Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 35

Four weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to Wittenberg for the same purpose, _viz._, of mediating between Melanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously requested him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace.

The articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke, were more severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus, professor at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned to present them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles were submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent agitation. The report says: "As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was criticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a mild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not permit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most earnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but burst forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others, and finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates, vociferating that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors, etc." On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates.

When these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he again interrupted them, exclaiming: "Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the lot of the peaceful.... I commend myself to G.o.d." After Melanchthon had left, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates: "Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr sollt forthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden la.s.sen mit solchen Haendeln_." (9, 106f.)

Regarding the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates of Duke Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared in his answer of February 27: "I should not be astonished to have these two conditions [to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc.] imposed on me if I had been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I may have been lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never been an enemy.... Therefore I clearly state that I do not a.s.sent to these presentations [of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, if I accept them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipse iugulem_)." (_C. R._ 9, 104.)

The Magdeburgers refused to partic.i.p.ate in these efforts of Count Albrecht, chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace as long as Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenberg friends. But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts to bring about a G.o.dly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who pa.s.sed Jena on his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on the Adiaphoristic question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said: "Omit that; let us treat of other things." Flacius also wrote to King Christian III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish the Adiaphoristic errors, but apparently without any result.

271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.

The Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that a colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the Lutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the colloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect that all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and the Romanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were all agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution Nicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest.

Self-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that the controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not a.s.sent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying their convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the situation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to decline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch Lutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the Lutherans was unavoidable.

Before the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at Worms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he admonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other Lutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism, Osiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because the Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the Leipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C.

R._ 9, l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the dukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their delegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John Frederick said it was impossible that, in defending the _Augsburg Confession_ against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man and speak as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), if they had not previously come to an agreement among themselves and condemned the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeat the Lutherans with their own sword, _i.e._, their own polemical publications. (231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated his sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and Sarcerius. (232ff.)

In a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr.

Basilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in keeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon Erhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought to be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the motion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided that his theologians could not partic.i.p.ate in the colloquy with Lutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _Augsburg Confession_, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true members and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was temporarily warded off by the concession on the part of the Melanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely to express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At the session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding demanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians, Calvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servo arbitrio_) from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied the Lutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander, Major, and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declared evasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed in the _Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided to enter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority threatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if they dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which they rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that the Thuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius Pflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning had been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining Lutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who the true adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ were with whom, according to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal.

272. Efforts of Princes to Restore Unity: Frankfort Recess.

The Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among the Lutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official publicity to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was unscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, their sinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed by the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold.

In particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among the Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _Augsburg Confession_ to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the Augsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the opportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies that were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran princes, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to the Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to bend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoring religious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made especially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But instead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of the princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of dissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming the conviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger indeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and an unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish peace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.

At Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachim of Brandenburg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Philip of Hesse discussed the religious situation and, on March 18, 1558, signed the so-called _Frankfort Recess_ (Agreement), in which they again solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, the Ec.u.menical Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its _Apology_. (_C. R._ 9, 494.) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that the existing dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against the Lutherans, who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in their confession. In four articles the controverted questions concerning justification, good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora were dealt with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being based on Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff.; 462ff.)

When the _Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to the estates who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive the expected approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt, Henneberg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, and Regensburg. The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony, where Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first was ent.i.tled: "_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio c.u.m sectis et corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation of the Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally and perniciously confounded with the sects." The other: "_Grund und Ursach', warum das Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reason and Cause why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted." The chief objections of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have been included in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within the Lutheran Church should not have been treated as questions of minor import. 3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false, and not merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerning the Lord's Supper are "dark, general, and ambiguous," hence Crypto-Calvinistic. 5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous and altogether unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppress theological discussions and controversies would lead to suppression of the truth ("binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost") and tyrannizing of the churches by the princes. (Preger 2, 74.)

In his att.i.tude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and by Duke John Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to sign the _Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth his objection in a special book. Elector August, in turn, charged Melanchthon to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducal theologians; which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unite the opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxons to attend a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius induced the Duke to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinal differences within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision of this _Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologians partic.i.p.ated: Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, Simon Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November 28, 1558, it received the sanction of the dukes. Among the Melanchthonians the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a special point to refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists, caused consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently its theological att.i.tude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence the breach now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August, Melanchthon, in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion of the _Book of Confutation_. (_C. R._ 9, 763.) But contents as well as form of this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians in their position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publis.h.i.+ng the _Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippic.u.m_ or _Misnic.u.m_), which contained writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_, therefore, instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increased their mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick, the Duke of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, on January 20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke of Saxony also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, he foiled the plan by declining to attend.

273. General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists.

To heal the breach and end the public scandal, Flacius and his adherents fervently advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559 they published "_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum ... pro Libera Christiana et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians ... for a Free, Christian and Lawful Synod." The doc.u.ment was signed by 51 superintendents, professors, and pastors, "who after Luther's death," as they emphasized, "had contended orally and in writing against the corruptions and sects." The signatures represented theologians from Ducal Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, Luebeck, Rostock, Wismar, Brunswick, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Koethen, Nordhausen, Schweinfurt, Regensburg, Lindau, Upper Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Electoral Saxony, Nuernberg, Augsburg, Baden, etc. Some of the first were: Amsdorf, Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Hesshusius, Max Moerlin, Gallus, Wigand, Judex, Westphal, John Freder of Wismar, Anton Otto of Nordhausen, Flacius. The _Supplication_ showed why a General Synod was necessary and how it was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said, would be to pa.s.s on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, all partic.i.p.ants in the Synod having previously been pledged on the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_, according to which all questions were to be decided. (Preger 2, 86f.)

The most violent opponent of this plan was Melanchthon. Fearing that the Flacianists might get control of the prospective general council, he, in advance, denounced and branded it as a "Robber Synod (_Raeubersynode_), advocated by the ignorant Flacian rabble." Three weeks before his death, March 28, 1560 he wrote: "Since they [the Flacians] cannot kill me, the object of these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have said that they would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc agunt isti hypocritae, ut me pellant, c.u.m sanguinem meum haurire non possint; et quidem oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturos esse in Germania vestigium pedis_." (_C. R._ 9, 1079.) Philip of Hesse consented to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power of the Jena theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger 2, 93.) That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due to Elector August, who declined to attend the synod.

274. Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg.

In lieu of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the best means to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and estates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561.

The object of this a.s.sembly, he said, was neither to discuss the differences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but only to renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and to consider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous confession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All finally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector August (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined partic.i.p.ation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the Palatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from this a.s.sembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general synod and sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additional writing, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes not to enter into an unG.o.dly and unionistic agreement, rather to eliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose object was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to consider their pet.i.tion, and, on February 8, the last day of the convention, returned the doc.u.ments to their authors in Jena.

After comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, the Naumburg a.s.sembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered 1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg.

But when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already was openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August, demanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct explanation of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princes yielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in the Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons for renewing their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg.

This Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinist Cracow, also a.s.serted that hitherto no doctrinal corruptions or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had been tolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies within the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_.

Evidently, to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuine Lutherans. Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin and Stoessel that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The duke replied that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than put his signature to a doc.u.ment in which the errors introduced by the Philippists, etc., were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took the same stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed in accordance with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and left Naumburg without any further conference with the princes. When hereupon the latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. As conditions of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface the apostasy during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features of the Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought out clearly, the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm be eliminated, and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest of the Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princes closed the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke,--hence also without having attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans.

The Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the Electors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of Wuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of other princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any means stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic Naumburg doc.u.ment. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also left Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of Brunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of Saxon-Lauenburg, the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, s...o...b..rg, Barby, and a number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg, Augsburg, Stra.s.sburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyal Lutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all the princes who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg emphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his delegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the Palatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg signified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the views and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the beginning they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense.

In the Preface of the _Book of Concord_ signed by the Lutheran princes, we read: "Now, our conferences and those of our ill.u.s.trious predecessors, which were undertaken with a G.o.dly and sincere intention, first at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were recorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful settlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors and false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our mind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as many of us as partic.i.p.ated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly reserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of time, anything would be desired with respect to the _Augsburg Confession_, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would further declare all things thoroughly and at length." (CONC. TRIGL. 15.) Even Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke John Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had misled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg, openly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent Lutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate proved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true unity and the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. And more than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring about this result. (Preger 2, 102.)

275. Andreae and Chemnitz.

The theologians who were first in adopting effective methods and measures to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divine truth were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 in Weiblingen, Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546 he became pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposed because of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he became pastor and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was also professor and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae has been called "the spiritual heir of John Brenz." Hoping against hope, he incessantly labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church.

Being a man of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her at numerous occasions and in various capacities. In his pacification efforts he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelical courts, cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. With the consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service of Elector August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony till his dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing the affairs of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work of Lutheran pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unite the Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severely criticized also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due to the fact that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himself to be duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough to defend them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. While thus Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacification which culminated in the adoption of the _Formula of Concord_, he lacked the theological insight, ac.u.men, and consistency which characterized Martin Chemnitz.

Martin Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen in Brandenburg. As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school in Wittenberg, where he "rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he had heard so much at home, and to hear Luther preach." From 1539 to 1542 he attended the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied in Frankfort-on-the-Oder; in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthon directed his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school in Koenigsberg, and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary.

Owing to his partic.i.p.ation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lost the favor of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9, 1554, he began his lectures on Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_ before a large and enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of his hearers. In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in 1567 as superintendent, in the city of Brunswick. He died April 8, 1586.

Chemnitz was the prince of the Lutheran divines of his age and, next to Luther, the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther and Chemnitz, the Romanists said: "You Lutherans have two Martins; if the second had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (_si posterior non fuisset, prior non stetisset_)." Besides the two Lutheran cla.s.sics: _Examen Concilii Tridentini_, published 1565--1573, and _De Duabus Naturis in Christo_, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: _Harmonia Evangelica_, continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed by John Gerhard, and _Foundations_ (_Die Fundamente_) _of the Sound Doctrine concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating and Drinking of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper_, 1569.

Andreae and Chemnitz became acquainted with each other in 1568, when Duke Julius invited the former to conduct the visitation in Brunswick together with Chemnitz. They jointly also composed the Brunswick Church Order of 1569, which was preceded by the _Corpus Doctrinae Iulium_, compiled by Chemnitz and containing the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, the Catechisms of Luther, and a "short [rather long], simple, and necessary treatise on the prevalent corruptions." Andreae and Chemnitz are the theologians to whom more than any other two men our Church owes the _Formula of Concord_ and the unification of our Church in the one true Christian faith as taught by Luther. However, it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any other theologian, must be credited with the theological clarity and the correctness which characterizes the _Formula_.

276. First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail.

In his first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavored to reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who then were contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at the instance of Landgrave William of Hesse-Ca.s.sel and Duke Christopher of Wuerttemberg, Andreae composed his "_Confession and Brief Explanation of Several Controverted Articles_, according to which a Christian unity might be effected in the churches adhering to the _Augsburg Confession_, and the offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled." In five articles he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4.

The Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains that we are neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ has earned for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocent obedience, suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousness to all believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teach otherwise, but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works are necessary to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after the Fall, man is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, though weak, will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual matters his intellect is utterly blind and his will is dead; and that hence, unless G.o.d creates a new volition in him, man is unable of himself, of his own powers, to accept the grace of G.o.d offered in Christ. It rejects all who teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies are no longer free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connected with a denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. It rejects all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes that also the wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the body of Christ, but to their d.a.m.nation. It furthermore declares: Since it is objected that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supper because Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary "to explain the article of the incarnation of the Son of G.o.d, and to indicate, in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which both natures, divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears to what height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personal union." (Hutter, _Concordia Concors_, 110ff.)

In 1568, at the Brunswick Visitation, referred to above, Andreae submitted, his five articles to Duke Julius, and succeeded in winning him for his plan. In the same interest he came to Wittenberg, January 9, 1569. Furnished with letters of commendation from Duke Julius and Landgrave William of Hesse, he obtained an interview also with Elector August, who referred him to his theologians. On August 18, 1569, Andreae held a conference with the Wittenbergers. They insisted that the basis of the contemplated agreement must be the _Corpus Misnic.u.m_ (_Philippic.u.m_). When Andreae, unsophisticated as he still was with respect to the real character of Philippism, publicly declared that the Wittenbergers were orthodox teachers, and that the _Corpus Misnic.u.m_ contained no false doctrine he was supplied with a testimonial in which the Wittenbergers refer to their _Corpus_, but not to Andreae's articles, to which also they had not fully consented. The result was that the Jena theologians, in particular Tilemann Hesshusius, denounced Andreae's efforts as a unionistic scheme and a betrayal of true Lutheranism in the interest of Crypto-Calvinism. They rejected Andreae's articles because they were incomplete, and contained no specific rejection of the errors of the Philippists.

At the instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst in Anhalt, at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony, Brunswick, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxon theologians declining to partic.i.p.ate). The conference decided that a new confession was not needed, and unanimously recognized the _Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and the Catechisms of Luther. Andreae was elated. In his "Report" to the Emperor and the princes he gloried in "the Christian unity" attained at Zerbst. But also this apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory rather than real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscription by formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessions enumerated only in as far as they agreed with the _Corpus Philippic.u.m_.

And before long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make their appearance. The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae, which lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did not sufficiently exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was that he himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents of the Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had with the dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that it was impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union as long as the Crypto-Calvinists were firmly seated in the saddle.

277. Andreae's Sermons and the Swabian Concordia.

Abandoning his original scheme, which had merely served to increase the animosity among the Lutherans and to discredit himself, Andreae resolved henceforth to confine his peace efforts to true Lutherans, especially those of Swabia and Lower Saxony, and to unite them in opposition to the Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Philippists, who, outside of Electoral Saxony, were by this time generally regarded as traitors to the cause of Lutheranism. In 1573 he made his first move to carry out this new plan of his by publis.h.i.+ng sermons which he had delivered 1572 on the doctrines controverted within the Lutheran Church. The t.i.tle ran: "_Six Christian Sermons_ concerning the dissensions which from the year 1548 to this 1573d year have gradually arisen among the theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_, as to what att.i.tude a plain pastor and a common Christian layman who may have been offended thereby should a.s.sume toward them according to his Catechism." These sermons treat of justification, good works, original sin, free will, the adiaphora, Law and Gospel, and the person of Christ. As the t.i.tle indicates, Andreae appealed not so much to the theologians as to the pastors and the people of the Lutheran Church, concerning whom he was convinced that, adhering as they did, to Luther's Catechism, they in reality, at least in their hearts, were even then, and always had been, agreed. Andreae sent these sermons to Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Hesshusius, Wigand, and other theologians with the request that they be accepted as a basis of agreement. In the preface, dated February 17, 1573, he dedicated them to Duke Julius of Brunswick whose good will and consent in the matter he had won in 1568, when he a.s.sisted in introducing the Reformation in his territories. Before this Nicholas Selneccer, then superintendent of Wolfenbuettel, in order to cultivate the friendly relations between Swabia and Lower Saxony, had dedicated his _Instruction in the Christian Religion_ (_Inst.i.tutio Religionis Christianae_) to the Duke of Wuerttemberg, praising the writings of Brenz, and lauding the services rendered by Andreae to the duchy of Brunswick.

The sermons of Andreae were welcomed by Chemnitz, Westphal in Hamburg, David Chytraeus in Rostock, and others. They also endeavored to obtain recognition for them from various ecclesiastical ministries of Lower Saxony. But having convinced themselves that the sermonic form was not adapted for a confession, they, led by Chemnitz, advised that their contents be reduced to articles in "thesis and ant.i.thesis," and that this be done "with the a.s.sistance of other theologians." Andreae immediately acted on this suggestion and the result was what is known as the _Swabian Concordia_ (_Schwaebische Konkordie_)--the first draft of the _Formula of Concord_. This doc.u.ment, also called the Tuebingen Book, was submitted to, and approved by, the theologians of Tuebingen and by the Stuttgart Consistory. In substance it was an elaboration of the _Six Sermons_ with the addition of the last two articles. It contains eleven articles, treating 1. Original Sin; 2. Free Will; 3. The Righteousness of Faith before G.o.d; 4. Good Works; 5. Law and Gospel; 6. The Third Use of the Law; 7. The Church Usages Called Adiaphora; 8. The Lord's Supper; 9. The Person of Christ: 10. Eternal Election; 11. Other Factions and Sects. In the introduction Andreae also emphasizes the necessity of adopting those symbols which were afterwards received into the _Book of Concord_.

278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia.

On March 22, 1574, Andreae sent the _Swabian Concordia_ to Duke Julius and Chemnitz with the request to examine it and to have it discussed in the churches of Lower Saxony. On the twelfth of May the Duke ordered Chemnitz to prepare an opinion on the book and to present it to the clergy for their examination and approval. Under the leaders.h.i.+p of Chemnitz numerous conferences were held, and the various criticisms offered led to a revision of the doc.u.ment. This work was begun in April, 1575, by the theological faculty of Rostock. Apart from numerous changes and additions everywhere, the articles on Free Will and on the Lord's Supper were completely remodeled by Chytraeus and Chemnitz.

The new confession, known as the _Swabian [Lower] Saxon Concordia_, was subscribed by the theologians and pastors of the duchies of Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Mansfeld, Hoya, and Oldenburg. It acknowledges as its doctrinal basis the Holy Scriptures, the three Ec.u.menical Creeds, the _Augsburg Confession_, its _Apology_, the _Smalcald Articles_, and Luther's two Catechisms. It discusses the following articles in the following order: 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Of the Righteousness of Faith before G.o.d; 4. Of Good Works, 5. Of the Law and the Gospel; 6. Of the Third Use of the Law of G.o.d; 7. Of the Holy Supper; 8. Of G.o.d's Eternal Providence and Election; 9. Of Church Usages which are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 10. Of Free Will or Human Powers; 11. Of Other Factions and Sects which have Never Acknowledged the _Augsburg Confession_.

While this new _Concordia_ was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, to whom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied with its form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticized the unevenness of its style, its frequent use of Latin technical terms, its quotations (now approved, now rejected) from Melanchthon, etc.

Particularly regarding the last mentioned point they feared that the references to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence they preferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which was done in the _Formula of Concord_ as finally adopted.

279. The Maulbronn Formula.

The movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received a powerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking the Philippists, G.o.d had removed the chief obstacle of a G.o.dly and general peace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began to disappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed to the dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peace embracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the public exposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by Count Henneberg and other princes, _viz._, that the Wittenberg theologians were universally suspected, and that peace could not be established until their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrines of the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown in the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists of Electoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists rather than Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic _Exegesis Perspicua_ of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector that for years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologians and unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, were secret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitz remarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the article on the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention.

(Richard, 426.)

Among Lutherans generally the humiliating events in Saxony increased the feeling of shame at the conditions prevailing within their Church as well as the earnest desire for a genuine and lasting peace in the old Lutheran truths. And now Elector August, who, despite his continued animosity against Flacius, always wished to be a true Lutheran, but up to 1574 had not realized that the Philippistic type of doctrine dominant in his country departed from Luther's teaching, was determined to satisfy this universal longing for unity and peace. Immediately after the unmasking of the Philippists he took measures to secure the restoration of orthodox Lutheranism in his own lands. At the same time he placed himself at the head of the larger movement for the establishment of religious peace among the Lutherans generally by the elaboration and adoption of a doctrinal formula settling the pending controversies. To restore unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, which his own theologians had done so much to disturb, was now his uppermost desire. He prosecuted the plan of pacification with great zeal and perseverance. He also paid the heavy expenses (80,000 gulden), incurred by the numerous conventions, etc. And when, in the interest of such peace and unity, the theologians were engaged in conferences the pious Elector and his wife were on their knees, asking G.o.d that He would crown their labor with success.

The specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript of November 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians, appointed by the various Lutheran princes "meet in order to deliberate how, by the grace of G.o.d, all [the existing various _corpora doctrinae_]

might be reduced to one _corpus_ which we all could adopt, and that this book or _corpus doctrinae_ be printed anew and the ministers in the lands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby." Before this Elector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to take the initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg, Duke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask a number of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question as to how a doc.u.ment might be prepared which would serve as a beginning to bring about true Christian concord among the churches of the _Augsburg Confession_. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttemberg court-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgart provost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and several theologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November 14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach were ordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. The doc.u.ment which they submitted was discussed with theologians from Henneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribed January 19, 1576.

The _Maulbronn Formula_, as the doc.u.ment was called, differs from the _Swabian-Saxon Concordia_ in being much briefer (about half as voluminous), in avoiding technical Latin terms, in making no reference whatever to Melanchthon, in quoting from Luther's works only, and in omitting such doctrinal points (Anabaptism, Schwenckfeldianism, Ant.i.trinitarianism, etc.) as had not been controverted among the Lutherans. Following the order of the _Augustana_, this _Formula_ treats the following articles. 1. Of Original Sin; 2. Of the Person of Christ; 3. Of Justification of Faith 4. Of the Law and Gospel; 5. Of Good Works; 6. Of the Holy Supper of Our Lord Christ; 7. Of Church Usages, Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; 8. Of Free Will; 9. Of the Third Use of G.o.d's Law.

280. The Torgau Book.