Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 26

(_C. R._ 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises Hardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows: "Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy, but also the madness (_rabies_) of the writers who establish the bread-wors.h.i.+p is growing." (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like Timann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's Supper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the blood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His human nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to acknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the Reformed doctrine) as his a.s.sistant in the distribution of the Lord's Supper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists, who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius come to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and dismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of the Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties.

In the _Opinion_ requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559, Melanchthon said: "To answer is not difficult, but dangerous....

Therefore I approve of the measure of the ill.u.s.trious Elector, commanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and the Calvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church.... The contentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest agree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to retain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion (_koinonia_) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of the Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently.

And the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that the nature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, as those of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he does not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius does; but that it is the communion, _i.e._, that by which the union occurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the use, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread....

The Son of G.o.d is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He is certainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account of the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in you,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in these true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that He will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper."

(_C. R._ 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed to these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently remarks: "Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the disputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as if the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not diminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They did the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid error might." (_Cons. Ref._, 291.)

206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures.

Modern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to the Lord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier.

Tschackert: "Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the second controversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied with maintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leaving the mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt." (532.) Seeberg, who maintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther's teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: "Melanchthon merely does not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in the Supper, and that it is omnipresent as such." (4, 2, 449.) Theo. Kolde: "It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X of the _Augustana_ involved real changes.... In view of his gradually changed conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that he sought to leave open for himself and others the possibility of a.s.sociating also with the Swiss." (25.) Schaff: "Melanchthon's later view of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin." (1, 280.)

Such, then, being the att.i.tude of Melanchthon as to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, who looked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should become decided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible for the Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after the death of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss, he was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he had his way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, the Lutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed into a Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt was shared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr., Paul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined toward Melanchthon's view and att.i.tude also in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper, but not "the division or separation of the body and blood." (_C. R._ 3, 610.) Shortly before his death, as related in a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpable silence with regard to the truth, declaring: "If you believe as you speak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in public lectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen your brethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict the wilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be of no value whatever." (Walther, 40.) Refusal to confess the truth will ultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is the first step to open denial.

207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin.

Foremost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close as possible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly and ably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg [born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; died January 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened the entire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise his voice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did so in a publication ent.i.tled: "_Farrago Confusanearum et inter se Dissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and Mutually Dissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of the Sacramentarians," 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and his adherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just as emphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time he refuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated by the t.i.tle, and maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of unbelievers.

Finally he appealed to the Lutheran theologians and magistrates everywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. "The _Farrago_," says Kruske, "signified the beginning of the end of Calvin's domination in Germany." Schaff: "The controversy of Westphal against Calvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed and consolidated the separation of the two Confessions," Lutheran and Reformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280.)

Thus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the Lutheran Church from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinistic movement, Westphal, in the year following, published a second book: "_Correct Faith (Recta Fides) Concerning the Lord's Supper_, demonstrated and confirmed from the words of the Apostle Paul and the Evangelists," 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples of Luther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who, he declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany for Zwinglianism.

Westphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a special emphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in 1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had been driven from England by b.l.o.o.d.y Mary, reached the Continent. The liberty which Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_, requested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformed congregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, but finally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, the Calvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, was forbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity and propaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena against Westphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et Orthodoxae Doctrinae de Sacramentis_, "Defense of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine Concerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, and Fruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich and Geneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutual Agreement" (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in such an insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e.g._, with "a mad dog") that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to a.s.sume a personal and acrimonious character.

208. Controversial Publications.

After Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by such Lutherans as John Timann, Paul v. Eitzen, Erhard Schnepf, Alber, Gallus, Flacius, Judex, Brenz, Andreae and others. Calvin, on the other hand, was supported by Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Pola.n.u.s, Beza (the most scurrillous of all the opponents of Lutheranism), and Bibliander.

In 1555 Westphal published three additional books: _Collection (Collectanea) of Opinions of Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerning the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdam Sacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, "Just Defense against the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian." The last publication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives of Calvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were united only in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor in Bremen, published in 1555: "_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing in the True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which the churches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm a.s.sent and in one spirit according to the divine Word."

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

Westphali Calumnias_, "Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith, against the Calumnies of J. Westphal," a vitriolic book, dedicated to the Crypto-Calvinists, _viz._, "to all ministers of Christ who cultivate and follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony and Lower Germany." In it Calvin declared: "I teach that Christ, though absent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with us according to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying for us." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79.) Lasco also wrote two books against Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort, and endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullinger appeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition, Apologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that the ministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma in the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper.

In the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua Breviter Respondet ad Convicia I. Calvini_--"Letter in which He [Westphal]

Answers Briefly to the Invectives of J. Calvin," and "_Answer (Responsum) to the Writing of John of Lasco_, in which he transforms the _Augsburg Confession_ into Zwinglianism." In the same year Westphal published "_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches of Saxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvin dedicated to them." This publication contained opinions which Westphal had secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand and Flacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg, Brunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. All of these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely in favor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of inst.i.tution as they read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Na.s.sau, Marburg, Speier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg 1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _Confession Concerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522; died 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defense of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_.

Westphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his "_Just Defense against the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in his letter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches," 1557. In it he denounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon the magistrates to inst.i.tute proceedings against them.

Calvin now published his _Ultima Admonitio_, "Last Admonition of John Calvin to J. Westphal, who, if he does not obey (_obtemperet_) must thenceforth be held in the manner as Paul commands us to hold obstinate heretics; in this writing the vain censures of the Magdeburgians and others, by which they endeavored to wreck heaven and earth, are also refuted" 1557. Here Calvin plainly reveals his Zwinglianism and says: "This is the summary of our doctrine, that the flesh of Christ is a vivifying bread because it truly nourishes and feeds our souls when by faith we coalesce with it. This, we teach, occurs spiritually only, because the bond of this sacred unity is the secret and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit." (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 162.) In this book Calvin also, as stated above, appeals to Melanchthon to add his testimony that "we [the Calvinists] teach nothing that conflicts with the _Augsburg Confession_."

Though Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to give public testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books against the Calvinists. One of them bears the t.i.tle: "_Apologetical Writings (Apologetica Scripta) of J.W._, in which he both defends the sound doctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of the Sacramentarians," etc. Another is ent.i.tled: _Apology of the Confession Concerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies of John Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin and entered the controversy with his "_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning the Lord's Supper_, in which the calumnies of J. Westphal are refuted."

Lasco's _Reply to the Virulent Letter of That Furious Man J. Westphal_, of 1560, appeared posthumously, he having died shortly before in Poland.

209. Brenz and Chemnitz.

Foremost among the influential theologians who besides Westphal, took a decided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors in Lutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitz in Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim, since 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influential theologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in his anti-Calvinistic att.i.tude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He is the author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of the Theologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of Duke Christopher by the synod a.s.sembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion for drafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished by Bartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he was required to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with Jacob Andreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convinced of his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching.

The _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakable terms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all who partake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personal union, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence well able to fulfil the promise He gave at the inst.i.tution of the Holy Supper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), the sacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). It holds "that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of inst.i.tution], truly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to all men who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they are tendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time also received with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it." Furthermore, "that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine are present in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence of the body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and received with the signs of bread and wine." (Tschackert, 541.) It protests: "We do not a.s.sert any mixture of His body and blood with the bread and wine, nor any local inclusion in the bread." Again: "We do not imagine any diffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ (_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christi distractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by which He, being placed at the right hand of G.o.d, fills all things not only by His divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in a way that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majesty His presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed." (Gieseler 3, 2, 239f.) Thus, without employing the term "ubiquity," this _Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther had maintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentarians generally.

As stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as "Hechinger Latin." In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise (Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz replied to this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book of Bullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the Two Natures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and His Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewed a.s.saults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: "_Answer (Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' and the 'right hand of G.o.d' still stands firm," 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs (Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of the Natures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to the Arguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatest writings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina Maiestate Christi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerning the True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (Consensus Dresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejected the omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature of Christ.

In order to reclaim the Palatinate (which, as will be explained later, had turned Reformed) for Lutheranism the Duke of Wuerttemberg, in April, 1564, arranged for the Religious Discussion at Maulbronn between the theologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result was a further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published _Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium ... Concerning the Lord's Supper and the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttemberg theologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio et Confessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of the Man Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians of the Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chief champion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz.

In his various publications against the Calvinists, Brenz, appealing to Luther, taught concerning the majesty of Christ that by reason of the personal union the humanity of Christ is not only omnipotent and omniscient, but also omnipresent, and that the human nature of Christ received these as well as other divine attributes from the first moment of the incarnation of the Logos. Following are some of his statements: "Although the divine substance [in Christ] is not changed into the human, and each has its own properties, nevertheless these two substances are united in one person in Christ in such a manner that the one is never in reality separated from the other." "Wherever the deity is, there is also the humanity of Christ." "We do not ascribe to Christ many and various bodies, nor do we ascribe to His body local extension or diffusion; but we exalt Him beyond this corporeal world, outside of every creature and place, and place Him in accordance with the condition of the hypostatic union in celestial majesty, which He never lacked, though at the time of His flesh in this world He hid it or, as Paul says, He humbled Himself (_quam etsi tempore carnis suae in hoc saeculo dissimulavit, seu ea sese, ut Paulus loquitur, exinanivit, tamen numquam ea caruit_)." According to Brenz the man Christ was omnipotent, almighty, omniscient while He lay in the manger. In His majesty He darkened the sun, and kept alive all the living while in His humiliation He was dying on the cross. When dead in the grave, He at the same time was filling and ruling heaven and earth with His power. (Gieseler 3, 2, 240f.)

In Brunswick, Martin Chemnitz (born 1522; died 1586), the Second Martin (_alter Martinus_) of the Lutheran Church, entered the controversy against the Calvinists in 1560 with his _Repet.i.tion (Repet.i.tio) of the Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper_, in which he based his arguments for the real presence on the words of inst.i.tution. Ten years later he published his famous book _Concerning the Two Natures in Christ (De Duabus Naturis in Christo)_, etc.,--preeminently the Lutheran cla.s.sic on the subject it treats. Appealing also to Luther, he teaches that Christ, according to His human nature was anointed with all divine gifts; that, in consequence of the personal union, the human nature of Christ can be and is present where, when, and in whatever way Christ will; that therefore in accordance with His promise, He is in reality present in His Church and in His Supper. Chemnitz says: "This presence of the a.s.sumed nature in Christ of which we now treat is not natural or essential [flowing from the nature and essence of Christ's humanity], but voluntary and most free, depending on the will and power of the Son of G.o.d (_non est vel naturalis vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a voluntate et potentia Filii Dei_); that is to say, when by a definite word He has told, promised, and a.s.severated that He would be present with His human nature, ... let us retain this, which is most certainly true, that Christ can be with His body wherever, whenever, and in whatever manner He wills (_Christum suo corpore esse posse, ubicunque, quandocunque et quomodocunque vult_). But we must judge of His will from a definite, revealed word." (Tschackert, 644; Gieseler 3, 2, 259.)

The _Formula of Concord_ plainly teaches, both that, in virtue of the personal union by His incarnation, Christ according to His human nature possesses also the divine attribute of omnipresence, and that He can be and is present wherever He will. In the Epitome we read: This majesty Christ always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation until His resurrection, "so that now not only as G.o.d, but also as man He knows all things, can do all things, _is present with all creatures_, and has under His feet and in His hand everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

... And this His power He, _being present_, can exercise everywhere, and to Him everything is possible and everything is known." (821, 16. 27.

30.) The Thorough Declaration declares that Christ "truly fills all things, and, being present everywhere, not only as G.o.d, but also as man, rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth." (1025, 27ff.) Again: "We hold ... that also according to His a.s.sumed human nature and with the same He [Christ] _can be, and also is, present where He will_, and especially that in His Church and congregation on earth He is present as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part, or one-half of Him only, but the entire person of Christ, to which both natures, the divine and the human, belong, is present not only according to His divinity, but also according to, and with, His a.s.sumed human nature, according to which He is our Brother, and we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone." (1043 78f.) In virtue of the personal union Christ is present everywhere also according to His human nature; while the peculiarly gracious manner of His presence in the Gospel, in the Church, and in the Lord's Supper depends upon His will and is based upon His definite promises.

210. Bremen and the Palatinate Lost for Lutheranism.

The indignation of the Lutherans against the Calvinistic propaganda, roused by Westphal and his comrades in their conflict with Calvin and his followers, was materially increased by the success of the crafty Calvinists in Bremen and in the Palatinate. In 1547 Hardenberg [Albert Rizaeus from Hardenberg, Holland, born 1510] was appointed Dome-preacher in Bremen. He was a former priest whom Lasco had won for the Reformation. Regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he inclined towards Zwingli. Self-evidently, when his views became known, the situation in Bremen became intolerable for his Lutheran colleagues. How could they a.s.sociate with and fellows.h.i.+p, a Calvinist! To acknowledge him would have been nothing short of surrendering their own views and the character of the Lutheran Church. The result was that John Timann [pastor in Bremen; wrote a tract against the Interim, died February 17, 1557], in order to compel Hardenberg to unmask and reveal his true inwardness, demanded that all the ministers of Bremen subscribe to the _Farrago Sententiarum Consentientium in Vera Doctrina et Coena Domini_ which he had published in 1555 against the Calvinists. Hardenberg and two other ministers refused to comply with the demand. In particular, Hardenberg objected to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ taught in Timann's _Farrago_. In his _Doctrinal Summary (Summaria Doctrina)_ Hardenberg taught: "St. Augustine and many other fathers write that the body of Christ is circ.u.mscribed by a certain s.p.a.ce in heaven, and I regard this as the true doctrine of the Church."

(Tschackert, 191.) Hardenberg also published the fable hatched at Heidelberg (_Heidelberger Landluege_, indirectly referred to also in the _Formula of Concord_, 981, 28), but immediately refuted by Joachim Moerlin, according to which Luther is said, toward the end of his life, to have confessed to Melanchthon that he had gone too far and overdone the matter in his controversy against the Sacramentarians; that he, however, did not want to retract his doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper himself, because that would cast suspicion on his whole teaching; that therefore after his death the younger theologians might make amends for it and settle this matter.... In 1556 Timann began to preach against Hardenberg, but died the following year. The Lower Saxon Diet, however, decided February 8, 1561, that Hardenberg be dismissed within fourteen days, yet "without infamy or condemnation, _citra infamiam et condemnationem_." Hardenberg submitted under protest and left Bremen February 18, 1561 (he died as a Reformed preacher at Emden, 1574). Simon Musaeus who had just been expelled from Jena, was called as Superintendent to purge Bremen of Calvinism. Before long, however, the burgomaster of the city, Daniel von Bueren, whom Hardenberg had secretly won for the Reformed doctrine, succeeded in expelling the Lutheran ministers from the city and in filling their places with Philippists, who before long joined the Reformed Church. Thus ever since 1562 Bremen has been a Reformed city.

A much severer blow was dealt Lutheranism when the Palatinate, the home of Melanchthon, where the Philippists were largely represented, was Calvinized by Elector Frederick III. Tileman Hesshusius [Hesshusen, born 1527; 1553 superintendent at Goslar; 1556 professor and pastor at Rostock; 1557 at Heidelberg; 1560 pastor at Magdeburg; 1562 court-preacher at Neuburg; 1569 professor at Jena; 1573 bishop of Samland, at Koenigsberg; 1577 professor at Helmstedt where he died 1588]

was called in 1557 by Elector Otto Henry to Heidelberg both as professor and pastor and as superintendent of the Palatinate. Here the Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists had already done much to undermine Lutheranism; and after the death of Otto Henry, February 12, 1559, Hesshusius who endeavored to stem the Crypto-Calvinistic tide, was no longer able to hold his own. Under Elector Frederick III, who succeeded Otto Henry, the Calvinists came out into the open. This led to scandalous clashes, of which the Klebitz affair was a typical and consequential instance. In order to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, William Klebitz, the deacon of Hesshusius, published, in 1560 a number of Calvinistic theses.

As a result Hesshusius most emphatically forbade him henceforth to a.s.sist at the distribution of the Holy Supper. When Klebitz nevertheless appeared at the altar, Hesshusius endeavored to wrest the cup from his hands. Elector Frederick ordered both Hesshusius and Klebitz to settle their trouble in accordance with the _Augustana_ (Variata). Failing to comply with this unionistic demand, Hesshusius was deposed, September 16, 1559, and Klebitz, too was dismissed. In a theological opinion, referred to above, Melanchthon approved of the action. Hereupon Hesshusius entered the public controversy against Calvinism. In 1560 he published _Concerning the Presence (De Praesentia) of the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper_ and his _Answer (Responsio) to the Prejudicial Judgement (Praeiudicium) of Philip Melanchthon on the Controversy Concerning the Lord's Supper_ [with Klebitz].

After the dismissal of Hesshusius, Elector Frederick III, who had shortly before played a conspicuous role in endeavoring to win the day for Melanchthonianism at the Lutheran a.s.sembly of Naumburg, immediately began to Calvinize his territory. In reading the controversial books published on the Lord's Supper, he suffered himself to be guided by the renowned physician Thomas Erastus [died 1583], who was a Calvinist and had himself published Calvinistic books concerning the Lord's Supper and the person and natures of Christ. As a result the Elector, having become a decided Reformedist, determined to de-Lutheranize the Palatinate in every particular, regarding practise and divine service as well as with respect to confessional books, doctrines, and teachers. The large number of Philippists, who had been secret Calvinists before, was increased by such Reformed theologians as Caspar Olevia.n.u.s (1560), Zacharias Ursinus (1561), and Tremellius (1561). Images, baptismal fonts, and altars were removed from the churches; wafers were replaced by bread, which was broken; the organs were closed; the festivals of Mary, the apostles, and saints were abolished. Ministers refusing to submit to the new order of things were deposed and their charges filled with Reformed men from the Netherlands. The Calvinistic _Heidelberg Catechism_, composed by Olevia.n.u.s and Ursinus and published 1563 in German and Latin, took the place of Luther's Catechism. This process of Calvinization was completed by the introduction of the new Church Order of November 15, 1563. At the behest of Frederick III the _Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica)_ was published in 1566, in order to prove by this out-and-out Zwinglian doc.u.ment, framed by Bullinger, "that he [the Elector of the Palatinate]

entertained no separate doctrine, but the very same that was preached also in many other and populous churches, and that the charge was untrue that the Reformed disagreed among themselves and were divided into sects." Thus the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Confession, for though Ludwig VI (1576-1583), the successor of Frederick III, temporarily restored Lutheranism, Frederick IV (1583 to 1610) returned to Calvinism.

211. Saxony in the Grip of Crypto-Calvinists.

It was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church when Bremen and the Palatinate fell a prey to Calvinism. And the fears were not unfounded that before long the Electorate of Saxony would follow in their wake, and Wittenberg, the citadel of the Lutheran Reformation, be captured by Calvin. That this misfortune, which, no doubt, would have dealt a final and fatal blow to Lutheranism, was warded off, must be regarded as a special providence of G.o.d. For the men (Melanchthon, Major, etc.) whom Luther had accused of culpable silence regarding the true doctrine of the Lord's Supper, were, naturally enough, succeeded by theologians who, while claiming to be true Lutherans adhering to the Augsburg Confession and, in a shameful manner deceiving and misleading Elector August zealously championed and developed the Melanchthonian aberrations, in particular with respect to the doctrines concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ, and sedulously propagated the views of Calvin, at first secretly and guardedly, but finally with boldness and abandon.

Gieseler says of these Philippists in Wittenberg: "Inwardly they were out-and-out Calvinists, although they endeavored to appear as genuine Lutherans before their master," Elector August. (3, 2, 250.)

The most prominent and influential of these so-called Philippists or Crypto-Calvinists were Dr. Caspar Cruciger, Jr., Dr. Christopher Pezel, Dr. Frederick Widebram, and Dr. Henry Moeller. The schemes of these men were aided and abetted by a number of non-theological professors: Wolfgang Crell, professor of ethics, Esrom Ruedinger, professor of philosophy; George Cracow, professor of jurisprudence and, later, privy councilor of Elector August; Melanchthon's son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, professor of medicine and physician in ordinary of the Elector, who naturally had a great influence on August and the ecclesiastical affairs of the Electorate. He held that Luther's doctrine of the real presence had no more foundation in the Bible than did the Roman transubstantiation. To these must be added John Stoessel, confessor to the Elector and superintendent at Pirna; Christian Schuetze, court-preacher at Dresden, Andrew Freyhub and Wolfgang Harder professors in Leipzig, and others. The real leaders of these Philippists were Peucer and Cracow. Their scheme was to prepossess the Elector against the loyal adherents of Luther, especially Flacius, gradually to win him over to their liberal views, and, at the proper moment, to surrender and deliver Electoral Saxony to the Calvinists. In prosecuting this sinister plan, they were unscrupulous also in the choice of their means. Thus Wittenberg, during Luther's days the fountainhead of the pure Gospel and the stronghold of uncompromising fidelity to the truth, had become a veritable nest of fanatical Crypto-Calvinistic schemers and dishonest anti-Lutheran plotters who also controlled the situation in the entire Electorate.

The first public step to accomplish their purpose was the publication of the _Corpus Doctrinae Christianae_, or _Corpus Doctrinae Misnic.u.m_, or _Philippic.u.m_, as it was also called. This collection of symbolical books was published 1560 at Leipzig by Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon's son-in-law, with a preface to both the German and Latin editions written by Melanchthon and dated September 29, 1559, and February 16, 1560, respectively,--an act by which, perhaps without sufficiently realizing it, Melanchthon immodestly a.s.sumed for himself and his views the place within the Lutheran Church which belonged not to him, but to Luther. The t.i.tle which reveals the insincerity and the purpose of this publication, runs as follows: _"Corpus Doctrinae, i.e._, the entire sum of the true and Christian doctrine ... as a testimony of the steadfast and unanimous confession of the pure and true religion in which the schools and churches of these Electoral Saxon and Meissen territories have remained and persevered in all points according to the _Augsburg Confession_ for now almost thirty years against the unfounded false charges and accusations of all lying spirits, 1560." As a matter of fact, however, this _Corpus_ contained, besides the Ec.u.menical Symbols, only writings of Melanchthon, notably the altered _Augsburg Confession_ and the altered _Apology_ of 1542, the Saxon Confession of 1551, the changed _Loci_, the _Examen Ordinandorum_ of 1554, and the _Responsiones ad Impios Articulos Inquisitionis Bavaricae_.

Evidently this _Corpus Philippic.u.m_, which was introduced also in churches outside of Electoral Saxony, particularly where the princes or leading theologians were Melanchthonians, was intended to alienate the Electorate from the old teaching of Luther, to sanction and further the Melanchthonian tendency, and thus to pave the way for Calvinism. It was foisted upon, and rigorously enforced in, all the churches of Electoral Saxony. All professors, ministers, and teachers were pledged by an oath to teach according to it. Such as refused to subscribe were deposed, imprisoned, or banished. Among the persecuted pastors we find the following names: Tettelbach, superintendent in Chemnitz; George Herbst, deacon in Chemnitz and later superintendent in Eisleben; Graf, superintendent in Sangerhausen; Schade, Heine, and Schuetz, pastors in Freiberg. When ministers who refused their signatures appealed to Luther's writings, they were told that Luther's books must be understood and explained according to Melanchthon's _Corpus_. At Wittenberg the opposition to Luther and his teaching bordered on fanaticism. When, for example, in 1568 Conrad Schluesselburg and Albert Schirmer, two Wittenberg students, entered a complaint against Professors Pezel and Peucer because of their deviations from Luther in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and refused to admit that Peucer and his colleagues represented the pure doctrine in this matter, they were expelled from the university, anathematized, and driven from the city.

(Schluesselburg 13, 609. 730; Gieseler 3, 2, 250.)

Immediately after its appearance, the _Corpus Philippic.u.m_ was denounced by loyal Lutherans, notably those of Reuss, Schoenfeld, and Jena. When the charges of false teaching against the Wittenberg theologians increased in number and force, Elector August arranged a colloquy between the theologians of Jena and Wittenberg. It was held at Altenburg and lasted from October, 1568, to March, 1569 because the Wittenbergers, evidently afraid of compromising themselves, insisted on its being conducted in writing only. The result of this colloquy was a public declaration on the part of Wigand, Coelestinus, Kirchner Rosinus, and others to the effect that the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians had unmistakably revealed themselves as false teachers. At the colloquy the Jena theologians objected in particular also to the _Corpus Misnic.u.m_ because it contained the altered _Augustana_, concerning which they declared: Melanchthon "has changed the said _Augsburg Confession_ so often that finally he has opened a window through which the Sacramentarians and Calvinists can sneak into it. One must watch carefully, lest in course of time the Papists also find such a loophole to twist themselves into it." (Gieseler 3, 2, 252.)

The Philippists of Leipzig and Wittenberg in turn, denounced the Jena theologians as Flacian fighting c.o.c.ks (_Flacianische Haderkatzen_). They also succeeded in persuading Elector August to adopt more rigorous measures against the malcontents in his territories. For in addition to the adoption of the _Corpus Philippic.u.m_ the ministers were now required to subscribe to a declaration which was tantamount to an endors.e.m.e.nt of all of the false doctrines entertained by the Wittenbergers. The declaration read: "I do not adhere to the dangerous Flacian Illyrian errors, contentions, poisonous backbitings, and fanaticism (_zaenkischem Geschmeiss, giftigem Gebeiss und Schwaermerei_) with which the schools and churches of this country are burdened [by Flacius] concerning the imagined adiaphorism, synergism, and Majorism and other false accusations, nor have I any pleasure in it [the quarreling], and in the future I intend, by the help of G.o.d, to abstain from it altogether, to d.a.m.n, flee, and avoid it, and as much as I am able, to prevent it."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 253; Walther, 49.)

212. Bold Strides Forward.

Feeling themselves firm and safe in the saddle, the Wittenberg Philippists now decided on further public steps in the direction of Calvinism. In 1570 they published _Propositions (Propositiones) Concerning the Chief Controversies of This Time_, in which the Lutheran doctrine regarding the majesty of the human nature of Christ was repudiated. In the following year they added a new Catechism, ent.i.tled: "_Catechesis_ continens explicationem simplicem et brevem decalogi, Symboli Apostolici, orationis dominicae, doctrinae Christianae, quod amplectuntur ac tuentur Ecclesiae regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarum quae sunt subiectae editioni Ducis Electoris Saxoniae, edita in Academia Witebergensi et accommodata ad usum scholarum puerilium. 1571."

This Catechism, written, according to Wigand, by Pezel, appeared anonymously. Its preface, signed by the Wittenberg theological faculty, explains that the new Catechism was an epitome of the _Corpus Doctrinae Misnic.u.m_ and merely intended as a supplement of Luther's Catechism for progressed scholars who were in need of additional instruction. As a matter of fact, however, its doctrine concerning the person of Christ and the Lord's Supper was in substantial agreement with the teaching of Calvin. Under the odious name of "ubiquity" it rejected the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature, and sanctioned Calvin's teaching concerning the local inclusion of Christ in heaven. Acts 3, 21 was rendered in Beza's translation: "_Quem oportet coelo capi_. Who must be received by the heaven."

The Catechism declares: "The ascension was visible and corporeal; the entire Antiquity has always written that Christ's body is restricted to a certain place, wherever He wishes it to be; and a bodily ascension was made upwards. _Ascensio fuit visibilis et coporalis, et semper ita scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco esse, ubic.u.mque vult, et ascensio corporalis facta est sursum_."

Concerning the real presence, the Catechism merely states: "The Lord's Supper is the communication of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as it is inst.i.tuted in the words of the Gospel; in which eating (_sumptione_) the Son of G.o.d is truly and substantially present, and testifies that He applies His benefits to the believers. He also testifies that He has a.s.sumed the human nature for the purpose of making us, who are ingrafted into Him by faith, His members. He finally testifies that He wishes to be in the believers, to teach, quicken and govern them." (Gieseler 3, 2, 263.) The sacramental union, oral eating and drinking, and the eating and drinking of the wicked are not mentioned. Tschackert remarks that every Calvinist would readily have subscribed to the teaching of this Catechism. (545.)

When the Wittenberg Catechism was warned against and designated as Calvinistic by Chemnitz, Moerlin, and other theologians of Brunswick, Lueneburg, Mansfeld, Jena, and Halle, the Wittenbergers answered and endeavored to defend their position in the so-called _Grundfeste_, Firm Foundation, of 1571. It was a coa.r.s.e and slanderous publication, as even the t.i.tle indicates, which reads: "Firm Foundation of the True Christian Church Concerning the Person and Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ against the Modern Marcionites, Samosatenes, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites among the Flacian Rabble Published by the Theologians in Wittenberg." In this _Grundfeste_ the Wittenbergers present the matter as though the real issue were not the Lord's Supper, but Christology. They enumerate as heretics also the "Ubiquitists," including Brenz, Andreae, and Chemnitz. With respect to their own agreement with Calvin, they remark that their teaching is the doctrine of the early Church, in which point, they said, also Calvin agreed. (Tschackert, 546.)

This daring Calvinistic publication again resulted in numerous protests against the Wittenbergers on the part of alarmed Lutherans everywhere outside of Electoral Saxony, which induced Elector August to require his theologians to deliver at Dresden, October 10, 1571, a definite statement of their faith. The confession which they presented was ent.i.tled: "_Brief Christian and Simple Repet.i.tion of the Confession of the Churches of G.o.d in the Territories of the Elector of Saxony Concerning the Holy Supper_," etc. The _Consensus Dresdensis_, as the doc.u.ment was called, satisfied the Elector at least temporarily, and was published also in Latin and low German. Essentially, however, the indefinite and dubious language of the Catechism was here but repeated.