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when

writing thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his

object merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the

sacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return

from Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at

Cassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign

opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 822)

As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the

compromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood

are truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not

really connected with the bread and wine, the signs or _signa

exhibitiva_, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther

and Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remaining

question therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread

and body,--and of what need is this question? _Tantum igitur reliqua est

quaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid

opus est?_" (_C. R._ 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he

had written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and

wine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I

would not demand anything further." (_C. R._ 2, 787.) In February he

wrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far

from the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us

(_reipsa convenire_); nor do I condemn them." (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065.)

This, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthon

said: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of

Bucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet.

_Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare_." (_C.

R._ 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062.) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip of

Hesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one

hand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the

other, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (_C. R._ 2, 836.

841.)

202. Secret Letters and the Variata of 1540.

In the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in the

preceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the

Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion

now," says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me,

although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard

what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally

or when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam noli

nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo,

quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota

aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_." (2, 822.) Two days

later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in

Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he

regarded as dangerous, as, _e.g._, in his defamatory letter to

Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R._ 1, 754), in

which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own

true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon

was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of

the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire

doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times

concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even

though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if

there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other

articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who

are to be execrated.... Concerning the Concord, however, no action

whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions

here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally

concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and

readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real

presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or

defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many

testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the

mystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while the

opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will

have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do

wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without

sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on

account of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any

good reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth,

this matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that you

do not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church.

I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any

sophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this

great matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established

without sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly

abandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that

among them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being

moved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you

think, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together?

As for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together on

this matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles

they as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (_dexterius_)

since they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However,

I conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and,

after reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody."

(_C. R._ 2, 823f.; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060.)

In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthon

declares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have

maintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these

things are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is

certainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which

the body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread.

Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present

when the things are received. _Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem

talem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut

misceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud_....

What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you

defend what some even now are saying, _viz._, that the body and blood

are tendered separately--_separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem_. This

too, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, as

the saying goes. That physical connection (_illa physica coniunctio_)

breeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included;

when [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apart

from the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my

dear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the _Loci_ I

have spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away

from these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think.

But I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry,

would be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerning

the entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I

shall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I

am speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and

approach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients." (_C.

R._ 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I have

simply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the

words. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and

efficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to

add a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something

altogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church." (3, 536;

7, 882.)

Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his

views concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes

since 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed

sentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate

union, to subscribe the _Augsburg Confession_, Melanchthon, in 1540,

altered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter.

Schaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper "was in various ways

officially recognized in the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1540." (1, 280.)

Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the

alteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential

concession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but

he did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation--no doubt,

because it certainly was not very far from the truth.

203. Not in Sympathy with Lutheran Champions.

When Westphal, in 1552, pointed out the Calvinistic menace and sounded

the tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy to

defend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divine

majesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failed

the Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For although

Lutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence,

Master Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in the

light of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construe

this attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and wherever

Melanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during this

controversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparent

that his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with the

champions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings and

thrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramental

union and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvin

and his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and their

cause.

Melanchthon's animosity ran high not only against such extremists as

Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland (both were deposed in Luebeck 1568 and

Saliger again in Rostock 1569) who taught that in virtue of the

consecration before the use (_ante usum_) bread and wine are the body

and blood of Christ, denouncing all who denied this as Sacramentarians

(Gieseler 3, 2, 257), but also against all those who faithfully adhered

to, and defended, Luther's phraseology concerning the Lord's Supper. He

rejected the teaching of Westphal and the Hamburg ministers, according

to which in the Lord's Supper, the bread is properly called the body of

Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, and stigmatized their doctrine

as "bread-worship, _artolatreia_." (_C. R._ 8, 362. 660. 791; 9, 470.

962.)

In a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching of

the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new and

foolish doctrine. Concerning the _Confession and Report of the

Wuerttemberg Theologians_, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, which

emphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence of

Christ also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarked

contemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and in

a letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could not

characterize "the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (_Abbates

Wirtebergenses_) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (_Hechingense

Latinum, Hechinger Latein_)," _i.e._, as absurd and insipid teaching.

(9, 1035f.; 7, 780. 884.)

204. Melanchthon Claimed by Calvin.

In 1554 Nicholas Gallus of Regensburg republished, with a preface of his

own, _Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerning

the Lord's Supper_. The timely reappearance of this book, which

Melanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was most

embarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter,

therefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openly

against his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider it

expedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered,

October 14, 1554: "As regards your admonition in your last letter that I

repress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerning

the bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation out

of hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressing

me. _Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui

renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio mei

eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me

opprimendum_." (8, 362.)

Fully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with his

Wittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his

_Last Admonition_ (_Ultima Admonitio_) _to Westphal_, 1557, publicly

claimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give public

testimony "that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothing

foreign to the _Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere a

Confessione Augustana_." "I confirm," Calvin here declared, "that in

this cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be torn

from me than from his own bowels. _Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum

quam a propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli_." (_C. R._ 37

[_Calvini Opp_. 9], 148. 149. 193. 466; Gieseler 3, 2, 219, Tschackert,

536.) Melanchthon, however, continued to preserve his sphinxlike

silence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that he

favored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther's

doctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: "If you will permit

me to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully and

earnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are useful

to the Church." (_C. R._ 9, 374.)

After the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his _Dilucida

Explicatio_ against Hesshusius, 1561: "O Philip Melanchthon! For it is

to you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of God

and there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you into

blessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with labor

and overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laid

your head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! But

afterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to be

together. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage in

battle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. In

this way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whose

audacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. _O

Philippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis,

nosque illic exspectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur.

Dixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput

familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu!

Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe

animosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiam

falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo

cohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam

vocabant, crevit insultandi audacia_." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9],

461f.) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claim

by publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings under

the title: _Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini,

ex scriptis eius collecta_. But, alas, the voice of the later

Melanchthon was not that of the former!

205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists.

In various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with the

defenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinistic

opponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposed

Hardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished the

latter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but to

dissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: "_Te autem oro, ne

properes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules_."

(_C. R._ 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises

Hardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows:

"Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy,

but also the madness (_rabies_) of the writers who establish the

bread-worship is growing." (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like

Timann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's

Supper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the

blood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His

human nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to

acknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the

Reformed doctrine) as his assistant in the distribution of the Lord's

Supper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists,

who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius

come to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and

dismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of

the Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties.

In the _Opinion_ requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559,

Melanchthon said: "To answer is not difficult, but dangerous....

Therefore I approve of the measure of the illustrious Elector,

commanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and the

Calvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church.... The

contentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest

agree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to

retain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion

(_koinonia_) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of

the Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently.

And the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that the

nature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, as

those of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he

does not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius

does; but that it is the communion, _i.e._, that by which the union

occurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the

use, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread....

The Son of God is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He is

certainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account

of the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in

you,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in

these true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that

He will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper."

(_C. R._ 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed

to these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently

remarks: "Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the

disputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as

if the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not

diminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They

did the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid

error might." (_Cons. Ref._, 291.)

206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures.

Modern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to the

Lord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier.

Tschackert: "Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the second

controversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of the

Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied with

maintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leaving

the mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt." (532.) Seeberg, who

maintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther's

teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: "Melanchthon merely

does not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in the

Supper, and that it is omnipresent as such." (4, 2, 449.) Theo. Kolde:

"It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X of

the _Augustana_ involved real changes.... In view of his gradually

changed conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that he

sought to leave open for himself and others the possibility of

associating also with the Swiss." (25.) Schaff: "Melanchthon's later

view of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin." (1,

280.)

Such, then, being the attitude of Melanchthon as to the doctrine of the

Lord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, who

looked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should become

decided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible for

the Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after the

death of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss,

he was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he had

his way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, the

Lutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed into

a Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt was

shared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr.,

Paul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined toward

Melanchthon's view and attitude also in the matter concerning the Lord's

Supper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to Veit

Dietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ in

the use of the Lord's Supper, but not "the division or separation of the

body and blood." (_C. R._ 3, 610.) Shortly before his death, as related

in a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpable

silence with regard to the truth, declaring: "If you believe as you

speak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in public

lectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen your

brethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict the

wilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be of

no value whatever." (Walther, 40.) Refusal to confess the truth will

ultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is the

first step to open denial.

207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin.

Foremost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating the

Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close as

possible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly and

ably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg

[born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; died

January 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened the

entire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise his

voice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did so

in a publication entitled: "_Farrago Confusanearum et inter se

Dissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and Mutually

Dissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of the

Sacramentarians," 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and his

adherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the real

presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just as

emphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time he

refuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated by

the title, and maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence,

the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of unbelievers.

Finally he appealed to the Lutheran theologians and magistrates

everywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. "The

_Farrago_," says Kruske, "signified the beginning of the end of Calvin's

domination in Germany." Schaff: "The controversy of Westphal against

Calvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed and

consolidated the separation of the two Confessions," Lutheran and

Reformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280.)

Thus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the Lutheran

Church from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinistic

movement, Westphal, in the year following, published a second book:

"_Correct Faith (Recta Fides) Concerning the Lord's Supper_,

demonstrated and confirmed from the words of the Apostle Paul and the

Evangelists," 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples of

Luther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who,

he declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany for

Zwinglianism.

Westphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a special

emphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in

1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had been

driven from England by Bloody Mary, reached the Continent. The liberty

which Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_,

requested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformed

congregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, but

finally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, the

Calvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, was

forbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity and

propaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena against

Westphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et Orthodoxae

Doctrinae de Sacramentis_, "Defense of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine

Concerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, and

Fruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich and

Geneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutual

Agreement" (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in such

an insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e.g._, with "a mad

dog") that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to assume a

personal and acrimonious character.

208. Controversial Publications.

After Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by such

Lutherans as John Timann, Paul v. Eitzen, Erhard Schnepf, Alber, Gallus,

Flacius, Judex, Brenz, Andreae and others. Calvin, on the other hand,

was supported by Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Polanus, Beza (the

most scurrillous of all the opponents of Lutheranism), and Bibliander.

In 1555 Westphal published three additional books: _Collection

(Collectanea) of Opinions of Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Lord's

Supper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerning

the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdam

Sacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, "Just Defense

against the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian." The last

publication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives of

Calvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were united

only in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's

Supper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor in

Bremen, published in 1555: "_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing in

the True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which the

churches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm assent and

in one spirit according to the divine Word."

In the following year Calvin wrote his _Secunda Defensio ... contra J.

Westphali Calumnias_, "Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith,

against the Calumnies of J. Westphal," a vitriolic book, dedicated to

the Crypto-Calvinists, _viz._, "to all ministers of Christ who cultivate

and follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony and

Lower Germany." In it Calvin declared: "I teach that Christ, though

absent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with us

according to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying for

us." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79.) Lasco also wrote two books

against Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort,

and endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine of

the Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullinger

appeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition,

Apologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that the

ministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma in

the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper.

In the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua Breviter

Respondet ad Convicia I. Calvini_--"Letter in which He [Westphal]

Answers Briefly to the Invectives of J. Calvin," and "_Answer

(Responsum) to the Writing of John of Lasco_, in which he transforms the

_Augsburg Confession_ into Zwinglianism." In the same year Westphal

published "_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning the

Sacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches of

Saxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus

Christ in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvin

dedicated to them." This publication contained opinions which Westphal

had secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand and

Flacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg,

Brunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. All

of these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely in

favor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of institution as

they read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Nassau, Marburg,

Speier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg

1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _Confession

Concerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522;

died 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defense

of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_.

Westphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his "_Just Defense

against the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in his

letter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches," 1557. In it he

denounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon the

magistrates to institute proceedings against them.

Calvin now published his _Ultima Admonitio_, "Last Admonition of John

Calvin to J. Westphal, who, if he does not obey (_obtemperet_) must

thenceforth be held in the manner as Paul commands us to hold obstinate

heretics; in this writing the vain censures of the Magdeburgians and

others, by which they endeavored to wreck heaven and earth, are also

refuted" 1557. Here Calvin plainly reveals his Zwinglianism and says:

"This is the summary of our doctrine, that the flesh of Christ is a

vivifying bread because it truly nourishes and feeds our souls when by

faith we coalesce with it. This, we teach, occurs spiritually only,

because the bond of this sacred unity is the secret and incomprehensible

power of the Holy Spirit." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 162.) In this

book Calvin also, as stated above, appeals to Melanchthon to add his

testimony that "we [the Calvinists] teach nothing that conflicts with

the _Augsburg Confession_."

Though Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to give

public testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books against

the Calvinists. One of them bears the title: "_Apologetical Writings

(Apologetica Scripta) of J.W._, in which he both defends the sound

doctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of the

Sacramentarians," etc. Another is entitled: _Apology of the Confession

Concerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies of

John Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin and

entered the controversy with his "_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning the

Lord's Supper_, in which the calumnies of J. Westphal are refuted."

Lasco's _Reply to the Virulent Letter of That Furious Man J. Westphal_,

of 1560, appeared posthumously, he having died shortly before in Poland.

209. Brenz and Chemnitz.

Foremost among the influential theologians who besides Westphal, took a

decided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors in

Lutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitz

in Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim,

since 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influential

theologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in his

anti-Calvinistic attitude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He is

the author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of the

Theologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body and

Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of Duke

Christopher by the synod assembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion for

drafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished by

Bartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he was

required to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with Jacob

Andreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convinced

of his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching.

The _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakable

terms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all who

partake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personal

union, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence well

able to fulfil the promise He gave at the institution of the Holy

Supper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), the

sacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking

(_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). It

holds "that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of our

Lord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of institution],

truly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to all

men who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they are

tendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time also

received with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it." Furthermore,

"that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine are

present in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence of

the body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and received

with the signs of bread and wine." (Tschackert, 541.) It protests: "We

do not assert any mixture of His body and blood with the bread and wine,

nor any local inclusion in the bread." Again: "We do not imagine any

diffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ

(_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christi

distractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by which

He, being placed at the right hand of God, fills all things not only by

His divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in a

way that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majesty

His presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed." (Gieseler

3, 2, 239f.) Thus, without employing the term "ubiquity," this

_Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrine

concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther had

maintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentarians

generally.

As stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as "Hechinger

Latin." In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise

(Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz replied

to this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book of

Bullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the Two

Natures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and His

Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewed

assaults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: "_Answer

(Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' and

the 'right hand of God' still stands firm," 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs

(Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of the

Natures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to the

Arguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatest

writings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina Maiestate

Christi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerning

the True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (Consensus

Dresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejected

the omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature of

Christ.

In order to reclaim the Palatinate (which, as will be explained later,

had turned Reformed) for Lutheranism the Duke of Wuerttemberg, in April,

1564, arranged for the Religious Discussion at Maulbronn between the

theologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result was

a further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published

_Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium ... Concerning the Lord's Supper

and the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttemberg

theologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio et

Confessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of the

Man Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians of

the Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chief

champion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz.

In his various publications against the Calvinists, Brenz, appealing to

Luther, taught concerning the majesty of Christ that by reason of the

personal union the humanity of Christ is not only omnipotent and

omniscient, but also omnipresent, and that the human nature of Christ

received these as well as other divine attributes from the first moment

of the incarnation of the Logos. Following are some of his statements:

"Although the divine substance [in Christ] is not changed into the

human, and each has its own properties, nevertheless these two

substances are united in one person in Christ in such a manner that the

one is never in reality separated from the other." "Wherever the deity

is, there is also the humanity of Christ." "We do not ascribe to Christ

many and various bodies, nor do we ascribe to His body local extension

or diffusion; but we exalt Him beyond this corporeal world, outside of

every creature and place, and place Him in accordance with the condition

of the hypostatic union in celestial majesty, which He never lacked,

though at the time of His flesh in this world He hid it or, as Paul

says, He humbled Himself (_quam etsi tempore carnis suae in hoc saeculo

dissimulavit, seu ea sese, ut Paulus loquitur, exinanivit, tamen numquam

ea caruit_)."  According to Brenz the man Christ was omnipotent,

almighty, omniscient while He lay in the manger. In His majesty He

darkened the sun, and kept alive all the living while in His humiliation

He was dying on the cross. When dead in the grave, He at the same time

was filling and ruling heaven and earth with His power. (Gieseler 3, 2,

240f.)

In Brunswick, Martin Chemnitz (born 1522; died 1586), the Second Martin

(_alter Martinus_) of the Lutheran Church, entered the controversy

against the Calvinists in 1560 with his _Repetition (Repetitio) of the

Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of

Christ in the Supper_, in which he based his arguments for the real

presence on the words of institution. Ten years later he published his

famous book _Concerning the Two Natures in Christ (De Duabus Naturis in

Christo)_, etc.,--preeminently the Lutheran classic on the subject it

treats. Appealing also to Luther, he teaches that Christ, according to

His human nature was anointed with all divine gifts; that, in

consequence of the personal union, the human nature of Christ can be and

is present where, when, and in whatever way Christ will; that therefore

in accordance with His promise, He is in reality present in His Church

and in His Supper. Chemnitz says: "This presence of the assumed nature

in Christ of which we now treat is not natural or essential [flowing

from the nature and essence of Christ's humanity], but voluntary and

most free, depending on the will and power of the Son of God (_non est

vel naturalis vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a

voluntate et potentia Filii Dei_); that is to say, when by a definite

word He has told, promised, and asseverated that He would be present

with His human nature, ... let us retain this, which is most certainly

true, that Christ can be with His body wherever, whenever, and in

whatever manner He wills (_Christum suo corpore esse posse, ubicunque,

quandocunque et quomodocunque vult_). But we must judge of His will from

a definite, revealed word." (Tschackert, 644; Gieseler 3, 2, 259.)

The _Formula of Concord_ plainly teaches, both that, in virtue of the

personal union by His incarnation, Christ according to His human nature

possesses also the divine attribute of omnipresence, and that He can be

and is present wherever He will. In the Epitome we read: This majesty

Christ always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained

from it in the state of His humiliation until His resurrection, "so that

now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all

things, _is present with all creatures_, and has under His feet and in

His hand everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

... And this His power He, _being present_, can exercise everywhere, and

to Him everything is possible and everything is known." (821, 16. 27.

30.) The Thorough Declaration declares that Christ "truly fills all

things, and, being present everywhere, not only as God, but also as man,

rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth." (1025, 27ff.)

Again: "We hold ... that also according to His assumed human nature and

with the same He [Christ] _can be, and also is, present where He will_,

and especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He is

present as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, or

one-half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ, to which both

natures, the divine and the human, belong, is present not only

according to His divinity, but also according to, and with, His assumed

human nature, according to which He is our Brother, and we are flesh of

His flesh and bone of His bone." (1043 78f.) In virtue of the personal

union Christ is present everywhere also according to His human nature;

while the peculiarly gracious manner of His presence in the Gospel, in

the Church, and in the Lord's Supper depends upon His will and is based

upon His definite promises.

210. Bremen and the Palatinate Lost for Lutheranism.

The indignation of the Lutherans against the Calvinistic propaganda,

roused by Westphal and his comrades in their conflict with Calvin and

his followers, was materially increased by the success of the crafty

Calvinists in Bremen and in the Palatinate. In 1547 Hardenberg [Albert

Rizaeus from Hardenberg, Holland, born 1510] was appointed Dome-preacher

in Bremen. He was a former priest whom Lasco had won for the

Reformation. Regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he inclined

towards Zwingli. Self-evidently, when his views became known, the

situation in Bremen became intolerable for his Lutheran colleagues. How

could they associate with and fellowship, a Calvinist! To acknowledge

him would have been nothing short of surrendering their own views and

the character of the Lutheran Church. The result was that John Timann

[pastor in Bremen; wrote a tract against the Interim, died February 17,

1557], in order to compel Hardenberg to unmask and reveal his true

inwardness, demanded that all the ministers of Bremen subscribe to the

_Farrago Sententiarum Consentientium in Vera Doctrina et Coena Domini_

which he had published in 1555 against the Calvinists. Hardenberg and

two other ministers refused to comply with the demand. In particular,

Hardenberg objected to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ

taught in Timann's _Farrago_. In his _Doctrinal Summary (Summaria

Doctrina)_ Hardenberg taught: "St. Augustine and many other fathers

write that the body of Christ is circumscribed by a certain space in

heaven, and I regard this as the true doctrine of the Church."

(Tschackert, 191.) Hardenberg also published the fable hatched at

Heidelberg (_Heidelberger Landluege_, indirectly referred to also in the

_Formula of Concord_, 981, 28), but immediately refuted by Joachim

Moerlin, according to which Luther is said, toward the end of his life,

to have confessed to Melanchthon that he had gone too far and overdone

the matter in his controversy against the Sacramentarians; that he,

however, did not want to retract his doctrine concerning the Lord's

Supper himself, because that would cast suspicion on his whole teaching;

that therefore after his death the younger theologians might make amends

for it and settle this matter.... In 1556 Timann began to preach against

Hardenberg, but died the following year. The Lower Saxon Diet, however,

decided February 8, 1561, that Hardenberg be dismissed within fourteen

days, yet "without infamy or condemnation, _citra infamiam et

condemnationem_." Hardenberg submitted under protest and left Bremen

February 18, 1561 (he died as a Reformed preacher at Emden, 1574). Simon

Musaeus who had just been expelled from Jena, was called as

Superintendent to purge Bremen of Calvinism. Before long, however, the

burgomaster of the city, Daniel von Bueren, whom Hardenberg had secretly

won for the Reformed doctrine, succeeded in expelling the Lutheran

ministers from the city and in filling their places with Philippists,

who before long joined the Reformed Church. Thus ever since 1562 Bremen

has been a Reformed city.

A much severer blow was dealt Lutheranism when the Palatinate, the home

of Melanchthon, where the Philippists were largely represented, was

Calvinized by Elector Frederick III. Tileman Hesshusius [Hesshusen, born

1527; 1553 superintendent at Goslar; 1556 professor and pastor at

Rostock; 1557 at Heidelberg; 1560 pastor at Magdeburg; 1562

court-preacher at Neuburg; 1569 professor at Jena; 1573 bishop of

Samland, at Koenigsberg; 1577 professor at Helmstedt where he died 1588]

was called in 1557 by Elector Otto Henry to Heidelberg both as professor

and pastor and as superintendent of the Palatinate. Here the Calvinists

and Crypto-Calvinists had already done much to undermine Lutheranism;

and after the death of Otto Henry, February 12, 1559, Hesshusius who

endeavored to stem the Crypto-Calvinistic tide, was no longer able to

hold his own. Under Elector Frederick III, who succeeded Otto Henry, the

Calvinists came out into the open. This led to scandalous clashes, of

which the Klebitz affair was a typical and consequential instance. In

order to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, William Klebitz, the

deacon of Hesshusius, published, in 1560 a number of Calvinistic theses.

As a result Hesshusius most emphatically forbade him henceforth to

assist at the distribution of the Holy Supper. When Klebitz nevertheless

appeared at the altar, Hesshusius endeavored to wrest the cup from his

hands. Elector Frederick ordered both Hesshusius and Klebitz to settle

their trouble in accordance with the _Augustana_ (Variata). Failing to

comply with this unionistic demand, Hesshusius was deposed, September

16, 1559, and Klebitz, too was dismissed. In a theological opinion,

referred to above, Melanchthon approved of the action. Hereupon

Hesshusius entered the public controversy against Calvinism. In 1560 he

published _Concerning the Presence (De Praesentia) of the Body of Christ

in the Lord's Supper_ and his _Answer (Responsio) to the Prejudicial

Judgement (Praeiudicium) of Philip Melanchthon on the Controversy

Concerning the Lord's Supper_ [with Klebitz].

After the dismissal of Hesshusius, Elector Frederick III, who had

shortly before played a conspicuous role in endeavoring to win the day

for Melanchthonianism at the Lutheran Assembly of Naumburg, immediately

began to Calvinize his territory. In reading the controversial books

published on the Lord's Supper, he suffered himself to be guided by the

renowned physician Thomas Erastus [died 1583], who was a Calvinist and

had himself published Calvinistic books concerning the Lord's Supper and

the person and natures of Christ. As a result the Elector, having become

a decided Reformedist, determined to de-Lutheranize the Palatinate in

every particular, regarding practise and divine service as well as with

respect to confessional books, doctrines, and teachers. The large number

of Philippists, who had been secret Calvinists before, was increased by

such Reformed theologians as Caspar Olevianus (1560), Zacharias Ursinus

(1561), and Tremellius (1561). Images, baptismal fonts, and altars were

removed from the churches; wafers were replaced by bread, which was

broken; the organs were closed; the festivals of Mary, the apostles, and

saints were abolished. Ministers refusing to submit to the new order of

things were deposed and their charges filled with Reformed men from the

Netherlands. The Calvinistic _Heidelberg Catechism_, composed by

Olevianus and Ursinus and published 1563 in German and Latin, took the

place of Luther's Catechism. This process of Calvinization was completed

by the introduction of the new Church Order of November 15, 1563. At the

behest of Frederick III the _Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica)_ was

published in 1566, in order to prove by this out-and-out Zwinglian

document, framed by Bullinger, "that he [the Elector of the Palatinate]

entertained no separate doctrine, but the very same that was preached

also in many other and populous churches, and that the charge was untrue

that the Reformed disagreed among themselves and were divided into

sects." Thus the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Confession, for

though Ludwig VI (1576-1583), the successor of Frederick III,

temporarily restored Lutheranism, Frederick IV (1583 to 1610) returned

to Calvinism.

211. Saxony in the Grip of Crypto-Calvinists.

It was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church when Bremen and the

Palatinate fell a prey to Calvinism. And the fears were not unfounded

that before long the Electorate of Saxony would follow in their wake,

and Wittenberg, the citadel of the Lutheran Reformation, be captured by

Calvin. That this misfortune, which, no doubt, would have dealt a final

and fatal blow to Lutheranism, was warded off, must be regarded as a

special providence of God. For the men (Melanchthon, Major, etc.) whom

Luther had accused of culpable silence regarding the true doctrine of

the Lord's Supper, were, naturally enough, succeeded by theologians who,

while claiming to be true Lutherans adhering to the Augsburg Confession

and, in a shameful manner deceiving and misleading Elector August

zealously championed and developed the Melanchthonian aberrations, in

particular with respect to the doctrines concerning the Lord's Supper

and the person of Christ, and sedulously propagated the views of Calvin,

at first secretly and guardedly, but finally with boldness and abandon.

Gieseler says of these Philippists in Wittenberg: "Inwardly they were

out-and-out Calvinists, although they endeavored to appear as genuine

Lutherans before their master," Elector August. (3, 2, 250.)

The most prominent and influential of these so-called Philippists or

Crypto-Calvinists were Dr. Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Dr. Christopher Pezel,

Dr. Frederick Widebram, and Dr. Henry Moeller. The schemes of these men

were aided and abetted by a number of non-theological professors:

Wolfgang Crell, professor of ethics, Esrom Ruedinger, professor of

philosophy; George Cracow, professor of jurisprudence and, later, privy

councilor of Elector August; Melanchthon's son-in-law, Caspar Peucer,

professor of medicine and physician in ordinary of the Elector, who

naturally had a great influence on August and the ecclesiastical

affairs of the Electorate. He held that Luther's doctrine of the real

presence had no more foundation in the Bible than did the Roman

transubstantiation. To these must be added John Stoessel, confessor to

the Elector and superintendent at Pirna; Christian Schuetze,

court-preacher at Dresden, Andrew Freyhub and Wolfgang Harder

professors in Leipzig, and others. The real leaders of these Philippists

were Peucer and Cracow. Their scheme was to prepossess the Elector

against the loyal adherents of Luther, especially Flacius, gradually to

win him over to their liberal views, and, at the proper moment, to

surrender and deliver Electoral Saxony to the Calvinists. In prosecuting

this sinister plan, they were unscrupulous also in the choice of their

means. Thus Wittenberg, during Luther's days the fountainhead of the

pure Gospel and the stronghold of uncompromising fidelity to the truth,

had become a veritable nest of fanatical Crypto-Calvinistic schemers

and dishonest anti-Lutheran plotters who also controlled the situation

in the entire Electorate.

The first public step to accomplish their purpose was the publication of

the _Corpus Doctrinae Christianae_, or _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_, or

_Philippicum_, as it was also called. This collection of symbolical

books was published 1560 at Leipzig by Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon's

son-in-law, with a preface to both the German and Latin editions written

by Melanchthon and dated September 29, 1559, and February 16, 1560,

respectively,--an act by which, perhaps without sufficiently realizing

it, Melanchthon immodestly assumed for himself and his views the place

within the Lutheran Church which belonged not to him, but to Luther. The

title which reveals the insincerity and the purpose of this publication,

runs as follows: _"Corpus Doctrinae, i.e._, the entire sum of the true

and Christian doctrine ... as a testimony of the steadfast and unanimous

confession of the pure and true religion in which the schools and

churches of these Electoral Saxon and Meissen territories have remained

and persevered in all points according to the _Augsburg Confession_ for

now almost thirty years against the unfounded false charges and

accusations of all lying spirits, 1560." As a matter of fact, however,

this _Corpus_ contained, besides the Ecumenical Symbols, only writings

of Melanchthon, notably the altered _Augsburg Confession_ and the

altered _Apology_ of 1542, the Saxon Confession of 1551, the changed

_Loci_, the _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, and the _Responsiones ad

Impios Articulos Inquisitionis Bavaricae_.

Evidently this _Corpus Philippicum_, which was introduced also in

churches outside of Electoral Saxony, particularly where the princes or

leading theologians were Melanchthonians, was intended to alienate the

Electorate from the old teaching of Luther, to sanction and further the

Melanchthonian tendency, and thus to pave the way for Calvinism. It was

foisted upon, and rigorously enforced in, all the churches of Electoral

Saxony. All professors, ministers, and teachers were pledged by an oath

to teach according to it. Such as refused to subscribe were deposed,

imprisoned, or banished. Among the persecuted pastors we find the

following names: Tettelbach, superintendent in Chemnitz; George Herbst,

deacon in Chemnitz and later superintendent in Eisleben; Graf,

superintendent in Sangerhausen; Schade, Heine, and Schuetz, pastors in

Freiberg. When ministers who refused their signatures appealed to

Luther's writings, they were told that Luther's books must be

understood and explained according to Melanchthon's _Corpus_. At

Wittenberg the opposition to Luther and his teaching bordered on

fanaticism. When, for example, in 1568 Conrad Schluesselburg and Albert

Schirmer, two Wittenberg students, entered a complaint against

Professors Pezel and Peucer because of their deviations from Luther in

the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and refused to admit that Peucer and

his colleagues represented the pure doctrine in this matter, they were

expelled from the university, anathematized, and driven from the city.

(Schluesselburg 13, 609. 730; Gieseler 3, 2, 250.)

Immediately after its appearance, the _Corpus Philippicum_ was

denounced by loyal Lutherans, notably those of Reuss, Schoenfeld, and

Jena. When the charges of false teaching against the Wittenberg

theologians increased in number and force, Elector August arranged a

colloquy between the theologians of Jena and Wittenberg. It was held at

Altenburg and lasted from October, 1568, to March, 1569 because the

Wittenbergers, evidently afraid of compromising themselves, insisted on

its being conducted in writing only. The result of this colloquy was a

public declaration on the part of Wigand, Coelestinus, Kirchner Rosinus,

and others to the effect that the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians had

unmistakably revealed themselves as false teachers. At the colloquy the

Jena theologians objected in particular also to the _Corpus Misnicum_

because it contained the altered _Augustana_, concerning which they

declared: Melanchthon "has changed the said _Augsburg Confession_ so

often that finally he has opened a window through which the

Sacramentarians and Calvinists can sneak into it. One must watch

carefully, lest in course of time the Papists also find such a loophole

to twist themselves into it." (Gieseler 3, 2, 252.)

The Philippists of Leipzig and Wittenberg in turn, denounced the Jena

theologians as Flacian fighting cocks (_Flacianische Haderkatzen_). They

also succeeded in persuading Elector August to adopt more rigorous

measures against the malcontents in his territories. For in addition to

the adoption of the _Corpus Philippicum_ the ministers were now required

to subscribe to a declaration which was tantamount to an endorsement of

all of the false doctrines entertained by the Wittenbergers. The

declaration read: "I do not adhere to the dangerous Flacian Illyrian

errors, contentions, poisonous backbitings, and fanaticism (_zaenkischem

Geschmeiss, giftigem Gebeiss und Schwaermerei_) with which the schools

and churches of this country are burdened [by Flacius] concerning the

imagined adiaphorism, synergism, and Majorism and other false

accusations, nor have I any pleasure in it [the quarreling], and in the

future I intend, by the help of God, to abstain from it altogether, to

damn, flee, and avoid it, and as much as I am able, to prevent it."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 253; Walther, 49.)

212. Bold Strides Forward.

Feeling themselves firm and safe in the saddle, the Wittenberg

Philippists now decided on further public steps in the direction of

Calvinism. In 1570 they published _Propositions (Propositiones)

Concerning the Chief Controversies of This Time_, in which the Lutheran

doctrine regarding the majesty of the human nature of Christ was

repudiated. In the following year they added a new Catechism, entitled:

"_Catechesis_ continens explicationem simplicem et brevem decalogi,

Symboli Apostolici, orationis dominicae, doctrinae Christianae, quod

amplectuntur ac tuentur Ecclesiae regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarum

quae sunt subiectae editioni Ducis Electoris Saxoniae, edita in Academia

Witebergensi et accommodata ad usum scholarum puerilium. 1571."

This Catechism, written, according to Wigand, by Pezel, appeared

anonymously. Its preface, signed by the Wittenberg theological faculty,

explains that the new Catechism was an epitome of the _Corpus Doctrinae

Misnicum_ and merely intended as a supplement of Luther's Catechism for

progressed scholars who were in need of additional instruction. As a

matter of fact, however, its doctrine concerning the person of Christ

and the Lord's Supper was in substantial agreement with the teaching of

Calvin. Under the odious name of "ubiquity" it rejected the omnipresence

of Christ according to His human nature, and sanctioned Calvin's

teaching concerning the local inclusion of Christ in heaven. Acts 3, 21

was rendered in Beza's translation: "_Quem oportet coelo capi_. Who must

be received by the heaven."

The Catechism declares: "The ascension was visible and corporeal; the

entire Antiquity has always written that Christ's body is restricted to

a certain place, wherever He wishes it to be; and a bodily ascension

was made upwards. _Ascensio fuit visibilis et coporalis, et semper ita

scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco

esse, ubicumque vult, et ascensio corporalis facta est sursum_."

Concerning the real presence, the Catechism merely states: "The Lord's

Supper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus

Christ as it is instituted in the words of the Gospel; in which eating

(_sumptione_) the Son of God is truly and substantially present, and

testifies that He applies His benefits to the believers. He also

testifies that He has assumed the human nature for the purpose of

making us, who are ingrafted into Him by faith, His members. He finally

testifies that He wishes to be in the believers, to teach, quicken and

govern them." (Gieseler 3, 2, 263.) The sacramental union, oral eating

and drinking, and the eating and drinking of the wicked are not

mentioned. Tschackert remarks that every Calvinist would readily have

subscribed to the teaching of this Catechism. (545.)

When the Wittenberg Catechism was warned against and designated as

Calvinistic by Chemnitz, Moerlin, and other theologians of Brunswick,

Lueneburg, Mansfeld, Jena, and Halle, the Wittenbergers answered and

endeavored to defend their position in the so-called _Grundfeste_, Firm

Foundation, of 1571. It was a coarse and slanderous publication, as even

the title indicates, which reads: "Firm Foundation of the True Christian

Church Concerning the Person and Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ

against the Modern Marcionites, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians,

Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites among the Flacian Rabble

Published by the Theologians in Wittenberg." In this _Grundfeste_ the

Wittenbergers present the matter as though the real issue were not the

Lord's Supper, but Christology. They enumerate as heretics also the

"Ubiquitists," including Brenz, Andreae, and Chemnitz. With respect to

their own agreement with Calvin, they remark that their teaching is the

doctrine of the early Church, in which point, they said, also Calvin

agreed. (Tschackert, 546.)

This daring Calvinistic publication again resulted in numerous protests

against the Wittenbergers on the part of alarmed Lutherans everywhere

outside of Electoral Saxony, which induced Elector August to require his

theologians to deliver at Dresden, October 10, 1571, a definite

statement of their faith. The confession which they presented was

entitled: "_Brief Christian and Simple Repetition of the Confession of

the Churches of God in the Territories of the Elector of Saxony

Concerning the Holy Supper_," etc. The _Consensus Dresdensis_, as the

document was called, satisfied the Elector at least temporarily, and was

published also in Latin and low German. Essentially, however, the

indefinite and dubious language of the Catechism was here but repeated.

Concerning the majesty of Christ the _Dresden Consensus_ declares that

after the resurrection and ascension the human nature of Christ "was

adorned with higher gifts than all angels and men." In His ascension,

the _Consensus_ continues, Christ "passed through the visible heavens

and occupied the heavenly dwelling, where He in glory and splendor

retains the essence, property, form, and shape of His true body, and

from there He, at the last day, will come again unto Judgment in great

splendor, visibly."

In a similar vague, ambiguous, and misleading manner Christ's sitting at

the right hand of God is spoken of. Omitting the oral eating and

drinking and the eating and drinking of the wicked, the _Consensus_

states concerning the Lord's Supper that "in this Sacrament Christ gives

us with the bread and wine His true body sacrificed for us on the cross,

and His true blood shed for us, and thereby testifies that He receives

us, makes us members of His body, washes us with His blood, presents

forgiveness of sins, and wishes truly to dwell and to be efficacious in

us." (Tschackert, 546.) The opponents of the Wittenbergers are branded

as unruly men, who, seeking neither truth nor peace, excite offensive

disputations concerning the real presence in the Lord's Supper as well

as with regard to other articles. Their doctrine of the real

communication ("_realis seu physica communicatio_") is characterized as

a corruption of the article of the two natures in Christ and as a

revamping of the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians, Manicheans,

Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and

Monothelites. (Gieseler 3, 2, 264f.)

213. Apparently Victorious.

All the Crypto-Calvinistic publications of the Wittenberg and Leipzig

Philippists were duly unmasked by the Lutherans outside of Electoral

Saxony, especially in Northern Germany. Their various opinions were

published at Jena, 1572, under the title: "_Unanimous Confession

(Einhelliges Bekenntnis) of Many Highly Learned Theologians and

Prominent Churches_ 1. concerning the New Catechism of the New

Wittenbergers, and 2. concerning their _New Foundation (Grundfeste)_,

also 3. concerning their _New Confession (Consensus Dresdensis)_,

thereupon adopted." However, all this and the repeated warnings that

came from every quarter outside of his own territories, from Lutheran

princes as well as theologians, do not seem to have made the least

impression on Elector August. Yet he evidently was, and always intended

to be a sincere, devoted, true-hearted, and singleminded Lutheran. When,

for example, in 1572 Beza, at the instance of the Wittenberg

Philippists, dedicated his book against Selneccer to Elector August, the

latter advised him not to trouble him any further with such writings, as

he would never allow any other doctrine in his territory than that of

the _Augsburg Confession_.

However, blind and credulous as he was, and filled with prejudice and

suspicion against Flacius and the Jena theologians generally, whom he,

being the brother of the usurper Maurice, instinctively feared as

possibly also political enemies, Elector August was easily duped and

completely hypnotized, as it were, by the men surrounding him, who led

him to believe that they, too, were in entire agreement with Luther and

merely opposed the trouble-breeding Flacians, whom they never tired of

denouncing as zealots, fanatics, bigots, wranglers, barkers, alarmists,

etc. While in reality they rejected the doctrine that the true body and

blood of Christ is truly and essentially present in the Holy Supper,

these Crypto-Calvinists pretended (and Elector August believed them)

that they merely objected to a _local_ presence and to a Capernaitic

eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.

And while in reality they clearly repudiated Luther's teaching,

according to which the divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence,

etc.) are communicated to the human nature of Christ, they caused the

Elector to believe that they merely opposed a delusion of the

"Ubiquitists," who, they said, taught that the body of Christ was

_locally extended_ over the entire universe. This crass localism, they

maintained, was the teaching of their opponents, while they themselves

faithfully adhered to the teachings of Luther and Philip, and, in

general, were opposed only to the exaggerations and excrescences

advocated by the bigoted Flacians. (Walther, 43.)

Such was the manner in which the Elector allowed himself to be duped by

the Philippists who surrounded him,--men who gradually developed the art

of dissimulation to premeditated deceit, falsehood, and perjury. Even

the Reformed theologian Simon Stenius, a student at Wittenberg during

the Crypto-Calvinistic period, charges the Wittenbergers with dishonesty

and systematic dissimulation. The same accusation was raised 1561 by the

jurist Justus Jonas in his letters to Duke Albrecht of Prussia.

(Gieseler 3, 2, 249.) And evidently believing that Elector August could

be fooled all the time, they became increasingly bold in their

theological publications, and in their intrigues as well.

To all practical purposes the University of Wittenberg was already

Calvinized. Calvinistic books appeared and were popular. Even the work

of a Jesuit against the book of Jacob Andreae on the Majesty of the

Person of Christ was published at Wittenberg. The same was done with a

treatise of Beza, although, in order to deceive the public, the

title-page gave Geneva as the place of publication. Hans Lufft, the

Wittenberg printer, later declared that during this time he did not know

how to dispose of the books of Luther which he still had in stock, but

that, if he had printed twenty or thirty times as many Calvinistic

books, he would have sold all of them very rapidly.

Even Providence seemed to bless and favor the plans of the plotters. For

when on March 3, 1573, Duke John William, the patron and protector of

the faithful Lutherans, died, Elector August became the guardian of his

two sons. And fanaticized by his advisers, the Elector, immediately upon

taking hold of the government in Ducal Saxony, banished Wigand,

Hesshusius, Caspar Melissander [born 1540; 1571 professor of theology in

Jena; 1578 superintendent in Altenburg; died 1591] Rosinus [born 1520;

1559 superintendent in Weimar 1574 superintendent in Regensburg; died

1586], Gernhard, court-preacher in Weimar, and more than 100 preachers

and teachers of Ducal Saxony. The reason for this cruel procedure was

their refusal to adopt the _Corpus Philippicum_, and because they

declined to promise silence with respect to the Philippists.

214. "Exegesis Perspicua."

In 1573, the Calvinization of Electoral and Ducal Saxony was,

apparently, an accomplished fact. But the very next year marked the

ignominious downfall and the unmasking of the dishonest Philippists. For

in this year appeared the infamous _Exegesis_, which finally opened the

eyes of Elector August. Its complete title ran: "_Exegesis Perspicua et

ferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena_--Perspicuous and Almost

Complete Explanation of the Controversy Concerning the Holy Supper." The

contents and make-up of the book as well as the secret methods adopted

for its circulation clearly revealed that its purpose was to deal a

final blow to Lutheranism in order to banish it forever from Saxony.

Neither the author, nor the publisher, nor the place and date of

publication were anywhere indicated in the book. The paper bore Geneva

mark and the lettering was French. The _prima facie_ impression was that

it came from abroad.

Before long, however, it was established that the _Exegesis_ had been

published in Leipzig by the printer Voegelin, who at first also claimed

its authorship. But when the impossibility of this was shown, Voegelin,

in a public hearing, stated that Joachim Curaeus of Silesia, a physician

who had left Saxony and died 1573, was the author of the book. Valentin

Loescher, however, relates (_Historia Motuum_ 3, 195) that probably

Pezel and the son-in-law of Melanchthon, Peucer, had a hand in it; that

the Crypto-Calvinist Esram Ruedinger [born 1523, son-in-law of

Camerarius, professor of physics in Wittenberg, died 1591] was its real

author; that it was printed at Leipzig in order to keep the real

originators of it hidden, and that, for the same purpose, the Silesian

Candidate of Medicine Curaeus had taken the responsibility of its

authorship upon himself. (Tschackert, 547.)

Self-evidently, the Wittenberg theologians disclaimed any knowledge of,

or any connection with, the origin of the _Exegesis_. However, they were

everywhere believed to share its radical teachings, and known to have

spread it among the students of the university, and suspected also of

having before this resorted to tactics similar to those employed in the

_Exegesis_. As early as 1561, for example, rhymes had secretly been

circulated in Wittenberg, the burden of which was that faith alone

effects the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that the mouth

receives nothing but natural bread. One of these ran as follows: "Allein

der Glaub' an Jesum Christ Schafft, dass er gegenwaertig ist, Und speist

uns mit sei'm Fleisch und Blut Und sich mit uns einigen tut. Der Mund

empfaeht natuerlich Brot, Die Seel' aber speist selber Gott." (Walther,

46.) Of course, the purpose of such dodgers was to prepare the way for

Calvinism. And on the very face of it, the _Exegesis Perspicua_ was

intended to serve similar secret propaganda.

The chief difference between the preceding publications of the

Philippists and the _Exegesis_ was that here they came out in clear and

unmistakable language. The sacramental union, the oral eating and

drinking (_manducatio oralis_), and the eating and drinking of the

wicked, which before were passed by in silence, are dealt with

extensively and repudiated. The _Exegesis_ teaches: The body of Christ

is inclosed in heaven; in the Holy Supper it is present only according

to its efficacy, there is no union of the body of Christ with the bread

and wine; hence, there neither is nor can be such a thing as oral eating

and drinking or eating and drinking of unbelievers. The "ubiquity," as

the _Exegesis_ terms the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, is

condemned as Eutychian heresy. The _Exegesis_ declared: "In the use of

the bread and wine the believers by faith become true and living members

of the body of Christ, who is present and efficacious through these

symbols, as through a ministry inflaming and renewing our hearts by His

Holy Spirit. The unbelieving, however, do not become partakers, or

_koinonoi_, but because of their contempt are guilty of the body of

Christ." (Seeberg, _Grundriss_ 146.)

After fulsome praise of the Reformed, whose doctrine, the _Exegesis_

says, is in agreement with the symbols of the ancient Church, and who as

to martyrdom surpass the Lutherans, and after a corresponding

depreciation of Luther, who in the heat of the controversy was said

frequently to have gone too far, the _Exegesis_ recommends that the

wisest thing would be to follow the men whom God had placed at the side

of Luther, and who had spoken more correctly than Luther. Following

Melanchthon, all might unite in the neutral formula, "The bread is the

communion of the body of Christ," avoiding all further definition

regarding the ubiquity [the omnipresence of Christ's human nature] and

the eating of the true body of Christ, until a synod had definitely

decided these matters. (Tschackert, 547.)

All purified churches (all churches in Germany, Switzerland, etc.,

purified from Roman errors), the _Exegesis_ urges, "ought to be in

accord with one another; and this pious concord should not be disturbed

on account of this difference [regarding the Holy Supper]. Let us be

united in Christ and discontinue those dangerous teachings concerning

the ubiquity, the eating of the true body on the part of the wicked, and

similar things. The teachers should agree on a formula which could not

create offense. They should employ the modes of speech found in the

writings of Melanchthon. It is best to suppress public disputations, and

when contentious men create strife and disquiet among the people, the

proper thing to do, as Philip advised [in his opinion to the Elector of

the Palatinate], is to depose such persons of either party, and to fill

their places with more modest men. The teachers must promote unity, and

recommend the churches and teachers of the opposite party." (Walther,

51.) Such was the teaching and the theological attitude of the

_Exegesis_. It advocated a union of the Lutherans and the Reformed based

on indifferentism, and a surrender in all important doctrinal points to

Calvinism, the Lutherans merely retaining their name. This unionistic

attitude of the _Exegesis_ has been generally, also in America, termed

Melanchthonianism.

215. Plotters Unmasked.

The plain and unmistakable language of the _Exegesis_ cleared the

atmosphere, and everywhere dispelled all doubts as to the real nature of

the theological trend at Wittenberg and Leipzig. Now it was plain to

everybody beyond the shadow of a doubt that Electoral Saxony was indeed

infested with decided Calvinists. And before long also the web of deceit

and falsehood which they had spun around the Elector was torn into

shreds. The appearance of the _Exegesis_ resulted in a cry of

indignation throughout Lutheran Germany against the Wittenberg and

Leipzig Philippists. Yet, in 1574, only few books appeared against the

document, which, indeed, was not in need of a special refutation. Wigand

published _Analysis of the New Exegesis_, and Hesshusius: _Assertion

(Assertio) of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper, against the

Calvinian Exegesis_. At the same time Elector August was again urged by

Lutheran princes notably the King of Denmark and Duke Ludwig of

Wuerttemberg, also by private persons, to proceed against the Calvinists

in his country and not to spare them any longer. (Gieseler 3, 2, 267.)

The aged Count of Henneberg made it a point to see the Elector

personally in this matter. But there was little need for further

admonitions, for the _Exegesis_ had opened the Elector's eyes. And soon

after its publication discoveries were made which filled August with

deep humiliation and burning indignation at the base deception practised

on him by the very men whom he had trusted implicitly and placed in most

important positions. By lying and deceit the Philippists had for a long

period succeeded in holding the confidence of Elector August; but now

the time for their complete and inglorious unmasking had arrived.

Shortly after the _Exegesis_ had appeared, Peucer wrote a letter to the

Crypto-Calvinist Christian Schuetze, then court-preacher in Dresden

[who studied at Leipzig; became superintendent at Chemnitz in 1550,

court-preacher of Elector August in 1554; when he was buried, boys threw

a black hen over his coffin, crying, 'Here flies the Calvinistic devil;'

Joecher, _Lexicon_ 4, 372], which he had addressed to the wife of the

court-preacher in order to avoid suspicion. By mistake the letter was

delivered to the wife of the court-preacher Lysthenius [born 1532;

studied in Wittenberg; became court-preacher of Elector August in 1572

and later on his confessor; opposed Crypto-Calvinism; was dismissed 1590

by Chancellor Crell; 1591 restored to his position in Dresden, died

1596]. After opening the letter and finding it to be written in Latin,

she gave it to her husband, who, in turn, delivered it to the Elector.

In it Peucer requested Schuetze dexterously to slip into the hands of

Anna, the wife of the Elector, a Calvinistic prayer-book which he had

sent with the letter. Peucer added: "If first we have Mother Anna on our

side, there will be no difficulty in winning His Lordship [her husband]

too."

Additional implicating material was discovered when Augustus now

confiscated the correspondence of Peucer, Schuetze, Stoessel, and

Cracow. The letters found revealed the consummate perfidy, dishonesty,

cunning, and treachery of the men who had been the trusted advisers of

the Elector, who had enjoyed his implicit confidence, and who by their

falsehoods had caused him to persecute hundreds of innocent and faithful

Lutheran ministers. The fact was clearly established that these

Philippists had been systematically plotting to Calvinize Saxony. The

very arguments with which Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the

Person of Christ might best be refuted were enumerated in these letters.

However, when asked by the Elector whether they were Calvinists, these

self-convicted deceivers are said to have answered that "they would not

see the face of God in eternity if in any point they were addicted to

the doctrines of the Sacramentarians or deviated in the least from Dr.

Luther's teaching." (Walther, 56.) The leaders of the conspiracy were

incarcerated. Cracow died in prison, 1575; Stoessel, 1576. It was as

late as 1586 that Peucer regained his liberty, Schuetze in 1589.

216. Lutheranism Restored.

In all the churches of Saxony thanksgiving services were held to praise

God for the final triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coin

celebrating the victory over the Crypto-Calvinists, bearing the date

1574, was struck at Torgau. The obverse exhibits Elector August handing

a book to Elector John George of Brandenburg. The inscription above

reads: "_Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum, Domine_. Preserve Thy Word among

Us, O Lord." Below, the inscription runs: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux

Saxionae et Elector_. Augustus, by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony and

Elector." The reverse represents Torgau and its surroundings, with

Wittenberg in the distance. The Elector, clad in his armor, is standing

on a rock bearing the inscription: "_Schloss Hartenfels_" (castle at

Torgau). In his right hand he is holding a sword, in his left a balance,

whose falling scale, in which the Child Jesus is sitting, bears the

inscription: "_Die Allmacht_, Omnipotence." The lighter and rising pan,

in which four Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinists are vainly exerting

themselves to the utmost in pulling on the chains of their pan in order

to increase its weight, and on the beam of which also the devil is

sitting, is inscribed: "_Die Vernunft_, Reason." Above, God appears,

saying to the Elector, "Joshua 1, 5. 6: _Confide, Non Derelinquam Te_.

Trust, I will not forsake thee." Below we read: "_Apud Deum Non Est

Impossibile Verbum Ullum_, Lucae 1. _Conserva Apud Nos Verbum Tuum,

Domine_. 1574. Nothing is impossible with God, Luke 1. Preserve Thy Word

among us, Lord. 1574."

The obverse of a smaller medal, also of 1574 shows the bust of Elector

August with the inscription: "_Augustus, Dei Gratia Dux Saxoniae Et

Elector_." The reverse exhibits a ship in troubled waters with the

crucified Christ in her expanded sails, and the Elector in his armor and

with the sword on his shoulder, standing at the foot of the mast. In the

roaring ocean are enemies, shooting with arrows and striking with

swords, making an assault upon the ship. The fearlessness of the Elector

is expressed in the inscription: "_Te Gubernatore_, Thou [Christ] being

the pilot." Among the jubilee medals of 1617 there is one which

evidently, too, celebrates the victory over Zwinglianism and Calvinism.

Its obverse exhibits Frederick in his electoral garb pointing with two

fingers of his right hand to the name Jehovah at the head of the medal.

At his left Luther is standing with a burning light in his right hand

and pointing with the forefinger of his left hand to a book lying on a

table and bearing the title: "_Biblia Sacra: V[erbum] D[ei] M[anet] I[n]

Ae[ternum]_." The reverse represents the Elector standing on a rock

inscribed: "_Schloss Hartenfels_, Castle Hartenfels." In his right hand

he is holding the sword and in his left a balance. Under the falling

scale, containing the Child Jesus, we read: "_Die Allmacht_,

Omnipotence," and under the rising pan, in which the serpent is lying:

"_Die Vernunft_, Reason." The marginal inscription runs. "_Iosua 1:

Confide. Non Derelinquam Te_. Joshua 1: Trust. I will not forsake thee."

(Ch. Junker, _Ehrengedaechtnis Dr. M. Luthers_, 353. 383.)

Self-evidently, Elector August immediately took measures also to

reestablish in his territories Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

The beginning was made by introducing a confession prepared by reliable

superintendents and discussed, adopted, and subscribed at the Diet of

Torgau, September, 1574, and published simultaneously in German and

Latin. Its German title ran: "_Brief Confession (Kurz Bekenntnis) and

Articles Concerning the Holy Supper of the Body and Blood of Christ_,

from which may clearly be seen what heretofore has been publicly taught,

believed, and confessed concerning it in both universities of Leipzig

and Wittenberg, and elsewhere in all churches and schools of the Elector

of Saxony, also what has been rebuked and is still rebuked as

Sacramentarian error and enthusiasm." The Torgau Confession, therefore,

does not reject the _Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum_ of 1560 nor even the

_Consensus Dresdensis_ of 1571, and pretends that Melanchthon was in

doctrinal agreement with Luther, and that only a few Crypto-Calvinists

had of late been discovered in the Electorate. This pretense was the

chief reason why the Confession did not escape criticism. In 1575 Wigand

published: "Whether the New Wittenbergers had hitherto always taught

harmoniously and agreeably with the Old, and whether Luther's and

Philip's writings were throughout in entire harmony and agreement."

As for its doctrine, however, the Torgau Confession plainly upholds the

Lutheran teaching. Article VII contends that in the distribution of the

Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ "are truly received also by

the unworthy." Article VIII maintains the "oral eating and drinking,

_oris manducatio_." Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and the

Heidelberg theologians are rejected, and their names expressly

mentioned. On the other hand, the "ubiquity [local extension] of the

flesh of Christ" is disavowed and a discussion of the mode and

possibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ is declined

as something inscrutable. The Latin passage reads: "_Ac ne carnis quidem

ubiquitatem, aut quidquam, quod vel veritatem corporis Christi tollat,

vel ulli fidei articulo repugnet, propter praesentiam in Coena fingimus

aut probamus. Denique de modo et possibilitate praesentiae corporis et

sanguinis Domini plane nihil disputamus. Nam omnia haec imperscrutabilia

statuimus_." (Gieseler 3, 2, 268.)

Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Henry Moeller, Christopher Pezel, and Frederick

Widebram, who refused to subscribe the _Brief Confession_, were first

arrested, then, after subscribing with a qualification, released, but

finally (1574) banished. Widebram and Pezel removed to Nassau, Moeller

to Hamburg, and Cruciger to Hesse. At Leipzig, Andrew Freyhub, who

appealing to the _Consensus Dresdensis_, taught that Christ was exalted

according to both natures, that divine properties were not communicated

to His humanity, and that His body was inclosed in a certain place in

heaven was deposed in 1576.

Thus ended the Crypto-Calvinistic drama in Electoral Saxony. Henceforth

such men as Andreae, Chemnitz, and Selneccer were the trusted advisers

of August, who now became the enthusiastic, devoted, and

self-sacrificing leader of the larger movement for settling all of the

controversies distracting the Lutheran Church, which finally resulted in

the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_.

217. Visitation Articles.

Elector August, the stanch defender of genuine Lutheranism, died 1586.

Under his successor, Christian I, and Chancellor Nicholas Crell,

Crypto-Calvinism once more raised its head in Electoral Saxony. But it

was for a short period only, for Christian I died September 25, 1591,

and during the regency of Duke Frederick William, who acted as guardian

of Christian II, Lutheranism was reestablished. In order effectually and

permanently to suppress the Crypto-Calvinistic intrigues, the Duke, in

February of 1592, ordered a general visitation of all the churches in

the entire Electorate. For this purpose Aegidius Hunnius [born 1550;

1576 professor in Marburg and later superintendent and professor in

Wittenberg; attended colloquy at Regensburg 1601; wrote numerous books,

particularly against Papists and Calvinists, died 1603], Martin Mirus

[born 1532, died 1593], George Mylius [born 1544; 1584 expelled from

Augsburg because he was opposed to the Gregorian almanac, since 1585

professor in Wittenberg and Jena, died 1607], Wolfgang Mamphrasius [born

1557; superintendent in Wurtzen; died 1616], and others, who were to

conduct the visitation, composed the so-called _Visitation Articles_

which were printed in 1593. The complete title of these articles runs:

"_Visitation Articles in the Entire Electorate of Saxony_, together with

the Negative and Contrary Doctrines of the Calvinists and the Form of

Subscription, as Presented to be Signed by Both Parties."

As a result of the visitation, the Crypto-Calvinistic professors in

Wittenberg and Leipzig were exiled. John Salmuth [born 1575;

court-preacher in Dresden since 1584; died 1592] and Prierius, also a

minister in Dresden, were imprisoned. As a bloody finale of the

Crypto-Calvinistic drama enacted in Electoral Saxony, Chancellor Crell

was beheaded, October 9, 1601, after an imprisonment of ten years. Crell

was punished, according to his epitaph, as "an enemy of peace and a

disturber of the public quiet--_hostis pacis et quietis publicae

turbator_," or, as Hutter remarks in his _Concordia Concors_, "not on

account of his religion, but on account of his manifold perfidy--_non ob

religionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem_." (448. 1258.) For a long

period (till 1836) all teachers and ministers in Electoral Saxony were

required to subscribe also to the Visitation Articles as a doctrinal

norm. Self-evidently they are not an integral part of the _Book of

Concord_.