06045.2 - Formula of Concord - 2

§45.2. The Form of Concord. A.D. 1577 - Part 2.

Chemnitz escaped some difficulties of the Swabian theory, but by endeavoring to mediate between it and the Melanchthonian and Swiss theory, he incurred the objections to both. Christ’s glorified body is indeed not confined to any locality, and may be conceived to move with lightning speed from place to place, but its simultaneous presence in many places, wherever the eucharist is celebrated, involves the chief difficulty of an omnipresence, and is just as inconsistent with the nature of a body. Of subordinate interest was the incidental question, disputed mainly between Wigand and Heshusius, whether the flesh of Christ were almighty and adorable only in concreto, or also in abstracto (extra, personam ). Chemnitz declared this to be a mere logomachy, and advised the combatants to stop it, but in vain. The first creed which adopted the ubiquity dogma was the Würtemberg Confession drawn up by Brenz, and adopted by a Synod at Stuttgart, Dec. 19, 1559. [SeeNote #573] The Formula Concordiæ on this subject is a compromise between the Swabian absolute ubiquitarianism represented by Andreæ and expressed in the Epitome, and the Saxon hypothetical ubiquitarianism represented by Chemnitz and expressed in the Solida Declaratio . The compromise satisfied neither party. The Helmstädt divines-Tilemann Heshusius, Daniel Hoffmann, and Basilius Sattler-who had signed the written Formula in 1577, refused to sign the printed copy in 1580, because it contained unauthorized concessions to the Swabian view. A colloquy was held in Quedlinburg, 1583, at which the ubiquity question was discussed for several days without result. [SeeNote #574] Chemnitz was in a difficult position, as he nearly agreed with the Helmstädtians, and conceded that certain expressions had been wrested from him, but he signed the Formula for the sake of peace, with the reservation that he understood it in the sense of a hypothetical or limited ubiquity. The Giessen and Tübingen Controversy about the Kenosis and Krypsis . [SeeNote #575] -The ubiquity question was revived under a new shape, on the common basis of the ’Formula of Concord’ and the dogma of the communicatio idiomatum, in the controversy between the Kenoticism, of the theologians of Giessen, which followed in the track of Chemnitz, and the Krypticism of the theologians of Tübingen, which was based upon the theory of Brenz and Andreæ. The controversy forms the last phase in the development of the orthodox Lutheran Christology; it continued from 1616-1625, and was lost in the Thirty-Years’ War.

Both parties agreed that the human nature of Christ from the moment of the incarnation, even in the mother’s womb and on the cross, was in full possession (ktçsis) of the divine attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.; but they differed as to their use (chrçsis). The Giessen divines-Balthazar Mentzer (d. 1627), his son-in-law, Justus Feuerborn (d. 1656), and John Winckelmann-taught a real self-renunciation (kenôsis,evacuatio, exinanitio ), [SeeNote #576] i.e., that Christ voluntarily laid aside the actual use of the divine attributes and functions, except in the working of miracles; while the Tübingen divines-Lucas Osiander II. (d. 1638), Theodor Thumm, or Thummius (d. 1630), and Melchior Nicolai (d. 1659)-taught that he made a secret use of them (krupsis,occulta usurpatio ). [SeeNote #577] The Giessen divines, wishing chiefly to avoid the reproach of a portentosa ubiquitas, represented the omnipresence of Christ’s humanity, not as an all-pervading existence, [SeeNote #578] but as an all-controlling power, or as an element of omnipotence. [SeeNote #579] The Tübingen school taught, in consequence of the unio hypostatica, an absolute omnipresence of Christ’s humanity, as a quiescent quality, which consists in filling all the spaces of the universe, even from the conception to the death on the cross. [SeeNote #580] A theological commission at Dresden, with Hoe von Hoenegg at the head, decided substantially in favor of the Giessen theory (1525), and against the Tübingen doceticism, without, however, advancing the solution of the problem or feeling its real difficulty. The Giessen theory is more consistent with the realness of Christ’s human life, but less consistent with itself, since it admits an occasional interruption of it by the use of the inherent powers of the divinity; the Tübingen theory, on the other hand, virtually destroys the distinction between the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation, and resolves the life of Christ into a magical illusion. The modern Tübingen school of Baur and Strauss forms a strange parallel and contrast to that of the seventeenth century: it starts from the same principle that ’the finite is capable of the infinite,’ but extends it pantheistically to humanity at large, and denies its applicability to Christ, on the ground that the divine fullness can not be emptied into a single individual. [SeeNote #581] Therefore, while the old Tübingen school in effect, though not in intention, destroys the real humanity of Christ, the modern Tübingen school consistently denies his divinity, and resolves all the supernatural and miraculous elements of the gospel history into a mythic poem or fiction. In the modern revival of orthodox Lutheranism, the ubiquity of the body of Christ is either avoided, or advocated only in the hypothetical form, and mostly with a leaning towards a more literal acceptation of the kenôsis(Php 2:7) than the Giessen divines contended for. [SeeNote #582] VIII. THE HADES CONTROVERSY. [SeeNote #583] This controversy, which is discussed in the ninth article of the ’Formula of Concord,’ referred to the time, manner, extent, and aim of Christ’s mysterious descent into the world of departed spirits. It implied the questions whether the descent took place before or after the death on the cross; whether it were confined to the divine nature, or to the soul, or extended to the body; whether it belonged to the state of humiliation, or to the state of exaltation; whether it were a continuation of suffering and a tasting of the second death, or a triumph over hell. The answer to these questions depended in part on the different views of the communication of idiomata and the ubiquity of the body, as also on Hades, or Sheol, itself, which some identified with hell proper (Gehenna), while others more correctly understood it in a wider sense of the whole realm of the dead. Luther himself had at different times very different opinions of the descent, but regarded it chiefly as a victory over the kingdom of Satan.

John Æpinus, [SeeNote #584] a Lutheran minister in Hamburg, started the controversy. He taught, first in 1544 and afterwards more fully, that Christ descended with his spirit into the region of the lost, in order to suffer the pains of hell for men, and thus to complete his humiliation or the work of redemption. So he explained Psalms 16:10 (comp. Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31). Luther himself had at one time (1524) given a similar exposition of this passage. Flacius sided with Æpinus. But this theory was more Reformed than Lutheran, and was opposed by his colleagues, who carried the dispute into the pulpit and excited the people. Matsberger in Augsburg represented the descent, according to the usual view, as a local change, but had to suffer three years’ imprisonment for it. Brenz condemned such locomotion as inconsistent with the dignity and ubiquity of Christ, and denied the locality of hell as well as of heaven. This accords with his view of the ascension. Melanchthon, being appealed to by the magistrate of Hamburg, answered with caution, and warned against preaching on subjects not clearly revealed. He referred to a sermon of Luther, preached at Torgau, 1533, in which he graphically describes the descent as a triumphant march of Christ through the dismayed infernal hosts, so that no believer need hereafter be afraid of the devil and damnation. Melanchthon thought this view was more probable than that of Æpinus; at all events, Christ manifested himself as a conqueror in hell, destroyed the power of the devil, raised many dead to life (Matthew 27:53), and proclaimed to them the true doctrine of the Messiah; to ask more is unnecessary. He advised the magistrate to exclude the controversy from the pulpit. [SeeNote #585] Several of the most violent opponents of Æpinus were deposed and expelled. The dispute was lost in more serious controversies. It was almost confined to Hamburg. The Formula of Concord sanctioned substantially the view of Luther and Melanchthon, without entering into the minor questions.

IX. THE ADIAPHORISTIC (OR INTERIMISTIC) CONTROVERSY (1548-1555). [SeeNote #586] This controversy is the subject of the tenth article of the ’Formula of Concord,’ but was the first in the order of time among the disputes which occasioned this symbol. It arose, soon after Luther’s death, out of the unfortunate Smalcald war, which resulted in the defeat of the Lutheran states, and brought them for a time under the ecclesiastical control of the Emperor Charles V. and his Romish advisers.

Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God, are in themselves indifferent (adiaphora,media, res mediæ, Mitteldinge ), but the observance or non-observance of them may, under testing circumstances, become a matter of principle and of conscience. The Augsburg Confession and Apology (Art. VII.) declare that agreement in doctrine and the administration of the sacraments is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and may co-exist with diversity in usages and rites of human origin. Luther himself desired to retain many forms of the Catholic worship which he considered innocent and beautiful, provided only that no merit be attached to them and no burden be imposed upon the conscience. [SeeNote #587] But there is a great difference between retaining old forms and restoring them after they have been abolished, as also between a voluntary and a compulsory observance. When circumcision was yet lawful and practiced by Jewish Christians, Paul resisted it, and saved the principle of Christian liberty against the Judaizing error which made circumcision a condition of salvation. Some of the Romish ceremonies, moreover, especially those connected with the canon of the mass, involve doctrine, and affect the whole idea of Christian worship. When the Emperor, with the aid of the treasonable Elector Maurice of Saxony, had broken up the Lutheran League of Smalcald, he required the Protestants to submit to a doctrinal and ceremonial compromise till the final settlement of the religious controversy by an œcumenical Council. The first compromise was the so-called Augsburg Interim, enacted by the Diet of Augsburg (May, 1548) for the whole empire. It was essentially Romish, and yielded to the Protestants only the marriage of priests and the cup of the laity. It was rigidly executed in the Southern and prevailingly Roman Catholic states, where about four hundred Lutheran preachers were expelled or dismissed for non-conformity. The second compromise, called the Leipzig Interim, was enacted by the Elector Maurice (December, 1548), with the aid of Melanchthon and other leading Lutheran divines, for his Protestant dominion, where the Augsburg Interim could not be carried out. It was much milder, saved the evangelical creed in its essential features-as justification by the sole merits of Christ through a living faith-but required conformity to the Romish ritual, including confirmation, episcopal ordination, extreme unction, and even the greater part of the canon of the mass, and such ceremonies as fasts, processions, and the use of images in churches. [SeeNote #588] The Protestants were forced to the alternative of either submitting to one of these temporary compromises, or risking the fate of martyrs.

Melanchthon, in the desire to protect churches from plunder and ministers from exile, and in the hope of saving the cause of the Reformation for better times, yet not without blamable weakness, gave his sanction to the Leipzig Interim, and undertook to act as a mediator between the Emperor, or his Protestant ally Maurice, and the Protestant conscience. [SeeNote #589] It was the greatest mistake in his life, yet not without plausible excuses and incidental advantages. He advocated immovable steadfastness in doctrine, but submission in every thing else for the sake of peace. He had the satisfaction that the University of Wittenberg, after temporary suspension, was restored, and soon frequented again by two thousand students; that no serious attempt was made to introduce the Interim there, and that matters remained pretty much as before. But outside of Wittenberg and Saxony his conduct appeared treasonable to the cause of the Reformation, and acted as an encouragement to an unscrupulous and uncompromising enemy. Hence the venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarter by friend and foe. He afterwards frankly and honorably confessed that he had gone too far in this matter, and ought to have kept aloof from the insidious counsels of politicians. [SeeNote #590] He fully recovered his manhood in the noble Saxon Confession which he prepared in 1551 for the Council of Trent, and which is not merely a repetition of the Augsburg Confession, but also a refutation of the theology, worship, and government of the papal Church.

Flacius chose the second alternative. Escaping from Wittenberg to the free city of Magdeburg, he opened from this stronghold of rigid Lutheranism, with other ’exiles of Christ,’ a fierce and effective war against Melanchthon and the ’dangerous rabble of the Adiaphorists.’ He charged his teacher and benefactor with superfluous mildness, weakness, want of faith, treason to truth; and characterized the Leipzig Interim as an undisguised ’union of Christ and Belial, of light and darkness, of sheep and wolf, of Christ and Antichrist,’ aiming at the ’reinstatement of popery and Antichrist in the temple of God.’ [SeeNote #591] His chief text was 1 Corinthians 10:20-23. He had upon the whole the best of the argument, although in form he violated all the laws of courtesy and charity, and continued, even long afterwards, to persecute Melanchthon as an abettor of Antichrist. In a milder tone the best friends of Melanchthon remonstrated with him. Brenz preferred exile and misery to the Interim, which he called interitus. Bucer of Strasburg did the same, and accepted a call to England. Calvin on this question sided with the anti-Adiaphorists, and wrote a letter to Melanchthon (June 18, 1550), which is a model of brotherly frankness and reproof. ’My present grief,’ he says in substance, ’renders me almost speechless. . . . In openly admonishing you, I am discharging the duty of a true friend; and if I employ a little more severity than usual, do not think it is owing to any diminution of my old affection and esteem for you. . . . I know you love nothing better than open candor. I am truly anxious to approve all your actions, both to myself and to others. But at present I accuse you before yourself, that I may not be forced to join those who condemn you in your absence. This is the sum of your defense: That provided purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not be pertinaciously contended for. . . . But you extend the adiaphora too far. . . . Some of them contradict the Word of God. . . . When we are in the thick of the fight, we must fight all the more manfully; the hesitation of the general brings more disgrace than the flight of a whole herd of common soldiers. All will blame you if you do not set the example of unflinching steadfastness. . . . I had rather die with you a hundred times than see you survive the doctrines surrendered by you. I have no fear for the truth of God, nor do I distrust your steadfastness. . . Pardon me, dear Philip, for loading your breast with these groans. May the Lord continue to guide you by his Spirit and sustain you by his might.’ [SeeNote #592] The defeat of the Emperor by Elector Maurice, who now turned against him, as he had turned before against his fellow-Protestants, and the consequent Peace of Augsburg, 1555, made an end to the Interim troubles, and secured freedom to the Lutheran Churches. But among theologians the controversy continued till the death of Melanchthon. The conduct of Melanchthon weakened his authority and influence, which had been rising higher and higher before and after Luther’s death, especially in the University of Wittenberg. Before this unfortunate controversy he was universally regarded as the theological head of the evangelical Church in Germany, but now a large number of Lutherans began to look upon him with distrust.

X. THE STRASBURG CONTROVERSY ON PREDESTINATION BETWEEN ZANCHI AND MARBACH (1561-1563). [SeeNote #593] This is the last specific doctrine discussed in the Formula of Concord (Art. XI.). The German and Swiss Reformers alike renewed, as an impregnable fortress in their war against the Pelagian corruptions of Rome, the Augustinian system, with its two closely connected doctrines of the absolute spiritual slavery or inability of the unregenerate will of man, and the absolute predestination of God; though with the characteristic difference that Luther and Melanchthon emphasized the servum arbitrium, Zwingli the providentia, Calvin the prædestinatio . In other words, the German Reformers started from the anthropological premise, and inferred from it the theological conclusion; while Calvin made the absolute sovereignty of God the cornerstone of his system. Luther firmly adhered to the servum arbitrium, but was more cautious, in his later years, on the mystery of the prædestinatio. [SeeNote #594] Melanchthon gave up both for his synergism and the universality of grace, though he continued in friendly correspondence with Calvin, who on his part put the mildest construction on this departure. The rigid Lutherans all retained Luther’s view of total depravity in opposition to synergism, and some of them (namely, Amsdorf, Flacius, Brenz, Wigand, and, for a time, Heshusius) were also strict predestinarians. [SeeNote #595] But the prevailing Lutheran sentiment became gradually averse to a particular predestination, all the more since it was a prominent doctrine of the hated Calvinists. The Formula of Concord sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these contradictory positions. In regard to the slavery of the human will, the Formula of Concord, following Luther, went even further than Calvin, and compared the natural man with a dead statue, or clod, and stone; while Calvin always (so far agreeing with the later Melanchthon) insisted on the spontaneity and responsibility of the will in sinning, and in accepting or rejecting the grace of God. The discussion of this subject was opened by the fierce polemic Tilemann Heshusius, who, in his defense of the corporeal presence against the Sacramentarians (Jena, 1560), first attacked also Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, as Stoic and fatalistic, although a year afterwards, in opposition to synergism, he returned to his former view of an absolute and particular predestination. Beza answered his attack with superior ability. [SeeNote #596] Of more importance was the controversy between Marbach (a friend of Heshusius) and Zanchi within the Lutheran denomination itself. It decided its position on the question of predestination and perseverance. The Church of Strasburg had received from its reformer, Martin Bucer (who on account of the Interim followed a call to the University of Cambridge, 1549, and died there, 1551), a unionistic type, and acted as mediator between the Swiss and German churches. The Reformed Tetrapolitan Confession, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, and the Wittenberg Concordia (a compromise between the Lutheran and Zwinglian views on the eucharist), were held in great esteem. Calvin and Peter Martyr, who preached and taught there, made a deep impression. The celebrated historian Sleidanus, and the learned founder and rector of the academy, John Sturm, labored in the same spirit.

Jerome Zanchi (Zanchius, 1516-1590), a converted Italian, and pupil of Peter Martyr, became his successor as Professor of Theology at Strasburg in 1553. He was one of the most learned Calvinistic divines of the age, and labored for some time with great acceptance. He taught that in the eucharist Christ’s true body broken for us, and his blood shed for us, are received in the sacrament, but not with the mouth and teeth, but by faith, and consequently only by believers. This was approved by his superiors, since the communion was not a cibus ventris sed mentis, and the same view had been taught by Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Zell, and Martyr. He opposed ubiquity, and the use of images in churches. He taught unconditional predestination, and its consequence, the perseverance of saints, in full harmony, as he believed, with Augustine, Luther, and Bucer. He reduced his ideas to four sentences: 1. The elect receive from God the gift of true saving faith only once; 2. Faith once received can never be totally and finally lost, partly on account of God’s promise, partly on account of Christ’s intercession; 3. In every elect believer there are two men, the external and the internal-if he sin, he sins according to the external, but against the internal man, consequently he sins not with the whole heart and will; 4. When Peter denied Christ, the confession of Christ died in his mouth, but not his faith in his heart.

Several years before Zanchi’s call to Strasburg, a Lutheran counter-current had been set in motion, which ultimately prevailed. It was controlled by John Marbach (1521-1581), a little man with a large beard, incessant activity, intolerant and domineering spirit, who had been called from Jena to the pulpit of Strasburg (1545). Inferior in learning, [SeeNote #597] he was superior to Zanchi in executive ability and popular eloquence. He delighted to be called Superintendent, and used his authority to the best advantage. He abolished Bucer’s Catechism and introduced Luther’s, taught the ubiquity of Christ’s body, undermined the authority of the Tetrapolitan Confession, crippled the church of French refugees, to which Calvin had once ministered, weakened discipline, introduced pictures into churches, including those of Luther, and began to republish at Strasburg the fierce polemical book of Heshusius on the eucharist. This brought on the controversy.

Zanchi persuaded the magistrate to suppress the publication of this book, because of its gross abuse of Melanchthon and a noble German Prince, the Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, and because it denounced all who differed from his views of the corporeal presence as heretics. From this time Marbach refused to greet Zanchi on the street, and gathered from the notes of his students material for accusation that he taught doctrines contrary to the Augsburg Confession. He objected, however, not so much to predestination itself as to Zanchi’s method of teaching it a priori rather than a posteriori. The controversy lasted over two years. Zanchi visited and consulted foreign churches and universities. The answers differed not so much on predestination as on perseverance. [SeeNote #598] The theologians of Marburg (Hyperius, Lonicer, Garnier, Orth, Roding, Pincier, and Pistorius), Zurich (Bullinger, Martyr, Gualter, Lavater, Simler, Haller, Zwingli Jr.), and Heidelberg (Boquinus, Tremellius, Olevianus, and Diller) decided in favor of the theses of Zanchi. The ministers of Basel counseled peace and compromise; the divines of Tübingen approved of the doctrine of predestination, but dissented from the theses on perseverance; even Brenz thought the matter might be amicably settled. The divines of Saxony decided according to their different attitudes towards Melanchthon: the Melanchthonians liked Zanchi’s doctrine of the eucharist, but disliked his view of predestination; the anti-Melanchthonians hated the former, but were favorable to the latter, because it was so strongly taught by Luther himself (De servo arbitrio ). At last the ’Strasburg Formula of Concord’ was adopted (1563), which prescribed the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536 as the rule of doctrine on the Lord’s Supper, and asserted the possibility of the loss of faith, yet without denying predestination. [SeeNote #599] Calvin judged that it only threw a veil over the truth. Predestination was with Calvin and Luther an independent and central dogma; the later Lutherans assigned it a subordinate and subsidiary position, and denied its logical consequence, the perseverance of saints. This was also the position of Marbach.

Zanchi subscribed the Strasburg Formula with a restriction, but for the sake of peace he soon followed a call to a Reformed Italian church at Chiavenna, and, being driven away by a pestilence to a mountain, he wrote a full account of the Strasburg troubles. [SeeNote #600] He was supported in his position by the worthy Sturm and several professors, but had the disadvantage of being a foreigner unacquainted with the German tongue. The pastors, backed by the people, triumphed over the professors. What Marbach had begun, his pupil Pappus completed. Strasburg was thoroughly Lutheranized, the Tetrapolitan Confession formally abolished as ’Zwinglian,’ and the Formula Concordiæ introduced (1597). [SeeNote #601]

Yet, after all, the spirit of Bucer never died out. From Strasburg proceeded Spener, with his blessed revival of practical piety and a better appreciation of the Reformed Confession; [SeeNote #602] and from the theological faculty of Strasburg hail more recently the appreciating biographies of Beza, Bucer, and Capito (by Baum), and Melanchthon (by Carl Schmidt), and the best edition of the works of Calvin (by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss). Thus history slowly but surely rectifies its own mistakes. THE PREPARATION OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD.[SeeNote #603]

These controversies turned the Lutheran churches in Germany into a camp of civil war, exposed them to the ridicule and obloquy of the Papists, and threatened to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The danger was increased by the endless territorial divisions of Germany, where every Prince and magistrate acted a little pope, and ’every fox looked to his own pelt.’ [SeeNote #604] The best men in the Lutheran communion deeply deplored this state of things, and labored for peace and harmony. Augustus, Elector of Saxony (1533-1588), a pious and orthodox, though despotic Prince, controlled the political part, and paid the heavy expenses of the movement. [SeeNote #605] Jacob Andreæ, Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the University at Tübingen (1528-1590), a pupil and friend of Brentius, a man of rare energy, learning, eloquence, and diplomatic skill, managed the theological negotiations, made no less than one hundred and twenty-six journeys, and sacrificed the comforts of home and family (he had twelve children) to the pacification of the Lutheran Church. [SeeNote #606] Next to him, and at a later period, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the greatest pupil of Melanchthon and the prince among the Lutheran divines of his age, [SeeNote #607] and Nicholas Selnecker (1530-1592), [SeeNote #608] originally likewise a Melanchthonian, took the most important part in the movement, and formed with Andreæ the theological ’triumvirate,’ which finally completed the Form of Concord. [SeeNote #609] The first attempts at union were made at the conferences in Frankfort, 1558; Naumburg, 1561; Altenburg, 1568; Wittenberg, 1569; Zerbst, 1570; Dresden, 1571; but they utterly failed and increased the dissension.

After the violent suppression of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony (1574), and the death of Flacius (1575) and some other untractable extremists, the work was resumed by the Elector and other Princes. Theological conferences were again held at Maulbronn (1575), Lichtenberg (1576), and Torgau (1576). Three forms of agreement were prepared, which, though not satisfactory, served as a basis for the Formula of Concord. The first is the Swabian and Saxon Formula, written by Andreæ (1574), and revised by Chemnitz and Chytræus (1575).’ [SeeNote #610] The second is the Maulbronn Formula, prepared by the Swabian divines Lucas Osiander and Balthasar Bidembach (Nov. 14, 1575), and approved by a convent of Lutheran Princes in the Cloister of Maulbronn (Jan. 19, 1576). [SeeNote #611] The former was found too lengthy, the latter too brief. Hence on the basis of both a third form was prepared which combined their merits, but omitted the honorable mention of the name of Melanchthon. This is the ’Torgau Book ,’ consisting of twelve articles. [SeeNote #612] It was mainly the work of Andreæ and Chemnitz, and completed by a convention of eighteen Lutheran divines at the Castle of Hartenfels, at Torgau, June 7, 1576. It was sent by the Elector Augustus to all the Lutheran Princes for examination and revision. It was closely scrutinized by twenty conventions of theologians held within three months, and elicited twenty-five vota, mostly favorable; even Heshusius and Wigand, the oracles of orthodoxy, were pleased, except that they wished an express condemnation of Melanchthon and other ’authors and patrons of corruptions.’ At last the present Formula of Concord was completed, on the basis of the Torgau Book, by six learned divines-Andreæ (of Tübingen), Chemnitz (of Brunswick), Selnecker (of Leipzig), Musculus (of Frankfort-on-the-Oder), Cornerus, or Körner (also of Frankfort), and Chytræus (of Rostock)-who met in March and May, 1577, in the Cloister of Bergen, near Magdeburg, by order of the Elector of Saxony. Hence it is also called ’The Bergen Formula. ’ [SeeNote #613] The Preface was written two years later by the same authors, in the name of the Lutheran Princes, in two conventions at Jüterbock, January and June, 1579. Three years elapsed before the new symbolical book was signed and solemnly published, by order of Augustus, at Dresden, June 25, 1580, the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, together with the other Lutheran symbols, in one volume, called the ’Book of Concord, ’ which superseded all similar collections. [SeeNote #614] The Elector Augustus celebrated the completion of the work, which cost him so much trouble and money, by a memorial coin representing him in full armor on the storm-tossed ship of the church. [SeeNote #615] The Formula of Concord, like the three preparatory drafts on which it is based, was first composed in the German language, and published, with the whole Book of Concord, at Dresden, 1580. The Latin text was imperfectly prepared by Lucas Osiander, and appeared in the Latin Concordia, at Leipzig, 1580; then it was materially improved by Selnecker for his separate German-Latin edition of the Formula (not the Book) of Concord, Leipzig, 1582; and was again revised by a convent of Lutheran divines at Quedlinburg, 1583, under the direction of Martin Chemnitz. In this last revision it was published in the first authentic Latin edition of the Book of Concord, Leipzig, 1584, and has been recognized ever since as the received Latin text. It was also translated into the Dutch, Swedish, and English languages, but seldom separately published. [SeeNote #616]

Note #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.

Note #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 bellumperi deipnou kuriakouinstaurat ;’ 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.

Note #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: Phi. 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.

Note #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. ’

Note #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 like1 Timothy 2:4(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. 1. 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. 1. p. 893).

Note #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.

Note #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 autperi tçs anankçs,’ 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 helkôn 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.

Note #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.

Note #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 cœna vehementer urget. Episcopos omnes vult deletes esse.’

Note #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).

Note #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).

Note #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.’

Note #499

’Responsio Phi. 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,koinônia esti tou sômatos." Et copiose de fructu Cænæ dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulumkoinōniadeclarandum est. Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistę dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale Corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse koinōnian, i.e., hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quę 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.

Note #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 doctrinę ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas, quę hunc casum sunt secuturę. ’ Comp. Planck, l.c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77.

Note #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.

Note #502

’Ego ęquissimo animo, ’ he wrote to Camerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p.684), ’vel potiusanaisthētōsfero insolentiamkai hubreismultorum, et dum vivam moderate faciam officium meum. ’

Note #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.

Note #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.

Note #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. ’

Note #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.’

Note #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.

Note #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. 1. and II.; Frank: Die Theologie der Concordienformel, Vol. 1. p. 60; Dorner, p. 361, and the monograph of Preger on Flacius and his Age. Vol. II. p. 310.

Note #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.

Note #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.

Note #511 By to sumbebēkosAristotle 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.

Note #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. 1. p. 125, and his art. Synergismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 326; Fr. H. R. Frank: Theol. der Conc. F. Vol. 1. p. 113; Dorner, p. 361; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially Schmid and Preger (quoted p. 268).

Note #513 See above, p. 262.

Note #514 ’Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam. ’

Note #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.’

Note #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.(inJahrb. für D. Theol.1857, p. 795); R. T. Grau:De Os. doctrina,Marb. 1860; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 469; Gass, Vol. 1. p. 61; Heppe, Vol. 1. p. 81; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 150; J. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 1-47; Dorner, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, Döllinger in hisReformation, ihre Entwicklung and Wirkungen,Vol. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account of the Osiandric controversy.

Note #517 See Köstlin: Luther’s Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq.

Note #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 Jeremiah 23:6, ’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.