06045.3 - Formula of Concord - 3

§45.3. The Form of Concord. A.D. 1577 - Part 3.

Note #519 ’Christus secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus habitat. ’

Note #520 ’Per humanitatem devenit in nos divinitas. ’

Note #521

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

Note #522

Wigand: De Stancarismo, Lips. 1583; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IX.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 449; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 480; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 156.

Note #523

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

Note #524

Thomasius: Hist. dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 158; Dorner, p. 345; Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg’s view was afterwards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 573; Schweizer: Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16.

Note #525

D. G. Major: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols.; N. von Amsdorf: Dass die Propositio: ’Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schädlich ,’ eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch die heiligen Paulas und Luther gepredigt, 1559; several tracts of Flacius, Wigand, and Responsa and Letters of Melanchthon on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Reform. Vols. VIII. and IX.; Schlüsselburg, Lib. VII.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 469; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 493; Thomasius: Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 264; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 122; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 149; Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 733; Dorner, p. 339.

Note #526

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

Note #527

Loci theol. ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): ’Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonæ conscientiæ seu operum, quæ Deus nobis præcipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem. . . .Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata(Matthew 19:17). . . . Justificamur ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (Ephesians 2:10). . . . Acceptatio ad vitam æternam seu donatio vitæ æternæ conjuncta est cum justificatione, i.e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, quæ fide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita æterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam æternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent ’ (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 429).

Note #528 ’Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem. ’

Note #529

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

Note #530

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

Note #531

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

Note #532 See the extracts from Flacius, in Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq.

Note #533 See the theses in Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq.

Note #534

See his brief Judicium on the Majoristic controversy, 1553, Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 194, and his more lengthy German letter ad Senatum Northusanum (Nordhausen), Jan. 13, 1555; Ibid. , pp. 410-413. ’Diese Deutung, ’he says (p. 412), ’ist zu fliehen: gute Werke sind Verdienst der Seligkeit; und muss der Glaub und Trost fest allein auf dem Herrn Christo stehen, dass wir gewisslich durch ihn allein, propter eum et per eum, haben Vergebung der Sünden, Zurchnung der Gerechtigkeit, heiligen Geist, und Erbschaft der ewigen Seligkeit. Dieses Fundament ist gewiss. Es folget auch eben aus diesem Fundament, dass diese andere Proposition recht und nöthig ist: gute Werke oder neuer Gehorsam ist nöthig von wegen göttlicher, unwandelbarer Ordnung, dass die vernünftige Creatur Gott Gehorsam schuldig ist, und dazu erschaffen, und jetzund wiedergeboren ist, dass sie ihm gleichförmig werde. ’ Melanchthon heard from an Englishman that this controversy created great astonishment in England, where no one doubted the necessity of good works to salvation, nor failed to see the difference between necessity and merit.

Note #535 In accordance with the word of Augustine: ’Opera sequuntur justificatam, non præcedunt justificandum. ’ Three or four of the framers of the ’Form of Concord’ were inclined to Major’s view, and endeavored at first to prevent its condemnation; but the logic of the Lutheran principle triumphed.

Note #536

Luther’s Werke, Vol. XX. p. 2014 (ed. Walch); Wigand: De antinomia veteri et nova, Jen. 1571; Schlüsselburg, Lib. IV.; Förstemann: Neues Urkundenbuch (Hamburg, 1842), Vol. 1. p. 291; J. G. Schulzius: Historia Antinomorum, Viteb. 1708; Planck, Vol. II. p. 399, Vol. V. 1. 1; Thomasius, p. 46; Döllinger, Vol. III. p. 372; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p.397; Heppe, Vol. 1. p. 80; Gass, Vol. 1. p.57; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 146; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. pp. 246, 262; Dorner, p. 336; Elwert: De Antinomia Agricolæ Islebii, Tur. 1836; K. J. Nitzsch: Die Gesammterscheinung des Antinomismus, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1846, Nos. 1. and II.

Note #537

Gass says (Vol. 1. p. 57): ’Die Reformation war selbst Antinomismus, insofern sie mit dem werkheiligen auch das gesetzliche Princip, wenn es die Seligkeit des Menschen bewirken will, verwarf. Melanchthon hatte Gesetz und Evangelium wie Schreck- und Trostmittel einander entgegengestellt und nur auf das letzere die Rechtfertigung gebaut, während er doch unter dem Gesetz den bleibenden Inhalt des göttlichen Willens zusammenfasst. ’

Note #538

Many of his utterances, as quoted by Döllinger, Vol. III. pp. 45 sqq., sound decidedly antinomian, but must be understood cum grano salis, and in connection with his whole teaching. Some of the most objectionable are from his ’Table Talk,’ as when he calls Moses ’the master of all hangmen’ and ’the worst of heretics.’

Note #539

Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider; Luther called him Grickl) was born at Eisleben, 1492 (hence Magister Islebius ), and studied at Wittenberg, where he boarded with Luther. He was a popular preacher at Eisleben, and became Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, 1536, and chaplain of Elector Joachim II. at Berlin, 1540. In 1548 he took a leading part in the Augsburg Interim, and denied the essential principles of Protestantism, but protested afterwards from the pulpit against the necessity of good works (1558). He died at Berlin, 1566. Luther was more vexed by him, as he said, than by any pope; he charged him with excessive vanity and ambition, and declared him unfit to teach, and fit only for the profession of a jester (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 321). He refused to see him in 1545, and said, ’Grickl wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickl bleiben. ’ Bretschneider and Gieseler suppose that Melanchthon incurred Agricola’s displeasure by not helping him to a theological chair in Wittenberg. He must have had, however, considerable administrative capacity. Döllinger charges the Reformers with misrepresenting him and his doctrine.

Note #540

’Prædicatio legis ad pænitentiam. ’ Chursächsische Visitations-Artikel, 1527 and 1528, Latin and German, ed. by Strobel, 1777.

Note #541

Westphal: Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opiniomum de Cæna Domini ex Sacramentariorum libris congesta, Magdeb. 1552 (chiefly against Calvin, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and John à Lasco);Recta Fides de Cæna Domini ex verbis Ap. Pauli et Evangelistarum demonstrata,1553; a tract onAugustine’sview of the eucharist, 1555; another onMelanchthon’sview, 1557; thenJusta Defensioagainst John à Lasco; and, finally,Apologia contra corruptelas et calumnias Johannis Calvini,1558. Calvin:Defensio sanæ et orthodoxæ doctrinæ de sacramentis,Gen. and Tiguri, 1555;Secunda Defensio planæ et orthod. de sacram. fidei contra Joach. Westphali calumnias,1556;Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum,1557;Dilucida Explicatio sanæ doctr. de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Cæna,against Heshusius, 1561. (All these tracts of Calvin in hisOpera,Vol. IX. ed. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Brunsv. 1870.) Minor eucharistic tracts on the Lutheran side by Brenz, Schnepf, Alber, Timann, Heshusius; on the Calvinistic side by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Beza, and Hardenberg. Wigand:De Sacramentariismo,Lips. 1584;De Ubiquitate, Regiom.1588; Schlüsselburg, Lib. III.; Planck, Vol. V. II. 1; Galle, p. 436; Ebrard:Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl,Vol. II. pp. 525-744; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 439, 454; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 384; Stähelin:Calvin,Vol. II. pp. 112, 198; Schmidt:Melanchthon,pp.580, 639; G. Frank, Vol. 1. pp. 132, 164; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 1-164; Mönckeberg:Joach. Westphal und Joh. Calvin,1865; Dorner, p. 400; also Art.Kryptocalvinismusin Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 122; and theProlegomenato the ninth volume of the new edition of Calvin’sOpera(inCorp. Reform.).

Note #542

See Utenhoven’s Simplex et fidelis narratio, etc., Bas. 1560, and the extracts from it by Salig, Vol. II. pp. 1090 sqq., and Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 536 sqq. Mönckeberg attempts to apologize for Westphal, but without effect. Compare the remarks of Dorner, p. 401.

Note #543

’Fatemur ,’ he says in his First Defense, ’Christum, quod panis et vini symbolis figurat, vere præstare, ut animas nostras carnis suæ esu et sanguinis potione alat. . . . Hujus rei non fallacem oculis proponi figuram dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa et veritas conjuncta est: quod scilicet Christi carne et sanguine animæ nostræ pascantur ’ (in the new edition of his Opera, Vol. IX. p. 30). In the Second Defense : ’Christum corpore absentem doceo nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quæ ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere ut nobis vivifica. sit sua caro (Vol. IX. p. 76). . . . Cænam plus centies dici sacrum esse vinculum nostræ cum Christo unitatis (p. 77). . . . Spiritus sui virtute Christus locorum distantiam superat ad vitam nobis e sua carne inspirandam ’ (p. 77). . . . And in his Last Admonition : ’Hæc nostræ doctrinæ summa est, carnem Christi panem esse vivificum, quia dum fide in eam coalescimus, vere aninas nostras alit et pascit.Hoc nonnisi spiritualiter fieri docemus, quia hujus sacræ unitatis vinculum arcana est et incomprehensibilis Spiritus Sancti virtus’ (Vol. IX. p. 162).

Note #544

He wrote to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1554 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 362): ’Quod in proximis literis hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamenperi artolatreias,scito, quosdam p&acelig;cipue odio mei eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me opprimendum. ’ To Hardenberg, in Bremen, May 9, 1557: ’Crescit, ut vides, non modo certamen, sed etiam rabies in scriptoribus, quiartolatreianstabiliunt. ’ And to Mordeisen, Nov. 15, 1557 (Corp.Reform.Vol. IX. p. 374): ’Si mihi concedatis, ut in alia loco vivam, respondebo illis indoctis sycophantis et vere et graviter, et dicam utilia ecclesiæ. ’ He gave, however, his views pretty clearly and dispassionately shortly before his death in his vota on the Breslau and Heidelberg troubles (1559 and 1560).

Note #545 His German name was Hesshusen. He was one of the most pugnacious divines of his age; born 1527 at Nieder-Wesel, died 1588 at Helmstädt. See Leuckfeld’s biography, Historia Heshusiana (1716), and Henke, in Herzog, Vol. VI. p. 49.

Note #546 In his last book against Bullinger (1564). See Hartmann, Brenz, p. 252.

Note #547

He was undeceived by a new deception. The crisis was brought about by the discovery of a confidential correspondence with the Reformed in the Palatinate, and especially by the appearance in Leipzig of the anonymous Exegesis perspicua controversiæ de Cæna Domini, 1574 (newly edited by Scheffer, Marburg, 1853), which openly rejected the manducatio oralis, and defended Calvin’s view of the eucharist (though without naming him), while the Consensus Dresdensis (1571) had concealed it under Lutheran phraseology. This work was generally attributed to Peucer and the Wittenberg Professors, in spite of their steadfast denial, but it was the product of a Silesian physician, Joachim Cureus. See the proof in Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 468 sqq.

Note #548

Cruciger, Moller, Wiedebram, and Pezel (whom the Lutherans called Beelzebub) refused to recant. The first went to Hesse, the second to Hamburg, the other two to Nassau. The old and weak Major yielded to the condemnation of Melanchthon’s view. Several other Wittenberg Professors were likewise deposed.

Note #549

Peucer was released in 1586, at the intercession of the beautiful Princess Agnes Hedwig of Anhalt, and became physician of the Prince of Dessau, where he died, 1602. He wrote the history of his prison life, Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ, ed. by Pezel, Tig. 1605. On his theory of the real presence, see Galle, pp. 460 sqq. He rejected the Lutheran view much more strongly than his father-in-law, Melanchthon, and thought it had no more foundation in the Bible than the popish transubstantiation. Comp. Henke: Casp. Peucer und Nic. Crell, Marburg, 1865.

Note #550

He was charged with intermeddling in matters of religion, and advising a dangerous treaty with the Reformed Henry IV. of France against Austria. The suit was referred to an Austrian court of appeals at Prague, and decided in the political interest of Austria with a violation of all justice. His confession of guilt before his heavenly Judge was distorted by his fanatical opponents into a confession of guilt before his human judges. It is often stated that he was not beheaded for religion (’non ob religionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem ,’ as Hutter says, Concordia concors, pp. 448 and 1258). But his Calvinism, or rather his Melanchthonianism (for he never read a line of Calvin), was the only crime which could he proved against him; he always acted under the direction and command of the Elector, and he had accepted the chancellorship with a clear confession of his views, and the assurance of his Prince that he should be protected in it, and never be troubled with subscribing to the ’Form of Concord.’ As judge, he was admitted, even by his enemies, to have been impartial and just to the poor as well as the rich. Comp. Hasse: Ueber den Crell’schen Process, in Niedner’s Zeitschrift für hist. Theol . 1848, No. 2; Vogt in Herzog, Vol. III. p. 183; Richard: Dr. Nic. Krell. Dresden, 1859; G. Frank, Vol. 1. pp. 296 sqq.; Henke: C. Peucer und N. Crell, Marburg, 1865.

Note #551

Such details are recorded by Salig, Vol. III. p. 462; Hartmann and Jäger: Brenz, Vol. II. p. 371; Galle: Melanchthon, p. 449 sq.; Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 592, 694; Droysen: Geschichte der Preuss. Politik, Vol. II. p. 261; Sudhof: Olevianus und Ursinus, p. 239; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 164.

Note #552 J. Wiggers: Der Saligersche Abendmahlsstreit, in Niedner’s Zeitschrift für hist. Theol.1848, No. 4, p. 613.

Note #553

Dorner: Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2d ed. Vol. II. pp. 665 sqq.; Heppe: Gesch. des D. Prot. Vol. II. pp.75 sqq.; G. E. Steitz: Art. Ubiquität,in Herzog’sEncykl.Vol. XVI. pp. 558-616, with an addition by Herzog, Vol. XXI. p. 383; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 452, 462; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 161; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 165-396. Comp. also the literature on the eucharistic controversy, p. 279.

Note #554

Origen first taught the ubiquity of the body of Christ, in connection with his docetistic idealism, but without any regard to the eucharist, and was followed by Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. , and Adv. Apollinar. 100. 59). They held that Christ’s body after the resurrection was so spiritualized and deified as to lay aside all limitations of nature, and to be in all parts of the world as well as in heaven. See Gieseler’s Commentatio qua Clementis Alex. et Origenis doctrinæ de corpore Christi exponuntur, Gott. 1837, and Neander’s Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 1. pp. 217, 834. Cyril of Alexandria held a similar view (Christ’s body is ’every where,’ pantachou), but in connection with an almost monophysitic Christology. Scotus Erigena revived Origen’s ubiquity, gave it a pantheistic turn, and made it subservient to his view of the eucharistic presence, which he regarded merely as a symbol of the every where present Christ. Neander, Vol. II. p. 43.

Note #555 On Luther’s Christology and ubiquity doctrine, see Heppe (Ref.): Dogmatik, des D. Protest. im 16ten Jahrh. Vol. II. pp. 93 sqq., and Köstlin (Luth.): Luther’s Theol. Vol. II. pp. 118, 153, 167, 172, 512. Köstlin, without adopting Luther’s views of ubiquity, finds in them ’grossartige, tiefe, geist- und lebensvolle Anschauungen vom göttlichen Sein und Leben ’ (Vol. II. p. 154).

Note #556 In his Grosse Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl, published 1528 (in Walch’s ed. Vol. XX.; in the Erlangen ed. Vol. XXX.), he says: ’Kann Christus’ Leib über Tisch sitzen and dennoch im Brot sein, so kann er auch im Himmel und wo er will sein und dennoch im Brot sein; es ist kein Unterschied fern oder nah bei dem Tische sein, dazu dass er zugleich im Brot sei. . . . es sollte mir ein schlechter Christus bleiben, der nicht mehr, denn an einem einzelnen Orte zugleich eine göttliche and menschliche Person wäre, und an allen anderen Orten müsste er allein ein blosser abgesonderter Gott und göttliche Person sein ohne Menschseit. Nein, Geselle, wo du mir Gott hinsetzest, da must du mir die Menschheit mit hinsetzen. Die lassen sich nicht sondern und von einander trennen; es ist Eine Person worden und scheidet die Menschseit nicht so von sich, wie Meister Hans seinen Rock auszieht und von sich legt, wenn er schlafen geht. Denn, dass ich den Einfältigen ein grob Gleichniss gebe, die Menschheit ist näher vereinigt mit Gott, denn unsere Haut mit unserm Fleische, ja näher denn Leib und Seele. ’

Note #557

He ridicules the popular conception of heaven and the throne of God as childish: ’Die Rechte Gottes ,’ he says, l.c., ’ist nicht ein sonderlicher Ort, da ein Leib solle oder möge sein, nicht ein Gaukelhimmel, wie man ihn den Kindern pflegt vorzubilden, darin ein gülden Stuhl stehe und Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer Chorkappen und gülden Krone. . . . Die Rechte Gottes ist an allen Enden, so ist sie gewisslich auch im Brot und Wein über Tische. . . . Wo nun die Rechte Gottes ist, da muss Christi Leib und Blut auch sein; denn die Rechte Gottes ist nicht zu theilen in viele Stücke, sondern ein einiges einfältiges Wesen. ’ If this prove any thing, it proves the absolute omnipresence of Christ’s body. And so Brentius taught.

Note #558

De inhabitatione Dei in Sanctis ad Osiandrum , 1551 (Consil. Lat. Vol. II. p. 156): ’Tota antiquitas declarans hanc propositionem: Christus est ubique, sic declarat: Christus est ubique personaliter. Et verissimum est, Filium Dei, Deum et hominem habitare in sanctis. Sed antiquitas hanc propositionem rejicit: Christus corporaliter est ubique. Quia natura quælibet retinet suaidiômata.Unde Augustinus et alii dicunt: Christi corpus est in certo loco. . . Cavendum est, ne ita astruamus divinitatem hominis Christi, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. ’ In a new edition of his lectures on theColossians(1556 and 1559), he maintains the literal meaning of the ascension of Christ, ’i.e.,in locum cœlestem. . . .Ascensio fuit visibilis et corporalis, et sæpe ita scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco esse, ubicunque vult. Corpus localiter alicubi est secundum verum corporis modum, ut Augustinus inquit.’ See Galle, p. 448.

Note #559 See on his Christology chiefly Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 99 sqq.

Note #560 ’Finitum non capax est infiniti. ’

Note #561

Both parties published an account-the Lutherans at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the Reformed at Heidelberg. The latter is more full, and bears the title: Protocollum, h. e. Acta Colloquii inter Palatinos et Wirtebergicos Theologos de Ubiquitate sive Omnipræsentia corporis Christi. . . . A. 1564 Maulbrunni habiti (Heidelb. 1566). See a full résumé of the Colloquy in Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 666-685; Sudhoff: Olevian und Ursin, pp.260-290; in Hartmann: Joh. Brenz, pp. 253-256, and in the larger work of Hartmann and Jäger on Brenz, 1840-42, Vol. II.

Note #562

Andreæ asserted that Christ’s body, when in Mary’s womb, was omnipresent as to possession (possessione ), though not as to manifestation (non patefactione ). Sudhoff, p. 279. This is the Tübingen doctrine of the krupsis.See below.

Note #563 The same Lutherans, who so strenuously insisted on the literal interpretation of the esti,outdid the Reformed in the figurative interpretation of all these passages, and explained the ascension and heaven itself out of the Bible.

Note #564

Ebrard says (Vol. II. p. 685): ’So endete das Maulbronner Gespräch mit einer vollständigen Niederlage der Lutheraner. ’ Sudhoff (p. 290): ’Es kann von niemandem in Abrede gestellt werden, dass die Pfälzer als Sieger aus diesem Streite hervorgegangen ,’ and he publishes several manuscript letters giving the impressions of the Colloquy on those present. The Swabians returned discontented, but without change of conviction. Dorner, although a Lutheran, and a Swabian by descent, gives the Reformed Christology in many respects the preference before the Lutheran, and says (Vol. II. p. 724): ’Es ist unbestreitbar, dass die reformirte christologische Literatur, die um die Zeit der Concordienformel ihren Blüthepunkt erreicht, durch Geist, Scharfsinn, Gelehrsamkeit und philosophische Bildung der lutherischen Theologie vollkommen ebenbürtig, ja in manchen Beziehungen überlegen ist. ’ He then gives a fine analysis of the Christology of Beza, Danæus, Sadeel, and Ursinus.

Note #565 See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 466 sq.

Note #566 In a series of tracts: De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, 1561 (written in 1560); Sententia de libello Bullingeri, 1561; De Divina majestate Domini nostri J. Christi ad dexteram Patris et de vera præsentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in cæNahum, 1562; and Recognitio propheticæ et apost. doctrinæ de vera Majestate Dei, 1564. In BrentiiOpera,1590, T. VIII. pp. 831-1108. Against Brenz wrote Bullinger:Tractatio verborum Domini Joh. XIV. 2,Tiguri, 1561;Responsio, qua ostenditur, sententiam de cælo et dextera Dei firmiter adhuc perstare,1562; also Peter Martyr and Beza. The Roman Catholics sided with the Reformed against the Lutheran ubiquity. On the Christology of Brenz, comp. Dorner:Entw. Geschichte der Christologie,Vol. II. pp. 668 sqq.; Ebrard:Abendmahl,Vol. II. pp. 646 sqq. (Brenz und die Ubiquität); and Steitz in Herzog, Vol. XVI. pp. 584 sqq.

Note #567

’Majestatem divinam tempore carnis suæ in hoc seculo dissimulavit seu ea sese (ut Paulus loquitur ) exinanivit, tamen numquam ea caruit. . . .Texit et obduxit suam majestatem forma servi.’

Note #568

’Eum tunc manifesto spectaculo voluisse testificari et declarare, se verum Deun et hominem, hoc est, una cum divinitate et humanitate sua jam inde ab initio suæ incarnationis omnia implevisse. ’

Note #569 ’Ubicunque est Deitas, ibi etiam est humanitas Christi. ’

Note #570

Brenz was followed by Jacob Andreæ, Schegck, and the Swabians generally, who have shown a good deal of speculative genius (down to Schelling, Hegel, and Baur), and also by a few divines of North Germany, as Andreas Musculus, John Wigand, and for a time by Heshusius, who afterwards opposed absolute ubiquity. Leonhard Hutter and Ægidius Hunnius, who were Swabians by birth, likewise took substantially the Swabian view, though more for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the ’Formula of Concord.’ See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 775.

Note #571 In his important work: De duabus naturis in Christo, de hypostatica earum unione, de communicatione idiomatum et aliis quæstionibus inde dependentibus, Jenæ, 1570, and often reprinted. Comp. Steitz, l.c. pp. 592-597; and Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 695 sqq. Heppe says (Dogm. Vol. II. p. 131): ’Der Gegensatz der melanchthonischen und der würtembergisch-brenzischen Christologie ist sonnenklar. Jene erbaut sich auf dem Gedanken, dass Gott wirklicher Mensch geworden ist, während diese sich um den Gedanken lagert, dass ein Mensch Gott geworden ist. ’

Note #572

’Præsentia hæc assumtæ naturæ in Christo non est naturalis, vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a voluntate et potentia Filii Dei, h. e. ubi se hmnana natura adesse velle certo verbo tradidit, promisit et asseveravit. ’

Note #573

Confessio et doctrina theologorum in Ducatu Wurtembergensi de vera præsentia corporis et sanguinis J. Chr. in Cæna dominica.Here the absolute ubiquity is taught, not, indeed, in the way of a ’diffusio humanæ naturæ ’ or ’distractio membroram Christi ,’ but so that ’homo Christus quoqueimplet omniamodo cælesti et humanæ naturæ imperscrutabili.’ See the German in Heppe:Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchl. Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben,p. 63. Melanchthon concealed his grief over this change of Brenz beneath a facetious remark to a friend on the poor Latinity of this confession (’Hechingense Latinum:’Corp. Reform.Vol. IX. p. 1036; comp. Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 454; J. Hartmann:Joh. Brenz,p. 249).

Note #574

Heshusius wrote concerning this Colloquy: ’Constanter rejicio ubiquitatem. Chemnitzius, Kirchnerus, Chytræus antea rejecerunt eam: nunc in gratiam Tubingensium cum magno ecclesiæ scandalo ejus patrocinium suscipiunt, ipsorum igitur constantia potius accusanda est. ’ Comp. Acta disput.Quedlinb. ; Dorner, Vol. II. p. 773; Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 316; and G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 259 (Helmstädt und die Ubiquität ).

Note #575 The Saxon Solida decisio, 1624, and an Apologia decisionis, 1625; Feuerborn: Sciagraphia de div. Jes. Christo juxta humanit. communicatæ majestatis usurpatione, 1621; Kenôsigraphia christologikç,Marburg, 1627; Mentzer: Juxta defensio against the Tübingen divines, Giss. 1624; Thummius: Majestas J. Christitheanthrōpou,Tüb. 1621;Acta Mentzeriana,1625;Tapeinōsigraphiasacra, h. e. Repetitio sanæ et orthod. doctrinæ de humiliatione Jesu Christi, Tüb. 1623 (900 pp. 4to). On the Romish side: Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novum, Dilling. 1627; Alter und neuer lutherischer Katzenkrieg 5. d. Ubiquität, Ingolst. 1629; Cotta: Historia doctrinæ de duplici statu Christi (in his edition of Gerhard’s Loci theologici, Vol. IV. pp. 60sqq.); Walch: Religionsstreitigkeiten, Vol. 1. p. 206; Vol. IV. p. 551; Baur: Gesch. der L. 5. d. Dreieinigkeit, Vol. III. p. 450; Thomasius: Christi Person und Werk, Vol. II. pp. 391-450; Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 788-809; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 336.

Note #576 Hence they were called Kenotiker, Kenoticists.

Note #577 Hence their name, Kryptiker, Krypticists.

Note #578 Indistantia, nuda adessentia ad creaturas, præsentia simplex.

Note #579

Actio, operatio, præsentia modificata.This amounts to pretty much the same thing with the omimpræsentia energetica of the Calvinists.

Note #580 The same applies to omnipotence.The Tübingen divines gave an affirmative answer to the question, ’AnhomoChristus in Deum assumptus in statu exinanitionis tamquam rex præsens cuncta, licet latenter, gubernarit?’ They made, however, an apparent concession to their opponents by assuming a brief suspension of theuseof the divine majesty during the agony in Gethsemane and the crucifixion, in order that Christ might really suffer as high-priest. See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 799.

Note #581

’In an individual,’ says Strauss, in the dogmatic conclusion of his first Leben Jesu (Vol. II. p. 710). ’in one God-man, the properties and functions which the Church doctrine ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures-the incarnate God-the infinite externalizing itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude.’

Note #582 So Thomasius, Liebner, Gess. But the absolute ubiquity also has found an advocate in Philippi (Kirchl. Glaubenslehre,Vol. IV. 1. pp. 394). Dr. Stahl, the able theological lawyer, in hisDie lutherische Kirche und die Union(Berlin, 1859, pp.185 sqq.), admits that the ubiquity question has no religious interest except as a speculative basis for the possibility of the eucharistic presence, and approaches Ebrard’s view of an ’extra-spacial, central communication of the virtue’ of Christ’s body to the believer. Dr. Krauth defends Chemnitz’s view, and what he would rather style ’thepersonalomnipresence of the human nature of Christ’ (l.c. p. 496). But the human nature of Christ is impersonal, and simply taken up into union with the pre-existent personality of the Divine Logos.

Note #583

Æpinus : Comment, in Psa. xvi.Frcf. 1544, andEnarratio Psalmi lxviii.,with an appendixde descensu Christi ad inferna,Frcf. 1553. A. Grevius:Memoria J. Æpini instaurata,Hamb. 1736; Dietelmaier:Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi,Norimb. 1741, Alt. 1762; Planck, Vol. V. 1. pp. 251-264; König:Die Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt,pp. 152 sqq.; Güder:Die Lehre der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten,Bern, 1853, pp. 222 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 160 sq.; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. p. 397 sqq.

Note #584 A Hellenized form (Aipeinos,high, lofty ) for his German name Höck, or Hoch. He was born, 1499, at Ziegesar, Brandenburg; studied at Wittenberg, became pastor at St. Peter’s, Hamburg, 1529, Superintendent in 1532, introduced the Reformation into that city, signed the Articles of Smalcald, 1537, stood in high esteem, and died 1553. He was a colleague of Westphal, and opposed with Flacius the Leipzig Interim.

Note #585

Sept. 1550, Corp.Reform.Vol. VII. p. 665. Comp. Schmidt, Melanchthon, p. 554 sq. In his Loci, Melanchthon passes by the descensus as unessential. In a letter to Spalatin, March 20,1531 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 490), he expresses his inability to explain the dark passage, 1 Peter 3:19-20. He was pleased with Luther’s sermon at Torgau, but added, in a private letter to Anton Musa (March 12, 1543, Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 58), that Christ probably preached the gospel to the heathen in the spirit world, and converted such men as Scipio and Fabius. (Zwingli likewise believed in the salvation of the nobler heathen.) He wrote to Æpinus, April 20, 1546 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 116), to preach the necessary doctrines of faith, repentance, prayer, good works, rather than speculations on things which even the most learned did not know.

Note #586

Comp. Flacius: Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen, etc.; Entschuldigung geschrieben an die Universität zu Wittenberg der Mittelding halben, etc.; Wider ein recht heidnisch, ja Epicurisch Buch der Adiaphoristen, darin das Leipzische Interim vertheidigt wird, etc.; and other pamphlets, printed at Magdeburg (as the ’Kanzlei Gottes ’), 1549; Wigand: De neutralibus et mediis, Frcf. 1560; Schlüsselburg: Cat. Hæret. Lib. XIII. (de Adiaphoristis et Interimistis ); Biek: Das dreifache Interim, Leipz. 1725, Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 85-248; H. Rossel:Mel. und das Interim(at the close of Twesten’s monograph on Flacius, Berlin, 1844); Ranke:Deutsche Gesch.,etc. Vol. V.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435; Herzog:Encykl.Vol. 1. p. 124; Vol. VIII. p. 288; Schmidt:Mel.pp. 491, 495, 524; G. Frank, Vol. 1. pp. 113, 116; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 1-120; Dorner, p. 331.

Note #587

See his humorous letter to Buchholzer in Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 235), which might have considerably embarrassed the anti-Adiaphorists had they known it. He advises Elector Joachim II. that in introducing the Reformation he may, if he desired it, put on one or three priestly garments, like Aaron; may hold one or even seven processions, like Joshua before Jericho; and may dance before it, as David danced before the ark, provided only such things were not made necessary for salvation.

Note #588

See the text of the two Interims in Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 193-196 and 201-203; the Interim Lipsiense, also, in Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. The term gave rise to sarcastic conundrums, as Interimo, interitus, Hinterim, der Schalk ist hinter ihm (the villain is behind it). On the political aspects of the Interim, see the fifth volume of Ranke.

Note #589 To the Augsburg Interim he was decidedly opposed, and he had also sundry objections to the ceremonial part of the Leipzig Interim. He is only responsible for its doctrinal part. See his letters from this period in Corp. Reform. Vols. VI. and VII., and Schmidt’s Mel. pp. 507 and 524.

Note #590 In a letter to his enemy, M. Flacius, dated Sept. 5, 1556, he was not ashamed to confess, after some slight reproaches, ’Vincite!Cedo; nihil pugno de ritibus illis, et maxime opto, ut dulcis sit ecclesiarum concordia. Fateor etiam hac in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas deliberationes. Sed illa quæ mihi falsa a te et a Gallo objiciuntur, refutabo.’ Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 841 sq. And to the Saxon pastors he wrote, Jan. 17, 1557 (Vol. IX. p. 61): ’Pertractus sum ad aularum deliberationes insidiosas.Quare sicubi vel lapsus sum, vel languidius aliquid egi, peto a Deo et ab Ecclesia veniam, et judiciis Ecclesiæ obtemperabo.’

Note #591

Thus he concisely states the case on the long title-page of his Apology, or Entschuldigung, etc., addressed to the University of Wittenberg, with a letter to Melanchthon, Magdeburg, 1549. The concluding words of the title state the aim of the Interim thus: ’Das Ende ist die Einsetzung des Papstthums und Einstellung des Antichrists in den Tempel Christi, Stärkung der Gottlosen, dass sie über der Kirche Christi stolziren, Betrübung der Gottfürchtigen, item Schwächung, Einführung in Zweifel, Trennung und unzählige Aergerniss. ’ He relates of Melanchthon that he derived from an eclipse of the moon in 1548 the vain hope of the near death of the Emperor, which would end these troubles. He also published several confidential letters of Luther to Melanchthon, written during the Diet at Augsburg, 1530, upbraiding him for his philosophy and timidity.

Note #592

Opera , Vol. IX. p. 51, and Letters of Calvin , by J. Bonnet, English translation, Vol. II. p. 257. A letter of similar spirit and import to Melanchthon, by his friend Anton Corvinus (Räbener), a distinguished reformer in Hesse and Göttingen, who suffered imprisonment for his opposition to the Interim, was recently discovered in the Royal Library at Hanover by Iwan Franz, and published in Kahnis, Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theol. 1874, pp. 105 sqq., from which I quote the following passages:’O Philippe, o inquam Philippe noster, redi per immortalem Christum ad pristinum candorem, ad pristinam tuam sinceritatem! non languefacito ista tua formidine, pusillanimitate et inepta moderatione nostrorum animos tantopere! Non aperito hac ratione ad Papatus recurrentem impietatem ac Idolomanias fenestram ac januam! Non sis tantorum in Ecclesia offendiculorum autor! Ne sinas tua tam egregia scripta, dicta, facta, quibus mirifice de Ecclesia hactenus meritus es, isto condonationis, moderationis, novationis nævo ad eum modum deformari!Cogita, quantum animi ista nostra carnis ac rationis consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant.! Perpende, quam placari etiam istis condonationibus adversarii nostri non queant, qui totius Papatus doctrinam et omnes ex cequo impios cultus reposcunt et ex nostra levitate spem concipiunt se hac in re facile voti compotes futuros. Detestatur Dominus apud Jeremiam eos, qui manus pessimormn confortant, ut non convertatur unusquisque a malitia sua. Cur igitur in tam ardua causa non tales nos gerimus ut hujusmodi detestatio competere in nos haud possit? qua perversitate arundo huc illuc ventis agitata dici quam Johannis constantiam imitari malumus! . . . Proinde Te, o noster Philippe, iterum atque iterum per ilium ipsum Christum redemptorem nostrum et brevi futurum judicem rogamus, ut professionis tuæ memor talem te cum reliquis Vitebergensibus jam geras, qualem Te ab initio hujus causæ ad Electoris captivitatem usque gessisti, hoc est, ut ea sentias, dicas, scribas, agas, quæ Philippum, Christianum Doctorem decent, non aulicum Philosophum.’

Note #593

Planck, Vol. VI. pp.809 sqq.; Röhrich: Geschichte der Reform. im Elsass, bes. in Strassburg, 3 Theile, Strasburg, 1830-1882; Schweizer: Centraldogmen der Reform. Kirche, Vol. 1. pp. 418-470 (a very full and able account); Heppe: Dogmatik des D. Protest . Vol. II. pp. 44-47; G. Frank, Vol. 1. pp. 178-184; Fr. H. E. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 121-344.

Note #594 The Philippist Lasius first asserted (1568) that Luther had recalled his book De servo arbitrio (1525), but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito, 1537, as one of his very best (’nullum enim agnosco meum justum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio, et Catechismum ’). And, indeed, it is one of his most powerful works. Luthardt (Die Lehre vom freien Willen, Leipz. 1863, p. 122) calls it ’eine mächtige Schrift, stoltz, wahrheitsgewiss, kühn in Gedanken und Wort, voll heiligen Eifers, gewaltigen Ernstes, aus innerster Seele herausgeschrieben. . . . Kaum irgendwo sonst ergiesst sich gleich mächtig und reich der Strom seines Geistes. ’ Only in regard to predestination Luther may be said to have moderated his view somewhat, although he never recalled it, that is, he still taught in his later writings (in his Com. on Genesis, Ch. VI. 6, 18; Ch. XXVI.) the distinction and antagonism between the revealed will of God, which sincerely calls all to repentance and salvation, and the inscrutable secret will which saves only a part of the race; but he laid the main stress practically on the former and the means of grace, and thus prepared the way for the 11th Article of the Formula of Concord. ’Scripsi ,’ he wrote in 1536, ’esse omnia absoluta et necessaria, sed simul addidi, quod adspiciendus sit Deus revelatus ’ (Opera exeg. Vol. VI. p. 300). Luthardt (l.c. p. 146) correctly says (in opposition both to Lütkens and Philippi) that Luther never recalled, but retained his earlier views on predestination and the necessity of all that happens, and only guarded them against abuse. The result of Köstlin’s investigation is this, that Luther never attempted a solution of the contradiction between the secret and the revealed will of God. ’Das eben ist seine Lehre, dass unser Erkennen nicht so weit reicht, und dass wir uns auch das Unbegreifliche und Unverständliche gefallen lassen müssen. . . . Er selbst spricht aus, dass ein Widerspruch für uns stehen bleibe, den wir nicht lösen können noch sollen. ’ Luther’s Theologie, Vol. II. p. 328.

Note #595

See the proof passages in Frank’s Theol. der Concord. formel, Vol. IV. pp. 254-261; Luthardt, pp. 240-244; Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 691-712; and Schweizer, l.c.

Note #596

See Schweizer, l.c. pp. 402 sqq. Heshusius and Westphal invented the nameCalvinists,which henceforth was used by Lutherans for the Reformed, as the termZwinglianshad been before. The termsacramentarianswas applied to both without distinction.

Note #597

Melanchthon called him mediocriter doctus, but his own estimate was much higher, and in his inaugural he spoke with such arrogance that Bucer feared he would prove a great misfortune for the Church at Strasburg. See Röhrich and Schweizer, p. 420.

Note #598 Zanchii Opera, Pt. VII. pp. 65 sqq., and Pt. VIII. pp. 114 sqq.; Schweizer, pp. 448-470.

Note #599

Printed in the Strasburger Kirchenordnung of 1598. and in Löscher’s Historia motuum, Vol. II. p. 229 sq. See Schweizer, pp. 440 sqq.

Note #600

It is addressed to Philip of Hesse (Oct. 1, 1565), and given by Schweizer, pp. 425-436. Zanchi accepted afterwards a call to a professorship at the Reformed University of Heidelberg, where he died, 1590. He received also calls to England, Lausanne, Geneva, Zurich, and Leyden, and was justly esteemed for his learning and character. A complete edition of his works appeared at Geneva in eight parts, in 3 vols. folio.

Note #601 Comp. Heppe,Gesch. des D. Protest.Vol. IV. pp.312-315.

Note #602

Spener was born at Rappoltsweiler, in Upper Alsace, but his parents were from Strasburg, and he was educated there, and called himself a Strasburger. Kliefoth (as quoted by Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 399), from his own rigid Lutheran stand-point, says, not without good reason: ’Mit Spener beginnt jener grosse Eroberungszug der reformirten Kirche gegen die lutherische, der seitdem verschiedene Namen, erst Frömmigkeit, dann Toleranz, dann Union, dann Conföderation auf sein Panier geschrieben hat. ’

Note #603 For the fullest account, see the sixth volume of Planck’s, and the third volume of Heppe’s history.

Note #604 As Brenz says: ’Es luge ein jeglicher Fuchs seines Balges. ’

Note #605

80,000 gulden. Augustus was a zealous Lutheran without knowing the difference between Lutheranism and Philippism, and supported or punished the champions of both parties as he happened to be led or misled by his courtiers and the theologians.

Note #606 On this remarkable man, see Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 372 sqq.; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 376 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 219; Hartmann in Herzog, Vol. 1. p. 312; Johannsen, Jacob Andreæ’s Concordistische Thätigkeit, in Niedner’s Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1853, No. 3. Andreæ has often been too unfavorably judged. His contemporary opponents called him ’Schmidlin’ (with reference to his father’s trade), ’Dr. Jacobellus, the Pope of Saxony, the planet of Swabia, the apostle of ubiquity, allotrio-episcopus, a worshiper of Bacchus and Mammon,’ etc. He no doubt had a considerable share of vanity, ambition, and theological passion (which he displayed, e.g., against poor Flacius, even after his death). But there is no reason to doubt the general purity of his motives, and, compared with some other orthodox Lutherans of his age, he was even liberal, at least in his earlier years. At a later period he denounced the alterations of the Augsburg Confession, and compared Melanchthon to Solomon, who at first wrote glorious things, but was afterwards so far led astray that the Bible leaves it doubtful whether he were saved (’ob er zu unserm Herrgott oder zu dem Teufel gefahren sei ’). He seemed to be predestinated for the work of his life. Planck gives a masterly (though not altogether just) analysis of his character, from which I quote a specimen, as it fairly represents the spirit and style of his celebrated history (Vol. VI. p. 274): ’In halb Deutschland herumzureisen, und an jedem neuen Ort mit neuen Menschen zu unterhandlen-hier mit dem Ministerio einer Reichsstadt, und dort mit einer kleinen Synode von Superintendenten, welche die Geistlichkeit einer ganzen Grafschaft oder eines Fürstenthums repräsentiren-heute mit Flacianern und morgen mit Anhängern der Wittenbergischen Schule und Verehrern Melanchthons-jetzt mit den Hauptpersonen, die an dem gelehrten Streit den vorzüglichsten Antheil genommen, und jetzt mit den Schreiern, die bloss den Lärm vermehrt, und dazwischen hinein mit einem oder dem andern Stillen im Lande, die bisher im Verborgenen über den Streit geseufzt hatten-und allen diesen Menschen alles zu werden, um sie zu gewinnen-es gab wirklich kein Geschäft in der Welt, das für ihn so gemacht war, wie dieses, so wie es auch umgekehrt wenige Menschen gab, die für das Geschäft so gemacht waren, wie er. Nimmt man aber noch dies dazu, dass sich auch der gute, Andreæ selbst dazu für gemacht hielt, dass in die natürliche Thätigkeit seines Geistes auch zuweilen ein kleiner Windzug von Ehrgeiz und Eitelkeit hineinblies, dass er auch für den Reiz der bedeutenden Rolle, die er dabei spielen, und des Aufsehens, das er erregen würde, nicht unfühlbar war, ja dass selbst der Gedanke an das [den ] Verkehr, in das er dabei mit so manchen Fürsten und Herrn kommen, an die Ehrenbezeugungen, die man ihm hier und da erweisen, an die Raths-Deputationen, die ihn in so mancher kleinen Reichsstadt bewillkommen, an die Gastpredigten, die man ihm auftragen, und an die Ehrfurcht, womit dann die ehrliche Bürger einer solchen Stadt, die noch keinen Kanzler von Tübingen gesehen hatten, mit Fingern auf ihn weisen würden-dass auch der Gedanke daran den heiteren und offenherzigen Mann, der es mil seinen kleinen Schwachheiten nicht so genau nahm und sie eben so leicht sich selbst as andern vergab, auf gewisse Augenblicke sehr stark anziehen konnte-nimmt man alles diess zusammen, so wird man auch hinreichend erklärt haben, wie es kommen konnte, dass er vor den Schwierigkeiten seines übernommenen Geschäfts nicht erschrak, die sich ihm doch ebenfalls bei seiner Klugheit, bei seiner Weltkenntniss, und bei seiner besondern durch manche Erfahrung erkauften Kenntniss der Menschen, die er dabei zu bearbeiten hatte, lebhafter als hundert andern darstellen mussten. Gewiss standen auch diese Schwierigkeiten lebhaft genug vor seiner Seele, aber der Reiz, durch den er in das Geschäft hineingezogen wurde, war so stark, dass er ihm schwerlich hätte widerstehen können, wenn er nicht nur die Mühe und Arbeit, die es ihn kosten, sondern auch den tausendfachen Verdruss, den es ihm machen, die zahllosen Kränkungen, die es ihm zuziehen, und selbst alle die stechenden Erinnerungen, durch die es ihm sein Alter verbittern sollte, vorausgesehen hätte. ’ Andreæ, in connection with Vergerius, founded the first Bible Society, for Sclavonic nations (1555). His grandson, Johann Valentin Andreæ (1586-1654), was a man of genius and more liberal views, and a great admirer of the order and discipline of the Reformed Church in Geneva, which he sadly missed in Germany.

Note #607

Author of Loci theologici; Examen Concilii Tridentini; Harmonia Evangeliorum (completed by Polycarp Leyser and John Gerhard); De duabus in Christo naturis, and other works of vast learning. The Romanists called him a second Martin Luther, and said: ’Si posterior non fuisset, prior non stetisset. ’ This reminds one of the line, ’Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset. ’

Note #608

He prepared the second Latin translation of the Form of Concord, and is best known by one of his hymns (’Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ ,’ etc.; although it is only in part from him). His numerous theological writings are forgotten. He was a little man with short legs, at first a Philippist, then a rigid Lutheran (’parvus Flacius ’); hence in turn attacked by all parties. ’Die Reformirten, gegen die er den Vers wandte: "Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem wort und steur’ der Zwinglianer Mord!" und denen er die Schändung seiner Tochter in letzter Instanz zuchreiben zu müssen glaubte, nannten ihn das "Lutheräfflein;" bei den strengen Lutheranern hiess er: "Schelmlecker, Seelhenker, Seelnecator;" bei den Melanchthonianern: "Judas alter in suspensus," Auch mit seinem Freund Andreæ ist er zuletzt zerfallen. . . . Ein Jahrhundert später wurde er unter die deutschen Propheten gerechnet. ’ G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 221.

Note #609 The remaining three authors were David Chytræus, Professor in Rostock (d. 1600), who remained a faithful Melanchthonian, and met the violent abuse of the zealots with silence; Andreas Musculus, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder (d. 1581), who denounced Melanchthon as a patriarch of all heretics, and praised Luther as the sun among the dim stars of the old fathers; and Christopher Körner, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, a friend of Chytræus, but unfortunate in his children, who sunk into the lowest vices (G. Frank, Vol. 1. p. 222).

Note #610

Schwabisch-Sächsische Concordie, Formula Suevica et Saxonica , or Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas Ecclesias , published from MS., in the original and revised form, by Heppe, Geschichte des Deutschen Protest. Vol. III., Beilagen , pp. 75-166, and 166-325. They were preceded by six sermons of Andreæ (1573). Likewise republished by Heppe.

Note #611 See Heppe, Vol. III. pp. 76 sqq.

Note #612 The ’Torgische Buch ’ or’Torgisch Bedenken, welchergestalt oder massen vermöge Gottes Worts die eingerissene Spaltungen zwischen den Theologen Augsburgischer Confession christlich verglichen und beigelegt werden möchten, anno 1576.’ It was republished by Semler, with Preface and notes, Halle, 1760, but much better by Heppe, Marburg, 1857; second edition, 1866.

Note #613

Or, Das Bergische Buch.English writers usually call it ’Form of Concord,’ though ’Formula’ is more correct.

Note #614

See the titles on p. 220, and literary notices in Köllner, pp. 562 sqq. Andreæ directed the editing of the German Book of Concord, Glaser and Fuger read the proof. The manuscript was deposited in the library of the chief church at Dresden, and burned up with it July 19, 1700. The first Latin Concordia (1580) was superintended and edited, though without proper authority, by Selnecker; the second edition (1584) was issued by authority of the Electors. There are few separate editions of the Formula of Concord, the first by Selnecker, Lipz. 1582. See Köllner, p. 561.

Note #615

See a description in Penzel’s Saxon. Numism. as quoted by Planck, Vol. VI. p. 689. Augustus dismissed Andreæ (1580), ostensibly with great honor and rich presents, but in fact much displeased with the garrulus Suevus , who had spoken disrespectfully of his theological ignorance, had fallen out with Chemnitz and Selnecker, and made many enemies. See a full account in Heppe. Vol. IV. pp. 256-270.

Note #616

See the authorized Latin text of the Epitome, with a new English translation, in Vol. III. pp. 93 sqq. An English Version of the Formula from the German text appeared in The Christian Book of Concord ; or, Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church , New Market, Va., 1851, 2d ed., 1854. It professes to be literal, hut is very stiff and unidiomatic.