Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (part 3 of 3)

Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (part 3 of 3)

The essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination were embodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The Consensus Genevensis of January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [a fanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; died December 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled: "Concerning God's Eternal Predestination, by which He has elected some to salvation and left theothers to their perdition--qua in salutem alios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit." (Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum, 218. 221.) The Confessio Belgica, of 1559, and the Confessio Gallicana, of 1561, teach the same absolute predestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: In predestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, viz., merciful and just. "Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation and perdition those whom ... He elected; just, by leaving the others in their fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves. Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quam sese ipsi praecipites dederunt." (Niemeyer, 370.) The Gallic Confession [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved by a synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translated into German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of La Rochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in their corruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: "We believe that from this corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He has chosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of His mercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them His justice. Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem eripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola sua bonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in Iesu Christo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere, in quibus nimirum iuste suo tempore damnandis iustitiam suam demonstret, sicut in aliis divitias misericordiae suae declarat." (Niemeyer, 332; Schaff 3, 366.)

The Formula Consensus Helveticae of 1675 says, canon 13: "As from eternity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who in time are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New Covenant He has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election were given to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. Sicut Christus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omnium eorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in tempore Novi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternam electionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditas eius," etc. (Niemeyer, 733.)

The same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the Canons of the Synod of Dort, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the Westminster Confession of Faith, published 1647. In the former we read: "That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal election.... According to His just judgment He leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy." (Schaff 3, 582.) "The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc." (583.) "Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion." ... (584.) "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenant should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to Him by the Father." (587.) "But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their melancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification," etc. (Schaff 3, 593; Niemeyer, 716.)

The Westminster Confession declares: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." (Schaff 3, 608.) "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved but the elect only." (609.) "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." (610; Niemeyer, Appendix 6. 7.)

227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg.

In view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it is certainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularly with the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long before the Formula of Concord was able to write that such a conflict had not yet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarian conflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities, within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmish lacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as a signal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach and Zanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI: "Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has been mooted also among our theologians." This controversy took place from 1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came into immediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the Wittenberg Concord and with it the Augsburg Confession which since took the place of the Tetrapolitana delivered to Emperor Charles at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizing the city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together with Mathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 and labored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He had Bucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the public controversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled, Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians, which defends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature.

In his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by the Crypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a converted Italian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won for Protestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor, first in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to the Continent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12, 1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563 Zanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though he had signed the Augsburg Confession, he was and remained a rigid Calvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and that of the Lord's Supper, but withheld his public dissent until about 1561. It was the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, according to which grace once received cannot be lost, upon which Zanchi now laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (Historia Motuum 3, 30) he taught: "1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God only once. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith ... can never again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with their whole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he, indeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of the heart. 1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur. 2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insiti fidem prorsus amittere ... non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duo sunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantum hominem exteriorem, i.e., ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti, peccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum et condelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntate peccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fidei confessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde." (Tschackert 560; Frank 4, 261.)

This tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternally lost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the Smalcald Articles we read: "On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faith blots out all sins,' etc.--they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not present. For St. John says, 1 Ep. 3, 9: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,... and he cannot sin.' And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1 Ep. 1, 8: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.'" (491, 42f.)

In an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 some Antinomians maintained and argued "that, since in this life sin remains in saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvation even when they commit adultery and other sins against their conscience.... There are many at many places who are imbued with this error [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the conscience can remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy although they live and persevere in sins against their consciences." (C. R. 9, 764. 405. 473; 8, 411.)

The perseverance of saints as taught by Zanchi was the point to which Marbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, which was finally settled by the Strassburg Formula of Concord of 1563, outside theologians participating and acting as arbiters. This Formula, which was probably prepared by Jacob Andreae, treated in its first article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. It rejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, and prescribed the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 as the doctrinal rule regarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties, Zanchi stating over his signature: "Hanc doctrinae formam ut piam agnosco, ita eam recipio." Evidently his mental reservation was that he be permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it as pious. Later Zanchi declared openly that he had subscribed the Formula only conditionally. Soon after his subscription he left Strassburg, serving till 1568 as preacher of a Reformed Italian congregation in Chiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University of Heidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died at Heidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continued his work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause of the Formula of Concord. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a local character, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI. The thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupil of Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the Formula of Concord.

228. The Strassburg Formula.

The Strassburg Formula of Concord sets forth the Scriptural and peculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, according to which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance of his election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not a priori, but a posteriori. That is to say, he is not to speculate on the act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested to him in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own false conception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the Strassburg Formula did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election,--a stricture frequently made also on Article XI of the Formula of Concord, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election the Reformed have never fully grasped and realized.

The Strassburg Formula taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, the doctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it into conflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor to deprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in any way to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is the grace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election, especially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the hands of Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality of God's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvation for all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which is the gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered to all; that the reason why the gift of faith is not bestowed upon all men, though Christ seriously invites all to come to Him, is a mystery known to God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of God proposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men are directed, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is not contradictory of the hidden will of God. (Loescher, Hist Mot. 2, 229; Frank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560.)

Particularly with respect to the "mystery," the Strassburg Formula says: "The fact that this grace or this gift of faith is not given by God to all when He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinite goodness, certainly calls earnestly: 'Come unto the marriage, for all things are now ready,' is a sealed mystery known to God alone, past finding out for human reason; a secret that must be contemplated with fear and be adored, as it is written: 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Rom. 11, 33. And Christ gives thanks to the Father because He has hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. Matt. 11, 25. Troubled consciences, however, must not take offense at this hidden way of the divine will but look upon the will of God revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to Himself." This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians. Moerlin wrote: "God has revealed to us that He will save only those who believe in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden, however, are God's judgments--why He converts Paul but does not convert Caiaphas; why He receives fallen Peter again and abandons Judas to despair." Chemnitz: "Why, then, is it that God does not put such faith into the heart of Judas so that he, too, might have believed and been saved through Christ? Here we must leave off questioning and say, Rom. 11: 'O the depth!'... We cannot and must not search this nor meditate too deeply upon such questions." Kirchner: "Since, therefore, faith in Christ is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it upon all? Answer: We must defer the discussion of this question unto eternal life, and in the mean time be content to know that God does not want us to search His secret judgments, Rom. 11: 'O the depth,' etc." In a similar way Chemnitz, Selneccer, and Kirchner expressed themselves in their Apology of the Book of Concord, of 1582, declaring that, "when asked why God does not convert all men, we must answer with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!' but not ascribe to God the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobation or damnation of the impenitent." (Pieper, Dogm. 2, 585f.)

229. Predestination according to Article XI of Formula of Concord.

In keeping with her fundamental teaching of sola gratia and gratia universalis, according to which God's grace is the only cause of man's salvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his damnation, the Lutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace, i.e., a predestination to salvation only. God's eternal election, says the Formula of Concord, "does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: 'He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.'" (1065, 5.) This election, the Formula continues, "not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation, and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16, 18, as is written John 10, 28: 'Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand,' And again, Acts 13, 48: 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'" (1065, 8.) While thus election is a cause of faith and salvation, there is no cause of election in man. The teaching "that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause of God's election on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life," is rejected by the Formula of Concord as one of the "blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians." (837, 20f.)

Concerning the way of considering eternal election, the Formula writes: "If we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8, 29f.; Eph. 1, 4f., as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22, 1ff." (1067, 13.)

While according to the Lutheran Church election is the cause of faith and salvation, there is no such a thing as an election of wrath or a predestination to sin and damnation, of both of which God is not the cause and author. According to the Formula the vessels of mercy are prepared by God alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared for damnation, not by God, but by themselves. Moreover, God earnestly desires that all men turn from their wicked ways and live. We read: "For all preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin, and in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how, then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God is not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of damnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin is death. Rom. 6, 23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33, 11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing that any one should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3, 9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18, 23; 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live,' And St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by God's power and working, when he writes 2 Tim. 2, 21: 'If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work,' For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and hence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says clearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does not say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation." (1089, 81f.) "Hence the apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God, who alone makes vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f.: 'God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.' Here, then, the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not say that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault, however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to men themselves, and not to God." (1089, 79f.)

It is man's own fault when he is not converted by the Word or afterwards falls away again. We read: "But the reason why not all who hear it [the Word of God] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is not because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at the time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents." (1089, 78.) "For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22, 3ff. The cause of this contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through the Word, as Christ says: 'How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!' Matt. 23, 37. Thus many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8, 13. But the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1, 6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy commandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first." (1077 41f.; 835, 12.)

It is not because of any deficiency in God that men are lost; for His grace is universal as well as serious and efficacious. The Formula of Concord declares: "However, that many are called and few chosen is not owing to the fact that the call of God, which is made through the Word, had the meaning as though God said: Outwardly, through the Word, I indeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, in My heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respect to a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I call through the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be and remain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myself to them otherwise. Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntates affingere. For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. That is, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is Eternal Truth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve another in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and] punishes also in men this wickedness, when a person declares himself to one purpose, and thinks and means another in the heart, Ps. 5, 9; 12, 2f." (1075, 36.)

It is a punishment of their previous sins and not a result of God's predestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardening signify that it never was God's good pleasure to save them. "Moreover," says the Formula, "it is to be diligently considered that when God punishes sin with sins, that is when He afterwards punishes with obduracy and blindness those who had been converted because of their subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins, this should not be interpreted to mean that it never had been God's good pleasure that such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For both these facts are God's revealed will: first, that God will receive into grace all who repent and believe in Christ; secondly, that He also will punish those who wilfully turn away from the holy commandment, and again entangle themselves in the filth of the world 2 Pet. 2, 20, and garnish their hearts for Satan, Luke 11, 25f., and do despite unto the Spirit of God, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, and eternally condemned if they persist therein." (1091, 83.)

"But that God ... hardened Pharaoh's heart, namely, that Pharaoh always sinned again and again, and became the more obdurate the more he was admonished, that was a punishment of his antecedent sin and horrible tyranny, which in many and manifold ways he practised inhumanly and against the accusations of his heart towards the children of Israel. And since God caused His Word to be preached and His will to be proclaimed to him, and Pharaoh nevertheless wilfully reared up straightway against all admonitions and warnings, God withdrew His hand from him and thus his heart became hardened and obdurate, and God executed His judgment upon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than hell-fire. Accordingly, the holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no other reason than to prove by it the justice of God which He exercises towards the impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has he intended or understood it to mean that God begrudged salvation to him or any person, but had so ordained him to eternal damnation in His secret counsel that he should not be able, or that it should not be possible for him, to be saved." (1091, 85f.)

230. Agreement of Articles XI and II.

In the Formula of Concord, Article XI is closely related to most of the other articles particularly to Article I, Of Original Sin, and Article II, Of Free Will and Conversion. Election is to conversion what the concave side of a lens is to the convex. Both correspond to each other in every particular. What God does for and in man when He converts, justifies, sanctifies, preserves, and finally glorifies him, He has in eternity resolved to do,--that is one way in which eternal election may be defined. Synergists and Calvinists, however have always maintained that the Second Article is in a hopeless conflict with the Eleventh. But the truth is, the Second fully confirms and corroborates the Eleventh, and vice versa; for both maintain the sola gratia as well as the universalis gratia.

Both articles teach that in every respect grace alone is the cause of our conversion and salvation, and that this grace is not confined to some men only, but is a grace for all. Both teach that man, though contributing absolutely nothing to his conversion and salvation, is nevertheless the sole cause of his own damnation. Both disavow Calvinism which denies the universality of grace. Both reject synergism, which corrupts grace by teaching a cooperation of man towards his own conversion and salvation. Teaching therefore, as they do, the same truths, both articles will and must ever stand and fall together. It was, no doubt, chiefly due to this complete harmony between the Second and the Eleventh Article that after the former (which received its present shape only after repeated changes and additions) had been decided upon the revision of the latter (the Eleventh) caused but little delay. (Frank 4, V. 133.)

Concerning the alleged conflict between Articles II and XI, we read in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom: "There is an obvious and irreconcilable antagonism between Article II and Article XI. They contain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological science, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into a creed. The Formula adopts one part of Luther's book De Servo Arbitrio, 1525, and rejects the other, which follows with logical necessity. It is Augustinian, yea, hyper-Augustinian and hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and anti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It endorses the anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If man is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the grace of God, as Article II teaches, he can only be converted by an act of almighty power and irresistible grace, which Article XI denies. If some men are saved without any cooperation on their part, while others, with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the difference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable decree of God. On the other hand if God sincerely wills the salvation of all men, as Article XI teaches, and yet only a part are actually saved, there must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost towards converting grace, which is denied in Article II. The Lutheran system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either from Article II in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or from Article XI in the direction of synergism and Arminianism. The former would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine [?], which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less by some of the ablest modern Lutherans." (1, 314. 330.) Prior to Schaff, similar charges had been raised by Planck, Schweizer, Heppe, and others, who maintained that Article XI suffers from a "theological confusion otherwise not found in the Formula."

Apart from other unwarranted assertions in the passage quoted from Schaff, the chief charges there raised against the Formula of Concord are: 1. that Articles XI and II are contradictory to each other, 2. that the Lutheran Church has failed to harmonize the doctrines of sola gratia and gratia universalis. However, the first of these strictures is based on gross ignorance of the facts, resulting from a superficial investigation of the articles involved, for the alleged disagreement is purely imaginary. As a matter of fact, no one can read the two articles attentively without being everywhere impressed with their complete harmony. In every possible way Article XI excludes synergism, and corroborates the sola gratia doctrine of Article II. And Article II, in turn, nowhere denies, rather everywhere, directly or indirectly, confirms, the universal grace particularly emphasized in Article XI.

The framers of the Formula were well aware of the fact that the least error in the doctrine of free will and conversion was bound to manifest itself also in the doctrine of election, and that perhaps in a form much more difficult to detect. Hence Article XI was not only intended to be a bulwark against the assaults on the doctrine of grace coming from Calvinistic quarters, but also an additional reenforcement of the article of Free Will against the Synergists, in order to prevent a future recrudescence of their errors in the sphere of predestination. Its object is clearly to maintain the doctrine of the Bible, according to which it is grace alone that saves, a grace which, at the same time, is a grace for all, and thus to steer clear of synergism as well as of Calvinism, and forever to close the doors of the Lutheran Church to every form of these two errors.

According to the Second Article, Christians cannot be assured of their election if the doctrine of conversion [by grace alone] is not properly presented. (901, 47. 57.) And Article XI most emphatically supports Article II in its efforts to weed out every kind of synergistic or Romanistic corruption. For here we read: "Thus far the mystery of predestination is revealed to us in God's Word; and if we abide thereby and cleave thereto, it is a very useful salutary, consolatory doctrine; for it establishes very effectually the article that we are justified and saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of grace alone, for Christ's sake. For before the time of the world, before we existed, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of course, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purpose chosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9. Moreover, all opinions and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers of our natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel, before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by the power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the Word, everything that pertains to our conversion." (1077, 43f.; 837, 20.)

Again: "By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving choice of the elect children of God, His own glory is entirely and fully given to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy, without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of His will, as it is written Eph. 1, 5f.: 'Having predestinated us,'... Therefore it is false and wrong when it is taught that not alone the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us there is a cause of God's predestination on account of which God has chosen us to eternal life." Indeed, one of the most exclusive formulations against every possible kind of subtile synergism is found in Article XI when it teaches that the reason why some are converted and saved while others are lost, must not be sought in man, i.e., in any minor guilt or less faulty conduct toward grace shown by those who are saved, as compared with the guilt and conduct of those who are lost. (1081, 57f.) If, therefore, the argument of the Calvinists and Synergists that the sola gratia doctrine involves a denial of universal grace were correct, the charge of Calvinism would have to be raised against Article XI as well as against Article II.

In a similar manner the Second Article confirms the Eleventh by corroborating its anti-Calvinistic teaching of universal grace and redemption; of man's responsibility for his own damnation; of man's conversion, not by compulsion or coercion, etc. The Second Article most emphatically teaches the sola gratia, but without in any way limiting, violating, or encroaching upon, universal grace. It is not merely opposed to Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and synergistic errors, but to Stoic and Calvinistic aberrations as well. While it is not the special object of the Second Article to set forth the universality of God's grace, its anti-Calvinistic attitude is nevertheless everywhere apparent.

Article II plainly teaches that "it is not God's will that anyone should be damned, but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved eternally. Ezek. 33, 11: 'As I live.'" (901, 49.) It teaches that "Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, and are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst." (903, 57.) It maintains that through the Gospel the Holy Ghost offers man grace and salvation, effects conversion through the preaching and hearing of God's Word, and is present with this Word in order to convert men. (787, 4ff.; 889, 18.) It holds that "all who wish to be saved ought to hear this preaching, because the preaching and hearing of God's Word are the instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do." (901, 52ff.) It admonishes that no one should doubt that the power and efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present with, and efficacious in, the Word when it is preached purely and listened to attentively, and that we should base our certainty concerning the presence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost not on our feeling, but on the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is truly an office and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious and works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff.; 3, 5ff." [tr. note: sic on punctuation] (903, 56.) It asserts that men who refuse to hear the Word of God are not converted because they despised the instrument of the Holy Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that God does not force men to become godly; that those who always resist the Holy Ghost and persistently oppose the known truth are not converted (905, 60). If, therefore, the inference were correct that the doctrine of universal grace involved a denial of the sola gratia, then the charge of synergism would have to be raised against Article II as well as against Article XI. Both articles will always stand and fall together; for both teach that the grace of God is the only cause of our conversion and salvation, and that this grace is truly universal.

231. Mystery in Doctrine of Grace.

The second charge raised by Calvinists and Synergists against the Formula of Concord is its failure to harmonize "logically" what they term "contradictory doctrines": sola gratia and universalis gratia, --a stricture which must be characterized as flowing from rationalistic premises, mistaking a divine mystery for a real contradiction, and in reality directed against the clear Word of God itself. Says Schaff, who also in this point voices the views of Calvinists as well as Synergists: "The Formula of Concord sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these contradictory positions." (304.) "Thus the particularism of election and the universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man, and the guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he cannot accept, are illogically combined." (1, 330.) The real charge here raised against the Formula of Concord is, that it fails to modify the doctrines of sola gratia or universalis gratia in a manner satisfactory to the demands of human reason; for Synergists and Calvinists are agreed that, in the interest of rational harmony, one or the other must be abandoned, either universalis gratia seria et efficax, or sola gratia.

In judging of the charge in question, it should not be overlooked that, according to the Formula of Concord, all Christians, theologians included, are bound to derive their entire doctrine from the Bible alone; that matters of faith must be decided exclusively by clear passages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point to criticize and lord it over the infallible Word of God; that reason must be subjected to the obedience of Christ, and dare not hinder faith in believing the divine testimonies even when they seemingly contradict each other. We are not commanded to harmonize, says the Formula, but to believe, confess, defend, and faithfully to adhere to the teachings of the Bible. (1078, 52ff.) In the doctrine of conversion and salvation, therefore, Lutherans confess both the sola gratia and the universalis gratia, because they are convinced that both are clearly taught in the Bible, and that to reject or modify either of them would amount to a criticism of the Word of God, and hence of God Himself. Synergists differ from Lutherans, not in maintaining universal grace (which in reality they deny as to intention as well as extension, for they corrupt the Scriptural content of grace by making it dependent on man's conduct, and thereby limit its extension to such only as comply with its conditions), but in denying the sola gratia, and teaching that the will of man enters conversion as a factor alongside of grace. And Calvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the sola gratia, but in denying universal grace.

But while, in accordance with the clear Word of God, faithfully adhering to both the sola gratia and universalis gratia, and firmly maintaining that whoever is saved is saved by grace alone, and whoever is lost is lost through his own fault alone, the Formula of Concord at the same time fully acknowledges the difficulty presenting itself to human reason when we hold fast to this teaching. In particular, it admits that the question, not answered in the Bible, viz., why some are saved while others are lost, embraces a mystery which we lack the means and ability of solving, as well as the data. Accordingly, the Formula also makes no efforts whatever to harmonize them, but rather discountenances and warns against all attempts to cater to human reason in this respect, and insists that both doctrines be maintained intact and taught conjointly. Lutherans are fully satisfied that here every effort at rational harmonization cannot but lead either to Calvinistic corruption of universal grace or to synergistic modification of sola gratia.

Thus the Lutheran Church not only admits, but zealously guards, the mystery contained in the doctrine of grace and election. It distinguishes between God in as far as He is known and not known; in as far as He has revealed Himself, and in as far as He is still hidden to us, but as we shall learn to know Him hereafter. The truths which may be known concerning God are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible. The things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments of God, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question why some are saved while others are lost. God has not seen fit to reveal these mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom God, man's quest for an answer is both presumptuous and vain. That is to say, we are utterly unable to uncover the divine counsels, which would show that the mysterious judgments and ways proceeding from them are in complete harmony with the universal grace proclaimed by the Gospel.

Yet Lutherans believe that the hidden God is not in real conflict with God as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of God does not in the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According to the Formula of Concord there are no real contradictions in God; in Him everything is yea and amen; His very being is pure reality and truth. Hence, when relying on God as revealed in Christ, that is to say, relying on grace which is pure grace only and at the same time grace for all, Christians may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in the unknown God, i.e., in as far as He has not revealed Himself to them, which might subvert their simple faith in His gracious promises. The face of God depicted in the Gospel is the true face of God. Whoever has seen Christ has seen the Father as He is in reality.

Indeed, also the hidden God, together with His secret counsels, unsearchable judgments, and ways past finding out, even the majestic God, in whom we live and move and have our being, the God who has all things well in hand, and without whom nothing can be or occur, must, in the light of the Scriptures, be viewed as an additional guarantee that, in spite of all contingencies, the merciful divine promises of the Gospel shall stand firm and immovable. Upon eternal election, says the Formula of Concord, "our salvation is so [firmly] founded 'that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.'" (1065, 8.) As for us, therefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what God has withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of God's transcendent majesty, but merely to rely on, and securely trust in, the blessed Gospel, which proclaims grace for all and salvation by grace alone, and teaches that whoever is saved must praise God alone for it, while whoever is damned must blame only himself.

Regarding the mystery involved in predestination, the Formula of Concord explains: "A distinction must be observed with especial care between that which is expressly revealed concerning it [predestination] in God's Word and what is not revealed. For in addition to what has been revealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken, God has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery, and reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should not investigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw conclusions nor inquire curiously, but should adhere to the revealed Word. This admonition is most urgently needed. For our curiosity has always much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters [investigating things abstruse and hidden] than with what God has revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize it [cannot by the acumen of our natural ability harmonize the intricate and involved things occurring in this mystery], which, moreover, we have not been commanded to do."

The Formula enumerates as such inscrutable mysteries: Why God gives His Word at one place, but not at another; why He removes it from one place, and allows it to remain at another; why one is hardened, while another, who is in the same guilt, is converted again. Such and similar questions, says the Formula, we cannot answer and must not endeavor to solve. On the contrary, we are to adhere unflinchingly to both truths, viz., that those who are converted are saved, not because they are better than others, but by pure grace alone; and that those who are not converted and not saved cannot accuse God of any neglect or injustice but are lost by their own fault. The Formula concludes its paragraphs on the mysteries in predestination by saying: "When we proceed thus far in this article [maintaining that God alone is the cause of man's salvation and man alone is the cause of his damnation, and refusing to solve the problems involved], we remain on the right [safe and royal] way, as it is written Hos. 13, 9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we should, with Paul, place the finger upon our lips, remember and say, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" (1078, 52ff.)

232. Predestination a Comforting Article.

Christian doctrines, or doctrines of the Church, are such only as are in exact harmony with the Scriptures. They alone, too, are able to serve the purpose for which the Scriptures are given, viz., to convert and save sinners, and to comfort troubled Christians. Scriptural doctrines are always profitable, and detrimental doctrines are never Scriptural. This is true also of the article of eternal election. It is a truly edifying doctrine as also the Formula of Concord is solicitous to explain. (1092, 89ff.) However, it is comforting only when taught in its purity, i.e., when presented and preserved in strict adherence to the Bible; that is to say, when both the sola gratia and gratia universalis are kept inviolate. Whenever the doctrine of predestination causes despair or carnal security, it has been either misrepresented or misunderstood.

In the introductory paragraphs of Article XI we read: "For the doctrine concerning this article, if taught from, and according to the pattern of the divine Word, neither can nor should be regarded as useless or unnecessary, much less as offensive or injurious, because the Holy Scriptures not only in but one place and incidentally, but in many places thoroughly treat and urge the same. Moreover, we should not neglect or reject the doctrine of the divine Word on account of abuse or misunderstanding, but precisely on that account, in order to avert all abuse and misunderstanding the true meaning should and must be explained from the foundation of the Scriptures." (1063, 2; 1067, 13.)

"If it is treated properly," says also the Epitome, the doctrine of predestination "is a consolatory article" (830, 1); that is to say, if predestination is viewed in the light of the Gospel, and particularly, if sola gratia as well as gratia universalis are kept inviolate. Outside of God's revelation in the Gospel there is no true and wholesome knowledge whatever concerning election, but mere noxious human dreams. And when the universality of grace is denied, it is impossible for any one to know whether he is elected, and whether the grace spoken of in the Gospel is intended for or belongs to him. "Therefore," says the Formula of Concord, "if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24, 47," etc. (1071, 28.) By denying that universal grace is meant seriously and discounting the universal promises of the Gospel, "the necessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain and void, as we are daily reminded and admonished that only from God's Word, through which He treats with us and calls us, we are to learn and conclude what His will toward us is, and that we should believe and not doubt what it affirms to us and promises." (1075, 36.) If God cannot be trusted in His universal promises, absolutely nothing in the Bible can be relied upon. A doctrine of election from which universal grace is eliminated, necessarily leads to despair or to contumaciousness and carnal security. Calvin was right when he designated his predestination theory, which denies universal grace, a "horrible decree." It left him without any objective foundation whatever upon which to rest his faith and hope.

In like manner, when the doctrine of election and grace is modified synergistically, no one can know for certain whether he has really been pardoned and will be saved finally, because here salvation is not exclusively based on the sure and immovable grace and promises of God, but, at least in part, on man's own doubtful conduct--a rotten plank which can serve neither foot for safely crossing the great abyss of sin and death. Only when presented and taught in strict adherence to the Bible is the doctrine of election and grace fully qualified to engender divine certainty of our present adoption and final salvation as well, since it assures us that God sincerely desires to save all men (us included), that He alone does, and has promised to do, everything pertaining thereto, and that nothing is able to thwart His promises, since He who made them and confirmed them with an oath is none other than the majestic God Himself.

Accordingly, when Calvinists and Synergists criticize the Formula of Concord for not harmonizing (modifying in the interest of rational harmony) the clear doctrines of the Bible, which they brand as contradictions, they merely display their own conflicting, untenable position. For while professing to follow the Scriptures, they at the same time demand that its doctrines be corrected according to the dictate of reason, thus plainly revealing that their theology is not founded on the Bible, but orientated in rationalism, the true ultimate principle of Calvinism as well as synergism.

In the last analysis, therefore, the charge of inconsistency against the Formula of Concord is tantamount to an indirect admission that the Lutheran Church is both a consistently Scriptural and a truly evangelical Church. Consistently Scriptural, because it receives in simple faith and with implicit obedience every clear Word of God, all counter-arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. Truly evangelical, because in adhering with unswerving loyalty to the seemingly contradictory, but truly Scriptural doctrine of grace, it serves the purpose of the Scriptures, which--praise the Lord--is none other than to save, edify, and comfort poor disconsolate sinners.

233. Statements of Article XI on Consolation Offered by Predestination.

The purpose of the entire Scripture, says the Formula of Concord, is to comfort penitent sinners. If we therefore abide by, and cleave to, predestination as it is revealed to us in God's Word, "it is a very useful, salutary, consolatory doctrine." Every presentation of eternal election, however which produces carnal security or despair, is false. We read: "If any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive comfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the impenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and true that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will of God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the instigation of the devil. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15, 4: 'Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.' But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost." (1093, 91f., 837, 16; 1077, 43.)

Predestination is comforting when Christians are taught to seek their election in Christ. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely, when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled sinners who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath, to repentance and the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the Holy Ghost for purification and renewal, and thus gives the most enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that their salvation is not placed in their own hands (for otherwise they would lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in Paradise, yea, every hour and moment), but in the gracious election of God which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man shall pluck us, John 10, 28; 2 Tim. 2, 19." (1093, 89.)

In order to manifest its consolatory power predestination must be presented in proper relation to the revealed order of salvation. We read: "With this revealed will of God [His universal, gracious promises in the Gospel] we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligently engaged upon it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the Holy Ghost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end [to begin and complete our salvation], and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss of God's hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13, 24, where one asks: 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' and Christ answers: 'Strive to enter in at the strait gate.' Accordingly, Luther says [in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans]: 'Follow the Epistle to the Romans in its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, that you may recognize your sins and His grace; next that you contend with sin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when in the eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by] temptation under the cross and afflictions,--this will teach you in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is,' etc." (1073, 33.)

Predestination, properly taught, affords the glorious comfort that no one shall pluck us out of the almighty hands of Christ. The Formula says: "Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent glorious consolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully purposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the world was laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose ordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation], and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so well and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and might of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, from which no one can pluck us, John 10, 28. Hence Paul also says, Rom. 8, 28. 39: 'Because we have been called according to the purpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?' [Paul builds the certainty of our blessedness upon the foundation of the divine purpose, when, from our being called according to the purpose of God, he infers that no one can separate us, etc.]" (1079, 45.) "This article also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God will exist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell, and likewise teaches which is the true Church of God, lest we be offended by the great authority [and majestic appearance] of the false Church, Rom. 9, 24. 25." (1079, 50.)

Especially in temptations and tribulations the doctrine of eternal election reveals its comforting power. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine affords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations, namely, that God in His counsel, before the time of the world determined and decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties and perplexities], grant patience, give consolation, excite [nourish and encourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to our salvation. Also, as Paul in a very consolatory way treats this, Rom. 8, 28. 29. 35. 38. 39, that God in His purpose has ordained before the time of the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every one of His elect to the image of His Son, and that to every one his cross shall and must work together for good, because they are called according to the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain and indubitable that neither tribulation nor distress, nor death, nor life, etc., shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (1079, 48.)

XXI. Luther and Article XI of the Formula of Concord.

234. Luther Falsely Charged with Calvinism.

Calvinists and Synergists have always contended that Luther's original doctrine of predestination was essentially identical with that of John Calvin. Melanchthon was among the first who raised a charge to this effect. In his Opinion to Elector August, dated March 9, 1559, we read: "During Luther's life and afterwards I rejected these Stoic and Manichean deliria, when Luther and others wrote: All works, good and bad, in all men, good and bad, must occur as they do. Now it is apparent that such speech contradicts the Word of God, is detrimental to all discipline and blasphemes God. Therefore I have sedulously made a distinction, showing to what extent man has a free will to observe outward discipline, also before regeneration," etc. (C. R. 9, 766.) Instead of referring to his own early statements, which were liable to misinterpretation more than anything that Luther had written, Melanchthon disingenuously mentions Luther, whose real meaning he misrepresents and probably had never fully grasped. The true reason why Melanchthon charged Luther and his loyal adherents with Stoicism was his own synergistic departure from the Lutheran doctrine of original sin and of salvation by grace alone. Following Melanchthon, rationalizing Synergists everywhere have always held that without abandoning Luther's doctrine of original sin and of the gratia sola there is no escape from Calvinism.

In this point Reformed theologians agree with the Synergists, and have therefore always claimed Luther as their ally. I. Mueller declared in Lutheri de Praedestionatione et Libero Arbitrio Doctrina of 1832: "As to the chief point (quod ad caput rei attinet), Zwingli's view of predestination is in harmony with Luther's De Servo Arbitrio." In his Zentraldogmen of 1854 Alexander Schweizer endeavored to prove that the identical doctrine of predestination was originally the central dogma of the Lutheran as well as of the Zwinglian reformation. "It is not so much the dogma [of predestination] itself," said he (1, 445), "as its position which is in dispute" among Lutherans and Calvinists. Schweizer (1, 483) based his assertion on the false assumption "that the doctrines of the captive will and of absolute predestination [denial of universal grace] are two halves of the same ring." (Frank 1, 12. 118. 128; 4, 262.) Similar contentions were made in America by Schaff, Hodge, Shedd, and other Reformed theologians.

As a matter of fact, however, also in the doctrine of predestination Zwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart from Luther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simple and implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that the agreement between Luther's doctrine and that of Zwingli and Calvin is "only specious, nur scheinbar." (1, 118.) Tschackert remarks: "Whoever [among the theologians before the Formula of Concord] was acquainted with the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [of predestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic theology." (559.) F. Pieper declares that Luther and Calvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to substance. (Dogm. 3, 554.)

The Visitation Articles, adopted 1592 as a norm of doctrine for Electoral Saxony, enumerate the following propositions on "Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God" which must be upheld over against the Calvinists as "the pure and true doctrine of our [Lutheran] churches": "1. That Christ has died for all men, and as the Lamb of God has borne the sins of the whole world. 2. That God created no one for condemnation, but will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. He commands all to hear His Son Christ in the Gospel, and promises by it the power and working of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation. 3. That many men are condemned by their own guilt who are either unwilling to hear the Gospel of Christ, or again fall from grace, by error against the foundation or by sins against conscience. 4. That all sinners who repent are received into grace and no one is excluded, even though his sins were as scarlet, since God's mercy is much greater than the sins of all the world, and God has compassion on all His works." (CONC. TRIGL. 1153.) Not one of these propositions, which have always been regarded as a summary of the Lutheran teaching in contradistinction from Calvinism, was ever denied by Luther.

235. Summary of Luther's Views.

Luther distinguished between the hidden and the revealed or "proclaimed" God, the secret and revealed will of God; the majestic God in whom we live and move and have our being, and God manifest in Christ; God's unsearchable judgments and ways past finding out, and His merciful promises in the Gospel. Being truly God and not an idol, God, according to Luther, is both actually omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can exist or occur without His power, and everything surely will occur as He has foreseen it. This is true of the thoughts, volitions, and acts of all His creatures. He would not be God if there were any power not derived from, or supplied by Him, or if the actual course of events could annul His decrees and stultify His knowledge. Also the devils and the wicked are not beyond His control.

As for evil, though God does not will or cause it,--for, on the contrary, He prohibits sin and truly deplores the death of a sinner--yet sin and death could never have entered the world without His permission. Also the will of fallen man receives its power to will from God, and its every resolve and consequent act proceeds just as God has foreseen, ordained, or permitted it. The evil quality of all such acts, however, does not emanate from God, but from the corrupt will of man. Hence free will, when defined as the power of man to nullify and subvert what God's majesty has foreseen and decreed, is a nonent, a mere empty title. This, however, does not involve that the human will is coerced or compelled to do evil, nor does it exclude in fallen man the ability to choose in matters temporal and subject to reason.

But while holding that we must not deny the majesty and the mysteries of God, Luther did not regard these, but Christ crucified and justification by faith in the promises of the Gospel, as the true objects of our concern. Nor does he, as did Calvin, employ predestination as a corrective and regulative norm for interpreting, limiting, invalidating, annulling, or casting doubt upon, any of the blessed truths of the Gospel. Luther does not modify the revealed will of God in order to harmonize it with God's sovereignty. He does not place the hidden God in opposition to the revealed God, nor does he reject the one in order to maintain the other. He denies neither the revealed universality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the efficaciousness of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace, nor the unsearchable judgments and ways of God's majesty. Even the Reformed theologian A. Schweizer admits as much when he says in his Zentraldogmen (1, 445): "In the Zwinglio-Calvinian type of doctrine, predestination is a dogma important as such and regulating the other doctrines, yea, as Martyr, Beza, and others say, the chief part of Christian doctrine; while in the Lutheran type of doctrine it is merely a dogma supporting other, more important central doctrines." (Frank 4, 264.)

Moreover, Luther most earnestly warns against all speculations concerning the hidden God as futile, foolish, presumptuous, and wicked. The secret counsels, judgments, and ways of God cannot and must not be investigated. God's majesty is unfathomable, His judgments are unsearchable, His ways past finding out. Hence, there is not, and there cannot be, any human knowledge, understanding, or faith whatever concerning God in so far as He has not revealed Himself. For while the fact that there are indeed such things as mysteries, unsearchable judgments, and incomprehensible ways in God is plainly taught in the Bible, their nature, their how, why, and wherefore, has not been revealed to us and no amount of human ingenuity is able to supply the deficiency. Hence, in as far as God is still hidden and veiled, He cannot serve as a norm by which we are able to regulate our faith and life. Particularly when considering the question how God is disposed toward us individually, we must not take refuge in the secret counsels of God, which reason cannot spy and pry into. According to Luther, all human speculations concerning the hidden God are mere diabolical inspirations, bound to lead away from the saving truth of the Gospel into despair and destruction.

What God, therefore, would have men believe about His attitude toward them, must according to Luther, be learned from the Gospel alone. The Bible tells us how God is disposed toward poor sinners, and how He wants to deal with them. Not His hidden majesty, but His only-begotten Son, born in Bethlehem, is the divinely appointed object of human investigation. Christ crucified is God manifest and visible to men. Whoever has seen Christ has seen God. The Gospel is God's only revelation to sinful human beings. The Bible, the ministry of the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution are the only means of knowing how God is disposed toward us. To these alone God has directed us. With these alone men should occupy and concern themselves.

And the Gospel being the Word of God, the knowledge furnished therein is most reliable. Alarmed sinners may trust in its comforting promises with firm assurance and unwavering confidence. In De Servo Arbitrio Luther earnestly warns men not to investigate the hidden God, but to look to revelation for an answer to the question how God is minded toward them, and how He intends to deal with them. In his Commentary on Genesis he refers to this admonition and repeats it, protesting that he is innocent if any one is misled to take a different course. "I have added" [to the statements in De Servo Arbitrio concerning necessity and the hidden God] Luther here declares, "that we must look upon the revealed God. Addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus." (CONC. TRIGL. 898.)

This Bible-revelation, however, by which alone Luther would have men guided in judging God, plainly teaches both, that grace is universal, and that salvation is by grace alone. Luther always taught the universality of God's love and mercy, as well as of Christ's redemption, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Also according to De Servo Arbitrio, God wants all men to be saved, and does not wish the death of sinners, but deplores and endeavors to remove it. Luther fairly revels in such texts as Ezek. 18, 23 and 31, 11: "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" He calls the above a "glorious passage" and "that sweetest Gospel voice--illam vocem dulcissimi Evangelii." (E. v. a. 7, 218.)

Thus Luther rejoiced in universal grace, because it alone was able to convince him that the Gospel promises embraced and included also him. In like manner he considered the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone to be most necessary and most comforting. Without this truth divine assurance of salvation is impossible, with it, all doubts about the final victory of faith are removed. Luther was convinced that, if he were required to contribute anything to his own conversion, preservation, and salvation, he could never attain these blessings. Nothing can save but the grace which is grace alone. In De Servo Arbitrio everything is pressed into service to disprove and explode the assertion of Erasmus that the human will is able to and does "work something in matters pertaining to salvation," and to establish the monergism or sole activity of grace in man's conversion. (St. L. 18, 1686, 1688.)

At the same time Luther maintained that man alone is at fault when he is lost. In De Servo Arbitrio he argues: Since it is God's will that all men should be saved, it must be attributed to man's will if any one perishes. The cause of damnation is unbelief, which thwarts the gracious will of God so clearly revealed in the Gospel. The question, however, why some are lost while others are saved, though their guilt is equal, or why God does not save all men, since it is grace alone that saves, and since grace is universal, Luther declines to answer. Moreover, he demands that we both acknowledge and adore the unsearchable judgments of God, and at the same time firmly adhere to the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. All efforts to solve this mystery or to harmonize the hidden and the revealed God, Luther denounces as folly and presumption.

Yet Luther maintains that the conflict is seeming rather than real. Whatever may be true of the majestic God, it certainly cannot annul or invalidate what He has made known of Himself in the Gospel. There are and can be no contradictory wills in God. Despite appearances to the contrary, therefore, Christians are firmly to believe that, in His dealings with men, God, who saves so few and damns so many, is nevertheless both truly merciful and just. And what we now believe we shall see hereafter. When the veil will have been lifted and we shall know God even as we are known by Him, then we shall see with our eyes no other face of God than the most lovable one which our faith beheld in Jesus. The light of glory will not correct but confirm, the truths of the Bible, and reveal the fact that in all His ways God was always in perfect harmony with Himself.

Indeed, according to Luther, the truth concerning the majestic God, in whom we live and move and have our being, and without whom nothing can be or occur, in a way serves both repentance and faith. It serves repentance and the Law inasmuch as it humbles man, causing him to despair of himself and of the powers of his own unregenerate will. It serves faith inasmuch as it guarantees God's merciful promises in the Gospel. For if God is supreme, as He truly is, then there can be nothing more reliable than the covenant of grace to which He has pledged Himself by an oath. And if God, as He truly does, controls all contingencies, then there remains no room for any fear whether He will be able to fulfil His glorious promises, also the promise that nothing shall pluck us out of the hands of Christ.--Such, essentially was the teaching set forth by Luther in De Servo Arbitrio and in his other publications.

236. Object of Luther's "De Servo Arbitrio."

The true scope of De Servo Arbitrio is to prove that man is saved, not by any ability or efforts of his own, but solely by grace. Luther says: "We are not arguing the question what we can do when God works [moves us], but what we can do ourselves, viz., whether, after being created out of nothing, we can do or endeavor [to do] anything through that general movement of omnipotence toward preparing ourselves for being a new creation of His Spirit. This question should have been answered, instead of turning aside to another." Luther continues: "We go on to say: Man, before he is renewed to become a new creature of the kingdom of the Spirit, does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preparing himself for renewal and the kingdom; and afterwards, when he has been created anew, he does nothing, endeavors nothing, toward preserving himself in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone does each of these things in us, both creating us anew without our cooperation and preserving us when recreated,--even as Jas. 1, 18 says: 'Of His own will begat He us by the Word of Truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures,' He is speaking here of the renewed creature." (E. v. a. 7, 317; St. L. 18, 1909; compare here and in the following quotations Vaughan's Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will, London, 1823.)

Man lacks also the ability to do what is good before God. Luther: "I reply: The words of the Prophet [Ps. 14, 2: "The Lord looketh down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside," etc.] include both act and power; and it is the same thing to say, 'Man does not seek after God,' as it would be to say, 'Man cannot seek after God.'" (E. 330; St. L. 1923.) Again: "Since, therefore, men are flesh, as God Himself testifies, they cannot but be carnally minded (nihil sapere possunt nisi carnem); hence free will has power only to sin. And since they grow worse even when the Spirit of God calls and teaches them, what would they do if left to themselves, without the Spirit of God?" (E. 290; St. L. 1876.) "In brief, you will observe in Scripture that wherever flesh is treated in opposition to the Spirit, you may understand by flesh about everything that is contrary to the Spirit, as in the passage [John 6, 63]: 'The flesh profiteth nothing.'" (E. 291; St. L. 1877.) "Thus also Holy Scripture, by way of emphasis (per epitasin), calls man 'flesh,' as though he were carnality itself, because his mind is occupied with nothing but carnal things. Quod nimio ac nihil aliud sapit quam ea, quae carnis sunt." (E. 302; St. L. 1890.)

According to Luther there is no such thing as a neutral willing in man. He says: "It is a mere logical fiction to say that there is in man a neutral and pure volition (medium et purum velle); nor can those prove it who assert it. It was born of ignorance of things and servile regard to words, as if something must straightway be such in substance as we state it to be in words, which sort of figments are numberless among the Sophists [Scholastic theologians]. The truth of the matter is stated by Christ when He says [Luke 11, 23]: 'He that is not with Me is against Me,' He does not say, 'He that is neither with Me nor against Me, but in the middle,' For if God be in us, Satan is absent, and only the will for good is present with us. If God be absent, Satan is present, and there is no will in us but towards evil. Neither God nor Satan allows a mere and pure volition in us; but, as you have rightly said, having lost our liberty, we are compelled to serve sin; that is sin and wickedness we will, sin and wickedness we speak, sin and wickedness we act." (E. 199; St. L. 1768.)

In support of his denial of man's ability in spiritual matters Luther quotes numerous Bible-passages, and thoroughly refutes as fallacies a debito ad posse, etc., the arguments drawn by Erasmus from mandatory and conditional passages of Scripture. His own arguments he summarizes as follows: "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and preordains everything, also, that He can neither be deceived nor hindered in His foreknowledge and predestination furthermore that nothing occurs without His will (a truth which reason itself is compelled to concede), then, according to the testimony of the selfsame reason, there can be no free will in man or angel or any creature. Likewise, if we believe Satan to be the prince of the world, who is perpetually plotting and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his might, so that he does not release captive men unless he be driven out by the divine power of the Spirit, it is again manifest that there can be no such thing as free will. Again, if we believe original sin to have so ruined us that, by striving against what is good, it makes most troublesome work even for those who are led by the Spirit, then it is clear that in man devoid of the Spirit nothing is left which can turn itself to good, but only [what turns itself] to evil. Again, if the Jews, following after righteousness with all their might rushed forth into unrighteousness, and the Gentiles, who were following after unrighteousness, have freely and unexpectingly attained to righteousness, it is likewise manifest, even by very deed and experience, that man without grace can will nothing but evil. In brief, if we believe Christ to have redeemed man by His blood, then we are compelled to confess that the whole man was lost; else we shall make Christ either superfluous, or the Redeemer only of the vilest part [of man] which is blasphemous and sacrilegious." (E. 366; St. L. 1969.)

237. Relation of Man's Will toward God's Majesty.

According to Luther man has power over things beneath himself, but not over God in His majesty. We read: "We know that man is constituted lord of the things beneath him, over which he has power and free will, that they may obey him and do what he wills and thinks. But the point of our inquiry is whether he has a free will toward God, so that God obeys and does what man wills; or, whether it is not rather God who has a free will over man, so that the latter wills and does what God wills, and can do nothing but what God has willed and does. Here the Baptist says that man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven: wherefore free will is nothing." (E. 359, St. L. 1957.)

God as revealed in the Word may, according to Luther, be opposed and resisted by man, but not God in His majesty. We read: "Lest any one should suppose this to be my own distinction, [let him know that] I follow Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians concerning Antichrist (2 Thess. 2, 4) that he will exalt himself above every God that is proclaimed and worshiped, plainly indicating that one may be exalted above God, so far as He is proclaimed and worshiped, that is, above the Word and worship by which God is known to us, and maintains intercourse with us. Nothing, however, can be exalted above God as He is in His nature and majesty (as not worshiped and proclaimed); rather, everything is under His powerful hand." (E. 221; St. L. 1794.)

God in His majesty is supreme and man cannot resist His omnipotence, nor thwart His decrees, nor foil His plans, nor render His omniscience fallible. Luther: "For all men find this opinion written in their hearts, and, when hearing this matter discussed, they, though against their will, acknowledge and assent to it, first, that God is omnipotent, not only as regards His power, but also, as stated His action; else He would be a ridiculous God; secondly, that He knows and foreknows all things, and can neither err nor be deceived. These two things, however, being conceded by the hearts and senses of all men they are presently, by an inevitable consequence, compelled to admit that, even as we are not made by our own will, but by necessity, so likewise we do nothing according to the right of free will, but just as God has foreknown and acts by a counsel and an energy which is infallible and immutable. So, then, we find it written in all hearts alike that free will [defined as a power independent of God's power] is nothing, although this writing [in the hearts of men] be obscured through so many contrary disputations and the great authority of so many persons who during so many ages have been teaching differently." (E. 268; St. L. 1851.)

The very idea of God and omnipotence involves that free will is not, and cannot be, a power independent of God. Luther: "However, even natural reason is obliged to confess that the living and true God must be such a one who by His freedom imposes necessity upon us, for, evidently, He would be a ridiculous God or, more properly, an idol, who would either foresee future events in an uncertain way, or be deceived by the events, as the Gentiles have asserted an inescapable fate also for their gods. God would be equally ridiculous if He could not do or did not do all things, or if anything occurred without Him. Now, if foreknowledge and omnipotence are conceded, it naturally follows as an irrefutable consequence that we have not been made by ourselves, nor that we live or do anything by ourselves, but through His omnipotence. Since, therefore, He foreknew that we should be such [as we actually are], and even now makes, moves, and governs us as such, pray, what can be imagined that is free in us so as to occur differently than He has foreknown or now works? God's foreknowledge and omnipotence, therefore, conflict directly with our free will [when defined as a power independent of God]. For either God will be mistaken in foreknowing, err also in acting (which is impossible), or we shall act, and be acted upon, according to His foreknowledge and action. By the omnipotence of God, however, I do not mean that power by which He can do many things which He does not do but that active omnipotence by means of which He powerfully works all things in all, in which manner Scripture calls Him omnipotent. This omnipotence and prescience of God, I say, entirely abolish the dogma of free will. Nor can the obscurity of Scripture or the difficulty of the matter be made a pretext here. The words are most clear, known even to children; the subject-matter is plain and easy, judged to be so even by the natural reason common to all, so that ever so long a series of ages, times, and persons writing and teaching otherwise will avail nothing." (E. 267; St. L. 1849.)

According to Luther, therefore, nothing can or does occur independently of God, or differently from what His omniscience has foreseen. Luther: "Hence it follows irrefutably that all things which we do, and all things which happen, although to us they seem to happen changeably and contingently, do in reality happen necessarily and immutably, if one views the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious and cannot be thwarted since it is God's natural power itself. It is also wise, so that it cannot be deceived. And since His will is not thwarted, the work itself cannot be prevented, but must occur in the very place, time, manner, and degree which He Himself both foresees and wills." (E. 134; St. L. 1692.)

238. God Not the Cause of Sin.

Regarding God's relation to the sinful actions of men, Luther held that God is not the cause of sin. True, His omnipotence impels also the ungodly; but the resulting acts are evil because of man's evil nature. He writes: "Since, therefore, God moves and works all in all, He necessarily moves and acts also in Satan and in the wicked. But He acts in them precisely according to what they are and what He finds them to be (agit in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit). That is to say, since they are turned away [from Him] and wicked, and [as such] are impelled to action by divine omnipotence, they do only such things as are averse [to God] and wicked, just as a horseman driving a horse which has only three or two [sound] feet (equum tripedem vel bipedem) will drive him in a manner corresponding to the condition of the horse (agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est), i.e., the horse goes at a sorry gait. But what can the horseman do? He drives such a horse together with sound horses, so that it sadly limps along, while the others take a good gait. He cannot do otherwise unless the horse is cured. Here you see that when God works in the wicked and through the wicked, the result indeed is evil (mala quidem fieri), but that nevertheless God cannot act wickedly, although He works that which is evil through the wicked; for He being good, cannot Himself act wickedly, although He uses evil instruments, which cannot escape the impulse and motion of His power. The fault, therefore, is in the instruments, which God does not suffer to remain idle, so that evil occurs, God Himself impelling them, but in no other manner than a carpenter who, using an ax that is notched and toothed, would do poor work with it. Hence it is that a wicked man cannot but err and sin continually, because, being impelled by divine power, he is not allowed to remain idle, but wills, desires, and acts according to what he is (velit, cupiat, faciat taliter, qualis ipse est)." (E. 255; St. L. 1834.) "For although God does not make sin, still He ceases not to form and to multiply a nature which, the Spirit having been withdrawn is corrupted by sin, just as when a carpenter makes statues of rotten wood. Thus men become what their nature is, God creating and forming them of such nature." (E. 254; St. L. 1833.)

Though God works all things in all things the wickedness of an action flows from the sinful nature of the creature. Luther: "Whoever would have any understanding of such matters, let him consider that God works evil in us, i.e., through us, not by any fault of His, but through our own fault. For since we are by nature evil, while God is good, and since He impels us to action according to the nature of His omnipotence, He, who Himself is good, cannot do otherwise than do evil with an evil instrument, although, according to His wisdom, He causes this evil to turn out unto His own glory and to our salvation." (E. 257; St. L. 1837.) "For this is what we assert and contend, that, when God works without the grace of His Spirit [in His majesty, outside of Word and Sacrament], He works all in all, even in the wicked; for He alone moves all things, which He alone has created, and drives and impels all things by virtue of His omnipotence, which they [the created things] cannot escape or change, but necessarily follow and obey, according to the power which God has given to each of them--such is the manner in which all, even wicked, things cooperate with Him. Furthermore, when He acts by the Spirit of Grace in those whom He has made righteous, i.e., in His own kingdom, He in like manner impels and moves them; and, being new creatures, they follow and cooperate with Him; or rather, as Paul says, they are led by Him." (E. 317; St. L. 1908.) "For we say that, without the grace of God, man still remains under the general omnipotence of God, who does, moves, impels all things, so that they take their course necessarily and without fail, but that what man, so impelled, does, is nothing, i.e., avails nothing before God, and is accounted nothing but sin." (E. 315; St. L. 1906.)

Though everything occurs as God has foreseen, this, according to Luther, does not at all involve that man is coerced in his actions. Luther: "But pray, are we disputing now concerning coercion and force? Have we not in so many books testified that we speak of the necessity of immutability? We know ... that Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ. But we affirm that, if God foreknew it, this volition would certainly and without fail occur in this very Judas.... We are not discussing the point whether Judas became a traitor unwillingly or willingly, but whether at the time foreappointed by God it infallibly had to happen that Judas of his own volition betrayed Christ." (E. 270; St. L. 1853.) Again: "What is it to me that free will is not coerced, but does what it does willingly? It is enough for me to have you concede that it must necessarily happen, that he [Judas] does what he does of his own volition, and that he cannot conduct himself otherwise if God has so foreknown it. If God foreknows that Judas will betray, or that he will change his mind about it,--whichever of the two He shall have foreknown will necessarily come to pass, else God would be mistaken in foreknowing and foretelling,--which is impossible. Necessity of consequence effects this: if God foreknows an event, it necessarily happens. In other words, free will is nothing" [it is not a power independent of God or able to nullify God's prescience]. (E. 272; St. L. 1855.)

To wish that God would abstain from impelling the wicked is, according to Luther, tantamount to wishing that He cease to be God. Luther: "There is still this question which some one may ask, 'Why does God not cease to impel by His omnipotence, in consequence of which the will of the wicked is moved to continue being wicked and even growing worse?' The answer is: This is equivalent to desiring that God cease to be God for the sake of the wicked, since one wishes His power and action to cease, i.e., that He cease to be good, lest they become worse!" (E. 259; St. L. 1839.)

239. Free Will a Mere Empty Title.

Luther considers free will (when defined as an ability in spiritual matters or as a power independent of God) a mere word without anything corresponding to it in reality (figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine re, E.v.a. 5, 230), because natural will has powers only in matters temporal and subject to reason, but none in spiritual things, and because of itself and independently of God's omnipotence it has no power whatever. We read: "Now it follows that free will is a title altogether divine and cannot belong to any other being, save only divine majesty, for He, as the Psalmist sings [Ps. 115, 3], can do and does all that He wills in heaven and in earth. Now, when this title is ascribed to men, it is so ascribed with no more right than if also divinity itself were ascribed to them,--a sacrilege than which there is none greater. Accordingly it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this word when they intended to speak of human power, and to reserve it exclusively for God, thereupon also to remove it from the mouth and discourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their God. And if they would at all ascribe some power to man, they should have taught that it be called by some other name than 'free will,' especially since we all know and see that the common people are miserably deceived and led astray by this term, for by it they hear and conceive something very far different from what theologians mean and discuss. 'Free will' is too magnificent, extensive, and comprehensive a term; by it common people understand (as also the import and nature of the word require) a power which can freely turn to either side, and neither yields nor is subject to any one," (E. 158; St. L. 1720.)

If the term "free will" be retained, it should, according to Luther, be conceived of as a power, not in divine things, but only in matters subject to human reason. We read: "So, then, according to Erasmus, free will is the power of the will which is able of itself to will and not to will the Word and work of God, whereby it is led to things which exceed both its comprehension and perception. For if it is able to will and not to will, it is able also to love and to hate. If it is able to love and to hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to keep the Law and to believe the Gospel. For if you will or do not will, a certain thing, it is impossible that by that will you should not be able to do something of the work, even though, when hindered by another, you cannot complete it." (E. 191; St. L. 1759.) "If, then, we are not willing to abandon this term altogether, which would be the safest and most pious course to follow, let us at least teach men to use it in good faith (bona fide) only in the sense that free will be conceded to man, with respect to such matters only as are not superior, but inferior to himself, i.e., man is to know that, with regard to his means and possessions, he has the right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to his free will; although also even this is directed by the free will of God alone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or in things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but is the captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of the will of Satan." (E. 160; St. L. 1722.) "Perhaps you might properly attribute some will (aliquod arbitrium) to man, but to attribute free will to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of all who hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which can do and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without being hindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free who acts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety do we call men or angels truly free, who, to say nothing of sin and death, live under the most complete authority of God, unable to subsist for a moment by their own power." (E. 189; St. L. 1756.)

Lost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is no health. We read: "When it has been conceded and settled that free will, having lost its freedom, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to will anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressions than that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. My grammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title of liberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. If here I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure and ambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot call health that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, I believe to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away with monstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which we affirm that man has free will, and in the same breath assert that he, having lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and can will nothing good? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use of speech. The Diatribe is rather to be accused of blurting out its words as if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does not consider, I say, what it means, and what it all includes, if I declare: Man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to will anything good." (E. 200; St. L. 1769.)

Satan causes his captives to believe themselves free and happy. Luther: "The Scriptures set before us a man who is not only bound, wretched, captive, sick, dead, but who (through the operation of Satan, his prince) adds this plague of blindness to his other plagues, that he believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered, strong, healthy, alive. For Satan knows that, if man were to realize his own misery, he would not be able to retain any one in his kingdom, because God could not but at once pity and help him who recognizes his misery and cries for relief. For throughout all Scripture He is extolled and greatly praised for being nigh unto the contrite in heart, as also Christ testifies, Isaiah 61, 1. 2, that He has been sent to preach the Gospel to the poor and to heal the broken-hearted. Accordingly, it is Satan's business to keep his grip on men, lest they recognize their misery, but rather take it for granted that they are able to do everything that is said." (E. 213; St. L. 1785.)

240. The Gospel to be Our Only Guide.

According to De Servo Arbitrio God's majesty and His mysterious judgments and ways must not be searched, nor should speculations concerning them be made the guide of our faith and life. Luther says: "Of God or of the will of God proclaimed and revealed, and offered to us, and which we meditate upon, we must treat in a different way than of God in so far as He is not proclaimed, not revealed, and not offered to us, and is not the object of our meditations. For in so far as God hides Himself, and desires not to be known of us, we have nothing to do with Him. Here the saying truly applies, 'What is above us does not concern us.'" (E. 221, St. L. 1794.) "We say, as we have done before, that one must not discuss the secret will of [divine] majesty, and that man's temerity, which, due to continual perverseness, disregards necessary matters and always attacks and encounters this [secret will], should be called away and withdrawn from occupying itself with scrutinizing those secrets of divine majesty which it is impossible to approach; for it dwells 'in the light which no man can approach unto,' as Paul testifies, 1 Tim. 6, 16." (E. 227; St. L. 1801.) This statement, that God's majesty must not be investigated, says Luther, "is not our invention, but an injunction confirmed by Holy Scripture. For Paul says Rom. 9, 19-21: 'Why doth God yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?... Hath not the potter power,' etc.? And before him Isaiah, chapter 58, 2: 'Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of Me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God,' These words, I take it, show abundantly that it is unlawful for men to scrutinize the will of majesty." (E. 228; St. L. 1803.)

Instead of searching the Scriptures, as they are commanded to do, men unlawfully crave to investigate the hidden judgments of God. We read: "But we are nowhere more irreverent and rash than when we invade and argue these very mysteries and judgments which are unsearchable. Meanwhile we imagine that we are exercising incredible reverence in searching the Holy Scriptures, which God has commanded us to search. Here we do not search, but where He has forbidden us to search, there we do nothing but search with perpetual temerity, not to say blasphemy. Or is it not such a search when we rashly endeavor to make that wholly free foreknowledge of God accord with our liberty, and are ready to detract from the prescience of God, if it does not allow us liberty, or if it induces necessity, to say with the murmurers and blasphemers, 'Why doth He find fault? Who shall resist His will? What is become of the most merciful God? What of Him who wills not the death of the sinner? Has He made men that He might delight Himself with their torments?' and the like, which will be howled out forever among the devils and the damned." (E. 266, St. L. 1848.)

God's unknowable will is not and cannot be our guide. Luther: "The Diatribe beguiles herself through her ignorance, making no distinction between the proclaimed and the hidden God, that is between the Word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He has not shown us in His Word. He also wills many things concerning which He has not shown us in His Word that He wills them. For instance, He does not will the death of a sinner namely, according to His Word, but He wills it according to His inscrutable will. Now, our business is to look at His Word, disregarding the inscrutable will; for we must be directed by the Word, not by that inscrutable will (nobis spectandum est Verbum relinquendaque illa voluntas imperscrutabilis; Verbo enim nos dirigi, non voluntate illa inscrutabili oportet). Indeed, who could direct himself by that inscrutable and unknowable will? It is enough merely to know that there is such an inscrutable will in God; but what, why, and how far it wills, that is altogether unlawful for us to inquire into, to wish [to know], and to trouble or occupy ourselves with; on the contrary, we should fear and adore it." (E. 222; St. L. 1795)

Instead of investigating the mysteries of divine majesty, men ought to concern themselves with God's revelation in the Gospel. Luther: "But let her [human temerity] occupy herself with the incarnate God or, as Paul says, with Jesus Crucified, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. For through Him she has abundantly what she ought to know and not to know. It is the incarnate God, then, who speaks here [Matt. 23]: 'I would, and thou wouldest not.' The incarnate God, I say, was sent for this purpose, that He might will, speak, do, suffer, and offer to all men all things which are necessary to salvation, although He offends very many who, being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will of His majesty, do not receive Him who wills, speaks, works, offers, even as John says: 'The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not;' and again: 'He came unto His own and His own received Him not.'" (E. 227f., St. L. 1802.)

241. God's Grace Is Universal and Serious.

All men are in need of the saving Gospel, and it should be preached to all. We read in De Servo Arbitrio: "Paul had said just before: 'The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek,' These words are not obscure or ambiguous: 'To the Jews and to the Greeks,' that is, to all men, the Gospel of the power of God is necessary, in order that, believing, they may be saved from the revealed wrath." (E. 322; St. L. 1915.) "He [God] knows what, when, how, and to whom we ought to speak. Now, His injunction is that His Gospel, which is necessary for all, should be limited by neither place nor time, but be preached to all, at all times, and in all places." (E. 149; St. L. 1709.)

The universal promises of the Gospel offer firm and sweet consolation to poor sinners. Luther: "It is the voice of the Gospel and the sweetest consolation to poor miserable sinners when Ezekiel says [18, 23. 32]: 'I have no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live,' Just so also the thirtieth Psalm [v. 5]: 'For His anger endureth but a moment; in His favor is life [His will rather is life].' And the sixty-ninth [v.16]: 'For Thy loving-kindness is good [How sweet is Thy mercy, Lord!]' Also: 'Because I am merciful,' And that saying of Christ, Matt. 11, 28: 'Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you,' Also that of Exodus [20, 6], 'I show mercy unto thousands of them that love Me,' Indeed, almost more than half of Holy Scripture,--what is it but genuine promises of grace, by which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered by God to men? And what else do the words of promise sound forth than this: 'I have no pleasure in the death of a sinner'? Is it not the same thing to say, 'I am merciful,' as to say, 'I am not angry,' 'I do not wish to punish,' 'I do not wish you to die,' 'I desire to pardon,' 'I desire to spare'? Now, if these divine promises did not stand [firm], so as to raise up afflicted consciences terrified by the sense of sin and the fear of death and judgment, what place would there be for pardon or for hope? What sinner would not despair?" (E. 218; St. L. 1791.)

God, who would have all men to be saved deplores and endeavors to remove death, so that man must blame himself if he is lost. Luther: "God in His majesty and nature therefore must be left untouched [unsearched] for in this respect we have nothing to do with Him, nor did He want us to deal with Him in this respect; but we deal with Him in so far as He has clothed Himself and come forth in His Word, by which He has offered Himself to us. This [Word] is His glory and beauty with which the Psalmist, 21, 6, celebrates Him as being clothed." Emphasizing the seriousness of universal grace, Luther continues: "Therefore we affirm that the holy God does not deplore the death of the people which He works in them, but deplores the death which He finds in the people, and endeavors to remove (sed deplorat mortem, quam invenit in populo, et amovere studet). For this is the work of the proclaimed God to take away sin and death, that we may be saved. For He has sent His Word and healed them." (E. 222; St. L. 1795.) "Hence it is rightly said, If God wills not death, it must be charged to our own will that we perish. 'Rightly,' I say, if you speak of the proclaimed God. For He would have all men to be saved, coming, as He does, with His Word of salvation to all men; and the fault is in the will, which does not admit Him, as He says, Matt. 23, 37: 'How often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not!'" (E. 222; St.L. 1795.)

242. Sola gratia Doctrine Engenders Assurance.

Luther rejoices in the doctrine of sola gratia because it alone is able to engender assurance of salvation. He writes: "As for myself, I certainly confess that, if such a thing could somehow be, I should be unwilling to have free will given me, or anything left in my own hand, which might enable me to make an effort at salvation; not only because in the midst of so many dangers and adversities and also of so many assaulting devils I should not be strong enough to remain standing and keep my hold of it (for one devil is mightier than all men put together, and not a single man would be saved), but because, even if there were no dangers and no adversities and no devils, I should still be compelled to toil forever uncertainly, and to beat the air in my struggle. For though I should live and work to eternity, my own conscience would never be sure and at ease as to how much it ought to do in order to satisfy God. No matter how perfect a work might be, there would be left a doubt whether it pleased God, or whether He required anything more, as is proved by the experience of all who endeavor to be saved by the Law (iustitiariorum), and as I, to my own great misery, have learned abundantly during so many years. But now, since God has taken my salvation out of the hands of my will, and placed it into those of His own and has promised to save me, not by my own work or running, but by His grace and mercy, I feel perfectly secure, because He is faithful and will not lie to me; moreover, He is powerful and great, so that neither devils nor adversities can crush Him, or pluck me out of His hand. No one, says He, shall pluck them out of My hand; for My Father, who gave them unto Me, is greater than all. Thus it comes to pass that, though not all are saved, at least some, nay, many are, whereas by the power of free will absolutely none would be saved, but every one of us would be lost. We are also certain and sure that we please God, not by the merit of our own work, but by the favor of His mercy which He has promised us, and that, if we have done less than we ought, or have done anything amiss, He does not impute it to us, but, as a father, forgives and amends it. Such is the boast of every saint in his God." (E. 362; St. L. 1961f.)

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession this thought of Luther's is repeated as follows: "If the matter [our salvation] were to depend upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless, because we never could determine when we would have sufficient merit. And this experienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for a thousand worlds, have our salvation depend upon ourselves]." (CONC. TRIGL. 145, 84; compare 1079, 45f.)

243. Truth of God's Majesty Serves God's Gracious Will.

Luther regarded the teaching that everything is subject to God's majesty as being of service to His gracious will. We read: "Two things require the preaching of these truths [concerning the infallibility of God's foreknowledge, etc.]; the first is, the humbling of our pride and the knowledge of the grace of God; the second, Christian faith itself. First, God has certainly promised His grace to the humbled, i.e., to those who deplore their sins and despair [of themselves]. But man cannot be thoroughly humbled until he knows that his salvation is altogether beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works, and depends altogether upon the decision, counsel, will, and work of another, i.e., of God only. For as long as he is persuaded that he can do anything toward gaining salvation, though it be ever so little, he continues in self-confidence, and does not wholly despair of himself; accordingly he is not humbled before God, but anticipates, or hopes for, or at least wishes for, a place, a time, and some work by which he may finally obtain salvation." (E. 153. 133; St. L. 1715. 1691.) "More than once," says Luther, "I myself have been offended at it [the teaching concerning God's majesty] to such an extent that I was at the brink of despair, so that I even wished I had never been created a man,--until I learned how salutary that despair was and how close to grace." (E. 268; St. L. 1850.)

Of the manner in which, according to Luther, the truth concerning God's majesty serves the Gospel, we read: "Moreover, I do not only wish to speak of how true these things are,... but also how becoming to a Christian, how pious, and how necessary it is to know them. For if these things are not known, it is impossible for either faith or any worship of God to be maintained. That would be ignorance of God indeed; and if we do not know Him, we cannot obtain salvation, as is well known. For if you doubt that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, or if you scorn such knowledge, how will you be able to believe His promises, and with full assurance trust and rely upon them? When He promises, you ought to be sure that He knows what He is promising, and is able and willing to accomplish it, else you will account Him neither true nor faithful. That, however, is unbelief, extreme impiety, and a denial of the most high God. But how will you be confident and sure if you do not know that He certainly, infallibly, unchangeably, and necessarily knows, and wills, and will perform what He promises? Nor should we merely be certain that God necessarily and immutably wills and will perform [what He has promised], but we should even glory in this very thing, as Paul does, Rom. 3, 4: 'Let God be true, but every man a liar.' And again, Rom. 9, 6; 4, 21; 1 Sam. 3, 19: 'Not that the Word of God hath taken none effect.' And in another place, 2 Tim. 2, 19: 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His.' And in Titus 1, 2: 'Which God, that cannot lie, hath promised before the world began.' And in Heb. 11, 6: 'He that cometh to God must believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that hope in Him.' So, then, Christian faith is altogether extinguished, the promises of God and the entire Gospel fall absolutely to the ground, if we are taught and believe that we have no need of knowing the foreknowledge of God to be necessary and the necessity of all things that must be done. For this is the only and highest possible consolation of Christians in all adversities to know that God does not lie, but does all things immutably, and that His will can neither be resisted, nor altered, nor hindered." (E. 137. 264; St. L. 1695. 1845.)

244. There Are No Real Contradictions in God.

Among the mysteries which we are unable to solve Luther enumerates the questions: Why did God permit the fall of Adam? Why did He suffer us to be infected with original sin? Why does God not change the evil will? Why is it that some are converted while others are lost? We read: "But why does He not at the same time change the evil will which He moves? This pertains to the secrets of His majesty, where His judgments are incomprehensible. Nor is it our business to investigate, but to adore these mysteries. If, therefore, flesh and blood here take offense and murmur, let them murmur; but they will effect nothing, God will not be changed on that account. And if the ungodly are scandalized and leave in ever so great numbers, the elect will nevertheless remain. The same answer should be given to those who ask, 'Why did He allow Adam to fall, and why does He create all of us infected with the same sin when He could have preserved him [Adam], and created us from something else, or after first having purged the seed?' He is God, for whose will there is no cause or reason which might be prescribed for it as a standard and rule of action; for it has no equal or superior, but is itself the rule for everything. If it had any rule or standard, cause or reason, it could no longer be the will of God. For what He wills is right, not because He is or was in duty bound so to will, but, on the contrary, because He wills so, therefore what occurs must be right. Cause and reason are prescribed to a creature's will, but not to the will of the Creator, unless you would set another Creator over Him." (E. 259; St. L. 1840.)

Regarding the question why some are converted while others are not, we read: "But why this majesty does not remove this fault of our will, or change it in all men (seeing that it is not in the power of man to do so), or why He imputes this [fault of the will] to man when he cannot be without it, it is not lawful to search, and although you search much, you will never discover it, as Paul says, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" (E. 223, St. L. 1796.) "But as to why some are touched by the Law and others are not, so that the former receive, and the latter despise, the grace offered, this is another question, and one not treated by Ezekiel in this place, who speaks of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of the secret and to-be-feared will of God, who by His counsel ordains what and what kind of persons He wills to be capable and partakers of His preached and offered mercy. This will of God must not be searched, but reverently adored, as being by far the most profound and sacred secret of divine majesty, reserved for Himself alone, and prohibited to us much more religiously than countless multitudes of Corycian Caves." (E. 221; St. L. 1794.)

Christians firmly believe that in His dealings with men God is always wise and just and good. Luther: "According to the judgment of reason it remains absurd that this just and good God should demand things that are impossible of fulfilment by free will, and, although it cannot will that which is good but necessarily serves sin, should nevertheless charge this to free will; and that, when He does not confer the Spirit, He should not act a whit more kindly or more mercifully than when He hardens or permits men to harden themselves. Reason will declare that these are not the acts of a kind and merciful God. These things exceed her understanding too far, nor can she take herself into captivity to believe God to be good, who acts and judges thus; but setting faith aside, she wants to feel and see and comprehend how He is just and not cruel. She would indeed comprehend if it were said of God: 'He hardens nobody, He damns nobody, rather pities everybody, saves everybody,' so that, hell being destroyed and the fear of death removed, no future punishment need be dreaded. This is the reason why she is so hot in striving to excuse and defend God as just and good. But faith and the spirit judge differently, believing God to be good though he were to destroy all men." (E. 252; St. L. 1832.) "The reason why of the divine will must not be investigated, but simply adored, and we must give the glory to God that, being alone just and wise, He does wrong to none, nor can He do anything foolish or rash, though it may appear far otherwise to us. Godly men are content with this answer." (E. 153; St. L. 1714.)

According to Luther, divine justice must be just as incomprehensible to human reason as God's entire essence. We read: "But when we feel ill at ease for the reason that it is difficult to vindicate the mercy and equity of God because He damns the undeserving, i.e., such ungodly men as are born in ungodliness, and hence cannot in any way prevent being and remaining ungodly and damned, and are compelled by their nature to sin and perish, as Paul says [Eph. 2, 3]: 'We were all the sons of wrath even as others,' they being created such by God Himself out of the seed which was corrupted through the sin of the one Adam,--then the most merciful God is to be honored and revered in [His dealings with] those whom He justifies and saves, although they are most unworthy, and at least a little something ought to be credited to His divine wisdom by believing Him to be just where to us He seems unjust. For if His justice were such as could be declared just by human understanding, it would clearly not be divine, differing nothing from human justice. But since He is the one true God, and entirely incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper, nay, necessary, that His justice also be incomprehensible, even as Paul also exclaims, Rom. 11, 33, saying: 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Now, they would not be incomprehensible if we were able, in everything He does, to comprehend why they are just. What is man compared with God? How much is our power capable of as compared with His? What is our strength compared with His powers? What is our knowledge compared with His wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In short, what is everything that is ours as compared with everything that is His?" (E. 363; St. L. 1962.)

Christians embrace the opportunity offered by the mysterious ways of God to exercise their faith. Luther: "This is the highest degree of faith, to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and condemns so many, to believe Him just, who by His will [creating us out of sinful seed] necessarily makes us damnable, thus, according to Erasmus, seeming to be delighted with the torments of the wretched, and worthy of hatred rather than of love. If, then, I could in any way comprehend how this God is merciful and just who shows such great wrath and [seeming] injustice, there would be no need of faith. But now, since this cannot be comprehended there is to be an opportunity for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published, even as when God kills, our faith in life is exercised in death." (E. 154; St. L. 1716.)

245. Seeming Contradictions Solved in Light of Glory.

Christians are fully satisfied that hereafter they will see and understand what they here believed, viz., that in His dealings with men God truly is and always was absolutely just. Luther: "If you are pleased with God for crowning the unworthy, you ought not to be displeased with Him for condemning the undeserving [who were not worse or more guilty than those who are crowned]. If He is just in the former case, why not in the latter? In the former case He scatters favor and mercy upon the unworthy, in the latter He scatters wrath and severity upon the undeserving [who are guilty in no higher degree than those who are saved]. In both cases He is excessive and unrighteous before [in the judgment of] men but just and true in His own mind. For how it is just that He crowns the unworthy is incomprehensible to us now; but we shall understand it when we have come to that place where we shall no longer believe, but behold with our face unveiled. So, too, how it is just that He condemns the undeserving we cannot comprehend now, yet we believe it until the Son of Man shall be revealed." (E. 284; St. L. 1870.) "Of course, in all other things we concede divine majesty to God; only in His judgment we are ready to deny it, and cannot even for a little while believe that He is just, since He has promised us that, when he will reveal His glory, we all shall then both see and feel that He has been, and is, just." (E. 364; St. L. 1964.)

Again: "Do you not think that since the light of grace has so readily solved a question which could not be solved by the light of nature, the light of glory will be able to solve with the greatest ease the question which in the light of the Word or of grace is unsolvable? In accordance with the common and good distinction let it be conceded that there are three lights--the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory. In the light of nature it is unsolvable that it should be just that the good are afflicted while the wicked prosper. The light of grace, however, solves this [mystery]. In the light of grace it is unsolvable how God may condemn him who cannot by any power of his own do otherwise than sin and be guilty. There the light of nature as well as the light of grace declares that the fault is not in wretched man, but in the unjust God. For they cannot judge otherwise of God, who crowns a wicked man gratuitously without any merits, and does not crown another, but condemns him, who perhaps is less, or at least not more wicked [than the one who is crowned]. But the light of glory pronounces a different verdict, and when it arrives, it will show God, whose judgment is now that of incomprehensible justice, to be a Being of most just and manifest justice, which meanwhile we are to believe, admonished and confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which accomplishes a like miracle with respect to the light of nature." (E. 365; St. L. 1965.)

246. Statements Made by Luther before Publication of "De Servo Arbitrio."

Wherever Luther touches on predestination both before and after 1525, essentially the same thoughts are found, though not developed as extensively as in De Servo Arbitrio. He consistently maintains that God's majesty must be neither denied nor searched, and that Christians should be admonished to look and rely solely upon the revealed universal promises of the Gospel. In his Church Postil of 1521 we read: "The third class of men who also approve this [the words of Paul, Rom. 11, 34. 35: 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him again?'] are those who indeed hear the Word of Revelation. For I am not now speaking of such as deliberately persecute the Word (they belong to the first class, who do not at all inquire about God) but of those who disregard the revelation and led by the devil, go beyond and beside it, seeking to grasp the ways and judgments of God which He has not revealed. Now, if they were Christians, they would be satisfied and thank God for giving His Word, in which He shows what is pleasing to Him, and how we are to be saved. But they suffer the devil to lead them, insist on seeking other revelations, ponder what God may be in His invisible majesty, how He secretly governs the world, and what He has in particular decreed for each one in the future. For nature and human reason cannot desist; they will meddle in His judgment with their wisdom, sit in His most secret council, instruct Him and master Him. This is the pride of the foul fiend, who was cast into the abyss of hell for trying to meddle in [matters of] divine majesty, and who in the same way eagerly seeks to bring man to fall, and to cast him down with himself, as he did in Paradise in the beginning, tempting also the saints and even Christ with the same thing, when he set Him on the pinnacle of the Temple, etc. Against such in particular St. Paul here introduces these words [Rom. 11, 34. 35] to the inquisitive questions of wise reason: Why did God thus punish and reject the Jews while He permitted the condemned heathen to come to the Gospel? Again, Why does He govern on this wise, that wicked and evil men are exalted while the pious are allowed to undergo misfortune and be suppressed? Why does He call Judas to be an apostle and later on reject him while He accepts the murderer and malefactor? By them [his words, Rom. 11] Paul would order such to cease climbing up to the secret Majesty, and to adhere to the revelation which God has given us. For such searching and climbing is not only in vain, but also harmful. Though you search in all eternity, you will never attain anything, but only break your neck."

"But if you desire to proceed in the right way, you can do no better than busying yourself with His Word and works, in which He has revealed Himself and permits Himself to be heard and apprehended, to wit, how He sets before you His Son Christ upon the cross. That is the work of your redemption. There you can certainly apprehend God, and see that He does not wish to condemn you on account of your sins if you believe, but to give you eternal life, as Christ says: 'God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' (John 3, 16.) In this Christ, says Paul, are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2, 3.) And that will be more than enough for you to learn, study, and consider. This lofty revelation of God will also make you marvel and will engender a desire and love for God. It is a work which in this life you will never finish studying; a work of which, as Peter says, even the angels cannot see enough, but which they contemplate unceasingly with joy and delight. (1 Pet. 1, 12.)"

"This I say that we may know how to instruct and direct those (if such we should meet with) who are being afflicted and tormented by such thoughts of the devil to tempt God, when he entices them to search the devious ways of God outside of revelation, and to grope about trying to fathom what God plans for them--whereby they are led into such doubt and despair that they know not how they will survive. Such people must be reminded of these words [Rom. 11], and be rebuked with them (as St. Paul rebukes his Jews and wiseacres) for seeking to apprehend God with their wisdom and to school Him, as His advisers and masters, and for dealing with Him by themselves without means, and for giving Him so much that He must requite them again. For nothing will come of it; He has carefully built so high that you will not thus scale Him by your climbing. His wisdom, counsel, and riches are so great that you will never be able to fathom or to exhaust them. Therefore be glad that He permits you to know and receive these things somewhat by revelation." (E. 9, 15 sqq.; St. L. 12, 641 sqq.)

In a sermon on 2 Pet. 1, 10, delivered in 1523 and published in 1524, Luther said: "Here a limit [beyond which we may not go] has been set for us how to treat of predestination. Many frivolous spirits, who have not felt much of faith, tumble in, strike at the top, concerning themselves first of all with this matter, and seek to determine by means of their reason whether they are elected in order to be certain of their standing. From this you must desist, it is not the hilt of the matter. If you would be certain, you must attain to this goal by taking the way which Peter here proposes. Take another, and you have already gone astray; your own experience must teach you. If faith is well exercised and stressed, you will finally become sure of the matter, so that you will not fail." (E. 52, 224, St. L. 9, 1353.)

After a discussion at Wittenberg with a fanatic from Antwerp, in 1525, Luther wrote a letter of warning to the Christians of Antwerp, in which he speaks of God's will with respect to sin in an illuminating manner as follows: "Most of all he [the fanatic] fiercely contended that God's command was good, and that God did not desire sin, which is true without a doubt; and the fact that we also confessed this did not do us any good. But he would not admit that, although God does not desire sin, He nevertheless permits (verhaengt) it to happen, and such permission certainly does not come to pass without His will. For who compels Him to permit it? Aye, how could He permit it if it was not His will to permit it? Here he exalted his reason, and sought to comprehend how God could not desire sin, and still, by permitting sin, will it, imagining that he could exhaust the abyss of divine majesty: how these two wills may exist side by side.... Nor do I doubt that he will quote me to you as saying that God desires sin. To this I would herewith reply that he wrongs me, and as he is otherwise full of lies, so also he does not speak the truth in this matter. I say that God has forbidden sin, and does not desire it. This will has been revealed to us, and it is necessary for us to know it. But in what manner God permits or wills sin, this we are not to know; for He has not revealed it. St. Paul himself would not and could not know it, saying, Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' Therefore I beseech you in case this spirit should trouble you much with the lofty question regarding the secret will of God, to depart from him and to speak thus: 'Is it too little that God instructs us in His public [proclaimed] will, which He has revealed to us? Why, then, do you gull us seeking to lead us into that which we are forbidden to know, are unable to know, and which you do not know yourself? Let the manner in which that comes to pass be commended to God; it suffices us to know that He desires no sin. In what way, however, He permits or wills sin, this we shall leave unanswered (sollen wir gehen lassen). The servant is not to know his master's secrets but what his master enjoins upon him, much less is a poor creature to explore and desire to know the secrets of the majesty of its God,'--Behold, my dear friends, here you may perceive that the devil always makes a practise of presenting unnecessary, vain, and impossible things in order thereby to tempt the frivolous to forsake the right path. Therefore take heed that you abide by that which is needful, and which God has commanded us to know, as the wise man says: 'Do not inquire for that which is too high for you, but always remain with that which God has commanded you,' We all have work enough to learn all our lifetime God's command and His Son Christ." (E. 53, 345; St. L. 10, 1531; Weimar 18, 549f.)

247. Statements Made by Luther in 1528.

In a letter of comfort written July 20, 1528, Luther says: "A few days ago my dear brother Caspar Cruciger, Doctor of Divinity, informed me with grief that on his various visitations he learned from your friends that you are afflicted with abnormal and strange thoughts pertaining to God's predestination, and are completely confused by them; also that you grow dull and distracted on account of them, and that finally it must be feared that you might commit suicide,--from which Almighty God may preserve you!... Your proposition and complaints are: God Almighty knows from eternity who are to be and who will be saved, be they dead, living or still to live in days to come,--which is true, and shall and must be conceded; for He knows all things, and there is nothing hidden from Him, since He has counted and knows exactly the drops in the sea, the stars in the heavens, the roots, branches, twigs, leaves of all trees, also all the hair of men. From this you finally conclude that, do what you will, good or evil, God still knows whether you shall be saved or not (which is indeed true) yet, at the same time, you think more of damnation than of salvation and on that account you are faint-hearted, nor do you know how God is minded toward you; hence you grow dispirited and altogether doubtful."

"Against this I, as a servant of my dear Lord Jesus Christ, give you this advice and comfort, that you may know how God Almighty is disposed toward you, whether you are elected unto salvation or damnation. Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in all creatures must come to pass according to His will (iuxta decretum voluntatis suae), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them partakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He says: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live. Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners who live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not separate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east to west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent, and make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is 'rich unto all that call upon Him,' Rom. 10, 12. This, however requires true and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair and is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all.' Mark these words, in omnes, super omnes (unto all, upon all), whether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovel under the banner of the sinners." "Think also as constantly and earnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort yourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill winds will cease and pass entirely."

"Thus we are to comfort our hearts and consciences, silence and resist the evil thoughts by and with the divine Scriptures. For one must not speculate about God's Word, but be still, drop reason and, holding the Word to be true, believe it, and not cast it to the winds, nor give the Evil Spirit so much power as to suffer ourselves to be overcome, and thus to sink and perish. For the Word, by which all things and creatures in all the wide world, no matter what they are called, have been created and made and by which all that lives and moves is still richly preserved, is true and eternal; and it must be accounted and held to be greater and more important, mightier and more powerful than the fluttering, empty, and vain thoughts which the devil inspires in men. For the Word is true, but the thoughts of men are useless and vain. One must also think thus: God Almighty has not created, predestinated, and elected us to perdition, but to salvation, as Paul asserts, Eph. 1, 4; nor should we begin to dispute about God's predestination from the Law or reason, but from the grace of God and the Gospel, which is proclaimed to all men." "Hence these and similar thoughts about God's predestination must be judged and decided from the Word of God's grace and mercy. When this is done, there remains no room or occasion for a man thus to pester and torment himself,--which neither avails anything even if he should draw the marrow out of his bones, leaving only skin and hair." (E. 54, 21ff.)

248. Statements Made by Luther in 1531 and 1533.

In a letter of comfort, dated April 30, 1531, Luther refers to the fact that he, too, had passed through temptation concerning predestination. "For," says he, "I am well acquainted with this malady, having lain in this hospital sick unto eternal death. Now, in addition to my prayer I would gladly advise and comfort you, though writing is weak in such an affair. However, I shall not omit what I am able to do (perhaps God will bless it), and show you how God helped me out of this affliction, and by what art I still daily maintain myself against it. In the first place, you must be firmly assured in your heart that such thoughts are without doubt the inspiration and the fiery darts of the foul fiend.... Hence it is certain that they do not proceed from God, but from the devil, who therewith plagues a heart that man may become an enemy of God and despair,--all of which God has strictly forbidden in the First Commandment, bidding men to trust, love, and praise Him--whereby we live. Secondly: When such thoughts come to you, you must learn to ask yourself, 'Friend, in what commandment is it written that I must think or treat of this?'... Fourthly: The chief of all the commandments of God is that we picture before our eyes His dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is to be the daily and the chief mirror of our heart, in which we see how dear we are to God, and how much He has cared for us as a good God, so that He even gave His dear Son for us."

"Here, here, I say, and nowhere else, a man can learn the true art of predestination. Then it will come to pass that you believe on Christ. And if you believe, then you are called; if you are called, then you are also surely predestinated. Do not suffer this mirror and throne of grace to be plucked from the eyes of your heart. On the contrary when such thoughts come and bite like fiery serpents, then under no circumstances look at the thoughts or the fiery serpents, but turn your eyes away from them and look upon the brazen serpent, i.e., Christ delivered for us. Then, by the grace of God, matters will mend." (St. L. 10, 1744 sq.; E. 54, 228.)

In Luther's House Postil of 1533 we read: "From the last passage: 'Many are called, but few are chosen,' wiseacres draw various false and ungodly conclusions. They argue: He whom God has elected is saved without means; but as for him who is not elected, may he do what he will, be as pious and believing as he will, it is nevertheless ordained that he must fall and cannot be saved; hence I will let matters take what course they will. If I am to be saved, it is accomplished without my assistance; if not, all I may do and undertake is nevertheless in vain. Now every one may readily see for himself what sort of wicked, secure people develop from such thoughts. However, in treating of the passage from the Prophet Micah on the day of Epiphany, we have sufficiently shown that one must guard against such thoughts as against the devil, undertake another manner of studying and thinking of God's will, and let God in His majesty and with respect to election untouched [unsearched]; for there He is incomprehensible. Nor is it possible that a man should not be offended by such thoughts, and either fall into despair or become altogether wicked and reckless."

"But whoever would know God and His will aright must walk the right way. Then he will not be offended, but be made better. The right way, however, is the Lord Jesus Christ, as He says: 'No one cometh unto the Father but by Me,' Whoever knows the Father aright and would come unto Him must first come to Christ and learn to know Him, viz., as follows: Christ is God's Son, and is almighty, eternal God. What does the Son of God now do? He becomes man for our sakes, is made under the Law to redeem us from the Law, and was Himself crucified in order to pay for our sins. He rises again from the dead, in order by His resurrection to pave the way to eternal life for us, and to aid us against eternal death. He sits at the right hand of God in order to represent us, to give us the Holy Spirit, to govern and lead us by Him, and to protect His believers against all tribulations and insinuations of Satan. That means knowing Christ rightly."

"Now when this knowledge has been clearly and firmly established in your heart, then begin to ascend into heaven and make this conclusion: Since the Son of God has done this for the sake of men, how, then, must God's heart be disposed to us, seeing that His Son did it by the Father's will and command? Is it not true that your own reason will compel you to say: Since God has thus delivered His only-begotten Son for us, and has not spared Him for our sakes, He surely cannot harbor evil intentions against us? Evidently He does not desire our death, for He seeks and employs the very best means toward assisting us to obtain eternal life. In this manner one comes to God in the right way, as Christ Himself declares, John 3, 16: God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Now contrast these thoughts with those that grow out of the former opinion, and they will be found to be the thoughts of the foul fiend, which must offend a man, causing him either to despair, or to become reckless and ungodly, since he can expect nothing good from God."

"Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are called', i.e., God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen, i.e., He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved. This is an altogether wicked explanation. For how is it possible for one who holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God, whose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us are saved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man first learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing but devilish blasphemy. Hence the sense of this passage, 'Many are called,' etc., is far different. For the preaching of the Gospel is general and public, so that whoever will may hear and accept it. Furthermore, God has it preached so generally and publicly that every one should hear, believe, and accept it, and be saved. But what happens? As the Gospel states: 'Few are chosen,' i.e., few conduct themselves toward the Gospel in such a manner that God has pleasure in them. For some do not hear and heed it; others hear it, but do not cling to it, being loath either to risk or suffer anything for it; still others hear it, but are more concerned about money and goods, or the pleasures of the world. This, however, is displeasing to God, who has no pleasure in such people. This Christ calls 'not to be chosen,' i.e., conducting oneself so that God has no pleasure in one. Those men are chosen of God and well-pleasing to Him who diligently hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, prove their faith by good fruits, and suffer on that account what they are called to suffer."

"This is the true sense, which can offend no one, but makes men better, so that they think: Very well, if I am to please God and be elected, I cannot afford to live so as to have an evil conscience, sin against God's commandments, and be unwilling to resist sin; but I must go to church, and pray God for His Holy Spirit; nor must I permit the Word to be taken out of my heart, but resist the devil and his suggestions, and pray for protection, patience, and help. This makes good Christians, whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either become reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes, thinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not; why, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; for you are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your Savior, who has paid for your sin. Remember this command and obey it. If you notice that you are lacking faith, or that your faith is weak, pray God to grant you His Holy Ghost, and do not doubt that Christ is your Savior, and that if you believe in Him, i.e., if you take comfort in Him, you shall by Him be saved. Dear Lord Jesus Christ, grant this unto us all! Amen." (E. 1, 204; St. L. 13, 199.)

249. Statements Made by Luther in 1538 and 1545.

In his remarks of 1538 on Matt. 11, 25. 26, Luther says: "Christ speaks especially against those who would be wise and judge in religious matters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, which is overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teaching and by judging. Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when He conceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to be over and not under God. Not as though He hid it in fact or desired to hide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entire heaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preaching which the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden from them through their own fault, since they do not want to have it--as is written Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not,' Lo, they see, i.e., they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly and publicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it and refuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their own blindness. And so, on the other hand, He reveals it to the babes; for the babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth is revealed since they wish and desire it." (W. 7, 133.)

In a letter giving comfort concerning predestination, dated August 8, 1545, Luther wrote: "My dear master and friend N. has informed me that you are at times in tribulation about God's eternal predestination, and requested me to write you this short letter on that matter. Now to be sure, this is a sore tribulation. But to overcome it one must know that we are forbidden to understand this or to speculate about it. For what God wants to conceal we should be glad not to know. This is the apple the eating of which brought death upon Adam and Eve and upon all their children, when they wanted to know what they were not to know. For as it is sin to commit murder, to steal, or to curse, so it is also sin to busy oneself searching such things. As an antidote to this God has given us His Son, Jesus Christ. Of Him we must daily think; in Him we must consider ourselves (uns in ihm spiegeln). Then predestination will appear lovely. For outside of Christ everything is only danger, death, and the devil; in Him, however, there is nothing but peace and joy. For if one forever torments himself with predestination, all one gains is anguish of soul. Hence flee and avoid such thoughts as the affliction of the serpent of Paradise, and, instead, look upon Christ. God preserve you!" (E. 56, 140; St. L. 10. 1748.)

250. Statements Made by Luther in His Commentary on Genesis.

Luther's caeterum censeo, that we are neither to deny nor to search the hidden God (who cannot be apprehended in His bare majesty--qui in nuda sua maiestate non potest apprehendi, E., Op. Lat. 2, 171), but to adhere to the revelation He has given us in the Gospel, is repeated again and again also in his Commentary on Genesis, which was begun in 1536 and completed in 1545. In the explanation of chap. 26, 9 we read, in part: "I gladly take occasion from this passage to discuss the question concerning doubt, concerning God and God's will. For I hear that everywhere among the nobles and magnates profane sayings are spread concerning predestination or divine prescience. For they say: 'If I am predestinated, I shall be saved, whether I have done good or evil. If I am not predestinated, I shall be damned, without any regard whatever to my works.' Against these ungodly sayings I would gladly argue at length if my ill health would permit. For if these sayings are true, as they believe them to be, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and whatever He did for the salvation of the world, is entirely abolished. What would the prophets and the entire Holy Scriptures profit us? what the Sacraments? Let us therefore abandon and crush all this," all these ungodly sayings.

Luther proceeds: "These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm knowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it is useful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain, and being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, as otherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this is to be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless flee to Him who is unchangeable. For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: 'I am the Lord, I change not,' and Rom. 11, 29: 'For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.' Accordingly, in the book De Servo Arbitrio and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God. Concerning God, in so far as He has not been revealed to us, there is no faith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply the saying: What is above us does not concern us (Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond or without the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by them nothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition, because they are occupied with an unsearchable object, i.e., the unrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteries concealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so much that they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, or glory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see My back parts; but My face shall not be seen. Posteriora mea tibi ostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris.' For this curiosity is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to God by natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vain endeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, there is no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible God whom you will not make visible."

With special reference to his book De Servo Arbitrio Luther continues: "It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time (and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the revealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: 'Er heisst Jesus Christ, der Herr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott,' 'Jesus Christ it is, of Sabaoth Lord, and there's none other God.' But they will pass by all these passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You, therefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that we must not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, but acquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of the Word. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvation and say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnation or wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things I have set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit them orally, too, viva voce; hence I am excused--ideo sum excusatus." (E., Op. Exeg. 6, 200. 292. 300; CONC. TRIGL. 897f.)

251. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace.

It has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalled his book De Servo Arbitrio, and retracted, changed and essentially modified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently, abandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his Glaubenslehre (4, 1, 37): "In the beginning of the Reformation [before 1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the background. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore Semi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of predestination, Luther, in his De Servo Arbitrio with an overbold defiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his position. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine, but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation of the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the merits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace; and he even opposed that doctrine [of De Servo Arbitrio] expressly as erroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on that subject." Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with the facts in the case," J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther with "absolute predestinarianism," remarks: "But this is certain: the older Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism into the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God and on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (in omnes, super omnes) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who believe." (Conf. Hist., 336.)

Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by synergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts. Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of predestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always a messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of grace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and teaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His merits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In De Servo Arbitrio Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else than Christ Crucified." (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons and books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the idea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the center of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very gradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means of grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were products of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace and pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The bent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and Scriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the question of predestination to such an extent as he did in De Servo Arbitrio, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the rationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental Christian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his salvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just such an answer as he gave in De Servo Arbitrio. Wherever the occasion demanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's majesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the universal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.

Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther later on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine, --a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians. (Frank 1, 129. 135. 125.) In his criticism of the Book of Confutation, dated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: "As to free will, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the beginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the disposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (und sich besser erklaeret); and we believe, if a synod were held and one would hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this article." (C. R. 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this assertion was false, as appeared from Luther's Commentary on Genesis and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger 2, 82.) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first asserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book De Servo Arbitrio; 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 [July 9], 1637, as one of his very best." (Creeds 1, 303.) In his letter to Capito, Luther says: "Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte 'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum,'" thus endorsing De Servo Arbitrio in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before this Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me in his booklet Hyperaspistes, in which he endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is the immutable truth of God." (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous endeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence has been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or changed his doctrine of grace.

Luther's extensive reference to De Servo Arbitrio in his Commentary on Genesis, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been interpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the Formula of Concord these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" his former position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his former fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his own, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by quoting from his books--"post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt." Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his statements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had expressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but look upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us-- "addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus.... Ideo sum excusatus." (CONC. TRIGL., 898.) Luther's entire theological activity, before as well as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in De Servo Arbitrio, viz., that we must neither deny nor investigate or be concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed Himself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the means of grace.

252. Luther's Doctrine Approved by Formula of Concord.

Flacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared at the colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context, Luther's statements in De Servo Arbitrio contained no inapt expressions (nihil incommodi). He added: "I do not want to be the reformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussion concerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. Nolo reformator esse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamus sanae ecclesiae." (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255.) In Article II of the Formula of Concord the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondage of the will together with his declarations in his Commentary on Genesis. In referring to this matter the Formula gives utterance to the following thoughts: 1. that in De Servo Arbitrio Luther "elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also by the Formula of Corcord] well and thoroughly, egregie et solide"; 2. that "afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;" 3. that in this exposition also "his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion;" 4. that the Formula of Concord "appeals and refers others" to these deliverances of Luther. (CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44.)

The Formula of Concord, therefore, endorsed Luther's De Servo Arbitrio without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever, and, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essential thoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. The said articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther's doctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man's salvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particular they reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and the inability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergism in man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousness of the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of grace and for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways; the mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all are equally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem in the light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never were contradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well as of free will, therefore, the Formula of Concord is not a compromise between synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther over the later Melanchthon.

253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord.

The attitude of the Formula of Concord with respect to Luther's De Servo Arbitrio was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. They expressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its public endorsement by the Formula of Concord. In 1569 the theologians of Ducal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine "set forth most luminously and skilfully (summa luce et dexteritate traditum)" in De Servo Arbitrio, the Commentary on Genesis, and other books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133.) That the authors of the Formula of Concord were fully conscious of their agreement with Luther's De Servo Arbitrio and his Commentary on Genesis appears also from the Apology of the Book of Concord, composed 1582 by Kirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther with errors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the Formula or Concord, endorse and defend his position, viz., that we must neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospel for an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us.

In this Apology the opening paragraph of the section defending Article XI of the Formula of Concord against the Neustadt theologians reads as follows: "In their antilog [antilogia--attack on Article XI of the Formula of Concord] regarding God's eternal election and predestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in this article the doctrine of the Christian Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book De Servo Arbitrio, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appeal to Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the Book of Concord with condemning Luther, who in the book called Servum Arbitrium maintained the proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary and useful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (Versehung) is certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, these words of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also well know how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of the First Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his." (Fol. 204a.) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we cited above (p. 223f.), the Apology continues: "With this explanation of Luther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadt theologians] wish to brood over it any further and in their investigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth of this mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] and suffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content to adhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and lead and direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life to come." (405a.)

254. Agreement of Apology with Formula of Concord and Luther.

Doctrinally also, the Apology of the Book of Concord is in agreement with both Luther and the Formula of Concord. This appears from the following excerpts: "Nor does the Christian Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejects some; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in De Servo Arbitrio against Erasmus that it is the highest degree of faith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless most merciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient cause of such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponents teaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all men should put their finger on their lips and first say with the Apostle Paul, Rom. 11, 20: 'Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt--Because of unbelief they were broken off,' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin is death.' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lord does not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, all men, etc. (which He is certainly able to do--das er doch wohl koennte), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]: 'Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viae eius--How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out,' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing and efficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent." "But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election of the elect, you must also admit the other thing, viz., that in God Himself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart from sin,' etc., then we declare that we are not at all minded to make God the author [Ursacher] of reprobation (the cause of which properly lies not in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause of the damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of the Prophet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' Nor do we intend to search our dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. For it is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the more we occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from our dear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us." (206.)

The Apology continues: "Likewise the Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the same manner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called through the public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade us to infer with them that God is an efficient [wirkliche] cause of the reprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His mere counsel [fuer sich aus blossem Rat] to reject and cast them away eternally, even irrespective of their sin [auch ausserhalb der Suende]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, it is sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments are unsearchable,' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Whatever goes beyond this our Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life."

"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the Book of Concord did not distinguish between malum culpae, i.e., sin which God neither wills, nor approves, nor works, and malum poenae, or the punishments which He wills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not to discuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matter concerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summary statement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere this distinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there any one among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, is pleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as a blasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318 [edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evil acts and works, from which it is apparent that the Book [Formula] of Concord does not at all teach that God is the author of malum culpae or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works the punishments of sins." (206 b.)

255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax.

Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and the possibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally damned, the Apology proceeds: "And why should we not also reject [the proposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is undoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected and damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and there is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still alive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his last end; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody might have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12, 39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of eternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no reprobate can be converted and saved.... It is therefore the meaning neither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12, 39] that God, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people, solely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them to damnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and correct understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate and impenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to become more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and wickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that He, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins, has foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convert themselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, we shall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this blasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also of sin, God has decreed to reject eternally these or others...." (207.)

With respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read: "They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word God declares what He approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes to work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret counsel in no other way than by working in man, viz., through conversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or hardened and damned.... With regard to this we give the following correct answer, viz.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on a dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secret counsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed Himself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the words of Luther himself, viz., that concerning God, so far as He has not been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word, there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of Him, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together with our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments of God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some to damnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His secret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that through the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards them and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it written in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that all should be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained some to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that they cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they prove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy Scriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ, contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread it in all Christendom." (108 b.)

256. Apology on God's Mysterious Judgments and Ways.

Concerning the mysterious judgments and ways of God the Apology says: "At the same time we do not deny that God does not work alike in all men, enlightening all,--for neither does He give His Word to all,--and that nevertheless He is and remains both just and merciful, and that nobody can justly accuse Him of any unfaithfulness, envy, or tyranny, although He does not, as said, give His Word to all and enlighten them. But we add that, when arriving at this mystery, one should put his finger on his lips and not dispute or brood over it [gruebeln--from the facts conceded infer doctrines subversive of God's universal serious grace], but say with the apostle: 'How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!' Much less should one rashly say, as our opponents do, that of His free will, and irrespective of sin, God has ordained that some should be damned. For as to what God holds and has decreed in His secret, hidden counsel, nothing certain can be said. Nor should one discuss this deeply hidden mystery, but reserve it for yonder life, and meanwhile adhere to the revealed Word of God by which we are called to repentance, and by which salvation is faithfully offered us. And this Word, or revealed will, of God concerning the giving rest to all those that labor and are heavy laden, is certain, infallible, unwavering, and not at all opposed to the secret counsel of God, with which alone our opponents are occupied. Accordingly nothing that conflicts with the will revealed in the Word of God should be inferred from it, even as God Himself in His Word has not directed us to it. Because of the fact, therefore, that not all accept this call, we must not declare that from His free purpose and will, without regard to sin, God in His secret counsel, has ordained those who do not repent to damnation, so that they cannot be converted and saved (for this has not been revealed to us in the Word), but adhere to this, that God's judgments in these cases are unsearchable and incomprehensible."

"It is impossible that the doctrine of the opponents concerning this article should not produce in the hearers either despair or Epicurean security, when in this doctrine it is taught that God, from His mere counsel and purpose and irrespective of sin, has ordained some to damnation so that they cannot be converted. For as soon as a heart hears this, it cannot but despair of its salvation, or fall into these Epicurean thoughts: If you are among the reprobate whom, from His free purpose and without regard to sin, God has ordained to damnation, then you cannot be saved, do what you will. But if you are among those who shall be saved, then you cannot fail; do what you will, you must nevertheless be saved, etc. We do not in the least intend to join our opponents in giving occasion for such things. God also shall protect us from it." (209.)

Again: "They [the opponents] also say that we stress the universal promises of grace, but fail to add that these belong and pertain to believers. But herein they wrong us. For we urge both, viz., that the promises of grace are universal, and that, nevertheless, only believers, who labor and are heavy laden, Matt. 11, become partakers of them. But their [our opponents'] object is to have us join them in saying that some are ordained to damnation from the free purpose of God, also without regard to sin, whom He does not want to be saved, even though He calls them through the Word and offers His grace and salvation to them, --which, however, we shall never do. For our heart is filled with horror against such a Stoic and Manichean doctrine." (209 b.)

XXII. Article XII of the Formula of Concord: Of Other Heretics and Sects.

257. Purpose of Article XII.

The purpose of the first eleven articles of the Formula of Concord was not only to establish peace within the Lutheran Church and to ward off future controversies, but also to meet the ridicule and obloquy of the Papists and to brand before the whole world as slander, pure and simple, their assertions that the Lutherans were hopelessly disagreed and had abandoned the Augsburg Confession, and that the Reformation was bound to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The Formula of Concord was to leave no doubt regarding the fact that the Lutheran Church offers a united front in every direction: against the Romanists, the Calvinists, the errorists that had arisen in their own midst, and self-evidently also against the sects and fanatics, old and modern, with whom the Romanists slanderously identified them.

Summarizing the errors which Lutherans repudiate, the Formula of Concord declares: "First, we reject and condemn all heresies and errors which were rejected and condemned in the primitive, ancient, orthodox Church, upon the true, firm ground of the holy divine Scriptures. Secondly, we reject and condemn all sects and heresies which are rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary of the confession of our churches [the Lutheran symbols, preceding the Formula of Concord]. Thirdly, we reject also all those errors which caused dissension within the Lutheran Church, and which are dealt with and refuted in the first eleven articles of the Formula of Concord." (857, 17ff.) Among the errors rejected in the Augsburg Confession and the subsequent Lutheran symbols were those also of the Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, and others. (CONC. TRIGL. 42, 6; 44, 4; 46, 3; 48, 7; 50, 3. 4; 138, 66; 244, 52; 310, 13; 356, 43; 436, 49; 744, 55; 746, 58.) And this is the class of errorists which Article XII of the Formula of Concord makes it a special point to characterize summarily and reject by name. Before this the Book of Confutation, composed 1559 by the theologians of Duke John Frederick, had enumerated and rejected the doctrines of such errorists as Servetus, Schwenckfeld, and the Anabaptists.

From the very beginning of the Reformation, and especially at Augsburg, 1530, Eck and other Romanists had either identified the Lutherans with the Anabaptists and other sects, or had, at least, held them responsible for their origin and growth. Both charges are denied by the Formula of Concord. For here we read: "However, lest there be silently ascribed to us the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects (which, as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly stole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room was given to the pure word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere teachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the Papacy still prevailed and poor simple men who could not help but feel the manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their simplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called Gospel, and was not papistic), we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly, before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship with their errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and all, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, and to our Christian Augsburg Confession, well grounded in God's Word." (1097, 7f.)

258. The Anabaptists.

The Anabaptistic movement originated in Zurich. Their leaders were Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and the monk George of Chur (also called Blaurock, Bluecoat), who was the first to introduce anabaptism. In rapid succession Anabaptistic congregations sprang up in Swabia, Tyrol, Austria, Moravia, etc. Because of their attitude toward the civil government the Anabaptists were regarded as rebels and treated accordingly. As early as January, 1527, some of them were executed in Zurich. Persecution increased after the council held by Anabaptists in the autumn of 1527 at Augsburg, which then harbored a congregation of more than 1,100 "Apostolic Brethren," as the Anabaptists there called themselves. In Germany the imperial mandate of September 23, 1529, authorized the governments to punish Anabaptists, men and women of every age, by fire or sword "without previous inquisition by spiritual judges." They suffered most in Catholic territories. By 1531 about 1,000 (according to Sebastian Franck 2,000) had been executed in Tyrol and Goerz.

The most prominent of the early Anabaptistic leaders and protagonists were Hubmaier, Denk, Dachser, and Hans Hutt. Besides these we mention: Ludwig Haetzer, published a translation of the prophets from the Hebrew, 1527, for which he was praised by Luther, was executed as adulterer February 4, 1529, at Constance; Eitelhans Langenmantel, a former soldier and son of the Augsburg burgomaster, expelled from the city October 14, 1527, impassionate in his writings against the "old and new Papists," i.e., Luther and others who adhered to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, decapitated May 12, 1528, at Weissenburg; Christian Entfelder, 1527 leader of the Brethren at Eisenschuetz Moravia, and later on counselor of Duke Albrecht of Prussia; Hans Schlaffer, a former priest, active as Anabaptistic preacher and author, executed 1528; Joerg Haug, pastor in Bibra; Wolfgang Vogel, pastor near Nuernberg, executed 1527; Siegmund Salminger, imprisoned 1527 in Augsburg; Leonard Schiemer, former Franciscan, bishop of the Brethren in Austria, an Antitrinitarian, executed 1528; Ulrich Hugwald, professor in Basel; Melchior Rinck, pastor in Hesse; Pilgram Marbeck; Jacob Buenderlin; Jacob Kautz, preacher and author in Worms; Clemens Ziegler; Peter Riedemann, an Anabaptistic author and preacher, who was frequently imprisoned and died 1556; Melchior Hofmann, an Anabaptistic lay-preacher and prolific author, who died in prison at Strassburg, 1543. (Tschackert, 148ff.; Schlottenloher, Philipp Ulhart, ein Augsburger Winkeldrucker und Helfershelfer der "Schwaermer" und "Wiedertaeufer," 1523--1529, p. 59ff.)

The various errors of the Anabaptists are enumerated in the Twelfth Article of the Formula of Concord. The Epitome remarks: "The Anabaptists are divided among themselves into many factions, as one contends for more, another for less errors; however they all in common propound such doctrine as is to be tolerated or allowed neither in the church, nor in the commonwealth and secular government, nor in domestic life." (839, 2.) Urbanus Regius said in his book Against the New Baptistic Order: "Not all [of the Anabaptists] know of all of these errors [enumerated in his book]; it is therefore not our intention to do an injustice to any one; we mean such public deceivers in the Baptistic Order as John Denk and Balthasar Friedberger," Hubmaier. (Schlottenloher, 80.)

While some of the Anabaptists, as Hubmaier, were more conservative, others (Denk, Schiemer) went so far as to deny even the doctrine of the Trinity. They all were agreed, however, in their opposition to infant baptism, and to the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of the means of grace, of the Sacraments, etc. What their preachers stressed was not faith in the atonement made by Christ, but medieval mysticism, sensation-faith (Gefuehlsglaube), and the law of love as exemplified by Christ. Tschackert quotes from one of their sermons: "Whoever follows the voice which constantly speaks in his heart always finds in himself the true testimony to sin no more, and an admonition to resist the evil." (153.) In his introduction to a publication of hymns of Breuning, Salminger said: "Whoever speaks in truth to what his own heart testifies will be received by God." Schlottenloher remarks: "It was medieval mysticism from which they [the Anabaptists] derived their consuming desire for the complete union of the soul with God and the Spirit." (83.)

259. Balthasar Hubmaier.

Hubmaier (Hubmoer, Friedberger, Pacimontanus) was born at Friedberg, near Augsburg, and studied under Eck. In 1512 he became Doctor and professor of theology at Ingolstadt; 1516 preacher in Regensburg; 1522 pastor in Waldshut on the Rhine. Before he came to Waldshut, he had read the books of Luther. He joined Zwingli in his opposition to Romanism. In January, 1525, however, he wrote to Oecolampadius that now "he proclaimed publicly what before he had kept to himself," referring in particular to his views on infant baptism. On Easter Day of the same year he was rebaptized together with 60 other persons, after which he continued to baptize more than 300. In July of 1525 he published his book Concerning Christian Baptism of Believers, which was directed against Zwingli, whose name, however, was not mentioned. At Zurich, whither he had fled from Waldshut after the defeat of the peasants in their rebellion of 1525, he was compelled to hold a public disputation with Zwingli on infant baptism. This led to his imprisonment from which he was released only after a public recantation, 1526. He escaped to Nicolsburg, Moravia, where, under the protection of a powerful nobleman, he developed a feverish activity and rebaptized about 12,000 persons. When the persecutions of the Anabaptists began, Hubmaier was arrested, and after sulphur and powder had been well rubbed into his long beard, he was burned at the stake in Vienna, March 10, 1528. Three days after, his wife, with a stone about her neck, was thrust from the bridge into the Danube.

Hubmaier denounced infant baptism as "an abominable idolatry." He taught: Children are incapable of making the public confession required by Baptism; there is no Scriptural reason for infant baptism; it robs us of the true baptism, since people believe that children are baptized while in reality they are nothing less than baptized. He says: "Since the alleged infant baptism is no baptism, those who now receive water-baptism according to the institution of Christ cannot be charged with anabaptism."

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hubmaier taught: "Here it is apparent that the bread is not the body of Christ, but only a reminder of it. Likewise the wine is not the blood of Christ, but also a mere memorial that He has shed and given His blood to wash all believers from their sins." "In the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received spiritually and by faith only." In the Supper of Christ "bread is bread and wine is wine and not Christ. For He has ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God, His Father."

Hubmaier did not regard the Word as a means of grace nor Baptism and the Lord's Supper as gracious acts of God, but as mere works of man. "In believers," he says, "God works both to will and to do, by the inward anointing of His Holy Spirit." Concerning church discipline he taught: Where the Christian ban is not established and used according to the command of Christ, there sin, shame, and vice control everything. A person who is expelled must be denied all communion until he repents. In connection with his deliverances on the ban, Hubmaier, after the fashion of the Papists, made the Gospel of Christian liberty as preached by Luther responsible for the carnal way in which many abused it. The socialistic trend of Anabaptism, however, was not developed by Hubmaier. (Tschackert 132. 172. 234.)

260. Dachser and Hutt.

Jacob Dachser was one of the most zealous members and leaders of the large Anabaptistic congregation in Augsburg, where he was also imprisoned, 1527. He, not Langenmantel, is the author of the "Offenbarung von den wahrhaftigen Wiedertaeufern. Revelation of the True Anabaptists," secretly published by the Anabaptistic printer Philip Ulhart in Augsburg and accepted as a sort of confession by the council held by the Anabaptists in the fall of 1527 at Augsburg. The book of Urban Regius: "Wider den neuen Tauforden notwendige Warnung an alle Christenglaeubigen--Against the new Baptistic Order, a Necessary Warning to All Christians," was directed against Dachser's Revelation. In 1529 Dachser published his Form and Order of Spiritual Songs, the first hymn-book of the Anabaptists, containing hymns of Luther, Speratus, Muenzer, Hutt, Pollio, and Dachser.

In his Revelation Dachser said: "The entire world is against each other; we don't know any more where the truth is. While all are convinced that the Pope has erred and deceived us, the new preachers, by reviling and maligning each other, betray that they, too, are not sent by God." "In their pulpits the false teachers [Lutherans, etc.] themselves confess that the longer they preach, the less good is done. But since they do not forsake a place where they see no fruits of their doctrine, they thereby reveal that they are not sent by God." "God draws us to Himself through the power which is in us, and warns us against wickedness and through the Teacher Christ, who in His Word has taught us the will of God." "Christ sent His disciples to preach the Gospel to all creatures and to baptize such as believe. And such as obey this command are called 'Anabaptists'!" "By our evil will original purity has been defiled; from this uncleanness we must purge our heart. Who does not find this uncleanness in himself, neither without nor within, is a true child of God, obedient to the Word of God. Who, in accordance with the command of Christ, preaches and baptizes such as believe, is not an Anabaptist, but a cobaptist [Mittaeufer] of Christ and the Apostles." "All such as preach, teach, and baptize otherwise than Christ commanded, are the real Anabaptists [opponents of Baptism], acting contrary to the Son of God, by first baptizing, instead of first teaching and awaiting faith, as Christ commanded." "We need but strive with Christ to do the will of the Father then we receive from God through the Holy Ghost the power to fulfil the divine command." (Schlottenloher, 72ff.)

Hans Hutt (Hut), a restless bookbinder in Franconia, attended the Anabaptistic council in Augsburg, where he was opposed by Regius and incarcerated. He died 1527 in an attempt to escape from prison. As a punishment his body was burned. Hutt must not be confounded with Jacob Huter or Hueter, an Anabaptist in Tyrol. The followers of Hans Hutt in the city of Steyr developed the socialistic tendencies of Anabaptism. They taught: Private ownership is sinful; all things are to be held in common; Judgment Day is imminent; then the Anabaptists will reign with Christ on earth. Some also taught that finally the devil and all the damned would be saved; others held that there is neither a devil nor a hell, because Christ had destroyed them. (Tschackert 134ff. 141. 153.) Article XVII of the Augsburg Confession condemns "the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils...; also others, who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed." (CONC. TRIGL., 51)

261. John Denk.

Denk, who was called the "Archbaptist," the "Bishop," "Pope," and "Apollo" of the Anabaptists, was born in Bavaria and trained in Basel. In 1523 he became Rector of St. Sebald in Nuernberg where he was opposed by Osiander. Banished in the following year, he escaped to St. Gallen. Expelled again, he fled to Augsburg. Here he was rebaptized by immersion and became an active member of the Anabaptistic "Apostolic Brethren," who at that time numbered about 1,100 persons. Denk was the leader of the council held by the Anabaptists in 1527 in Augsburg. Expelled from the city, Denk died during his flight, 1527, at Basel. His "Retraction, Widerruf" (a title probably chosen by the printer), published 1527 after his death, does not contain a retraction, but a summary of his teaching. (Schlottenloher, 84.) The mystic mind of Denk runs a good deal in the channels of the author of the "German Theology, Deutsche Theologie," and of his pantheistic contemporary, Sebastian Franck.

Denk taught: God is one, and the source of unity. To return from all divisions to this unity must be our constant aim. The only way is entire surrender to God and submission in tranquillity. He says: "Nothing is necessary for this salvation [reunion with God] but to obey Him who is in us, and to be tranquil and wait for Him in the true real Sabbath and tranquillity, losing ourselves and all that is ours, so that God may both work and suffer in us. He who is in us is ready every hour and moment to follow, if we are but willing. His hour is always, but ours is not. He calls and stretches forth His arms the entire day, always ready; nobody answers Him, nobody admits Him or suffers Him to enter. Do but seek the Lord, then you will find Him; yea, He is already seeking you; only suffer yourselves to be found. Indeed He has already found you, and even now is knocking. Do but open unto Him and let Him in. Apprehend and know the Lord, even as you are apprehended and known of Him."

Denk held that the source of religious and moral knowledge is not the Scriptures, but the voice of God in the heart of man, or Christ Himself, who speaks and writes the divine Law into the hearts of those who are His. [Before Denk, Thomas Muenzer had said: "Was Bibel! Bibel, Bubel, Babel!"] Whoever has this divine Law in his heart lacks nothing that is needed to fulfil the will of God. According to Denk a man may be saved without the preaching of the Word, without the Scriptures, and without any knowledge of the historical Christ and His work. Nor can the Scriptures be understood without heeding the revelation of God in our own bosom. The Scriptures must indeed be regarded as higher than "all human treasures, but not as high as God's Word" [in our own bosom]. Baptism is a mere outward sign that one has joined the number of believers; hence it can be administered to such only as are conscious of their faith. Ceremonies in themselves are not sin, says Denk, "but whoever imagines to obtain grace through them, either by Baptism or by the Breaking of Bread, is given to superstition." (Tschackert, 143; Meusel, Handl. 2, 142.)

262. The Schwenckfeldians.

Caspar Schwenckfeldt, of Ossig in Liegnitz a descendent of a noble family in Silesia, was born 1490 and studied in Cologne. In 1524 he helped to introduce the Reformation in Liegnitz. He was twice in Wittenberg; 1522, when he met Carlstadt and Thomas Muenzer and 1525, when he visited Luther. He endeavored to interest Luther in the formation of conventicles, and particularly in his mystical theory concerning the Lord's Supper, which he considered the correct middle ground on which Lutherans and Zwinglians might compromise. But Luther had no confidence in the enthusiast, whom he characterized as a "mad fool," "possessed by the devil." He said: "In Silesia Schwenckfeldt has kindled a fire which as yet has not been quenched and will burn on him eternally."

Because of the troubles and dissensions created in Liegnitz, Schwenckfeldt, in 1529, was compelled to leave. Having removed to Strassburg he was zealous in propagating his enthusiasm in Southern Germany by establishing conventicles of "Lovers of the Glory of Christ," as the adherents of Schwenckfeldt called themselves. At a colloquy in Tuebingen, 1535, he promised not to disquiet the Church. In 1539 he published his Summary of Several Arguments that Christ according to His Humanity Is To-day No Creature, but Entirely Our God and Lord. He called it the doctrine of the "Deification of the Flesh of Christ." When this teaching was rejected as Eutychianism, Schwenckfeldt published his Large Confession, 1540. At the convention of Smalcald, also 1540, his views were condemned and his books prohibited and burned. Compelled to leave Strassburg, he spent the remainder of his life in Augsburg, in Speier and in Ulm (where he died, December 10, 1561). Schwenckfeldt exchanged controversial writings with many contemporary theologians, whom he kept in constant excitement. In Liegnitz he was supported by the ministers Valentin Krautwald, Fabian Eckel, Sigismund Werner, and Valerius Rosenheyn. His adherents were called "Neutrals," because they declined to affiliate with any of the existing churches.

263. Schwenckfeldt's Doctrine.

In 1526 Schwenckfeldt wrote to Paul Speratus: Since by the preaching of the Gospel as set forth by Luther so few people amended their lives, the thought had occurred to him that "something must still be lacking, whatever that may be." Endeavoring to supply this defect, Schwenckfeldt taught: Grace cannot be imparted by any creature, bodily word, writing, or sacrament, but only by the omnipotent, eternal Word proceeding from the mouth of God. Whatever is external is a mere symbol and image of God, able neither to bring God into the soul nor to produce faith or an inward experience of divine life. "Mark well" says he, "God is not in need of external things and means for His internal grace and spiritual action. For even Christ, according to the flesh, was a hindrance to grace and [the Spirit] of God, and had to be translated into the heavenly mode of being that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come to us.... Whoever endeavors to come from without and through external means into the inner [the heart] does not understand the course of grace. God works without all means and pictures.... Man must forget and drop everything, and be free and tranquil for the inbreathing [Einsprechen, inspiration], and be drawn away from all creatures, giving himself up to God altogether."

Schwenckfeldt continues: The Holy Spirit enters the quiet soul only through the eternal Word, which "proceeds from the mouth of God without means and not at all through Scripture, external Word, Sacrament, or any creature in heaven or on earth. God wants to have this honor reserved solely to Himself through Himself [without any means] He wants to pardon man, teach him, impart the Holy Spirit to him, and save him. He does not want to grant His grace, and effect illumination and salvation through any creature; for even the flesh of Christ was not a sufficient instrument for this purpose before He was glorified, translated into the heavenly places, and removed from our eyes." "Scripture is for the external man; the Holy Spirit teaches everything to the elect inwardly and is not in need of Scripture to give faith to them and to save them." Schwenckfeldt, who employed the term "revelation" for this immediate operation of God, was inconsistent in not rejecting Scripture, preaching, etc., altogether. But when admitting these, he adds that he distinguishes "God's own inner work from the external service."

Self-evidently, these views concerning the means of grace had a corrupting influence also on other doctrines. Saving faith, according to Schwenckfeldt, is not trust in God's promise of pardon for Christ's sake, but an immediate mystical relation of the soul to God. Justification, says he, "is not only forgiveness and non-imputation of sin, but also renewal of the heart." "We must seek our justification and righteousness not in Christ according to His first state [of humiliation], in a manner historical," but according to His state of glorification, in which He governs the Church. In order to enhance the "glory of Christ" and have it shine and radiate in a new light, Schwenckfeldt taught the "deification of the flesh of Christ," thus corrupting the doctrine of the exaltation and of the person of Christ in the direction of Monophysitism. And the more his views were opposed, the more he was enamored of, and engrossed by, them, calling himself the "confessor and lover of the glory of Christ."

Concerning the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeldt taught that the deified humanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeed through bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of any medium), internally, spiritually. The words of institution mean: My body, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, i.e., a food for souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, i.e., a drink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of God. Baptism, says Schwenckfeldt, is the "baptizing of the heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and by fire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, but detrimental to the baptism of Christ." (Tschackert, 159ff.)

264. The Antitrinitarians.

The first article of the Augsburg Confession makes a special point of rejecting not only the ancient, but also the "modern Samosatenes," i.e., the Antitrinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformation began their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most of these "modern Arians and Antitrinitarians," as they are called in the Twelfth Article of the Formula of Concord came from the skeptical circles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists and Epicureans the Apology remarks: "Many [in Italy and elsewhere] even publicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, they approve such things only as are in harmony with human reason, and regard the rest as fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets." (CONC. TRIGL., 235, 28; C. R. 9, 763.) Pope Leo X was generally regarded as being one of those who spoke of the profitable "fables concerning Christ."

According to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, a fanatic (Rumpelgeist) there taught: "Every man has the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (ingenium et ratio naturalis). Every man believes. There is neither hell nor damnation. Every one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do unto my neighbor as I would have him do unto me--to desire which is faith. The Law is not violated by evil lust as long as I do not consent to lust. Who has not the Holy Ghost has no sin for he has no reason." (E. 53, 344; St. L. 21a 730; Enders 5, 147.)

In his report on the Marburg Colloquy, October 5, 1529, Melanchthon remarks: "We have heard that some of them [the Strassburgers] speak of the Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not God by nature. (C. R. 1, 1099.) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spoken incorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a book against the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted to be published." (1103.)

In a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: "Your undertaking [of publishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christian and wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles of faith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the one concerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be derided confidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably assisted not only by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which they flatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers and others, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sow their seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paul says [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (gar sehr um sich fressen) and promote godlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laugh so complacently and are so happy that one can hardly believe it." (St. L. 14, 326; Enders 9, 252.)

Some Antitrinitarians who affiliated with the Anabaptists have already been referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creed because of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, as stated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied the tripersonality of God and the preexistence of the Logos, and blasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as "superstition" and the trust in His satisfaction as "drinking on the score of Christ (ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi)." According to Denk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselves which we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed of the divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461.) It was of Denk that Capito wrote, 1526: "At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald denied that the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for this reason he was expelled." (Plitt, Augustana 1, 153.)

At Strassburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, with denying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527 Urban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining that Christ was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same year Althamer of Nuernberg published his book Against the New Jews and Arians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ. In 1529 Osiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: "It is well known, and may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradict the sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from which it follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ." "Christ is not the natural, true Son of God," such was also the accusation made by Justus Menius in his book concerning the Doctrines and Secrets of the Anabaptists. In his Sermons on the Life of Luther, Mathesius said "Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of Jesus Christ.... This was their chief article that they despised the written Word, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God."

265. Franck, Campanus, Ochino, Servetus, Blandrata, etc.

Sebastian Franck and John Campanus must also be numbered among the Antitrinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in the vicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soap manufacturing, writing, and printing. Campanus appeared in Wittenberg, 1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther and Zwingli by explaining the words: "This is My body" to mean: This is a body created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: "Against the Entire World after the Apostles--Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum," in which he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. "He argues," says Melanchthon, who in his letters frequently refers to the "blasphemies of Campanus," "that Christ is not God; that the Holy Spirit is not God; that original sin is an empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform into philosophy." (C. R. 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132.) When Campanus endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished from Saxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminence of Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their property and declined to work any longer. Campanus was imprisoned for twenty years and died 1575.

Prominent among the numerous Antitrinitarians who came from Italy were Ochino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. Bernardino Ochino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renowned pulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in order to escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurich from 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defended polygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his Thirty Dialogs, published 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of Christ, and of the atonement. (Herzog R. 14, 256.)--Michael Servetus was born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, at Hagenau, Alsace, he published De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII. He was opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his Christianismi Restitutio, a voluminous book, which he published in 1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanic doctrine, and at the same time rejects original sin and infant baptism. The result was that, while passing through Geneva on his way to Italy, he was arrested at the instance of Calvin, tried, condemned, and burned at the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also by Melanchthon. (C. R. 8, 362; 9, 763.)--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554, uttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italian congregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. He died 1564.--John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italian fugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerning the Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Antitrinitarian errors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (Herzog R. 6, 518.)

George Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for his liberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania. Here he published his Confessio Antitrinitaria, and was instrumental in introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In 1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. He taught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that there were two natures in Christ.

266. Davidis and Socinus.

Francis Davidis in Transylvania was an Antitrinitarian of the most radical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 he joined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 and publicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduce Unitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked the doctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 he published his views in De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo. He contended that the doctrine of the Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ, though born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in the decree of God, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanating from God for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the nobility had been won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty was proclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were tolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The Catholic Stephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitarians from his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579, Davidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring it to be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Three days after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings instituted against him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesying the final downfall of all "false dogmas," meaning, of course, the doctrines which he had combated.

In Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-minded nobility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and later on also fugitive Antitrinitarians. Among these were the Italians Francis Lismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however, lacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, the preexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continued until Faustus Socinus (born at Siena 1539, died 1604 in Poland) arrived. He was the nephew of the skeptical and liberal-minded Laelius Socinus (Lelio Sozzini) who left Italy in 1542, when the Inquisition was established there, and died in Zurich, 1562.

Faustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncle Laelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire program of Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata to oppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) as taught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland, where he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: the Anabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ, etc., and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland was rapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about 1,000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638 the school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachers and ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banished as traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism were confirmed.

The chief source of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian doctrine is the Racovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latin language under the title: "Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom of Poland which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that One God of Israel." It teaches: There is but one divine person; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity of Christ is false; as a reward for His sinless life, God has given Christ all power in heaven and on earth; as such, as God's representative (homo Deus factus, the man made God), He may be adored; there is no original sin; with the help of God, that is to say, with the commandments and promises of God revealed by Christ, man may acquire salvation; he is able to keep these commandments, though not perfectly; man's shortcomings are pardoned by God on account of his good intention; an atonement by Christ is not required for this purpose; moreover, the doctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by His death Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandments are adherents of Christ; these will participate in His dominion; the wicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing as eternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason and serves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous for Christians, because all matters pertaining to religion are contained better and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473.)

Evidently, in every detail, Antitrinitarianism and Socinianism are absolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence of Christianity. The Apology declares that the deniers of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity "are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters, and insult God." (103, 1.) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII of the Formula of Concord. (843, 30; 1103, 39.)

XXIII. Origin, Subscription, Character, etc., of Formula of Concord.

267. Lutherans Yearning for a Godly Peace.

A holy zeal for the purity and unity of doctrine is not at all incompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnest desire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a truly Christian and godly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth. Also in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther's death faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire for such a godly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased. While Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of a unionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union based on the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the Lutheran Confessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that the controversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Church should never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor with any teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth.

As a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peace were made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians, especially the theologians who had not participated in the controversies, but for all that were no less concerned about the maintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at the expense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flacius and Gallus published their Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen Sachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen. In this Appeal they urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had not participated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chief differences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two following years Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interest influential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthon and his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in the matter.

At the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber, Schnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discuss the conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing to disagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, they demanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines of Zwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by the Wittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7.)

268. Pacific Overtures of Flacius.

Soon after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector of the school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimate friend of Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciously slandered Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the latter submitted the conditions on which peace might be established. However, a letter written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was not answered by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's object merely was to kindle hatred. (C. R. 8, 794.)

In May, 1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to Paul Eber his "Mild Proposals, Linde Vorschlaege, dadurch man gottselige und notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen den Wittenbergischen und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica und den andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben." According to these Proposals, Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by the theologians of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the true Antichrist, the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: "Good works are necessary to salvation," be condemned, also the errors of Zwingli and Osiander. "The good Lord knows," said Flacius, "that every day and hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of the Adiaphorists might be settled in a Christian manner." But he added that he could not be satisfied until, by repentance, "they wipe out their sin, denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them by their excuses." But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber nor from Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consent of Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accorded the role of a braying ass being crowned by other asses with a soiled crown. (Preger 2, 11. 13.)

Another offer of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discuss the matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthon wrote: "I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, and I would gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before this he has spread things which I had neither said nor thought, wherefore now, too, I fear treachery (insidias metuo)." Timid as he was, Melanchthon really feared for his life at the contemplated colloquy, because the statement of Chytraeus: "As long as Flacius and Melanchthon are alive, unity will not be restored," had been reported to him in the form: unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not be possible. "None of my friends," he wrote, "is willing to attend the colloquy, and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him [Flacius] alone." (C. R. 8, 798.) Considering Melanchthon's answer as insincere and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestly sought peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He did so by publishing "Von der Einigkeit, Concerning Unity," a book which he had written before he made his pacific overtures to Melanchthon. (Preger 2, 17. 22.)

However, induced by a letter of Fabricius of Meissen (August 24, 1556), Flacius made a further effort, addressing Melanchthon in a letter of September 1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with God and the Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result, Melanchthon wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to in our chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in a qualified way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply of September 16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not any triumph or glory for himself, but "only the maintenance of truth and the rooting out of error," and that nothing was able to remove the offense given by Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of the truth and an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, broke off the correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity against Flacius. (Preger 2, 29f.)

269. Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon and Flacius.

Despite his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himself to be discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace. Embracing an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of Lower Saxony concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the Lower Saxons to mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for this purpose articles, differing from the Mild Proposals only in expressly mentioning also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and four superintendents, accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for the purpose to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: Valentin Curtius and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen and Westphal; from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; from Brunswick: Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January 14, 1557, on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring with Flacius in Magdeburg, January 17, 1557 they unexpectedly, January 19, arrived in Wlttenberg, offering their services as mediators.

Melanchthon received them in a friendly manner, but when, on the following day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denounced Flacius and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat with the Lower Saxons on the basis of the "Flacian theses." On January 21 the delegation submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: "All corruptions which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and that of the Augsburg Confession shall be eliminated from the article of justification, in particular the corruption concerning the necessity of good works to salvation." Article VII requested Melanchthon to make a public statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of good works, declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church. (Preger 2, 37.)

The presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect on Melanchthon. The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such an extent that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a most violent manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherously conspiring with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber, he finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. In his answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavy burdens of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; they therefore ought now to have had compassion with him instead of assaulting him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once told him on leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius, they had presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him and others to cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves, Melanchthon objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely charged him and others with having taught and defended errors regarding justification. He declined Article VII because the publication there required was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his many writings what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2, 38. 40.)

Fearing that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessions detrimental to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand, Baumgartner, Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, Antonius Otto) assembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In a letter, dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators not to yield anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist on the elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (ut id iugulum recte iuguletis). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meet them in Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to assist in winning Melanchthon for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flacius remarked: he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon "sweet rather than wholesome and strong medicine." (Preger 2, 42.) In a similar manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg to influence Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore the Saxon delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt no resolution before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] for consideration. No news having arrived by Saturday, January 23, an additional letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the same spirit of anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield, and to continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they said would not only expose them to ridicule, but greatly damage the Church. (2, 42f.)

On the evening of the same day Moerlin Hennig, and Westphal arrived in Coswig. Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted the articles presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. At the same time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh language of Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they had met with in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatened to stone them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a brief consultation. Their impression was (which they neither made any efforts to hide) that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not been sufficiently careful in seeking only the honor of God, the welfare of the Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held on Sunday, January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfaction with the proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to the shocking stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxon delegates to regard God higher than men, and earnestly and openly to call the Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates, besides a list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statements culled from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained their strictures on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answer to Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This matter troubled him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphorists who had despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, was constantly decreasing; having already yielded more than he should have done, he now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties, the Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the future the people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance. Flacius furthermore declared that his theses should have been either retained or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen. Moerlin answered, irritated: They had presented other articles because Melanchthon had declined the first; if any one was able to frame better theses, he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, the delegation returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached its climax. For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, and in the presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio had spoken of Flacius as "the rascal and knave (Schalk und Bube)," and even referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also a filthy and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in which Flacius and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated in Wittenberg and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49.) The first lines of the pasquil ran thus; "Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Ab illo concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quae communio veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?" (C. R. 9, 50. 235.)

Having read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthon could never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, the delegation (with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned to Coswig, January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the list of errors to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would have been broken off immediately; only the charges with respect to justification had been transmitted; they therefore requested the Magdeburgers to declare their agreement with the articles already submitted to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgers finally yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and some changes in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but "only with a wounded conscience," as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, the delegates transmitted the modified articles together with the additions of the Magdeburgers to Melanchthon.

In his answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon said in part: "You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion of opinions obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere. And many hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular to me. I was also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes. If, therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm in any matter, I ask God and the churches to forgive me and shall submit to the verdict of the Church.... As to the Flacian quarrels, however, concerning which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into which Flacius has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that this affair pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, I cannot decide and settle anything (me aliquid statuere posse).... This now I desire to be my last answer (hanc volo nunc meam postremam responsionem esse); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdict of the Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of God govern all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!" As to the articles submitted by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes and additions suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was not willing to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way to censure the honorable men who had participated in the deliberations concerning the Leipzig Interim. (C. R. 9, 62.)

Toward evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with the information that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, and that now the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early next morning they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which they modified their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues their efforts to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors. "We call upon God as our witness," they said, "that we most earnestly desire a godly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the fault lies not with us, but with them, who expressly say and confess concerning themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn the Adiaphoristic errors--the real issue of the entire controversy." (C. R. 9, 67.) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegation when they were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increased animosity on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts of the Lower Saxon theologians.

270. Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht.

Four weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to Wittenberg for the same purpose, viz., of mediating between Melanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously requested him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace. The articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke, were more severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus, professor at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned to present them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles were submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent agitation. The report says: "As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was criticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a mild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not permit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most earnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but burst forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others, and finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates, vociferating that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors, etc." On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates. When these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he again interrupted them, exclaiming: "Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the lot of the peaceful.... I commend myself to God." After Melanchthon had left, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates: "Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. Ihr sollt forthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden lassen mit solchen Haendeln." (9, 106f.)

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

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

271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.

The Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that a colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the Lutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the colloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect that all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and the Romanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were all agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution Nicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest. Self-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that the controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not assent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying their convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the situation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to decline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch Lutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the Lutherans was unavoidable.

Before the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at Worms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he admonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other Lutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism, Osiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because the Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the Leipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (C. R. 9, l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the dukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their delegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John Frederick said it was impossible that, in defending the Augsburg Confession against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man and speak as with one mouth (fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore), if they had not previously come to an agreement among themselves and condemned the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeat the Lutherans with their own sword, i.e., their own polemical publications. (231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated his sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and Sarcerius. (232ff.)

In a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr. Basilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in keeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon Erhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought to be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the motion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided that his theologians could not participate in the colloquy with Lutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the Augsburg Confession, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true members and adherents of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Smalcald Articles. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was temporarily warded off by the concession on the part of the Melanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely to express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At the session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding demanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians, Calvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine de servo arbitrio) from the Augsburg Confession. The Jesuit Canisius plied the Lutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander, Major, and others adherents of the Augustana. Melanchthon declared evasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed in the Augsburg Confession. As a result the Thuringians decided to enter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority threatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if they dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which they rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that the Thuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius Pflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning had been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining Lutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who the true adherents of the Augsburg Confession were with whom, according to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal.

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

The Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among the Lutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official publicity to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was unscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, their sinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed by the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold. In particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among the Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the Augsburg Confession to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the Augsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the opportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies that were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran princes, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to the Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to bend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoring religious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made especially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But instead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of the princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of dissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming the conviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger indeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and an unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish peace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.

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

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

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

273. General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists.

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

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

274. Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg.

In lieu of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the best means to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and estates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561. The object of this assembly, he said, was neither to discuss the differences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but only to renew the subscription to the Augsburg Confession and to consider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous confession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All finally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector August (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined participation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the Palatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from this assembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general synod and sent their Supplication to Naumburg with an additional writing, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes not to enter into an ungodly and unionistic agreement, rather to eliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose object was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to consider their petition, and, on February 8, the last day of the convention, returned the documents to their authors in Jena.

After comparing the various editions of the Augsburg Confession, the Naumburg Assembly decided to subscribe to the Confession as delivered 1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg. But when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already was openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August, demanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct explanation of the original Augustana, the majority of the princes yielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in the Preface (Praefatio), in which the princes stated the reasons for renewing their subscription to the Augsburg Confession at Naumburg. This Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinist Cracow, also asserted that hitherto no doctrinal corruptions or deviations from the Augsburg Confession had been tolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies within the Lutheran Church nor the Smalcald Articles.

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

The Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the Electors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of Wuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of other princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any means stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic Naumburg document. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also left Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of Brunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of Saxon-Lauenburg, the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, Stolberg, Barby, and a number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg, Augsburg, Strassburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyal Lutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all the princes who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg emphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his delegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the Palatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg signified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the views and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the beginning they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense. In the Preface of the Book of Concord signed by the Lutheran princes, we read: "Now, our conferences and those of our illustrious predecessors, which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention, first at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were recorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful settlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors and false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our mind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as many of us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly reserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of time, anything would be desired with respect to the Augsburg Confession, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would further declare all things thoroughly and at length." (CONC. TRIGL. 15.) Even Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke John Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had misled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg, openly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent Lutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate proved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true unity and the formulation and adoption of the Formula of Concord. And more than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring about this result. (Preger 2, 102.)

275. Andreae and Chemnitz.

The theologians who were first in adopting effective methods and measures to satisfy the general yearning for a real peace in the divine truth were Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz. Andreae was born 1528 in Weiblingen, Wuerttemberg. He studied at Stuttgart and Tuebingen. In 1546 he became pastor in Stuttgart, where, two years later, he was deposed because of his refusal to consent to the Interim. In 1549 he became pastor and later on superintendent in Tuebingen. Since 1562 he was also professor and chancellor of the university. He died 1590. Andreae has been called "the spiritual heir of John Brenz." Hoping against hope, he incessantly labored for the unity and peace of the Lutheran Church. Being a man of great energy and diplomatic skill, he served her at numerous occasions and in various capacities. In his pacification efforts he made more than 120 journeys, visiting nearly all evangelical courts, cities, and universities in Northern and Southern Germany. With the consent of the Duke of Wuerttemberg, Andreae entered the service of Elector August, April 9, 1567, and lived with his family in Saxony till his dismissal in December, 1580. Here he was engaged in directing the affairs of the churches and universities, and in promoting the work of Lutheran pacification and concord at large. During his efforts to unite the Lutherans he was maligned by the Philippists, and severely criticized also by the strict Lutherans. The latter was largely due to the fact that in his first attempts at pacification he allowed himself to be duped by the Wittenberg Philippists, being even blind enough to defend them against the charges of Calvinism in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper made by their opponents in Jena and in Lower Saxony. While thus Andreae was the able and enthusiastic promoter of the pacification which culminated in the adoption of the Formula of Concord, he lacked the theological insight, acumen, and consistency which characterized Martin Chemnitz.

Martin Chemnitz was born November 9, 1522, at Treuenbritzen in Brandenburg. As a boy he attended, for a brief period, the school in Wittenberg, where he "rejoiced to see the renowned men of whom he had heard so much at home, and to hear Luther preach." From 1539 to 1542 he attended the Gymnasium at Magdeburg; from 1543 to 1545 he studied in Frankfort-on-the-Oder; in 1545 he went to Wittenberg, where Melanchthon directed his studies. In 1548 he became rector of the school in Koenigsberg, and 1550 librarian of Duke Albrecht, with a good salary. Owing to his participation in the Osiandrian controversy, Chemnitz lost the favor of Albrecht, and in 1553 he removed to Wittenberg. On June 9, 1554, he began his lectures on Melanchthon's Loci Communes before a large and enthusiastic audience, Melanchthon himself being one of his hearers. In November, 1554, he accepted a position as pastor, and in 1567 as superintendent, in the city of Brunswick. He died April 8, 1586. Chemnitz was the prince of the Lutheran divines of his age and, next to Luther, the greatest theologian of our Church. Referring to Luther and Chemnitz, the Romanists said: "You Lutherans have two Martins; if the second had not appeared, the first would have disappeared (si posterior non fuisset, prior non stetisset)." Besides the two Lutheran classics: Examen Concilii Tridentini, published 1565--1573, and De Duabus Naturis in Christo, 1570, Chemnitz wrote, among other books: Harmonia Evangelica, continued and published 1593 by Leyser and completed by John Gerhard, and Foundations (Die Fundamente) of the Sound Doctrine concerning the Substantial Presence, Tendering, and Eating and Drinking of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Supper, 1569.

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

276. First Peace Efforts of Andreae Fail.

In his first attempts to unify the Lutheran Church, Andreae endeavored to reconcile all parties, including the Wittenberg Philippists, who then were contemplating an agreement with the Calvinists. In 1567, at the instance of Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel and Duke Christopher of Wuerttemberg, Andreae composed his "Confession and Brief Explanation of Several Controverted Articles, according to which a Christian unity might be effected in the churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and the offensive and wearisome dissension might be settled." In five articles he treated: 1. Justification, 2. Good Works, 3. Free Will, 4. The Adiaphora, 5. The Lord's Supper. The second article maintains that we are neither justified nor saved by good works, since Christ has earned for us both salvation and righteousness by His innocent obedience, suffering, and death alone, which is imputed as righteousness to all believers solely by faith. It rejects all those who teach otherwise, but not directly and expressly the statement: Good works are necessary to salvation. The third article maintains that, also after the Fall, man is not a block, but a rational creature having a free, though weak, will in external things; but that in divine and spiritual matters his intellect is utterly blind and his will is dead; and that hence, unless God creates a new volition in him, man is unable of himself, of his own powers, to accept the grace of God offered in Christ. It rejects all who teach otherwise. The fourth article states that ceremonies are no longer free, but must be abandoned, when their adoption is connected with a denial of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession. It rejects all those who teach otherwise. The fifth article emphasizes that also the wicked when they partake of the Lord's Supper, receive the body of Christ, but to their damnation. It furthermore declares: Since it is objected that the body and blood cannot be present in the Holy Supper because Christ ascended to heaven with His body, it is necessary "to explain the article of the incarnation of the Son of God, and to indicate, in as simple a way as possible, the manner in which both natures, divine and human, are united in Christ, wherefrom it appears to what height the human nature in Christ has been exalted by the personal union." (Hutter, Concordia Concors, 110ff.)

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

At the instance of Andreae, May 7, 1570, a conference met at Zerbst in Anhalt, at which twenty theologians represented Electoral Saxony, Brunswick, Hesse, Brandenburg, Anhalt, and Lower Saxony (the Ducal Saxon theologians declining to participate). The conference decided that a new confession was not needed, and unanimously recognized the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Catechisms of Luther. Andreae was elated. In his "Report" to the Emperor and the princes he gloried in "the Christian unity" attained at Zerbst. But also this apparent victory for peace and true Lutheranism was illusory rather than real, for the Wittenberg theologians qualified their subscription by formally declaring that they interpreted and received the confessions enumerated only in as far as they agreed with the Corpus Philippicum. And before long the Crypto-Calvinistic publications, referred to in the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, began to make their appearance. The only result of these first peace efforts of Andreae, which lacked in single-minded devotion to the truth, and did not sufficiently exclude every form of indifferentism and unionism, was that he himself was regarded with increasing suspicion by the opponents of the Philippists. As for Andreae, however, the dealings which he had with the dishonest Wittenbergers opened his eyes and convinced him that it was impossible to win Electoral Saxony for a truly Lutheran union as long as the Crypto-Calvinists were firmly seated in the saddle.

277. Andreae's Sermons and the Swabian Concordia.

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

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

278. The Swabian-Saxon Concordia.

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

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

While this new Concordia was adopted in Lower Saxony, the Swabians, to whom it was forwarded, September 5, 1575, were not quite satisfied with its form, but did not object to its doctrinal contents. They criticized the unevenness of its style, its frequent use of Latin technical terms, its quotations (now approved, now rejected) from Melanchthon, etc. Particularly regarding the last mentioned point they feared that the references to Melanchthon might lead to new dissensions; hence they preferred that citations be taken from Luther's writings only, which was done in the Formula of Concord as finally adopted.

279. The Maulbronn Formula.

The movement for a general unity within the Lutheran Church received a powerful impetus by the sudden and ignominious collapse of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony, 1574. By unmasking the Philippists, God had removed the chief obstacle of a godly and general peace among the Lutherans. Now the clouds of dissension began to disappear rapidly. As long as the eyes of Elector August were closed to the dishonesty of his theologians, there was no hope for a peace embracing the entire Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before the public exposure of the Philippists, August had been told as much by Count Henneberg and other princes, viz., that the Wittenberg theologians were universally suspected, and that peace could not be established until their Calvinistic errors had been condemned. For in the doctrines of the Lord's Supper and of the person of Christ, as has been shown in the chapter on the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, the Philippists of Electoral Saxony and of other sections of Germany were Calvinists rather than Lutherans. It was the appearance of the Calvinistic Exegesis Perspicua of 1574 which left no doubt in the mind of the Elector that for years he had been surrounded by a clique of dishonest theologians and unscrupulous schemers, who, though claiming to be Lutherans, were secret adherents of Calvinism. And after the Elector, as Chemnitz remarks, had discovered the deception of his theologians in the article on the Lord's Supper, he began to doubt their entire contention. (Richard, 426.)

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

The specific plan of the Elector was as appears from his rescript of November 21, 1575, to his counselors, that pacific theologians, appointed by the various Lutheran princes "meet in order to deliberate how, by the grace of God, all [the existing various corpora doctrinae] might be reduced to one corpus which we all could adopt, and that this book or corpus doctrinae be printed anew and the ministers in the lands of each ruler be required to be guided thereby." Before this Elector August had requested Count George Ernest of Henneberg to take the initiative in the matter. Accordingly, in November, 1575 Henneberg, Duke Ludwig of Wuerttemberg and Margrave Carl of Baden agreed to ask a number of theologians to give their opinion concerning the question as to how a document might be prepared which would serve as a beginning to bring about true Christian concord among the churches of the Augsburg Confession. The theologians appointed were the Wuerttemberg court-preacher Lucas Osiander (born 1534; died 1604), the Stuttgart provost Balthasar Bidembach (born 1533; died 1578) and several theologians of Henneberg and Baden. Their opinion, delivered November 14, 1575, was approved by the princes, and Osiander and Bidembach were ordered to prepare a formula of agreement in accordance with it. The document which they submitted was discussed with theologians from Henneberg and Baden at Cloister Maulbronn, Wuerttemberg and subscribed January 19, 1576.

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

280. The Torgau Book.

On February 9, 1576, the Maulbronn Formula, approved by Count Ludwig of Wuerttemberg, Margrave Carl of Baden, and Count George Ernest of Henneberg, was transmitted to Elector August, who had already received a copy of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia from Duke Julius of Brunswick. The Elector submitted both to Andreae for an opinion, whom formal reasons induced to decide in favor of the Maulbronn Formula. At the same time Andreae advised the Elector to arrange a general conference of prominent theologians to act and decide in this matter, suggesting as two of its members Chemnitz and Chytraeus of Rostock. This being in agreement with his own plans, the Elector, at the convention at Lichtenberg, February 15, 1576 submitted the suggestions of Andreae to twelve of his own theologians, headed by Nicholas Selneccer, then professor in Leipzig. [Selneccer was born December 6, 1530. In 1550 he took up his studies in Wittenberg, where he was much impressed and influenced by Melanchthon. In 1557 he was appointed court-preacher in Dresden. Beginning with 1565 after the banishment of Flacius and his colleagues, he was professor in Jena. He returned to Leipzig in 1568. In 1570 he accepted a call from Duke Julius as court-preacher and superintendent in Brunswick, but returned to Leipzig in 1574. Before the unmasking of the Crypto-Calvinists his theological attitude lacked clearness and determination. Ever after, however, he was the leader of the Lutheran forces in Electoral Saxony. At the Lichtenberg Convention, convoked February 16, 1576, by Elector August, Selneccer successfully advocated the removal of the Wittenberg Catechism, the Consensus Dresdensis, and the Corpus Philippicum. In their place he recommended the adoption of a new corpus doctrinae containing the three Ecumenical Creeds, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther, and, if desired, Luther's Commentary on Galatians. Finally he advised that the electors and princes arrange a convention of such representative theologians as, e.g., Chytraeus, Chemnitz, Andreae, and Marbach, to discuss the doctrinal differences. Selneccer's recommendations were adopted by the convention and transmitted to Elector August. Though contributing little to the contents of the Formula of Concord, Selneccer heartily cooperated in its preparation, revision, and adoption. In 1580, of his own accord, he published the Latin Book of Concord, which was followed in 1584 by an edition authorized by the princes. Selneccer also participated in preparing the Apology of the Book of Concord, first published 1582 in Magdeburg. In May, 1589, after the Crypto-Calvinistic reaction under Christian I, Selneccer, whom the Calvinists hated more than others of the theologians who had participated in the promulgation of the Formula of Concord, was deposed, harassed, and reduced to poverty because of his testimony against Chancellor Crell and his earnest and continued warnings against the Calvinists. After the death of Christian I, Selneccer was recalled to Leipzig, where he arrived May 19, 1592, five days before his death, May 24, 1592.]

Having through the influence of Selneccer, at Lichtenberg, obtained the consent of his clergy to his plans of unification, and, also in accordance with their desire, called Andreae to Saxony, Elector August immediately made arrangements for the contemplated general convention of theologians. It was held at Torgau, from May 28 to June 7, 1576, and attended by Selneccer, the Saxon ministers who had participated in the Lichtenberg convention, Andreae, Chemnitz, Andrew Musculus [General Superintendent of Brandenburg], Christopher Cornerus [professor in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder; born 1518; died 1549], and David Chytraeus [born February 26, 1530, in Wuerttemberg; awarded degree of magister in Tuebingen when only fourteen years old; began his studies 1544 in Wittenberg, where he also heard Luther; was professor in Rostock from 1551 till his death, June 25, 1600]. The result of the Torgau deliberations, in which much time was spent on the articles of Original Sin and Free Will, was the so-called Torgau Book. On the seventh of June the theologians informed the Elector that, on the basis of the Swabian-Saxon and the Maulbronn documents, they, as desired by him, had agreed on a corpus doctrinae.

The Torgau Book was essentially the Swabian-Saxon Concordia, recast and revised, as urged by Andreae, with special reference to the desirable features (enumerated above) of the Maulbronn Formula. The majority decided, says Chemnitz, that the Saxon Concordia should be retained, but in such a manner as to incorporate also the quotations from Luther, and whatever else might be regarded as useful in the Maulbronn Formula. The Torgau Book contained the twelve articles of the later Formula of Concord and in the same sequence; Article IX, "Of the Descent of Christ into Hell," had been added at Torgau. The Book was entitled: "Opinion as to how the dissensions prevailing among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession may, according to the Word of God, be agreed upon and settled in a Christian manner." It was signed as "their faith, doctrine, and confession" by the six men who were chiefly responsible for its form and contents: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selneccer, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Cornerus. The convention was closed with a service of thanksgiving to Almighty God for the blessed results of their labors and the happy termination and favorable issue of their discussions, Selneccer delivering the sermon. Similar services were held at other places, notably in Mecklenburg and Lower Saxony.

In a letter to Hesshusius, Chemnitz says concerning the Torgau Convention: "Everything in this entire transaction occurred aside from, beyond, above, and contrary to the hope, expectation, and thought of all. I was utterly astounded, and could scarcely believe that these things were done when they were done. It seemed like a dream to me. certainly a good happy and desired beginning has been made toward the restoration of purity of doctrine, toward the elimination of corruptions, toward the establishment of a godly confession." In a letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae wrote in a similar vein, saying: "Often were they [Chemnitz and Chytraeus] almost overwhelmed with rejoicing and wonder that we were there [at Torgau] brought to such deliberation. Truly, this is the change of the right hand of the Most High, which ought also to remind us that since the truth no longer suffers, we should do everything that may contribute to the restoration of good feeling." (Richard, 428. 430.)

281. The Bergic Book or the Formula of Concord.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Torgau convention the Elector of Saxony examined the Torgau Book himself and had copies of it sent to the various Lutheran princes and estates in Germany with the request to have it tested by their theologians, and to return their opinions and censures to Dresden. Of these (about 25) the majority were favorable. The churches in Pomerania and Holstein desired that Melanchthon's authority be recognized alongside of Luther's. On the other hand, Hesshusius and Wigand demanded that Flacius, Osiander, Major, Melanchthon, and other "originators and patrons of corruptions" be referred to by name and condemned as errorists. Quite a number of theologians objected to the Torgau Book because it was too bulky. To meet this objection the Epitome, a summary of the contents of the Torgau Book, was prepared by Andreae with the consent of the Elector. Originally its title read: "Brief Summary of the articles which, controverted among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession for many years, were settled in a Christian manner at Torgau in the month of June, 1576, by the theologians which there met and subscribed."

After most of the censures had arrived, the "triumvirate" of the Formula of Concord (as Chytraeus called them 1581), Andreae, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, by order of the Elector met on March 1, 1577, at Cloister Bergen, near Magdeburg, for the consideration of the criticisms and final editing of the new confession. They finished their work on March 14. Later when other criticisms arrived and a further revision took place (also at Bergen, in May 1577), Musculus, Cornerus, and Chytraeus were added to their number. Though numerous changes, additions, and omissions were made at Bergen, and in Article IX the present form was substituted for the sermon of Luther, the doctrinal substance of the Torgau Book remained unchanged. The chief object of the revisers was to eliminate misunderstandings and to replace ambiguous and dark terms with clear ones. At the last meeting of the six revisers (at Bergen, in May) the Solid Declaration was quickly and finally agreed upon, only a few changes of a purely verbal and formal nature being made. On May 28, 1577, the revised form of the Torgau Book was submitted to Elector August. It is known as the Bergic Book, or the Solid Declaration, or the Formula of Concord, also as the Book of Concord (a title which was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols). Of course, the Epitome, prepared by Andreae, was also examined and approved by the revisers at Cloister Bergen.

In order to remove a number of misunderstandings appearing after the completion of the Bergic Book, a "Preface" (Introduction to the Book of Concord) was prepared by the theologians and signed by the princes. The Catalog of Testimonies, added first with the caption "Appendix" and later without the same, or omitted entirely, is a private work of Andreae and Chemnitz, and not a part of the confession. Its special purpose is to prove that the Lutheran doctrine concerning the person of Christ and the majesty of His human nature as set forth in Article VII of the Formula of Concord, is clearly taught by the Scriptures as well as by the Fathers of the ancient Church. The Formula of Concord (German) was first published at Dresden, 1580, as a part of the Book of Concord. The first authentic Latin edition appeared in Leipzig, 1584. (Compare chapter on "The Book of Concord.")

282. Subscription to the Formula of Concord.

Originally Elector August planned to submit the Bergic Book to a general convention of the evangelical estates for approval. But fearing that this might lead to new discussions and dissensions, the six theologians, in their report (May 28, 1577) on the final revision of the Bergic Book, submitted and recommended a plan of immediate subscription instead of an adoption at a general convention. Consenting to their views, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg forthwith sent copies of the Bergic Book to such princes and estates as were expected to consent. These were requested to multiply the copies, and everywhere to circulate and submit them for discussion and subscription. As a result the Formula of Concord was signed by the electors of Saxony, of Brandenburg, and of the Palatinate; furthermore by 20 dukes and princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, 35 imperial cities, and about 8,000 pastors and teachers embracing about two-thirds of the Lutheran territories of Germany.

The first signatures were those of Andreae, Selneccer, Musculus, Cornerus, Chytraeus, and Chemnitz, who on May 29, 1577, signed both the Epitome and the Thorough Declaration the latter with the following solemn protestation: "Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after mature deliberation we have, in God's fear and with the invocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands." (1103, 40 CONC. TRIGL. 1103, 40; 842, 31.)

Kolde remarks: "Wherever the civil authorities were in favor of the Bergic Book, the pastors and teachers also were won for its subscription. That the wish of the ruler contributed to this result cannot be denied and is confirmed by the Crypto-Calvinistic troubles reappearing later on in Saxony. But that the influence of the rulers must not be overestimated, appears, apart from other things from the frequent additions to the signatures 'With mouth and heart (cum ore et corde).'" Self-evidently the Crypto-Calvinists as well as other errorists had to face the alternative of either subscribing or being suspended from the ministry. The very object of the Formula of Concord was to purge the Lutheran Church from Calvinists and others who were not in sympathy and agreement with the Lutheran Confessions and constituted a foreign and disturbing element in the Lutheran Church.

As to the manner in which the Formula was submitted for subscription, it was certainly not indifferentistic, but most solemn and serious, and perhaps, in some instances, even severe. Coercion, however, was nowhere employed for obtaining the signatures. At any rate, no instance is recorded in which compulsion was used to secure its adoption. Moreover, the campaign of public subscription, for which about two years were allowed, was everywhere conducted on the principle that such only were to be admitted to subscription as had read the Formula and were in complete agreement with its doctrinal contents. Yet it was probably true that some, as Hutter assumes, signed with a bad conscience [Hutter: "Deinde esto: subscripserunt aliqui mala conscientia Formulae Concordiae"; Mueller, Einleitung, 115]; for among those who affixed their names are quite a few of former Crypto-Calvinists--men who had always found a way of escaping martyrdom, and, also in this instance, may have preferred the retaining of their livings to following their conviction. The fact is that no other confession can be mentioned in the elaboration of which so much time, labor, and care was expended to bring out clearly the divine truth, to convince every one of its complete harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran symbols, and to hear and meet all objections, as was the case with respect to the Formula of Concord.

"In reply to the criticism [of the Calvinists in the Neustadt Admonition, etc.] that it was unjust for only six theologians to write a Confession for the whole Church, and that a General Synod should have been held before the signing of the Confession, the Convention of Quedlinburg, in 1583, declared it untrue that the Formula of Concord had been composed by only six theologians, and reminded the critics how, on the contrary, the articles had first been sent, a number of times, to all the Lutheran churches in Germany; how, in order to consider them, synods and conferences had been held on every side, and the articles had been thoroughly tested, how criticisms had been made upon them; and how the criticisms had been conscientiously taken in hand by a special commission. The Quedlinburg Convention therefore declared in its minutes that, indeed, 'such a frequent revision and testing of the Christian Book of Concord, many times repeated, is a much greater work than if a General Synod had been assembled respecting it to which every province would have commissioned two or three theologians, who in the name of all the rest would have helped to test and approve the book. For in that way only one synod would have been held for the comparing and testing of this work, but, as it was, many synods were held; and it was sent to many provinces, which had it tested by the weighty and mature judgment of their theologians, in such manner as has never occurred in the case of any book or any matter of religion since the beginning of Christianity, as is evident from the history of the Church,'... We are solemnly told [by Andreae, Selneccer, etc.] that no one was forced by threats to sign the Formula of Concord, and that no one was tempted to do so by promises. We know that no one was taken suddenly by surprise. Every one was given time to think. As the work of composition extended through years, so several years were given for the work of signing. We very much doubt whether the Lutheran Church to-day could secure any democratic subscription so clean, so conscientious, so united, or so large as that which was given to the Book of Concord." (Schmauk, 663f.)

283. Subscription in Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg, etc.

In Electoral Saxony, where Crypto-Calvinism had reigned supreme for many years, prevailing conditions naturally called for a strict procedure. For Calvinists could certainly not be tolerated as preachers in Lutheran churches or as teachers in Lutheran schools. Such was also the settled conviction and determination of Elector August. When he learned that the Wittenberg professors were trying to evade an unqualified subscription, he declared: By the help of God I am determined, as long as I live to keep my churches and schools pure and in agreement with the Formula of Concord. Whoever does not want to cooperate with me may go, I have no desire for him. God protect me, and those belonging to me, from Papists and Calvinists--I have experienced it. (Richard, 529.)

The Elector demanded that every pastor affix his own signature to the Formula. Accordingly, in every place, beginning with Wittenberg, the commissioners addressed the ministers and schoolteachers, who had been summoned from the smaller towns and villages, read the Formula to them, exhorted them to examine it and to express their doubts or scruples, if they had any, and finally demanded subscription of all those who could not bring any charge of false doctrine against it. According to Planck only one pastor, one superintendent (Kolditz, who later on subscribed), and one schoolteacher refused to subscribe. (6, 560.) Several professors in Leipzig and Wittenberg who declined to acknowledge the Formula were dismissed.

However, as stated, also in Electoral Saxony coercion was not employed. Moreover, objections were listened to with patience, and time was allowed for consideration. Indeed, in the name of the Elector every one was admonished not to subscribe against his conscience. I. F. Mueller says in his Historico-Theological Introduction to the Lutheran Symbols: "At the Herzberg Convention, 1578, Andreae felt justified in stating: 'I can truthfully say that no one was coerced to subscribe or banished on that account. If this is not true, the Son of God has not redeemed me with His blood; for otherwise I do not want to become a partaker of the blood of Christ.' Pursuant to this declaration the opponents were publicly challenged to mention a single person who had subscribed by compulsion, but they were unable to do so. Moreover, even the Nuernbergers, who did not adopt the Formula of Concord, acknowledged that the signatures had been affixed without employment of force." (115.) True, October 8, 1578, Andreae wrote to Chemnitz: "We treated the pastors with such severity that a certain truly good man and sincere minister of the church afterwards said to us in the lodging that, when the matter was proposed so severely, his mind was seized with a great consternation which caused him to think that he, being near Mount Sinai, was hearing the promulgation of the Mosaic Law (se animo adeo consternato fuisse, cum negotium tam severiter proponeretur, ut existimaret, se monti Sinai proximum legis Mosaicae promulgationem audire).... I do not believe that anywhere a similar severity has been employed." (116.) But the term "severity" here employed does not mean force or compulsion, but merely signifies religious seriousness and moral determination to eliminate Crypto-Calvinism from the Lutheran Church in Electoral Saxony. The spirit in which also Andreae desired this matter to be conducted appears from his letter of November 20, 1579, to Count Wolfgang, in which he says: Although as yet some ministers in his country had not subscribed to the Formula, he should not make too much of that, much less press or persuade them; for whoever did not subscribe spontaneously and with a good conscience should abstain from subscribing altogether much rather than pledge himself with word and hand when his heart did not concur--denn wer es nicht mit seinem Geist und gutem Gewissen tue, bleibe viel besser davon, als dass er sich mit Worten und mit der Hand dazu bekenne und das Herz nicht daran waere. (115.)

Also Selneccer testifies to the general willingness with which the ministers in Saxony affixed their signatures. With respect to the universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig, however, he remarks that there some were found who, while willing to acknowledge the first part of the Book of Concord, begged to be excused from signing the Formula, but that they had been told by the Elector: If they agreed with the first part, there was no reason why they should refuse to sign the second, since it was based on the first. (Carpzov, Isagoge 20.) While thus in Electoral Saxony subscription to the Formula was indeed demanded of all professors and ministers, there is not a single case on record in which compulsion was employed to obtain it.

In Brandenburg the clergy subscribed unconditionally, spontaneously, and with thankfulness toward God and to their "faithful, pious ruler for his fatherly care of the Church." Nor was any opposition met with in Wuerttemberg, where the subscription was completed in October, 1577. In Mecklenburg the ministers were kindly invited to subscribe. Such as refused were suspended and given time for deliberation, with the proviso that they abstain from criticizing the Formula before the people. When the superintendent of Wismar and several pastors declined finally to adopt the Formula, they were deposed.

Accordingly, it was in keeping with the facts when the Lutheran electors and princes declared in the Preface to the Formula of Concord "that their theologians, ministers, and schoolteachers" "did with glad heart and heartfelt thanks to God the Almighty voluntarily and with well-considered courage adopt, approve, and subscribe this Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] as the true and Christian sense of the Augsburg Confession, and did publicly testify thereto with heart, mouth and hand. Wherefore also this Christian Agreement is not the confession of some few of our theologians only, but is called, and is in general, the unanimous confession of each and every one of the ministers and schoolteachers of our lands and provinces." (CONC. TRIGL. 12f.)

284. Where and Why Formula of Concord was Rejected.

Apart from the territories which were really Calvinistic (Anhalt, Lower Hesse, the Palatinate, etc.), comparatively few of the German princes and estates considered adherents of the Augsburg Confession declined to accept the Formula of Concord because of any doctrinal disagreement. Some refused to append their names for political reasons; others, because they were opposed on principle to a new symbol. With still others, notably some of the imperial cities, it was a case of religious particularism, which would not brook any disturbance of its own mode of church-life. Also injured pride, for not having been consulted in the matter, nor called upon to participate in the preparation and revision of the Formula, was not altogether lacking as a motive for withholding one's signature. In some instances personal spite figured as a reason. Because Andreae had given offense to Paul von Eitzen, Holstein rejected the Formula, stating that all the articles it treated were clearly set forth in the existing symbols. Duke Julius of Brunswick, though at first most zealous in promoting the work of pacification and the adoption of the Book of Concord, withdrew in 1583, because Chemnitz had rebuked him for allowing his son to be consecrated Bishop of Halberstadt. (Kolde, 73f.) However, despite the unfriendly attitude of Duke Julius, some of the Brunswick theologians openly declared their agreement with the Formula as well as their determination by the help of God, to adhere to its doctrine. No doubt but that much more pressure was exercised in hindering than in urging Lutherans to subscribe to the Formula. For the reasons enumerated the Formula of Concord was not adopted in Brunswick, Wolfenbuettel, Holstein, Hesse, Pomerania (where however, the Formula was received later), Anhalt, the Palatinate (which, after a short Lutheran interregnum, readopted the Heidelberg Catechism under John Casimir, 1583), Zweibruecken, Nassau, Bentheim, Tecklenburg, Solms, Ortenburg, Liegnitz, Brieg, Wohlau, Bremen, Danzig, Magdeburg, Nuernberg, Weissenburg, Windsheim, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Worms, Speyer, Strassburg.

In Sweden and Denmark, Frederick II issued an edict, July 24, 1580, forbidding (for political reasons) the importation and publication of the Formula of Concord on penalty of execution and confiscation of property. He is said to have cast the two elegantly bound copies of the Formula sent him by his sister, the wife of Elector August of Saxony, into the fireplace. Later on, however, the Formula came to be esteemed also in the Danish Church and to be regarded as a symbol, at least in fact, if not in form.

While some of the original signatories subsequently withdrew from the Formula of Concord a larger number acceded to it. Among the latter were Holstein, Pomerania, Krain, Kaernthen, Steiermark, etc. In Sweden the Formula was adopted 1593 by the Council of Upsala; in Hungary, in 1597. With few exceptions the Lutheran synods in America and Australia all subscribed also to the Formula of Concord.

285. Formula Not a New Confession Doctrinally.

The Formula of Concord purified the Lutheran Church from Romanism, Calvinism, indifferentism, unionism, synergism, and other errors and unsound tendencies. It did so, not by proclaiming new exclusive laws and doctrines, but by showing that these corruptions were already excluded by the spirit and letter of the existing Lutheran symbols. Doctrinally the Formula of Concord is not a new confession, but merely a repetition and explanation of the old Lutheran confessions. It does not set forth or formulate a new faith or tenets hitherto unknown to the Lutheran Church. Nor does it correct, change, or in any way modify any of her doctrines. On the contrary its very object was to defend and maintain the teaching of her old symbols against all manner of attacks coming from without as well as from within the Lutheran Church. The Formula merely presents, repeats, reaffirms explains, defends, clearly defines, and consistently applies the truths directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly confessed and taught in the antecedent Lutheran confessions. The Augsburg Confession concludes its last paragraph: "If there is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready God willing, to present ampler information (latiorem informationem) according to the Scriptures." (94, 7.) Close scrutiny will reveal the fact that in every detail the Formula must be regarded as just such an "ampler information, according to the Scriptures." The Lutheran Church, therefore, has always held that whoever candidly adopts the Augsburg Confession cannot and will not reject the Formula of Concord either.

As for the Formula itself, it most emphatically disclaims to be anything really new. In their Preface to the Book of Concord the Lutheran princes declared: "We indeed (to repeat in conclusion what we have mentioned several times above) have wished, in this work of concord, in no way to devise anything new, or to depart from the truth of the heavenly doctrine, which our ancestors (renowned for their piety) as well as we ourselves have acknowledged and professed. We mean that doctrine, which, having been derived from the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the Augsburg Confession, presented in the year 1530 to Emperor Charles V, of excellent memory, then in the Apology, which was added to this, in the Smalcald Articles, and lastly in both the Catechisms of that excellent man, Dr. Luther. Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a finger's breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in them, but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly agreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this true norm and declaration of the pure doctrine." (CONC. TRIGL. 23.) In the Comprehensive Summary we read: "We [the framers and signers of the Formula of Concord] have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it." (851, 2. 9.) The Formula of Concord therefore did not wish to offer anything that was new doctrinally. It merely expressed the consensus of all loyal Lutherans, and applied the truths contained in the existing symbols to the questions raised in the various controversies.

286. Formula a Reaffirmation of Genuine Lutheranism.

To restore Luther's doctrine, such was the declared purpose of the promoters and authors of the Formula of Concord. And in deciding the controverted questions, they certainly did most faithfully adhere to Luther's teaching. The Formula is an exact, clear, consistent, and guarded statement of original Lutheranism purified of all foreign elements later on injected into it by the Philippists and other errorists. It embodies the old Lutheran doctrine, as distinguished not merely from Romanism and Calvinism, but also from Melanchthonianism and other innovations after the death of Luther. Surely Luther would not have hesitated to endorse each and all of its articles or doctrinal statements. Even Planck, who poured contempt and sarcasm on the loyal Lutherans, admits: "It was almost beyond controversy that the Formula, in every controverted article, established and authorized precisely the view which was most clearly sanctioned by the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, by its Apology according to the edition of the year 1531, by the Smalcald Articles, and by the Catechisms of Luther." (6, 697.) This complete agreement with Luther also accounts for the fact that the Formula was immediately acknowledged by two-thirds of the Protestants in Germany.

As for Luther, the Formula of Concord regards him as the God-given Reformer and teacher of the Church. We read: "By the special grace and mercy of the Almighty the doctrine concerning the chief articles of our Christian religion (which under the Papacy had been horribly obscured by human teachings and ordinances) were explained and purified again from God's Word by Dr. Luther, of blessed and holy memory." (847, 1.) Again: "In these last times God, out of special grace has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy through the faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther." (851, 5.) Luther is spoken of as "this highly illumined man," "the hero illumined with unparalleled and most excellent gifts of the Holy Ghost," "the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession." (980, 28; 983, 34.) "Dr. Luther," says the Formula, "is to be regarded as the most distinguished (vornehmste, praecipuus) teacher of the Churches which confess the Augsburg Confession, whose entire doctrine as to sum and substance is comprised in the articles of the Augsburg Confession." (985, 41.) Again: "Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article [of the Lord's Supper] with great zeal in his last Confession." (983, 33.) Accordingly, only from Luther's writings quotations are introduced by the Formula to prove the truly Lutheran character of a doctrine. In this respect Luther was considered the highest authority, outweighing by far that of Melanchthon or any other Lutheran divine. Everywhere Luther's books are referred and appealed to, e.g., his "beautiful and glorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians," his book concerning Councils, his Large Confession, his De Servo Arbitrio, his Commentary on Genesis, his sermon of 1533 at Torgau, etc. (925, 28; 937, 67; 823, 21; 897, 43; 827, 2; 1051, 1; cf. 1213ff.)

Luther's doctrine, according to the Formula of Concord, is embodied in the old Lutheran symbols, and was "collected into the articles and chapters of the Augsburg Confession." (851, 5.) The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Small and the Large Catechism, says the Formula, "have always been regarded as the norm and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings." (853, 9.) According to the Formula there were no dissensions among the Lutherans "as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to the pure doctrine of the divine Word as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it." (851, 2.) Melanchthon, Agricola, Osiander, Major, and the Philippists, departing from Luther, struck out on paths of their own, and thus gave rise to the controversies finally settled by the Formula of Concord.

As for the Formula of Concord itself, the distinct object also of its promoters and authors was to restore, reaffirm, and vindicate the doctrine of Luther. In a letter of July 24, 1576, to Hesshusius and Wigand, Andreae giving an account of the results of the Torgau Convention, remarks: "For this I dare affirm and promise sacredly that the illustrious Elector of Saxony is bent on this alone that the doctrine of Luther, which has been partly obscured, partly corrupted, partly condemned openly or secretly, shall again be restored pure and unadulterated in the schools and churches, and accordingly Luther shall live, i.e., Christ, whose faithful servant Luther was--adeoque Lutherus, hoc est, Christus, cuius fidelis minister Lutherus fuit, vivat. What more do you desire? Here [in the Torgau Book] nothing is colored, nothing is dressed up, nothing is concealed, but everything is in keeping with the spirit of Luther which is Christ's. Nihil hic fucatum, nihil palliatum, nihil tectum est, sed iuxta spiritum Lutheri, qui Christi est." (Schaff 1, 339.) Also the Formula of Concord, therefore, contains Luther's theology.

It has been asserted that the Formula of Concord is a compromise between Luther and Melanchthon, a "synthesis or combination of the two antagonistic forces of the Reformation, a balance of mutually destructive principles," etc. The Formula, says also Seeberg represents a "Melanchthonian Lutheranism." But the plain truth is that the Formula is a complete victory of Luther over the later Melanchthon as well as the other errorists who had raised their heads within the Lutheran Church. It gave the floor, not to Philip, but to Martin. True, it was the avowed object of the Formula to restore peace to the Lutheran Church, but not by compromising in any shape or form the doctrine of Luther, which, its authors were convinced, is nothing but divine truth itself. In thesis and antithesis, moreover, the Formula takes a clearly defined stand against all the errorists of those days: Anabaptists, Schwenckfeldians, Antitrinitarians, Romanists, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists, Adiaphorists, Antinomians, Synergists, Majorists, the later Flacianists, etc. It did not acknowledge, or leave room for, any doctrines or doctrinal tendencies deviating in the least from original genuine Scriptural Lutheranism. At every point it occupied the old Lutheran ground. Everywhere it observed a correct balance between two errors (e.g., Romanism and Zwinglianism, Calvinism and synergism, Majorism and antinomianism); it steered clear of Scylla as well as Charybdis avoiding errors to the right as well as pitfalls to the left. The golden highway of truth on which it travels was not Melanchthon nor a middle ground between Luther and Melanchthon, but simply Luther and the truths which he had brought to light again.

Melanchthonianism may be defined as an effort to inoculate Lutheranism with a unionistic and Calvinistic virus. The distinct object of the Formula, however, was not merely to reduce, but to purge the Lutheran Church entirely from, this as well as other leaven. The Formula's theology is not Lutheranism modified by, but thoroughly cleansed from, antinomianism, Osiandrianism, and particularly from Philippism. Accordingly, while in the Formula Luther is celebrated and quoted as the true and reliable exponent of Lutheranism, Melanchthon is nowhere appealed to as an authority in this respect. It is only in the Preface of the Book of Concord that his writings are referred to as not to be "rejected and condemned", but the proviso is added, "in as far as (quatenus) they agree throughout with the norm laid down in the Book of Concord." (16.)

287. Scripture Sole Standard and Rule.

From the high estimation in which Luther was held by the Formula of Concord it has falsely been inferred that this Confession accords Luther the "highest authority" as Hase says, or considers him "the regulative and almost infallible expounder" of the Bible, as Schaff asserts. (Creeds 1, 313.) But according to the Formula the supreme arbiter and only final rule in all matters of religion is the inspired Word of God; and absolutely all human teachers and books, including Luther and the Lutheran symbols, are subject to its verdict. When, after Luther's death, God permitted doctrinal controversies to distract the Church, His purpose, no doubt, being also to have her fully realize not only that Luther's doctrine is in complete harmony with Scripture, but, in addition, that in matters of faith and doctrine not Luther, not the Church, not the symbols, nor any other human authority but His Word alone is the sole rule and norm. The Formula certainly learned this lesson well. In its opening paragraph we read: "We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which both all doctrines and all teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament alone.... Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them." (777, 1.) And in this, too, the Formula was conscious of being in agreement with Luther. Luther himself, it declares, "has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected." (853, 9.) Scripture is, and always must remain, the only norma normans, the standard that rules everything,--such was the attitude of the Formula of Concord.

Accordingly, the proof proper for the truth of any doctrinal statement is taken by the Formula neither from the Lutheran symbols nor the writings of Luther, but from the Word of God. And the only reason why the promoters and framers of the Formula were determined to restore the unadulterated teaching of Luther was because, in the controversies following his death, they had thoroughly convinced themselves that, on the one hand, the doctrines proclaimed by Luther were nothing but the purest gold mined from the shafts of God's Word, and that, on the other hand, the various deviations from Luther's teaching, which had caused the dissensions, were aberrations not only from the original Lutheran Confessions, but also from Holy Scripture. The thirty years of theological discussion had satisfied the Lutherans that to adhere to the Bible was tantamount to adhering to the teaching of Luther, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Formula also declared it as its object to prove that the doctrines it presented were in harmony with the Bible, as well as with the teaching of Luther and the Augsburg Confession. (856, 19.) This agreement with the Word of God and the preceding Lutheran symbols constitutes the Formula a Lutheran confession, which no one who is a true Lutheran can reject or, for doctrinal reasons, refuse to accept.

288. Formula Benefited Lutheran Church.

It has frequently been asserted that the Formula of Concord greatly damaged Lutheranism, causing bitter controversies, and driving many Lutherans into the fold of Calvinism, e.g., in the Palatinate (1583), in Anhalt, in Hesse, and in Brandenburg (1613). Richard says: "The Formula of Concord was the cause of the most bitter controversies, dissensions, and alienations. The position taken by the adherents of the Formula of Concord that this document is the true historical and logical explanation of the older confessions and is therefore the test and touchstone of Lutheranism, had the effect, as one extreme generates a counter-extreme, of driving many individual Lutherans and many Lutheran churches into the Calvinistic fold, as that fold was represented in Germany by the Heidelberg Catechism as the chief confession of faith." (516.)

But this entire view is founded on indifferentism and unionism flowing from the false principle that quality must be sacrificed to quantity, eternal truth to temporal peace and unity to external progress and temporary success. Viewed in the light of God's Word, error is the centrifugal force and the real cause of dissension and separations among Christians, while divine truth always acts as a centripetal or a truly unifying power. The Formula therefore, standing clearly as it does for divine truth only, cannot be charged with causing dissension and breeding trouble among Christians. It settled many controversies and healed dissensions, but produced none. True, the Formula was condemned by many, but with no greater justice and for no other reasons than those for which the truths of God's Word have always been assailed by their enemies.

Nor is the statement correct that the Formula of Concord drove loyal Lutherans out of their own churches into Calvinistic folds. It clearly stated what, according to God's Word and their old confessions, Lutherans always will believe, teach, and confess, as also what they always must reject as false and detrimental to the cause of the Church of Christ; however, in so doing, it did not drive Lutherans into the ranks of the Calvinists, but drove masked Calvinists out of the ranks of loyal Lutherans into those folds to which they really belonged. Indeed, the Formula failed to make true Lutherans of all the errorists; but neither did the Augsburg Confession succeed in making friends and Lutherans of all Papists, nor the Bible, in making Christians of all unbelievers. However, by clearly stating its position in thesis and antithesis, the Formula did succeed in bringing about a wholesome separation, ridding the Lutheran Church of antagonistic spirits, unsound tendencies, and false doctrines. In fact, it saved the Church from slow, but sure poisoning at the hands of the Crypto-Calvinists; it restored purity, unity, morale, courage, and hope when she was demoralized, distracted, and disfigured by many dissensions and corruptions. Whatever, by adopting the Formula of Concord the Lutheran Church therefore may have lost in extension, it won in intention; what it lost in numbers, it won in unity, solidity, and firmness in the truth.

True, the Formula of Concord completely foiled Melanchthon's plan of a union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches on the basis of the Variata of 1540,--a fact which more than anything else roused the ire of Philippists and Calvinists. But that was an ungodly union, contrary to the Word of God; a union involving a denial of essential Christian truths; a union incompatible with the spirit of Lutheranism, which cannot survive where faith is gagged and open confession of the truth is smothered; a union in which Calvinism, engrafted on Lutheranism, would have reduced the latter to a mere feeder of a foreign life. However, though it shattered the ungodly plans of the Philippists and Calvinists, the Formula did not in the least destroy the hope of, or block the way for, a truly Christian agreement. On the contrary, it formulated the only true basis for such a union, which it also realized among the Lutherans. And if the Lutheran and Reformed churches will ever unite in a true and godly manner it must be done on the basis of the truths set forth by the Formula.

289. Necessity of Formula of Concord.

Several Lutheran states, as related above, declined to accept the Formula of Concord, giving as their reason for such action that there was no need of a new confession. The fact, however, that the Formula was adopted by the great majority of Lutheran princes, professors, preachers, and congregations proves conclusively that they were of a different opinion. A new confession was necessary, not indeed because new truths had been discovered which called for confessional coining or formulation, but because the old doctrines, assailed by errorists, were in need of vindication, and the Lutheran Church, distracted by prolonged theological warfare, was sorely in need of being restored to unity, peace, and stability. The question-marks suspended everywhere in Germany after Luther's death were: Is Lutheranism to die or live? Are its old standards and doctrines to be scrapped or vindicated? Is the Church of Luther to remain, or to be transformed into a unionistic or Reformed body? Is it to retain its unity, or will it become a house divided against itself and infested with all manner of sects?

Evidently, then, if the Lutheran Church was not to go down ingloriously, a new confession was needed which would not only clear the religious and theological atmosphere, but restore confidence, hope, and normalcy. A confession was needed which would bring out clearly the truths for which Lutherans must firmly stand if they would be true to God, true to His Word, true to their Church, true to themselves, and true to their traditions. A confession was needed which would draw exactly, clearly, and unmistakably the lines which separate Lutherans, not only from Romanists, but also from Zwinglians, Calvinists, Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, and the advocates of other errors and unsound tendencies. Being essentially the Church of the pure Word and Sacrament, the only way for the Lutheran Church to maintain her identity and independence was to settle her controversies not by evading or compromising the doctrinal issues involved, but by honestly facing and definitely deciding them in accordance with her principles: the Word of God and the old confessions. Particularly with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Melanchthon by constantly altering the Augsburg Confession, had muddied the water to such an extent that the adoption of the Augustana was no longer a clear test of Lutheran orthodoxy and loyalty. Even Calvin, and the German Reformed generally subscribed to it, "in the sense," they said, "in which Melanchthon has explained it." The result was a corruption of Lutheranism and a pernicious Calvinistic propaganda in Lutheran territories. A new confession was the only means of ending the confusion and checking the invasion.

290. Formula Fully Met Requirements.

The Formula of Concord was just such a confession as the situation called for. The Preface to the Apology of the Book of Concord, signed by Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, remarks that the purpose of the Formula was "to establish and propagate unity in the Lutheran churches and schools, and to check the Sacramentarian leaven and other corruptions and sects." This purpose was fully attained by the Formula. It maintained and vindicated the old Lutheran symbols. It cleared our Church from all manner of foreign spirits which threatened to transform its very character. It settled the controversies by rendering a clear and correct decision on all doctrinal questions involved. It unified our Church when she was threatened with hopeless division, anarchy, and utter ruin. It surrounded her with a wall of fire against all her enemies. It made her a most uncomfortable place for such opponents of Lutheranism as Crypto-Calvinists, unionists, etc. It infused her with confidence, self-consciousness, conviction, a clear knowledge of her own position over against the errors of other churches and sects, and last, but not least, with a most remarkable vitality.

Wherever and whenever, in the course of time, the Formula of Concord was ignored, despised, or rejected, the Lutheran Church fell an easy prey to unionism and sectarianism; but wherever and whenever the Formula was held in high esteem, Lutheranism flourished and its enemies were confounded. Says Schaff: "Outside of Germany the Lutheran Church is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes with the change of language and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. This is the case with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans, who adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday, church discipline, and other points." But the fact is that, since Schaff wrote the above, the Lutheran Church developed and flourished nowhere as in America, owing chiefly to the return of American Lutherans to their confessions, including the Formula of Concord. The Formula of Concord fully supplied the dire need created by the controversies after Luther's death; and, despite many subsequent controversies, also in America, down to the present day, no further confessional deliverances have been necessary, and most likely such will not be needed in the future either.

The Formula of Concord, therefore, must ever be regarded as a great blessing of God. "But for the Formula of Concord," says Krauth, "it may be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the world. It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleeding to death; and crises were at hand in history in which Lutheranism was essential to the salvation of the Reformatory interest in Europe. The Thirty Years' War, the war of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay indeed in the future of another century, yet it was fought and settled in the Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful triumvirate, the sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. Intestine treachery and division in the Church of the Reformation would have done what the arts and arms of Rome failed to do. But the miracle of restoration was wrought. From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Lutheran Church had become the most stable. The blossom put forth at Augsburg, despite the storm, the mildew, and the worm, had ripened into the full round fruit of the amplest and clearest Confession in which the Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." (Schmauk, 830.)

291. Formula Attacked and Defended.

Drawing accurately and deeply, as it did, the lines of demarcation between Lutheranism, on the one hand, and Calvinism, Philippism, etc., on the other, and thus also putting an end to the Calvinistic propaganda successfully carried on for decades within the Lutheran Church, the Formula of Concord was bound to become a rock of offense and to meet with opposition on the part of all enemies of genuine Lutheranism within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Both Romanists and Calvinists had long ago accustomed themselves to viewing the Lutheran Church as moribund and merely to be preyed upon by others. Accordingly, when, contrary to all expectations, our Church, united by the Formula, rose once more to her pristine power and glory, it roused the envy and inflamed the ire and rage of her enemies. Numerous protests against the Formula, emanating chiefly from Reformed and Crypto-Calvinistic sources, were lodged with Elector August and other Lutheran princes. Even Queen Elizabeth of England sent a deputation urging the Elector not to allow the promulgation of the new confession. John Casimir of the Palatinate, also at the instigation of the English queen, endeavored to organize the Reformed in order to prevent its adoption. Also later on the Calvinists insisted that a general council (of course, participated in by Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists) should have been held to decide on its formal and final adoption!

Numerous attacks on the Formula of Concord were published 1578, 1579, 1581, and later, some of them anonymously. They were directed chiefly against its doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Supper, the majesty of the human nature of Christ, and eternal election, particularly its refusal to solve, either in a synergistic or in a Calvinistic manner, the mystery presented to human reason in the teaching of the Bible that God alone is the cause of man's salvation, while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In a letter to Beza, Ursinus, the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism, shrewdly advised the Reformed to continue accepting the Augsburg Confession, but to agitate against the Formula. He himself led the Reformed attacks by publishing, 1581, "Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae, Christian Admonition Concerning the Book of Concord," also called "Admonitio Neostadiensis, Neustadt Admonition." Its charges were refuted in the "Apology or Defense of the Christian Book of Concord--Apologia oder Verantwortung des christlichen Konkordienbuchs, in welcher die wahre christliche Lehre, so im Konkordienbuch verfasst, mit gutem Grunde heiliger, goettlicher Schrift verteidiget, die Verkehrung aber und Kalumnien, so von unruhigen Leuten wider gedachtes christliche Buch ausgesprenget, widerlegt worden," 1583 (1582). Having been prepared by command of the Lutheran electors, and composed by Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chemnitz, and before its publication also submitted to other theologians for their approval, this guardedly written Apology, also called the Erfurt Book, gained considerable authority and influence.

The Preface of this Erfurt Book enumerates, besides the Christian Admonition of Ursinus and the Neustadt theologians, the following writings published against the Formula of Concord: 1. Opinion and Apology (Bedencken und Apologie) of Some Anhalt Theologians; 2. Defense (Verantwortung) of the Bremen Preachers; Christian Irenaeus on Original Sin; Nova Novorum ("ein famos Libell"); other libelli, satyrae et pasquilli; Calumniae et Scurrilia Convitia of Brother Nass (Bruder Nass); and the history of the Augsburg Confession by Ambrosius Wolf, in which the author asserts that from the beginning the doctrine of Zwingli and Calvin predominated in all Protestant churches. The theologians of Neustadt, Bremen, and Anhalt replied to the Erfurt Apology; which, in turn, called forth counter-replies from the Lutherans. Beza wrote: Refutation of the Dogma Concerning the Fictitious Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ. In 1607 Hospinian published his Concordia Discors," [tr. note: sic on punctuation] to which Hutter replied in his Concordia Concors. The papal detractors of the Formula were led by the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin, who in 1589 published his Judgment of the Book of Concord.

292. Modern Strictures on Formula of Concord.

Down to the present day the Formula of Concord has been assailed particularly by unionistic and Reformed opponents of true Lutheranism. Schaff criticizes: "Religion was confounded with theology, piety with orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism." (1, 259.) However, the subjects treated in the Formula are the most vital doctrines of the Christian religion: concerning sin and grace, the person and work of Christ, justification and faith, the means of grace, --truths without which neither Christian theology nor Christian religion can remain; "Here, then," says Schmauk, "is the one symbol of the ages which treats almost exclusively of Christ--of His work, His presence, His person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran Church. One might almost say that the Formula of Concord is a developed witness of Luther's explanation of the Second and Third Articles of the Apostles' Creed, meeting the modern errors of Protestantism, those cropping up from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, in a really modern way." (751.) Tschackert also designates the assertion that the authors of the Formula of Concord "abandoned Luther's idea of faith and established a dead scholasticism" as an unjust charge. (478.) Indeed, it may be questioned whether the doctrine of grace, the real heart of Christianity, would have been saved to the Church without the Formula.

R. Seeberg speaks of the "ossification of Lutheran theology" caused by the Formula of Concord, and Tschackert charges it with transforming the Gospel into a "doctrine." (571.) But what else is the Gospel of Christ than the divine doctrine or statement and proclamation of the truth that we are saved, not by our own works, but by grace and faith alone, for the sake of Christ and His merits? The Formula of Concord truly says: "The Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved." (959, 20.) Says Schmauk: "The Formula of Concord was ... the very substance of the Gospel and of the Augsburg Confession, kneaded through the experience of the first generation of Protestantism, by incessant and agonizing conflict, and coming forth from that experience as a true and tried teaching, a standard recognized by many." (821.) The Formula of Concord is truly Scriptural, not only because all its doctrines are derived from the Bible, but also because the burden of the Scriptures, the doctrine of justification, is the burden also of all its expositions the living breath, as it were, pervading all its articles.

Another modern objection to the Formula is that it binds the future generations to the Book of Concord. This charge is correct, for the Formula expressly states that its decisions are to be "a public, definite testimony, not only for those now living, but also for our posterity, what is and should remain (sei und bleiben solle--esseque perpetuo debeat) the unanimous understanding and judgment of our churches in reference to the articles in controversy." (857, 16.) However, the criticism implied in the charge is unwarranted. For the Lutheran Confessions, as promoters, authors, and signers of the Formula were fully persuaded, are in perfect agreement with the eternal and unchangeable Word of God. As to their contents, therefore, they must always remain the confession of every Church which really is and would remain loyal to the Word of God.

293. Formula Unrefuted.

From the day of its birth down to the present time the Formula of Concord has always been in the limelight of theological discussion. But what its framers said in praise of the Augsburg Confession, viz., that, in spite of numerous enemies, it had remained unrefuted, may be applied also to the Formula: it stood the test of centuries and emerged unscathed from the fire of every controversy. It is true today what Thomasius wrote 1848 with special reference to the Formula: "Numerous as they may be who at present revile our Confession, not one has ever appeared who has refuted its chief propositions from the Bible." (Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. Kirche, 227.)

Nor can the Formula ever be refuted, for its doctrinal contents are unadulterated truths of the infallible Word of God. It confesses the doctrine which Christians everywhere will finally admit as true and divine indeed, which they all in their hearts believe even now, if not explicitly and consciously, at least implicitly and in principle. The doctrines of the Formula are the ecumenical truths of Christendom; for true Lutheranism is nothing but consistent Christianity. The Formula, says Krauth, is "the completest and clearest confession in which the Christian Church has ever embodied her faith." Such being the case, the Formula of Concord must be regarded also as the key to a godly peace and true unity of entire Christendom.

The authors of the Formula solemnly declare: "We entertain heartfelt pleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and anxious to advance with our utmost power that unity [and peace] by which His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone through the sole merit of Christ." (1095, 95.) Such was the godly peace and true Christian unity restored by the Formula of Concord to the Lutheran Church. And what it did for her it is able also to do for the Church at large. Being in complete agreement with Scripture, it is well qualified to become the regeneration center of the entire present-day corrupted, disrupted, and demoralized Christendom.

Accordingly Lutherans, the natural advocates of a truly wholesome and God-pleasing union based on unity in divine truth, will not only themselves hold fast what they possess in their glorious Confession, but strive to impart its blessings also to others, all the while praying incessantly, fervently, and trustingly with the pious framers of the Formula: "May Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus grant the grace of His Holy Ghost that we all may be one in Him, and constantly abide in this Christian unity, which is well pleasing to Him! Amen." (837, 23.)

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

[tr. note: original printed text ends with a 10 page index that is not included in this transcription]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us