Sixth Chapter the Creeds of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

§ 45. The Form of Concord. A.D. 1577 (part 1 of 3)

Page 55 of 136

Literature.

I. The text of the 'Form of Concord' is found in all the editions of the 'Book of Concord' (Concordienbuch), see p. 220.

Heinr. Ludw. Jul. Heppe (Professor in Marburg, an indefatigable investigator of the early history of German Protestantism In the interest of Melanchthonianism): Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel, verglichen mit dem Text der Schäbischen Concordie, der Schwäbisch-Sächsischen Concordie und des Torgauer Buches. Marburg, 1857, 2d ed. 1860.

II. Jacob Andrkæ: Sechs christlicher Predig von den Spaltungen, so sich zwischen den Theologen Augspurgischer Confession von Anno 1548 bis auf diess 1573 Jar, nach und nach erhoben, etc. Tübingen, 1573. Republished by Professor Heppe in Appendix I. to the third volume of his History of German Protestantism (see below). In the same volume Heppe published also 'the Swabian and Saxon Form of Concord,' the 'Maulbronn Formula,' and other important documents.

Apologia oder Verantwortung des christl. Concordienbuchs, etc. (usually called the Erfurt Book, an official Apology, prepared at Erfurt and Quedlinburg by Kirchner, Selnecker, Chemnitz, and other Lutheran divines). Heidelb. 1583; Dresden, 1584, etc.

Rud. Hospinian (Reformed, d. at Zurich 1626): Concordia Discors; h. e. de origine et progressu Formulæ Bergensis, etc., ex actis tum publicis, tum privatis . . . Tig. 1607; Genev. 1678, folio. (The chief work against the 'Form of Concord.')

Leonh. Hutter (Lutheran, d. at Wittenberg 1616): Concordia Concors; de origine et progressu Formulæ Concordiæ ecclesiarum Conf. Aug. . . . in quo eius orthodoxia . . . demonstratur: et Rud. Hospiniani Tigurini Helvetii convitia, mendacia, et manifesta crimina falsi deteguntur ac solide refutantur . . . ex actis publicis. Vitemb. 1614; Francof. and Lips. 1690. (This is the most elaborate defense of the 'Form of Concord' called forth by Hospinian's Conc. discors, and covers 1460 pp., exclusive of Proleg.)

J. Musæus: Prælectiones in Epitom. Form. Conc. Jen. 1701.

Val. Löscher: Historia motuum, etc. Leipz. 1723, Tom. III. Lib. VI. c. 5 and 9.

Jac. H. Balthasar: Historie des Torgisehen Buchs als des nächsten Entwurfs des Bergischen Concordienbuchs, etc. Greifswald, 1741-56. (In nine parts or dissertations.)

J. Nic. Anton: Geschichte der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1779.

G. J. Planck: Geschichte der Entstehung, etc., unseres Protest. Lehrbegrifs . . . bis zur Einführung der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1791-1800. Vols. IV.-VI. A work of thorough learning, independent judgment, but without, proper appreciation of the doctrinal differences.

Gottfr. Thomasius (Lutheran): Das Bekenntniss der evangel. luther. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips. Nürnberg, 1848.

K. Fr. Göschel (Lutheran): Die Concordienformel nach ihrer Geschichte, Lehre und kirchlichen Bedeutung. Leipz. 1858.

H. L. J. Heppe (Reformed): Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-81. Marburg, 1852-58. 4 vols. (The last two volumes contain the history of the 'Form of Concord' and of the 'Book of Concord,' and are also published under the separate title 'Geschichte der lutherischen Concordienformel und Concordie.')

Gieseler: Text-Book of Church History. American edition, by H. B. Smith, Vol. IV. (New York, 1862), pp. 423-490; German edition, Vol. III. P. II. (Bonn, 1853), pp. 187-310. (A condensed, careful, and impartial statement of the controversies, with citations from the original authorities.)

Dan. Schenkel: Art. Concordienformel, in Herzog's Real-Encykl., Vol. III. (1855), pp. 87-105.

Wilh. Gass: Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik in ihrem Zurammenhang mit der Theologie überhaupt. Berlin, 1854-67, 4 vols. Vol. I. pp. 21-80.

Gustav Frank (of Jena): Geschichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. 1862. Vol. I. pp. 94-290.

F. H. R. Frank (Lutheran): Die Theologie der Concordienformel hist. dogmatisch entwichelt und beleuchtet. Erlangen, 1858-65. 4 vols. (Chiefly doctrinal.)

H. F. A. Kahnis (Lutheran): Die Luther. Dogmatik, Vol. II. (Leipzig, 1864), pp. 515-560.

Is. A. Dorner: Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie (München, 1867), pp. 330-374.

Chas. P. Krauth (Lutheran). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Phila. 1872), pp. 288-328.

Denkmal der dritten Jubelfeier der Concordienformel, 1877. St. Louis, 1877.

NAME. ORIGIN AND OCCASION.

The Form of Concord (Formula Concordiæ), the last of the Lutheran Confessions, completed in 1577 and first published in 1580, is named from its aim to give doctrinal unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, after long and bitter contention.⁴⁸⁷ The work was occasioned by a series of doctrinal controversies, which raged in the Lutheran Church for thirty years with as much passion and violence as the trinitarian and christological controversies in the Nicene age. They form a humiliating and unrefreshing, yet instructive and important chapter in the history of Protestantism. The free spirit of the Reformation, which had fought the battles against the tyranny of the Papacy and brought to light the pure doctrines of the Gospel, gave way to bigotry and intolerance among Protestants themselves. Calumny, abuse, intrigue, deposition, and exile were unsparingly employed as means to achieve victory. Religion was confounded with theology, piety with orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism. Doctrine was overrated, and the practice of Christianity neglected. The contending parties were terribly in earnest, and as honest and pious in their curses as in their blessings; they fought as if the salvation of the world depended on their disputes. Yet these controversies were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the consolidation and completion of the Lutheran system of doctrine. All phases and types of Christianity must develop themselves, and God overrules the wrath of theologians for the advancement of truth.

LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON.

The seeds of these controversies lay partly and chiefly in the theological differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their later years, partly in the relations of Lutheranism to Romanism and Calvinism.

Luther the Reformer, and Melanchthon the Teacher of Germany, essentially one and inseparable in mind and heart, in doctrine and life, represented in their later period, which may be dated from the year 1533, two types of Lutheranism, the one the conclusive and exclusive, the other the expansive and unionistic type. Luther, at first more heroic and progressive, became more cautions and conservative; while Melanchthon, at first following the lead of the older and stronger Luther, became more independent and liberal.

Luther, as the Reformer of the Romish Church, acted in the general interest of evangelical religion, and enjoys the admiration and gratitude of all Protestants; Luther, as the leader of a particular denomination, assumed a hostile attitude towards other churches, even such as rested on the same foundation of the renewed gospel. After his bold destructive and constructive movements, which resulted step by step in the emancipation from popery, he felt disposed to rest in his achievements. His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of Carlstadt and Münzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dissatisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years. He had so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises. He was equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel.⁴⁸⁸

Melanchthon, on the other hand, with less genius but more learning, with less force but more elasticity, with less intuition but more logic and system than Luther, and with a most delicate and conscientious regard for truth and peace, yet not free from the weakness of a compromising and temporizing disposition, continued to progress in theology, and modified his views on two points—the freedom of the will and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; exchanging his Augustinianism for Synergism, and relaxing his Lutheranism in favor of Calvinism; in both instances he followed the ethical, practical, and unionistic bent of his mind. A minor difference on the human right of the papacy and episcopacy appeared in private letters and in his qualified subscription to the Smalcald Articles (1537), but never assumed a serious, practical aspect, except indirectly in the adiaphoristic controversy.⁴⁸⁹

These changes were neither sudden nor arbitrary, but the result of profound and constant study, and represented a legitimate and necessary phase in the development of Protestant theology, which was publicly recognized in various ways before the formation of the 'Form of Concord.' If there ever was a modest, cautious, and scrupulously conscientious scholar, it was Melanchthon. 'There is not a day nor a night for the last ten years,' he assures an intimate friend, 'that I did not meditate upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.'⁴⁹⁰

As to human freedom, Melanchthon at first denied it altogether, like Luther and the other Reformers, and derived all events and actions, good and bad, from the absolute will of God.⁴⁹¹ Then he avoided the doctrine of predestination, as an inscrutable mystery, and admitted freedom in the sphere of natural life and morality, but still denied it in the spiritual sphere or the order of grace.⁴⁹² At last (after 1535) he openly renounced determinism or necessitarianism, as a Stoic and Manichæan error, and taught a certain subordinate co-operation of the human will in the work of conversion; maintaining that conversion is not a mechanical or magical, but a moral process, and is brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, with the consent, yet without any merit of man. The Spirit of God is the primary, the Word of God the secondary or instrumental agent of conversion, and the human will allows this action, and freely yields to it.⁴⁹³

This is the amount of his Synergism, so called by his opponents. It resembles, indeed, semi-Pelagianism in maintaining a remnant of freedom after the fall, and furnished a basis for negotiations with moderate Romanists, but it differs from it materially in ascribing the initiative and the whole merit of conversion to God's grace. He never gave up the doctrine of justification by the free grace and sole merit of Christ through faith, but in his later years he laid greater stress on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel, and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith.

As to the Lord's Supper, he at first fully agreed with Luther's view, under the impression that it was substantially the old Catholic doctrine held by the fathers, for whom he had great regard, especially in matters of uncertain exegesis.⁴⁹⁴ He also shared his dislike of Zwingli's theological radicalism, and was disposed to trace it to a certain insanity.⁴⁹⁵ But his deeper and long-continued study of the subject, and his correspondence and personal intercourse with Bucer and Calvin, gradually convinced him that St. Augustine and other fathers favored rather a figurative or symbolical interpretation of the words of institution,⁴⁹⁶ and that the Scriptures taught a more simple, spiritual, and practical doctrine than either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Owing to his characteristic modesty and caution, and his deep sense of the difficulties surrounding the problem, he did not set forth a fully developed theory or definition of the mode of Christ's presence, but he substantially agreed with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up the peculiar features of Luther's doctrine, viz., the literal interpretation of the words of institution, and the oral manducation of the body of Christ.⁴⁹⁷ He also repeatedly rejected (as, in fact, he never taught) the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of Christ's body, as being inconsistent with the nature of a body and with the fact of Christ's ascension to heaven and sitting in heaven, whence he shall return to judgment.⁴⁹⁸ But he never became a Zwinglian; he held fast to a spiritual real presence of the person (rather than the body) of Christ, and a fruition of his life and benefits by faith. In one of his last utterances, shortly before his death, he represented the idea of a vital union and communion with the person of Christ as the one and only essential thing in this sacred ordinance.⁴⁹⁹

Luther no doubt felt much grieved at these changes, and was strongly pressed by contracted and suspicious minds to denounce them openly, but he was too noble and generous to dissolve a long and invaluable friendship, which forms one of the brightest chapters in his life and in the history of the German Reformation.⁵⁰⁰ He kept down the rising antagonism by the weight of his personal authority, although he foresaw the troubles to come.⁵⁰¹ After his death (1546) the war broke out with unrestrained violence. Melanchthon was too modest, peaceful, and gentle for the theological leadership, which now devolved upon him; he kept aloof from strife as far as possible, preferring to bear injury and insult with Christian meekness, and longed to be delivered from the 'fury of the theologians' (a rabie theologorum), which greatly embittered his declining years.⁵⁰² He left the scene of discord April 19, 1560, fourteen years after Luther. His last wish and prayer was 'that the churches might be of one mind in Jesus Christ.' He often repeated the words, 'Let them all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.' He died with the exclamation, 'O God, have mercy upon me for the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ! In thee, O Lord, have I put my trust; I shall not be confounded forever and ever.' The earthly remains of the "Præceptor Germamiæ" were deposited beneath the castle church of Wittenberg alongside of Luther's: united in life, they sleep together in death till the morning of the resurrection to everlasting life.

LUTHERANS AND PHILIPPISTS.

The differences between Luther the second and Melanchthon the second, if we may use this term, divided the theologians of the Augsburg Confession into two hostile armies.

The rigid Lutheran party was led by Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Judex, Mörlin, Heshus, Timann, and Westphal, and had its headquarters first at Magdeburg, then at the University of Jena, and at last in Wittenberg (after 1574). They held fast with unswerving fidelity to the anti-papal and anti-Zwinglian Luther, as representing the ultimate form of sound orthodoxy. They swore by the letter, but had none of the free spirit of their great master.⁵⁰³ They outluthered Luther, made a virtue of his weakness, constructed his polemic extravagances into dogmas, and contracted the catholic expansiveness of the Reformation into sectarian exclusiveness. They denounced every compromise with Rome, and every approach to the Reformed communion, as cowardly treachery to the cause of evangelical truth.

Among these Lutherans, however, we must distinguish three classes—the older friends of Luther (Jonas, his colleague, and Amsdorf, whom he had consecrated Bishop of Naumburg 'without suet or grease or coals'), the younger and stormy generation headed by Flacius, and the milder framers of the 'Form of Concord' (Andreæ, Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Chytræus), who stood mediating between ultra-Lutheranism and Melanchthonianism.

The Melanchthonians, nicknamed Philppists and Crypto-Calvinists,⁵⁰⁴ prominent among whom were Camerarius, Bugenhagen, Eber, Crell, Major, Cruciger, Strigel, Pfeffinger, Peucer (physician of the Elector of Saxony, and Melanchthon's son-in-law), had their stronghold in the Universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig (till 1574), and maintained, with less force of will and conviction, but with more liberality and catholicity of spirit, the right of progressive development in theology, and sought to enlarge the doctrinal basis of Lutheranism for a final reconciliation of Christendom, or at least for a union of the evangelical churches.⁵⁰⁵

Both parties maintained the supreme authority of the Bible, but the Lutherans went with the Bible as understood by Luther, the Philippists with the Bible as explained by Melanchthon; with the additional difference that the former looked up to Luther as an almost inspired apostle, and believed in his interpretation as final, while the latter revered Melanchthon simply as a great teacher, and reserved a larger margin for reason and freedom.⁵⁰⁶

Both parties set forth new confessions of faith and bulky collections of doctrine (Corpora Doctrinæ), which were clothed with symbolical authority in different territories, and increased the confusion and intensified the antagonism.⁵⁰⁷

THE THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

The controversies which preceded the composition of the 'Form of Concord,' centred in the soteriological doctrines of the Reformation, concerning sin and grace, justification by faith, and the use of good works, but they extended also to the eucharist and the person and work of Christ. We notice them in the order of the 'Form of Concord.'

I. THE FLACIAN CONTROVERSY ON ORIGINAL SIN, 1560-1580.⁵⁰⁸

This controversy involved the question whether original sin is essential or accidental—in other words, whether it is the nature of man itself or merely a corruption of nature. It arose, in close connection with the Synergistic controversy, from a colloquy at Weimar between Flacius and Strigel (1560), extended from Saxony as far as Austria, and continued till the death of Flacius (1575), and even after the completion of the 'Form of Concord.'⁵⁰⁹

Matthias Flacius Illyricus, the impetuous and belligerent champion of rigid Lutheranism, a man of vast learning, untiring zeal, unyielding firmness, and fanatical intolerance, renewed apparently the Manichean heresy, and thereby ruined himself.⁵¹⁰ From an over-intense conviction of total depravity, he represented original sin as the very substance or essence of the natural man, who after the fall ceased to be in any sense the image of God, and became the very image of Satan. He made, however, a distinction between two substances in man—a physical and ethical—and did not mean to teach an evil matter in the sense of Gnostic and Manichean dualism, but simply an entire moral corruption of the moral nature, which must be replaced by a new and holy nature. He departed not so much from the original Protestant doctrine of sin as from the usual conception of the Aristotelian terms substance and accidens.⁵¹¹ He quoted many strong passages from Luther, but he found little favor and bitter opposition even among his friends, and was deposed and exiled with forty-seven adherents. The chief argument against him was the alternative that his doctrine either makes Satan the creator of man, or God the author and preserver of sin.

II. THE SYNERGISTIC CONTROVERSY (1550—1567).⁵¹²

It extended over the difficult subject of man's freedom and his relation to the converting grace of God. It was a conflict between the original Augustinianism of the Reformers and the later Melanchthonian Synergism, or a refined evangelical modification of semi-Pelagianism.⁵¹³

Pfeffinger, Professor in Leipzig, who opened the controversy by an academic dissertation (1550), and then wrote a book on the freedom of the will (1555), Major, Eber, and Crell, in Wittenberg, and Victorin Strigel, in Jena, advocated a limited freedom in fallen man, as a rational and responsible being, namely, the power of accepting the prevenient grace of God,⁵¹⁴ with the corresponding power of rejecting it. They accordingly assigned to man a certain though very small share in the work of conversion, which Pfeffinger illustrated by the contribution of a penny towards the discharge of a very large debt.

Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, and Heshusius, on the other hand, appealing to the teaching of Luther,⁵¹⁵ maintained that man, being totally corrupt, can by nature only resist the Spirit of God, and is converted against and in spite of his perverse will, or must receive a new will before he can accept. God converts a man as the potter moulds the clay, as the sculptor carves a statue of wood or stone. They also advocated, as a logical consequence, Luther's original theory of an unconditional predestination and reprobation. But the 'Form of Concord' rejected it as well as Synergism, without attempting to solve the difficulty.

Both parties erred in not making a proper distinction between regeneration and conversion, and between receptive and spontaneous activity. In regeneration, man is passive, in conversion he is active in turning to God, but in response to the preceding action of divine grace, which Augustine calls the gratia præveniens. Conversion certainly is not a compulsory or magical, but an ethical process. God operates upon man, not as upon a machine or a dead stone (as Flacius and also the 'Form of Concord' maintain), but as a responsible, rational, moral, and religiously susceptible though very corrupt being; breaking his natural hostility, making willing the unwilling, and preparing him at every step for corresponding action. So far Melanchthon was right. But the defect of the Synergistic theory is the idea of a partnership between God and man, and a corresponding division of work and merit. Synergism is less objectionable than semi-Pelagianisrn, for it reduces co-operation before conversion to a minimum, but even that minimum is incompatible with the absolute dependence of man on God.

III. THE OSIANDRIC CONTROVERSY (1549-1566).⁵¹⁶

It touched the central doctrine of Evangelical Lutheranism, justification by faith, whether it is a mere declaratory, forensic art of acquittal from sin and guilt, or an actual infusion of righteousness.

Luther and the other Reformers made a clear distinction between justification as an external act of God for man, and sanctification as an internal act of God in man; and yet viewed them as inseparable, sanctification being the necessary effect of justification. Faith was to them an appropriation of the whole Christ, a bond of vital union with his person first, and in consequence of this a participation of his benefits.⁵¹⁷

In the Osiandric controversy, justification and sanctification were either confounded or too abstractedly separated, and the person of Christ was lost sight of in his work or in one of his two natures.

Andrew Osiander (1498-1552), an eminent Lutheran minister and reformer at Nuremberg (since 1522), afterwards Professor at Königsberg (1549), a man of great learning and speculative talent, but conceited and overbearing, created a great commotion by a new doctrine of justification, which he brought out after the death of Luther.⁵¹⁸ He assailed the forensic conception of justification, and taught instead a medicinal and creative act, whereby the sinner is made just by an infusion of the divine nature of Christ, which is our righteousness. This view was denounced as Romanizing, but it is rather mystical. He did not make justification a gradual process, like the Roman system, but a single and complete act, by which Christ according to his divine nature enters the soul of man through the door of faith.⁵¹⁹ He meant justification by faith alone without works, but an effective internal justification in the etymological sense of the term. He was Protestant in this also, that he excluded human merit and represented faith which apprehends Christ, as the gift of God. In connection with this he held peculiar views on the image of God, which he made to consist in the essential union of the human nature with the divine nature, and on the necessity of the incarnation, which in his opinion would have taken place even without the fall, in order that through Christ's humanity we might become partakers of the essential righteousness of God.⁵²⁰ He appealed to Luther, but denounced Melanchthon as a heretic and pestilential man.

Osiander was protected by Duke Albrecht of Prussia, whom he had converted, but opposed from every quarter by Mörlin, Staphylus, Stancarus, Melanchthon, Amsdorf, Menius, Flacius, Chemnitz. Between the two parties stood the Swabian divines Brentius and Binder. The controversy was carried on with a good deal of misunderstanding, and with such violence that the Professors in Königsberg carried fire-arms into their academic sessions. It was seriously circulated and believed that the devil wrote Osiander's books, while he enjoyed his meals.

After Osiander's death (1552), his son-in-law, John Funck, chaplain of the Duke, became the leader of his small party; but he was executed on the scaffold (1566) as a heretic and disturber of the public peace. Mörlin was recalled from exile and made Bishop of Samland. The Prussian collection of Confessions (Corpus Doctrinæ Pruthenicum, or Borussicum, Königsberg, 1567) condemned the doctrines of Osiander.

In close connection with the Osiandric controversy on justification was the Stancarian dispute, introduced by Francesco Stancaro (or Stancarus), an Italian ex-priest, and for a short time Professor in Königsberg (d. 1574 in Poland). He asserted, against Osiander and in agreement with Peter the Lombard, that Christ was our Mediator and Redeemer according to his human nature only (since he, being God himself, could not mediate between God and God).⁵²¹ He called his opponents and all the Reformers ignoramuses.⁵²²

Another collateral controversy, concerning the obedience of Christ, was raised, A.D. 1563, by Parsimonius, or Karg, a Lutheran minister in Bavaria.⁵²³ He derived our redemption entirely from our Lord's passive obedience, and denied that his active obedience had any vicarious merit, since Christ himself, as man, owed active obedience to God. He also opposed the doctrine of imputation, and resolved justification into the idea of remission of sins.

Karg was opposed by Ketzmann in Ansbach, by Heshusius, and the Wittenberg divines. Left without sympathy, and threatened with deposition and exile, he recanted his theses in 1570, and confessed that the obedience of Christ, his righteousness, merit, and innocence are the ground of our justification and our greatest comfort.⁵²⁴

The 'Form of Concord' teaches that Christ as God and man in his one, whole, and perfect obedience, is our righteousness, and that his whole obedience unto death is imputed to us.

IV. THE MAJORISTIC CONTROVERSY (1552-1577.)⁵²⁵

It is closely connected with the Synergistic, Osiandric, and Antinomian controversies, and refers to the use of good works.

The Reformers derived salvation solely from the merits of Christ through the medium of faith, as the organ of reception, in accordance with the Scripture, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' But faith was to them a work of God, a living apprehension of Christ, and the fruitful parent of good works. Luther calls faith a 'lively, busy, mighty thing,' which can no more be separated from love than fire from heat and light.⁵²⁶ Melanchthon, in his later period, laid greater stress on good works, and taught their necessity as fruits of faith, but not as a condition of salvation, which is a free, unmerited gift of God.⁵²⁷

Georg Major (Professor at Wittenberg since 1539, died 1574), a pupil of Melanchthon, and one of the framers of the Leipzig Interim, declared during his sojourn at Eisleben (1552) that good works are necessary to salvation.⁵²⁸ He pronounced the anathema on every one who taught otherwise, though he were an angel from heaven. He meant, however, the necessity of good works as a negative condition, not as a meritorious cause, and he made, moreover, a distinction between salvation and justification.⁵²⁹

This proposition seemed to be inconsistent with Luther's solifidianism, and was all the more obnoxious for its resemblance to a clause in the Romanizing Leipzig Interim (1548).⁵³⁰

Hence it was violently opposed from every direction. Nicolas von Amsdorf (1483-1565), appealing to St. Paul and Dr. Luther, condemned it as 'the worst and most pernicious heresy,' and boldly advocated even the counter-proposition, that good works are dangerous to salvation (1559).⁵³¹ Flacius denounced Major's view as popish, godless, and most dangerous, because it destroyed the sinner's comfort on the death-bed and the gallows, made the salvation of children impossible, confounded the gospel with the law, and weakened the power of Christ's death.⁵³² Wigand objected that the error of the necessity of good works was already condemned by the Apostles in Jerusalem (), that it was the pillar of popery and a mark of Antichrist, and that it led many dying persons unable to find good works in themselves, to despair. Justus Menius, Superintendent of Gotha, tried to mediate by asserting the necessity of good works for the preservation of faith; but this was decidedly rejected as indirectly amounting to the same error. A synod, held at Eisenach in 1556, decided in seven theses that Major's proposition was true only in abstracto and in foro legis, but not in foro evangelii, and should be avoided as liable to be misunderstood in a popish sense. Christ delivered us from the curse of the law, and faith alone is necessary both for justification and salvation, which are identical.⁵³³ The theses were subscribed by Amsdorf, Strigel, Mörlin, Hugel, Stössel, and even by Menius (although the fifth was directed against him). But now there arose a controversy on the admission of the abstract and legal necessity of good works, which was defended by Flacius, Wigand, and Mörlin; opposed by Amsdorf and Aurifaber as semi-popish. The former view prevailed.

Notes

487
The name was chosen after older formularies (e.g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the Formula Concordiæ Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio princeps (1580) the book is called 'Das Buch der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols ('Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordiæ,' 'Book of Concord'). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition.
488
The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally 'eingeteufelte [endiabolisthentes], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,' and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: 'Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum peri deipnou kuriakou instaurat;' comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin behaved admirably on that occasion; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said: 'Even if he should call me a devil, I would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God.' And to Melanchthon he wrote (June 28, 1545): 'I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!' Melanchthon entirely agreed with him.
489
Kahnis {Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to 'a truly evangelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Conservative Reformation, p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says: 'Melanchthon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with melancholy; his aversion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his anxiety that the whole communion of the West should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.' Comp. on this whole subject the works of Galle: Characteristik Melanchthon's als Theologen und Entwicklung seines Lehrbegriffs (Halle, 1840), pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; Matthes: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.; Gieseler: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq.; Heppe: Die confessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq.; Carl Schmidt: Philipp Melanchthon. (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq.; Kahnis, l.c. pp. 515 sqq.
490
Ep. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537): 'Scias, amplius decennio nullum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, quin hac de re cogitarim.'
491
Loci theol. first ed. 1521, A. 7: 'Quandoquidem omnia, quæ eveniunt, necessario juxta divinam prædestinationem eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostræ libertas.' In the edition of 1525 he says: 'Omnia necessario evenire Scripturæ docent. . . . Nec in externis nec in internis operibus ulla est libertas, sed eveniunt omnia juxta destinationem divinam. . . . Tollit omnem libertatem voluntatis nostræ prædestinatio divina.' (Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 88, 93, 95.) In his Commentary on the Romans, published 1524 (cap. 8), Melanchthon calls the power of choice a 'ridiculum commentum,' and derives all things, 'tam bona quam mala,' from the absolute will of God, even the adultery of David ('Davidis adulterium') and the treason of Judas ('Judæ proditio'), which are the proper work of God ('ejus proprium opus') as much as the vocation of Paul; for he does all things not 'permissive, sed potenter.' He saw this doctrine so clearly in the Epistle to the Romans and other portions of Scripture that passages like (all men, e.g., all sorts of men) must be adjusted to it. See Galle, pp. 252 sqq., and Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in 16ten Jahrh. (Gotha, 1857) Vol. I. pp. 434 sqq. In December, 1525, Luther expressed the same views in his book against Erasmus, which he long afterwards (1537) pronounced one of his best works. Comp. p. 215, and Köstlin, Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 37, 323. But on Melanchthon the reply of Erasmus (1526) had some effect (as we may infer from the tone of his letter to Luther, Oct. 2, 1527, Corp. Reform. Vol. I. p. 893).
492
So in the Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XVIII.: 'De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et diligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendæ justitiæ spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quæ sunt Spiritus Dei.' In Art. XIX. the cause of sin is traced to the will of man and the devil.
493
First in a new edition of his Commentary to the Romans, 1532, and then in the edition of the 'Loci communes theologici recogniti,' 1535. Here he declares that God is not the cause of sin, but the 'voluntas Diaboli' and the 'voluntas hominis sunt causæ peccati;' that we should keep clear of the 'deliramenta de Stoico fato aut peri tes anankes,' that the human will can 'suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo externa legis opera facere,' but that it can not 'sine Spiritu Sancto efficere spirituales affectus, quos Deus requirit. . . . Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos viderimus ne repugnemus. Constat enim peccatum oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei. Chrysostomus inquit: ho de helkon ton boulomenon helkei. Id apte dicitur auspicanti a verbo, ne adversetur, ne repugnet verbo.' (See Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 371-376.) In a new revision of his Loci, which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death, and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes—the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will of man; and states that the will may accept or reject God's grace. 'Veteres aliqui,' he says (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 567, 659), 'sic dixerunt: Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gr tiam, i.e., audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. . . . Cum promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriæ voluntates, necesse est in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, i.e., necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Hæe dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usus in exercitiis fidei et in vera consolatione, cum æquiescunt animi in Filio Dei monstrato in promissione, illustrabit hanc copulationem causarum, verbi dei, spiritus sancti, et voluntatis.' This is the chief passage, which was afterwards (1553) assailed as synergistic. Comp. Galle, pp. 314 sqq.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 426 and 434; Heppe, l.c. pp. 434 sqq., and Die confessionelle Entwicklung der alt protest. Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 107 and 130; Kahnis, l.c. Vol. II. p. 505.
494
He says (1559): 'Existimo ad confirmandas mentes consensum Vetustatis plurimum conducere' (quoted by Galle, p. 452). He endeavored to prove the agreement of the fathers with Luther in Sententiæ Patrum de Cæna Domini, March, 1530. He there quotes Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenæus, Ambrose, and John of Damascus, and labors also to bring Augustine on his side, but with difficulty (as he says that the body of Christ in uno loco esse), and he admits that some passages of Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Basil might be quoted against Luther. See Galle, pp. 390 sqq.
495
He wrote to Luther from Augsburg, July 14,1530 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 193): 'Zwinglius misit huc confessionem impressam typis. Dicas simpliciter mente captum esse. De peccato originali, de usu sacramentorum veteres errores palam renovat. De ceremoniis loquitur valde helvetice, hoc est barbarissime, velle se omnes ceremonias esse abolitas. Suam causam de sacra coena vehementer urget. Episcopos omnes vult deletes esse.'
496
In this respect the learned Dialogus of Oecolampadius (1530), directed against his Sententiæ, made a decided impression on his mind. See Galle, p. 407, and Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 428. He found a great diversity of views among the fathers ('mira dissimilitudo,' see letter to Bucer, 1535, Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 842), but strong proofs for the figurative interpretation in Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and all those who speak of the eucharistic elements as figures, symbols, types, and antitypes of the body and blood of Christ (see his letter to Crato of Breslau, 1559, quoted by Galle, p. 452).
497
He first renounced Luther's view, after an interview with Bucer at Cassel, in a letter to Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 822: 'Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere, fui enim nuncius aliæ,' i.e., Luther's), and in a confidential letter to Brentius, Jan. 12, 1535 (Ib. Vol. II. p. 824, where he speaks in a Greek sentence of the typical interpretation of many of the ancients). Then more fully in the revision of his Loci Theol., 1585 (de cæna Domini, in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 478 sq.). In the Wittenberg Concordia (1536) he and Bucer yielded too much to Luther for the sake of peace (compare, however, Dorner, p. 325), but in 1540 he introduced his new conviction into the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (see above, p. 241), and adhered to it. In his subsequent deliverances he protested against ubiquity and artolatreia, and the fanatical intolerance of the ultra-Lutherans, who denounced him as a traitor. Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were inseparably united on this point: 'Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hac causa posse divelli' (Admonitio ultima ad Westphalum, Opp. VIII. p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanchthon stood entirely on Calvin's side (l.c. p. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: 'Melanchthon kam, ohne auf Calvin Rücksicht zu nehmen, ja ohne von dessen Lehre wissen zu können, auf selbständigem Wege zu derselben Ansicht, welche bei Calvin sich ausgebildet hatte' (Das Dogma u. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 437). Yet in the doctrine of predestination they were wide apart. A beautiful specimen of harmony of spirit with diversity in theology! After his death Calvin appealed to the sainted spirit of Melanchthon now resting with Christ: 'Dixisti centies, cum 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' (Opp. VIII. p. 724).
498
Dorner, l.c. p. 354: 'Melanchthon hat Luther's christologische Ansichten aus der Zeit des Abendmahlsstreites nie getheilt. Die Menschwerdung besteht ihm in der Aufnahme der menschlichen Natur in die Person des Logos, nicht aber in der Einigung (unio) der Natur des Logos mit der Menschheit in realer Mittheilung der Prädicate der ersteren an die letztere. Die communicatio idiomatum ist ihm nur eine dialektische, verbale: die Person des Logos ist Person des ganzen Christus und trägt die Menschheit als ihr Organon.'
499
'Responsio Phil. Mel. ad quæstionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 961): Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere. . . . In hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli: "Panis, quem frangimus, koinonia esti tou somatos." Et copiose de fructu Cænæ dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum koinonia declarandum est. Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistæ dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale Corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse koinonian, i.e., hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quæ fit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt. . . . Adest Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inguit: "Manete in me, et ego in vobis."' Comp. on the whole eucharistic doctrine of Melanchthon the learned exposition of Heppe, in the third volume of his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16ten Jahrh. pp. 143 sqq. He says, p. 150, with reference to the passage just quoted: 'Immer und überall betont es Melanchthon, dass Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahle mitgetheilt wird, inwiefern daselbst eine Mittheilung des Lebendigen Leibes, der gottmenschlichen Person Christi stattfindet, dass die Vereinigung Christi und der Gläubigen, für welche das Abendmahl gestiftet ist, eine persönliche Gemeineschaft, persönliches, lebendiges, wirksames Einwohnen des Gottmenschen in dem Gläubigen ist.' See also Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.
500
Their friendship was, indeed, seriously endangered, and for some time suspended, but fully restored again; for it rested on their union with Christ. Luther wrote to Melanchthon, June 18, 1540 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 293): 'Nos tecum, et tu nobiscum, et Christus hic et ibi nobiscum.' He spoke very highly of Melanchthon's Loci in March, 1545, and in January, 1546, he called him a true man, who must be retained in Wittenberg, else half the university would go off with him (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 10; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 432-435). Dorner justly remarks (l.c. p. 332 sq.): 'Wenn zu dem Edelsten in Luther auch die ihn zum Reformator befähigende Weitherzigkeit und Demuth gehörte, womit er die eigenthümlichen Gaben Anderer, vor allem Melanchthon's anerkannte, so war es das Bestreben jener engherzigen Freunde, Luthern auf sich selbst zu beschränken, der Ergänzungsbedürftigkeit auch dieser vielleicht grössten nachapostolischen Persönlichkeit zu vergessen und, was ihnen jedoch nicht gelang, auch ihn selbst derselben vergessen zu machen.' Melanchthon, on his part, although he complained at times of Luther's philoneikia (as a pathos, not a crimen), and overbearing violence of temper, and thought once (1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a 'prison,' admired and loved him to the end, as the Elijah of the Reformation and as his spiritual father. In announcing to his students the death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) on the day following, he paid him this noble and just tribute: 'Obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima senecta mundi,' and added, 'Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam et genus doctrinæ ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas, quæ hunc casum sunt secuturæ.' Comp. Planck, l.c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77.
501
While sick at Smalcald, 1537, he told the Elector of Saxony that after his death discord would break out in the University of Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. Seckendorf, Com. de Lutheranismo,' III. p. 165.
502
'Ego æquissimo animo,' he wrote to Camerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p.684), 'vel potius anaisthetos fero insolentiam kai hubreis multorum, et dum vivam moderate faciam officium meum.'
503
Melanchthon applies to them a saying of Polybius, that 'volentes videri similes magnis viris,' and being unable to imitate the works (erga) of Luther, they imitated his by-works (parerga), 'et producunt in theatrum stultitiam suam.' Calvin more severely but not unjustly remarks (in his second defense against Westphal, 1556): 'O Luthere, quam paucos tuæ præstantiæ imitatores, quam multas vero sanctæ: tuæ jactantiæ simias reliquisti!' See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435, and especially Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 79 sqq.
504
The term Philippists (from the Christian name of Melanchthon, who was usually called Dr. Philippus) is wider, and embraced the Synergists, while the term Crypto-Calvinists applies properly only to those who secretly held the Calvinistic doctrine, on the eucharist, but not on predestination. Some of the strict Lutherans—as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Heshus—held fast to the original views of Luther and Melanchthon on predestination, and taught that man was purely passive and even repugnant (repugnative) in the work of conversion. Comp. Landerer in Herzog, Vol. XI. p. 538.
505
Kahnis (Vol. II. p. 520) thus characterizes the two parties: 'Dort [among the strict Lutherans] das Princip des Festhaltens, hier [among the Philippists] das Princip des Fortschreitens; dort scharfe Ausschliesslichkeit, hier Weite, Milde, Vermittelung, Union; dort fertige, faste Doctrin, hier praktische Elasticität.'
506
In the Preface to the Magdeburg Confession, 1550, Luther is called 'the third Elijah,' 'the prophet of God,' and Luther's doctrine, without any qualification, 'the doctrine of Christ.' See Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums, pp. 42, 43. In the Reussische Confession of 1567 (Heppe, p. 76) it is said: 'We quote chiefly the writings of Luther as our prophet (als unseres Propheten), and prefer them to the writings of Philippus and others, who are merely children of the prophet (Prophetenkinder) and his disciples.' The overestimate of Luther is well expressed in the lines—'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr, Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.'
507
Prof. Heppe, in his Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchlichen Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576 (Cassel, 1863), gives extracts from twenty Luthern Confessions which appeared during this period of twenty-eight years.
508
Disputatio de originali peccato et libero arbitrio inter Matthiam Flacium Illyricum et Victorinum Strigelium, 1563; Flacius: De peccato orig., in the second part of his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 1567; Til. Heshusius: Antidoton contra impium et blasphemum dogma M. Fl. III. 1572, 3d ed. 1579; Wigand: De Manichæismo renovato, 1587; Schlüsselburg: Cat. hær. 1597, Lib. II.; Planck, Vol. V. pp. 1, 285; Döllinger: Die Reformation, etc. Vol. III. (1848), p. 484; Ed. Schmid: Des Flacius Erbsündestreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1849, Nos. I. and II.; Frank: Die Theologie der Concordienformel, Vol. I. p. 60; Dorner, p. 361, and the monograph of Preger on Flacius and his Age. Vol. II. p. 310.
509
About forty adherents of Flacius, driven to German Austria (Opitz, Irenæus, Cölestin, etc.), issued in 1581 a declaration against the 'Form of Concord,' as inconsistent with Luther's pure doctrine on original sin; but in 1582 they fell out among themselves. As late as 1604 there were large numbers of Flacianists in German Austria. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 492 sq.
510
This remarkable man, born 1520, at Albona, Istria (in Illyria, hence called Illyricus), was a convert from Romanism; studied at Basle, Tübingen, and Wittenberg under Luther and Melanchthon, and became Professor of Hebrew in the University of Wittenberg. Luther attended his wedding, and raised him from a state of mental depression almost bordering on despair. In consequence of his opposition to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interim, Flacius removed to Magdeburg (April, 1549), where he opened his literary batteries against Melanchthon and the Interim, and undertook with several others the first Protestant Church history, under the title of 'The Magdeburg Centuries.' In 1557 he was elected Professor in the newly founded University of Jena, but was deposed (1562), persecuted, and forsaken even by his former friends. He spent the remainder of his life in poverty and exile at Ratisbon, Antwerp, Strasburg, and died in a hospital in Frankfort-on-the-Main, March 11, 1575. Many of his contemporaries, and the learned historian Planck, represent him merely as a violent, pugnacious, obstinate fanatic; but more recently his virtues and merits have been better appreciated by Twesten (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Berlin, 1844), Kling (who calls him one of those witnesses of whom the world was not worthy, in Herzog. Vol. IV. p. 410), and W. Preger (M. Fl. Illyr. und seine Zeit, Erlangen. 1859-61, 2 vols.). Heppe, from his Melanchthonian standpoint, judges him more unfavorably, and thus characterizes him (in his Confessionelle Entwicklung, etc., p. 138): 'M. Flac. Illyricus war ein fanatischer Verehrer Luther's, der von allen Parteigenossen durch Kraft, Consequenz, Klarheit und Sicherheit seiner theologischen Speculation und durch Energie des Willens wie des Denkens hervorragend, kein Opfer und kein Mittel—auch nicht den schändlichsten Verrath am Vertrauen Melanchthon's—scheute, um sein klar erkanntes Ziel, nämlich die, Vernichtung Melanchthon's and der bisherigen Tradition des Protestantisimus zu erreichen und dem Bekenntniss der Kirche einen ganz anderen Charakter aufzuprägen als der war, in dem es sich bisher entwickelt hatte.' The library of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, possesses a rare collection of the numerous polemical tracts of Flacius. He has undoubted merits in Church history and exegesis. His best works, besides the 'Magdeburg Centuries,' are his Catalogus testium veritatis, Basil. 1556, and his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 2 P. Basil. 1567.
511
By to sumbebekos Aristotle means a separable property or quality, which does not essentially belong to a thing. In this sense Flacius denied the accidental character of sin, and maintained that it entered into the inmost constitution, just as holiness is inherent and essential in the regenerate.
512
For fuller information, see Pfeffinger: Proposit. de libero arbitrio, 1555; Flacius; De orig. peccato et libero arbitrio, two disputations, 1558 and 1559; Schüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. 1598 (Lib. V. de Synergistis); Planck, Vol. IV. p. 553; Galle, p. 326; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 437; Gust. Frank: Gesch. der Prot. Theol. Vol. I. p. 125, and his art. Synergismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 326; Fr. H. R. Frank: Theol. der Conc. F. Vol. I. p. 113; Dorner, p. 361; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially Schmid and Preger (quoted p. 268).
513
See above, p. 262.
514
'Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam.'
515
Especially his book de servo arbitrio. Luther calls the voluntas of the natural man noluntas, and compares him to the column of salt, Lot's wife, a block and stone. Similar terms are used in the 'Form of Concord.'
516
Osiander: Disputationes duæ: una de Lege et Evangelio (1549), altera de Justifications (1550), Regiom. 1550; De unico Mediatore Jes. Chr. et Justificatione fidei confessio A. Osiandri, Regiom, 1551; Schmeckbier, Königsberg, 1552; Widerlegung der Antwort Melanchthon's, 1552. Anton Otto Herzberger: Wider die tiefgesuchten und scharfgespitzten, aber doch nichtigen Ursachen Osianders, Magdeburg, 1552; Gallus: Probe des Geistes Osiandri, Magdeb. 1552; Menius: Die Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt, wider die neue alcumistische Theologia Osianders, Erfurt, 1552; Jo. Wigand: De Osiandrismo, Jena, 1583 and 1586; Schlüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. Lib. VI.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 249; Baur: Disqu. in Osiandri de justif. doctrinam. Tüb. 1831; Lehnerdt: De Osiandri vita et doctr. Berol. 1835; H. Wilken: Osianders Leben, Stralsund, 1844; Heberle: Os. Lehre in ihrer frühsten Gestalt (Studien u. Kritiken, 1844, p. 386); Ritschl: Rechtfertigungslehre des A. Os. (in Jahrb. für D. Theol. 1857, p. 795); R. T. Grau: De Os. doctrina, Marb. 1860; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 469; Gass, Vol. I. p. 61; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 81; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 150; J. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 1-47; Dorner, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, Döllinger in his Reformation, ihre Entwicklung and Wirkungen, Vol. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account of the Osiandric controversy.
517
See Köstlin: Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq.
518
He thought that 'after the death of the lion he could easily dispose of the hares and foxes.' But the germ of his doctrine was already in his tract, 'Ein gut Unterricht und getreuer Rathschlag aus heil. göttlicher Schrift,' 1524. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, he requested Melanchthon, in the presence of Brentius and Urban Regius, to introduce into the new confession of faith the passage , 'The Lord our Righteousness,' which he understood to mean that Christ dwells in us by faith, and works in us both to will and to do. See Wilkens, p. 37; Döllinger, p. 398.
519
'Christus secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus habitat.'
520
'Per humanitatem devenit in nos divinitas.'
521
'Nemo potest esse mediator sui ipsius.' Petrus Lombardus says: 'Christus mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.'
522
Wigand: De Stancarismo, Lips. 1583; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IX.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 449; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 480; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 156.
523
Georg Karg was born 1512, studied at Wittenberg, was ordained by Luther and Melanchthon, became pastor at Oettingen, afterwards at Ansbach, and died 1576. He was a rigid Lutheran in the Interimistic controversies, but otherwise more a follower of Melanchthon.
524
Thomasius: Hist. dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 158; Dorner, p. 345; Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg's view was afterwards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 573; Schweizer: Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16.
525
D. G. Major: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols.; N. von Amsdorf: Dass die Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schädlich,' eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch die heiligen Paulas und Luther gepredigt, 1559; several tracts of Flacius, Wigand, and Responsa and Letters of Melanchthon on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Reform. Vols. VIII. and IX.; Schlüsselburg, Lib. VII.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 469; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 493; Thomasius: Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 264; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 122; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 149; Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 733; Dorner, p. 339.
526
See his classical description of faith in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans (Walch, Vol. XIV. p. 114, quoted also in the 'Form of Concord,' p. 626, ed. Müller): 'Der Glaube ist ein göttlich Werk in uns, das uns verwandelt und neu gebiert aus Gott und tödtet den alten Adam, macht uns ganz andere Menschen . . . und bringet den heiligen Geist mit sich. O! es ist ein lebendig, geschäftig, thätig, mächtig Ding um den Glauben, dass es unmöglich ist, dass er nicht ohne Unterlass sollte Gutes wirken; er fragt auch nicht, ob gute Werke zu thun sind, sondern ehe man fragt, hat er sie gethan, und ist immer im Thun. Weraber nicht solche Werke thut, der ist ein glaubloser Mensch. . . . Werke vom Glauben scheiden is so unmöglich als brennen und leuchten vom Feuer mag geschieden werden.' In another place Luther says: 'So wenig das Feuer ohne Hitze und Rauch ist, so wenig ist der Glaube ohne Liebe.'
527
Loci theol. ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): 'Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonæ conscientiæ seu operum, quæ Deus nobis præcipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem. . . . Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata (). . . . Justificamur ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (). . . . Acceptatio ad vitam æternam seu donatio vitæ æternæ conjuncta est cum justificatione, i.e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, quæ fide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita æterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam æternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent' (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 429).
528
'Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem.'
529
He found it necessary afterwards to qualify his proposition, especially since Melanchthon, to his surprise, did not quite approve it. He assigned to good works a necessitas debiti, as commanded by God, a necessitas conjunctionis, as connected with faith, but no necessitas meriti. Our whole confidence is in Christ. 'Hominem,' he said, 'sola fide esse justum, sed non sola fide salvum.'
530
Viz., the words, 'Es ist gewisslich wahr, dass die Tugenden Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung, und andere in uns sein müssen und zur Seligkeit nöthig seien.' In Pezel's edition of Melanchthon's 'Bedenken' the words zur Seligkeit are omitted. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 496.
531
'Bona opera perniciosa (noxia) esse [not in themselves, but] ad salutem.' Whoever held the opposite view was denounced by Amsdorf as a Pelagianer, Mameluk, zweifältiger Papist and Verläugner Christi.
532
See the extracts from Flacius, in Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq.
533
See the theses in Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq.

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1: The History of Creeds (1877). Public domain. Text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Notes

487

The name was chosen after older formularies (e.g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the Formula Concordiæ Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio princeps (1580) the book is called 'Das Buch der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols ('Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordiæ,' 'Book of Concord'). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition.

488

The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally 'eingeteufelte [endiabolisthentes], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,' and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: 'Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum peri deipnou kuriakou instaurat;' comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin behaved admirably on that occasion; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said: 'Even if he should call me a devil, I would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God.' And to Melanchthon he wrote (June 28, 1545): 'I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!' Melanchthon entirely agreed with him.

489

Kahnis {Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to 'a truly evangelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Conservative Reformation, p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says: 'Melanchthon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with melancholy; his aversion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his anxiety that the whole communion of the West should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.' Comp. on this whole subject the works of Galle: Characteristik Melanchthon's als Theologen und Entwicklung seines Lehrbegriffs (Halle, 1840), pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; Matthes: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.; Gieseler: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq.; Heppe: Die confessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq.; Carl Schmidt: Philipp Melanchthon. (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq.; Kahnis, l.c. pp. 515 sqq.

490

Ep. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537): 'Scias, amplius decennio nullum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, quin hac de re cogitarim.'

491

Loci theol. first ed. 1521, A. 7: 'Quandoquidem omnia, quæ eveniunt, necessario juxta divinam prædestinationem eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostræ libertas.' In the edition of 1525 he says: 'Omnia necessario evenire Scripturæ docent. . . . Nec in externis nec in internis operibus ulla est libertas, sed eveniunt omnia juxta destinationem divinam. . . . Tollit omnem libertatem voluntatis nostræ prædestinatio divina.' (Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 88, 93, 95.) In his Commentary on the Romans, published 1524 (cap. 8), Melanchthon calls the power of choice a 'ridiculum commentum,' and derives all things, 'tam bona quam mala,' from the absolute will of God, even the adultery of David ('Davidis adulterium') and the treason of Judas ('Judæ proditio'), which are the proper work of God ('ejus proprium opus') as much as the vocation of Paul; for he does all things not 'permissive, sed potenter.' He saw this doctrine so clearly in the Epistle to the Romans and other portions of Scripture that passages like (all men, e.g., all sorts of men) must be adjusted to it. See Galle, pp. 252 sqq., and Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in 16ten Jahrh. (Gotha, 1857) Vol. I. pp. 434 sqq. In December, 1525, Luther expressed the same views in his book against Erasmus, which he long afterwards (1537) pronounced one of his best works. Comp. p. 215, and Köstlin, Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 37, 323. But on Melanchthon the reply of Erasmus (1526) had some effect (as we may infer from the tone of his letter to Luther, Oct. 2, 1527, Corp. Reform. Vol. I. p. 893).

492

So in the Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XVIII.: 'De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et diligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendæ justitiæ spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quæ sunt Spiritus Dei.' In Art. XIX. the cause of sin is traced to the will of man and the devil.

493

First in a new edition of his Commentary to the Romans, 1532, and then in the edition of the 'Loci communes theologici recogniti,' 1535. Here he declares that God is not the cause of sin, but the 'voluntas Diaboli' and the 'voluntas hominis sunt causæ peccati;' that we should keep clear of the 'deliramenta de Stoico fato aut peri tes anankes,' that the human will can 'suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo externa legis opera facere,' but that it can not 'sine Spiritu Sancto efficere spirituales affectus, quos Deus requirit. . . . Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos viderimus ne repugnemus. Constat enim peccatum oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei. Chrysostomus inquit: ho de helkon ton boulomenon helkei. Id apte dicitur auspicanti a verbo, ne adversetur, ne repugnet verbo.' (See Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 371-376.) In a new revision of his Loci, which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death, and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes—the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will of man; and states that the will may accept or reject God's grace. 'Veteres aliqui,' he says (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 567, 659), 'sic dixerunt: Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gr tiam, i.e., audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. . . . Cum promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriæ voluntates, necesse est in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, i.e., necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Hæe dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usus in exercitiis fidei et in vera consolatione, cum æquiescunt animi in Filio Dei monstrato in promissione, illustrabit hanc copulationem causarum, verbi dei, spiritus sancti, et voluntatis.' This is the chief passage, which was afterwards (1553) assailed as synergistic. Comp. Galle, pp. 314 sqq.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 426 and 434; Heppe, l.c. pp. 434 sqq., and Die confessionelle Entwicklung der alt protest. Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 107 and 130; Kahnis, l.c. Vol. II. p. 505.

494

He says (1559): 'Existimo ad confirmandas mentes consensum Vetustatis plurimum conducere' (quoted by Galle, p. 452). He endeavored to prove the agreement of the fathers with Luther in Sententiæ Patrum de Cæna Domini, March, 1530. He there quotes Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenæus, Ambrose, and John of Damascus, and labors also to bring Augustine on his side, but with difficulty (as he says that the body of Christ in uno loco esse), and he admits that some passages of Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Basil might be quoted against Luther. See Galle, pp. 390 sqq.

495

He wrote to Luther from Augsburg, July 14,1530 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 193): 'Zwinglius misit huc confessionem impressam typis. Dicas simpliciter mente captum esse. De peccato originali, de usu sacramentorum veteres errores palam renovat. De ceremoniis loquitur valde helvetice, hoc est barbarissime, velle se omnes ceremonias esse abolitas. Suam causam de sacra coena vehementer urget. Episcopos omnes vult deletes esse.'

496

In this respect the learned Dialogus of Oecolampadius (1530), directed against his Sententiæ, made a decided impression on his mind. See Galle, p. 407, and Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 428. He found a great diversity of views among the fathers ('mira dissimilitudo,' see letter to Bucer, 1535, Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 842), but strong proofs for the figurative interpretation in Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and all those who speak of the eucharistic elements as figures, symbols, types, and antitypes of the body and blood of Christ (see his letter to Crato of Breslau, 1559, quoted by Galle, p. 452).

497

He first renounced Luther's view, after an interview with Bucer at Cassel, in a letter to Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 822: 'Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere, fui enim nuncius aliæ,' i.e., Luther's), and in a confidential letter to Brentius, Jan. 12, 1535 (Ib. Vol. II. p. 824, where he speaks in a Greek sentence of the typical interpretation of many of the ancients). Then more fully in the revision of his Loci Theol., 1585 (de cæna Domini, in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 478 sq.). In the Wittenberg Concordia (1536) he and Bucer yielded too much to Luther for the sake of peace (compare, however, Dorner, p. 325), but in 1540 he introduced his new conviction into the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (see above, p. 241), and adhered to it. In his subsequent deliverances he protested against ubiquity and artolatreia, and the fanatical intolerance of the ultra-Lutherans, who denounced him as a traitor. Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were inseparably united on this point: 'Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hac causa posse divelli' (Admonitio ultima ad Westphalum, Opp. VIII. p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanchthon stood entirely on Calvin's side (l.c. p. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: 'Melanchthon kam, ohne auf Calvin Rücksicht zu nehmen, ja ohne von dessen Lehre wissen zu können, auf selbständigem Wege zu derselben Ansicht, welche bei Calvin sich ausgebildet hatte' (Das Dogma u. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 437). Yet in the doctrine of predestination they were wide apart. A beautiful specimen of harmony of spirit with diversity in theology! After his death Calvin appealed to the sainted spirit of Melanchthon now resting with Christ: 'Dixisti centies, cum 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' (Opp. VIII. p. 724).

498

Dorner, l.c. p. 354: 'Melanchthon hat Luther's christologische Ansichten aus der Zeit des Abendmahlsstreites nie getheilt. Die Menschwerdung besteht ihm in der Aufnahme der menschlichen Natur in die Person des Logos, nicht aber in der Einigung (unio) der Natur des Logos mit der Menschheit in realer Mittheilung der Prädicate der ersteren an die letztere. Die communicatio idiomatum ist ihm nur eine dialektische, verbale: die Person des Logos ist Person des ganzen Christus und trägt die Menschheit als ihr Organon.'

499

'Responsio Phil. Mel. ad quæstionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 961): Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere. . . . In hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli: "Panis, quem frangimus, koinonia esti tou somatos." Et copiose de fructu Cænæ dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum koinonia declarandum est. Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistæ dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale Corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse koinonian, i.e., hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quæ fit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt. . . . Adest Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inguit: "Manete in me, et ego in vobis."' Comp. on the whole eucharistic doctrine of Melanchthon the learned exposition of Heppe, in the third volume of his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16ten Jahrh. pp. 143 sqq. He says, p. 150, with reference to the passage just quoted: 'Immer und überall betont es Melanchthon, dass Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahle mitgetheilt wird, inwiefern daselbst eine Mittheilung des Lebendigen Leibes, der gottmenschlichen Person Christi stattfindet, dass die Vereinigung Christi und der Gläubigen, für welche das Abendmahl gestiftet ist, eine persönliche Gemeineschaft, persönliches, lebendiges, wirksames Einwohnen des Gottmenschen in dem Gläubigen ist.' See also Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.

500

Their friendship was, indeed, seriously endangered, and for some time suspended, but fully restored again; for it rested on their union with Christ. Luther wrote to Melanchthon, June 18, 1540 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 293): 'Nos tecum, et tu nobiscum, et Christus hic et ibi nobiscum.' He spoke very highly of Melanchthon's Loci in March, 1545, and in January, 1546, he called him a true man, who must be retained in Wittenberg, else half the university would go off with him (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 10; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 432-435). Dorner justly remarks (l.c. p. 332 sq.): 'Wenn zu dem Edelsten in Luther auch die ihn zum Reformator befähigende Weitherzigkeit und Demuth gehörte, womit er die eigenthümlichen Gaben Anderer, vor allem Melanchthon's anerkannte, so war es das Bestreben jener engherzigen Freunde, Luthern auf sich selbst zu beschränken, der Ergänzungsbedürftigkeit auch dieser vielleicht grössten nachapostolischen Persönlichkeit zu vergessen und, was ihnen jedoch nicht gelang, auch ihn selbst derselben vergessen zu machen.' Melanchthon, on his part, although he complained at times of Luther's philoneikia (as a pathos, not a crimen), and overbearing violence of temper, and thought once (1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a 'prison,' admired and loved him to the end, as the Elijah of the Reformation and as his spiritual father. In announcing to his students the death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) on the day following, he paid him this noble and just tribute: 'Obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima senecta mundi,' and added, 'Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam et genus doctrinæ ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas, quæ hunc casum sunt secuturæ.' Comp. Planck, l.c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77.

501

While sick at Smalcald, 1537, he told the Elector of Saxony that after his death discord would break out in the University of Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. Seckendorf, Com. de Lutheranismo,' III. p. 165.

502

'Ego æquissimo animo,' he wrote to Camerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p.684), 'vel potius anaisthetos fero insolentiam kai hubreis multorum, et dum vivam moderate faciam officium meum.'

503

Melanchthon applies to them a saying of Polybius, that 'volentes videri similes magnis viris,' and being unable to imitate the works (erga) of Luther, they imitated his by-works (parerga), 'et producunt in theatrum stultitiam suam.' Calvin more severely but not unjustly remarks (in his second defense against Westphal, 1556): 'O Luthere, quam paucos tuæ præstantiæ imitatores, quam multas vero sanctæ: tuæ jactantiæ simias reliquisti!' See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435, and especially Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 79 sqq.

504

The term Philippists (from the Christian name of Melanchthon, who was usually called Dr. Philippus) is wider, and embraced the Synergists, while the term Crypto-Calvinists applies properly only to those who secretly held the Calvinistic doctrine, on the eucharist, but not on predestination. Some of the strict Lutherans—as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Heshus—held fast to the original views of Luther and Melanchthon on predestination, and taught that man was purely passive and even repugnant (repugnative) in the work of conversion. Comp. Landerer in Herzog, Vol. XI. p. 538.

505

Kahnis (Vol. II. p. 520) thus characterizes the two parties: 'Dort [among the strict Lutherans] das Princip des Festhaltens, hier [among the Philippists] das Princip des Fortschreitens; dort scharfe Ausschliesslichkeit, hier Weite, Milde, Vermittelung, Union; dort fertige, faste Doctrin, hier praktische Elasticität.'

506

In the Preface to the Magdeburg Confession, 1550, Luther is called 'the third Elijah,' 'the prophet of God,' and Luther's doctrine, without any qualification, 'the doctrine of Christ.' See Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums, pp. 42, 43. In the Reussische Confession of 1567 (Heppe, p. 76) it is said: 'We quote chiefly the writings of Luther as our prophet (als unseres Propheten), and prefer them to the writings of Philippus and others, who are merely children of the prophet (Prophetenkinder) and his disciples.' The overestimate of Luther is well expressed in the lines—'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr, Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.'

507

Prof. Heppe, in his Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchlichen Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576 (Cassel, 1863), gives extracts from twenty Luthern Confessions which appeared during this period of twenty-eight years.

508

Disputatio de originali peccato et libero arbitrio inter Matthiam Flacium Illyricum et Victorinum Strigelium, 1563; Flacius: De peccato orig., in the second part of his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 1567; Til. Heshusius: Antidoton contra impium et blasphemum dogma M. Fl. III. 1572, 3d ed. 1579; Wigand: De Manichæismo renovato, 1587; Schlüsselburg: Cat. hær. 1597, Lib. II.; Planck, Vol. V. pp. 1, 285; Döllinger: Die Reformation, etc. Vol. III. (1848), p. 484; Ed. Schmid: Des Flacius Erbsündestreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1849, Nos. I. and II.; Frank: Die Theologie der Concordienformel, Vol. I. p. 60; Dorner, p. 361, and the monograph of Preger on Flacius and his Age. Vol. II. p. 310.

509

About forty adherents of Flacius, driven to German Austria (Opitz, Irenæus, Cölestin, etc.), issued in 1581 a declaration against the 'Form of Concord,' as inconsistent with Luther's pure doctrine on original sin; but in 1582 they fell out among themselves. As late as 1604 there were large numbers of Flacianists in German Austria. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 492 sq.

510

This remarkable man, born 1520, at Albona, Istria (in Illyria, hence called Illyricus), was a convert from Romanism; studied at Basle, Tübingen, and Wittenberg under Luther and Melanchthon, and became Professor of Hebrew in the University of Wittenberg. Luther attended his wedding, and raised him from a state of mental depression almost bordering on despair. In consequence of his opposition to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interim, Flacius removed to Magdeburg (April, 1549), where he opened his literary batteries against Melanchthon and the Interim, and undertook with several others the first Protestant Church history, under the title of 'The Magdeburg Centuries.' In 1557 he was elected Professor in the newly founded University of Jena, but was deposed (1562), persecuted, and forsaken even by his former friends. He spent the remainder of his life in poverty and exile at Ratisbon, Antwerp, Strasburg, and died in a hospital in Frankfort-on-the-Main, March 11, 1575. Many of his contemporaries, and the learned historian Planck, represent him merely as a violent, pugnacious, obstinate fanatic; but more recently his virtues and merits have been better appreciated by Twesten (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Berlin, 1844), Kling (who calls him one of those witnesses of whom the world was not worthy, in Herzog. Vol. IV. p. 410), and W. Preger (M. Fl. Illyr. und seine Zeit, Erlangen. 1859-61, 2 vols.). Heppe, from his Melanchthonian standpoint, judges him more unfavorably, and thus characterizes him (in his Confessionelle Entwicklung, etc., p. 138): 'M. Flac. Illyricus war ein fanatischer Verehrer Luther's, der von allen Parteigenossen durch Kraft, Consequenz, Klarheit und Sicherheit seiner theologischen Speculation und durch Energie des Willens wie des Denkens hervorragend, kein Opfer und kein Mittel—auch nicht den schändlichsten Verrath am Vertrauen Melanchthon's—scheute, um sein klar erkanntes Ziel, nämlich die, Vernichtung Melanchthon's and der bisherigen Tradition des Protestantisimus zu erreichen und dem Bekenntniss der Kirche einen ganz anderen Charakter aufzuprägen als der war, in dem es sich bisher entwickelt hatte.' The library of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, possesses a rare collection of the numerous polemical tracts of Flacius. He has undoubted merits in Church history and exegesis. His best works, besides the 'Magdeburg Centuries,' are his Catalogus testium veritatis, Basil. 1556, and his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, 2 P. Basil. 1567.

511

By to sumbebekos Aristotle means a separable property or quality, which does not essentially belong to a thing. In this sense Flacius denied the accidental character of sin, and maintained that it entered into the inmost constitution, just as holiness is inherent and essential in the regenerate.

512

For fuller information, see Pfeffinger: Proposit. de libero arbitrio, 1555; Flacius; De orig. peccato et libero arbitrio, two disputations, 1558 and 1559; Schüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. 1598 (Lib. V. de Synergistis); Planck, Vol. IV. p. 553; Galle, p. 326; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 437; Gust. Frank: Gesch. der Prot. Theol. Vol. I. p. 125, and his art. Synergismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 326; Fr. H. R. Frank: Theol. der Conc. F. Vol. I. p. 113; Dorner, p. 361; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially Schmid and Preger (quoted p. 268).

513

See above, p. 262.

514

'Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam.'

515

Especially his book de servo arbitrio. Luther calls the voluntas of the natural man noluntas, and compares him to the column of salt, Lot's wife, a block and stone. Similar terms are used in the 'Form of Concord.'

516

Osiander: Disputationes duæ: una de Lege et Evangelio (1549), altera de Justifications (1550), Regiom. 1550; De unico Mediatore Jes. Chr. et Justificatione fidei confessio A. Osiandri, Regiom, 1551; Schmeckbier, Königsberg, 1552; Widerlegung der Antwort Melanchthon's, 1552. Anton Otto Herzberger: Wider die tiefgesuchten und scharfgespitzten, aber doch nichtigen Ursachen Osianders, Magdeburg, 1552; Gallus: Probe des Geistes Osiandri, Magdeb. 1552; Menius: Die Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt, wider die neue alcumistische Theologia Osianders, Erfurt, 1552; Jo. Wigand: De Osiandrismo, Jena, 1583 and 1586; Schlüsselburg: Catal. Hæret. Lib. VI.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 249; Baur: Disqu. in Osiandri de justif. doctrinam. Tüb. 1831; Lehnerdt: De Osiandri vita et doctr. Berol. 1835; H. Wilken: Osianders Leben, Stralsund, 1844; Heberle: Os. Lehre in ihrer frühsten Gestalt (Studien u. Kritiken, 1844, p. 386); Ritschl: Rechtfertigungslehre des A. Os. (in Jahrb. für D. Theol. 1857, p. 795); R. T. Grau: De Os. doctrina, Marb. 1860; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 469; Gass, Vol. I. p. 61; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 81; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 150; J. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 1-47; Dorner, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, Döllinger in his Reformation, ihre Entwicklung and Wirkungen, Vol. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account of the Osiandric controversy.

517

See Köstlin: Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq.

518

He thought that 'after the death of the lion he could easily dispose of the hares and foxes.' But the germ of his doctrine was already in his tract, 'Ein gut Unterricht und getreuer Rathschlag aus heil. göttlicher Schrift,' 1524. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, he requested Melanchthon, in the presence of Brentius and Urban Regius, to introduce into the new confession of faith the passage , 'The Lord our Righteousness,' which he understood to mean that Christ dwells in us by faith, and works in us both to will and to do. See Wilkens, p. 37; Döllinger, p. 398.

519

'Christus secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus habitat.'

520

'Per humanitatem devenit in nos divinitas.'

521

'Nemo potest esse mediator sui ipsius.' Petrus Lombardus says: 'Christus mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.'

522

Wigand: De Stancarismo, Lips. 1583; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IX.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 449; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 480; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 156.

523

Georg Karg was born 1512, studied at Wittenberg, was ordained by Luther and Melanchthon, became pastor at Oettingen, afterwards at Ansbach, and died 1576. He was a rigid Lutheran in the Interimistic controversies, but otherwise more a follower of Melanchthon.

524

Thomasius: Hist. dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 158; Dorner, p. 345; Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg's view was afterwards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 573; Schweizer: Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16.

525

D. G. Major: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols.; N. von Amsdorf: Dass die Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schädlich,' eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch die heiligen Paulas und Luther gepredigt, 1559; several tracts of Flacius, Wigand, and Responsa and Letters of Melanchthon on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Reform. Vols. VIII. and IX.; Schlüsselburg, Lib. VII.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 469; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 493; Thomasius: Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 264; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 122; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 149; Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 733; Dorner, p. 339.

526

See his classical description of faith in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans (Walch, Vol. XIV. p. 114, quoted also in the 'Form of Concord,' p. 626, ed. Müller): 'Der Glaube ist ein göttlich Werk in uns, das uns verwandelt und neu gebiert aus Gott und tödtet den alten Adam, macht uns ganz andere Menschen . . . und bringet den heiligen Geist mit sich. O! es ist ein lebendig, geschäftig, thätig, mächtig Ding um den Glauben, dass es unmöglich ist, dass er nicht ohne Unterlass sollte Gutes wirken; er fragt auch nicht, ob gute Werke zu thun sind, sondern ehe man fragt, hat er sie gethan, und ist immer im Thun. Weraber nicht solche Werke thut, der ist ein glaubloser Mensch. . . . Werke vom Glauben scheiden is so unmöglich als brennen und leuchten vom Feuer mag geschieden werden.' In another place Luther says: 'So wenig das Feuer ohne Hitze und Rauch ist, so wenig ist der Glaube ohne Liebe.'

527

Loci theol. ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): 'Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonæ conscientiæ seu operum, quæ Deus nobis præcipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem. . . . Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata (). . . . Justificamur ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (). . . . Acceptatio ad vitam æternam seu donatio vitæ æternæ conjuncta est cum justificatione, i.e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, quæ fide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita æterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam æternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent' (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 429).

528

'Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem.'

529

He found it necessary afterwards to qualify his proposition, especially since Melanchthon, to his surprise, did not quite approve it. He assigned to good works a necessitas debiti, as commanded by God, a necessitas conjunctionis, as connected with faith, but no necessitas meriti. Our whole confidence is in Christ. 'Hominem,' he said, 'sola fide esse justum, sed non sola fide salvum.'

530

Viz., the words, 'Es ist gewisslich wahr, dass die Tugenden Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung, und andere in uns sein müssen und zur Seligkeit nöthig seien.' In Pezel's edition of Melanchthon's 'Bedenken' the words zur Seligkeit are omitted. Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 496.

531

'Bona opera perniciosa (noxia) esse [not in themselves, but] ad salutem.' Whoever held the opposite view was denounced by Amsdorf as a Pelagianer, Mameluk, zweifältiger Papist and Verläugner Christi.

532

See the extracts from Flacius, in Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq.

533

See the theses in Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq.