The fifth was the Osiandristic and the Stancarian Controversy, from 1549 to 1566, in which Andrew Osiander denied the forensic character of justification, and taught that Christ is our righteousness only according to His divine nature, while Stancarus contended that Christ is our righteousness according to His human nature only. Both, Osiander as well as Stancarus, were opposed by Melanchthon, Flacius, and practically all other Lutherans, the Philippists included. This controversy was settled by Article III.
The sixth was the Antinomistic Controversy, from 1527 to 1556, in which various false views concerning the Law and the Gospel were defended, especially by John Agricola who maintained that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel (a view which, in a modified form was later on defended also by Wittenberg Philippists), and, after Luther"s death, by Poach and Otto, who rejected the so-called Third Use of the Law. The questions involved in these Antinomian controversies were decided by Articles V and VI.
The seventh was the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, from 1560 to 1574, in which the Philippists in Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Dresden (Peucer, Cracow, Stoessel, etc.) endeavored gradually to supplant Luther"s doctrines concerning the Lord"s Supper and the majesty of the human nature of Christ by the Calvinistic teachings on these points. These secret and dishonest enemies of Lutheranism were opposed by true Lutherans everywhere, notably by the theologians of Ducal Saxony. In 1574 they were publicly unmasked as deceivers and Calvinistic schemers.
The controversy was settled by Articles VII and VIII.
The two last controversies were of a local nature. The first was chiefly confined to Hamburg, the second to Stra.s.sburg. In the former city John Aepinus taught that Christ"s descent into h.e.l.l was a part of His suffering and humiliation. He was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg.
In Stra.s.sburg John Marbach publicly denounced Zanchi, a Crypto-Calvinist, for teaching that faith, once engendered in a man, cannot be lost. The questions involved in these two articles are dealt with in Articles IX and XI, respectively.
132. Conflicts Unavoidable.
When describing the conflicts after Luther"s death, historians frequently deplore "the dreadful controversies of these dark days of doctrinal extremists and the polemical spirit of rigid Lutheranism." G.
J. Planck, in particular, characterized them all as useless quarrels and personal wranglings of narrow-minded, bigoted adherents of Luther, who vitiated original Lutheranism by making it essentially a matter of "pure doctrine." To the present day indifferentistically inclined historians are wont to mar their pages with similar views.
True, "pure doctrine," "unity in the pure doctrine of the Gospel," such was the shibboleth of the faithful Lutherans over against the Melanchthonians and other errorists. But this was neither reprehensible doctrinalism nor a corruption of original Lutheranism, but the very principle from which it was born and for which Luther contended throughout his life--a principle of life or death for the Lutheran Church. It was the _false_ doctrine of justification which made Luther a most miserable man. It was the _pure_ doctrine as taught by St. Paul which freed his conscience, transported him into Paradise, as he himself puts it, and made him the Reformer of the Church. Ever since, purity of doctrine was held, by Luther and all true Lutheran theologians, to be of paramount import to Christianity and the Church. Fully realizing that adulteration of any part of the Christian doctrine was bound to infect also the doctrine of faith and justification and thus endanger salvation, they earnestly warned against, and opposed, every deviation from the clear Word of G.o.d, no matter how insignificant it might appear.
They loved the truth more than external peace, more even than their own lives. Hence they found it impossible to be silent, apathetic, and complacent spectators while the Philippists and others denied, attacked, and corrupted the truth taught by Luther from the Word of G.o.d.
Accordingly, since the Leipzig Interim involved and maintained doctrines and principles subversive of genuine Lutheranism and was prepared, introduced, and defended by the very men who were regarded as pillars of the Lutheran Church, it was evident from the outset that this doc.u.ment must of necessity precipitate most serious internal troubles. From the moment the Wittenbergers cast the Interim as a firebrand into the Church, a domestic warfare was unavoidable,--if indeed any true disciples of Luther still remained in the Church of which he, and not Melanchthon, was the founder. While the Augsburg Interim resulted in an external theological warfare of the Lutherans against the Romanists, the Leipzig Interim added a most serious domestic conflict, which conscientious Lutherans could not evade, though it well-nigh brought our Church to the brink of destruction. For now the issue was not merely how to resist the Pope and the Romanists, but, how to purge our own Church from the Interimists and their pernicious principles. And as long as the advocates of the Interim or of other aberrations from the old Lutheran moorings refused to abandon their errors, and nevertheless insisted on remaining in the Church, there was no real unity in the truth. Hence there could also be no true peace and brotherly harmony among the Lutherans. And the way to settle these differences was not indifferently to ignore them, nor unionistically to compromise them by adopting ambiguous formulas, but patiently to discuss the doctrines at issue until an agreement in the truth was reached, which finally was done by means of the Formula of Concord.
True, these controversies endangered the very existence of our Church.
But the real cause of this was not the resistance which the loyal Lutherans offered to the errorists, nor even the unseemly severity by which the prosecution of these controversies was frequently marred, but the un-Lutheran spirit and the false principles and doctrines manifested and defended by the opponents. In so far as divine truth was defended and error opposed, these controversies were truly wars to end war, and to establish real peace and true unity within our Church. A cowardly surrender to the indifferentistic spirit, the unionistic policy, the false principles, and the erroneous doctrines of the Interimists would have been tantamount to a complete transformation of our Church and a total annihilation of genuine Lutheranism.
The manner in which these controversies were conducted, it is true, was frequently such as to obstruct, rather than further, mutual understanding and peace. As a rule, it is a.s.sumed that only the genuine Lutherans indulged in unseemly polemical invective, and spoke and wrote in a bitter and spiteful tone. But the Melanchthonians were to say the least, equally guilty. And when censuring this spirit of combativeness, one must not overlook that the ultimate cause of the most violent of these controversies was the betrayal of the Lutheran Church by the Interimists; and that the severity of the polemics of the loyal Lutherans did not, at least not as a rule, emanate from any personal malice toward Melanchthon, but rather from a burning zeal to maintain sound Lutheranism, and from the fear that by the scheming and the indifference of the Philippists the fruits of Luther"s blessed work might be altogether lost to the coming generations. The "peace-loving"
Melanchthon started a conflagration within his own church in order to obtain a temporal and temporary peace with the Romanists; while the loyal Lutherans, inasmuch as they fought for the preservation of genuine Lutheranism, stood for, and promoted, a truly honorable, G.o.dly, and lasting peace on the basis of eternal truth. And while the latter fought honestly and in the open, the Philippists have never fully cleared themselves from the charges of duplicity, dishonesty, and dissimulation.
133. Melanchthon Prime Mover of Conflicts.
The Leipzig Interim was the signal for a general and prolonged warfare within the Lutheran Church. It contained the germs of various doctrinal errors, and produced a spirit of general distrust and suspicion, which tended to exaggerate and multiply the real differences. Schmauk says: "The seeds of the subsequent controversies are all to be found in the Leipzig Interim." (595.) At any rate, most of the controversies after Luther"s death flowed from, or were in some way or other connected with, this unfortunate doc.u.ment. Such is the view also of the Formula of Concord, which declares that the thirty years" controversies which it settled originated especially in the Interim. (857, 19; 947, 29.)
Yet the Interim was rather the occasion than the ultimate cause of these conflicts. Long before the flames of open discord burst forth, the embers of secret doctrinal dissension had been glowing under the surface. Even during the life of Luther much powder had been secretly stored up for which the Interim furnished the spark. This is proved, among other things, by Luther"s predictions (referred to in the preceding chapter) concerning his own colleagues. And above all it was the "peace-loving" Philip who first and most successfully sowed the dragon"s teeth of discord. Melanchthon"s doctrinal deviations from the teachings of Luther and from his own former position must be regarded as the last cause of both the Leipzig Interim and the lamentable controversies that followed in its wake. Indeed, a tragic sight to behold: The co-laborer of Luther, the servant of the Reformation second only to Luther, the Praeceptor Germaniae, the ardent and anxious lover of peace, etc.--untrue to his confiding friend, disloyal to the cause of the Reformation, and the chief cause of strife and dissension in the Lutheran Church! And withal, Melanchthon, mistaking external union for real unity and temporal peace with men for true peace with G.o.d, felt satisfied that he had spent the efforts of his entire life in the interest of the true welfare of the Church! Shortly before his death (April 19, 1560) he expressed his joy that now he would be delivered from the "fury of the theologians." On a sheet of paper found on his table were written a number of reasons why he feared death less. One of them was: "_Liberaberis ab aerumnis et a rabie teologorum._ You will be delivered from toils and from the fury of the theologians." (_C. R._ 9, 1098.) Thus even in the face of death he did not realize that he himself was the chief cause of the conflicts that had embittered his declining years!
134. Melanchthon"s Humanistic and Unionistic Tendencies.
Till about 1530 Melanchthon seems to have been in complete harmony with Luther, and to have followed him enthusiastically. To propagate, coin, and bring into scholastic form the Christian truths once more brought to light by the Reformer he considered to be his peculiar mission. But his secret letters and, with gradually increasing clearness and boldness, also his publications show that later on he began to strike out on paths of his own, and to cultivate and disseminate doctrines incompatible with the Lutheranism of Luther. In a measure, these deviations were known also to the Wittenberg students and theologians, to Cordatus, Stifel, Amsdorf, the Elector John Frederick, Brueck, and Luther, who also called him to account whenever sufficient evidence warranted his doing so.
(_Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 61ff.)
In a letter to Cordatus, dated April 15, 1537, Melanchthon was bold enough to state that he had made many corrections in his writings and was glad of the fact: "_Multa ultro correxi in libellis meis et correxisse me gaudeo._" (_C. R._ 3, 342.) In discussing the squabble between Cordatus and Melanchthon whether good works are necessary for salvation, Luther is reported by the former to have said, in 1536: "To Philip I leave the sciences and philosophy and nothing else. But I shall be compelled to chop off the head of philosophy, too." (Kolde, _a.n.a.lecta,_ 266.) Melanchthon, as Luther put it, was always troubled by his philosophy; that is to say, instead of subjecting his reason to the Word of G.o.d, he was inclined to balance the former against the latter.
The truth is that Melanchthon never fully succeeded in freeing himself from his original humanistic tendencies, a fact which gave his mind a moralistic rather than a truly religious and Scriptural bent. Even during the early years of the Reformation when he was carried away with admiration for Luther and his work, the humanistic undercurrent did not disappear altogether. January 22, 1525, he wrote to Camerarius: "_Ego mihi conscius sum, non ullam ob causam unquam tetheologekenai, nisi at mores meos emendarem_. I am conscious of the fact that I have never theologized for any other reason than to improve my morals." (_C. R._ 1, 722.) Such, then, being his frame of mind, it was no wonder that he should finally desert Luther in most important points, lapse into synergism and other errors, and, in particular value indifferentistically doctrinal convictions, notably on the real presence in the Lord"s Supper and the person of Christ. "Over against Luther,"
says Schaff, "Melanchthon represented the unionistic and liberal type of Lutheranism." (_Creeds,_ 1, 259.) This is correct; but the stricture must be added that, since unionism and liberalism are incompatible with the very essence of Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism as such was in reality not a "type," but a denial of Lutheranism.
Melanchthon lacked the simple faith in, and the firm adherence and implicit submission to, the Word of G.o.d which made Luther the undaunted and invincible hero of the Reformation. Standing four-square on the Bible and deriving from this source of divine power alone all his theological thoughts and convictions, Luther was a rock, firm and immovable. With him every theological question was decided and settled conclusively by quoting a clear pa.s.sage from the Holy Scriptures, while Melanchthon, devoid of Luther"s single-minded and whole-hearted devotion to the Word of G.o.d, endeavored to satisfy his reason as well.
Consequently he lacked a.s.surance and firm conviction, wavered and vacillated, and was never fully satisfied that the position he occupied was really the only correct one, while, on the other hand, he endeavored to present his views concerning some of the disputed doctrines in ambiguous and indefinite terms. "We have twenty-eight large volumes of Melanchthon"s writings," says C. P. Krauth, "and, at this hour, impartial and learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on some of the profoundest questions of church doctrine, on which Melanchthon was writing all his life!" (_Conservative Ref.,_ 291; Schmauk, 748.) This indefinite and wavering att.i.tude towards divine truth, the natural consequence of the humanistic bent of his mind, produced in Melanchthon a general tendency and p.r.o.neness to surrender or compromise doctrinal matters in the interest of policy, and to barter away eternal truth for temporal peace. It made him an indifferentist and a unionist, always ready to strike a bargain also in matters pertaining to Christian faith, and to cover doctrinal differences with ambiguous formulas. While Luther"s lifelong att.i.tude on matters of Christian doctrine is characterized by the famous words spoken by him at Worms in 1521: "_Ich kann nicht anders,_ I cannot do otherwise," Melanchthon, treating even questions of faith as matters of expediency rather than of conscience, was the man who, as a rule, could also do otherwise, and who was great in manufacturing "Polish boots," as the ambiguous phrases by which he endeavored to unite opposing parties were called by the Lutherans in Reuss.
In order to preserve peace with the Romanists at Augsburg in 1530, he did not hesitate to sacrifice Lutheran truths and to receive into the bargain a number of what he considered minor papal errors. In his subsequent overtures to the Reformed he was more than willing to make similar concessions. The spirit of Melanchthon was the spirit of religious indifference and of unionism, which, though thoroughly eliminated by the Formula of Concord, was from time to time revived within the Lutheran Church by such men as Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf, Neander, and, in our own country, by S. S. Schmucker.
The unionistic tendencies and doctrinal corruptions which Melanchthon injected into Lutheranism were all the more dangerous to our Church because they derived special weight and prestige from the fact that Luther had unstintingly praised his gifts, his books, and the services he had rendered the Church (St. L. 18, 1671; 23, 1152), that he was now generally regarded as Luther"s successor with regard to theological leadership of the Church; and that he was gratefully admired as the Praeceptor Germaniae by a host of loyal pupils, who made it a point also to cultivate just those theological peculiarities of Master Philip, as they called him, in which he differed from Luther.
135. Melanchthon"s "Shameful Servitude."
That Melanchthon failed our Church in the Interim emergency as well as in the subsequent controversies is generally ascribed to the fact that he lacked the bracing influence and a.s.sistance of Luther. No doubt, there is a good deal of truth in this a.s.sumption. But the true reason why he did not measure up to the demands of the times and the expectations of our Church were not mere moral weaknesses, but rather the errors and false principles to which he was wedded. How could Melanchthon have approved himself a leader of the Lutherans when he was out of sympathy with them, doubted some of their most cherished doctrines, and long ago had struck out on a path deviating from that mapped out by Luther? True, the bracing which he received from Luther in the past had repeatedly kept him from publicly sacrificing the truth, but even in these instances he did not always yield because he was really convinced, but because he feared the uncompromising spirit of Luther.
That fear of an open conflict with Luther which, he felt, would result in a crushing defeat for himself, bulked large among the motives which prompted him to maintain a semblance of true orthodoxy as long as Luther lived, is clearly admitted by Melanchthon himself. In his notorious and most discreditable letter to Carlowitz (counselor of Elector Maurice), written April 28, 1548, eight days after the meeting at Celle, where he had debauched his conscience by promising submission to the religious demands of the Emperor, Melanchthon, pouring forth his feelings and revealing his true inwardness and his spirit of unionism and indifferentism as much as admitted that in the past he had been accustomed to hiding his real views. Here he declared in so many words that it was not he who started, and was responsible for, the religious controversy between the Lutherans and Romanists, but rather Luther whose contentious spirit (he said) also had constantly increased the rupture, and that under Luther he had suffered "a most shameful servitude."
In the original the letter reads, in part, as follows: "Totum enim me tibi [Carlowitz] aperio.... Ego, c.u.m decreverit princeps etiamsi quid non probabo, tamen nihil seditiose faciam, sed vel tacebo, vel cedam, vel feram, quidquid accidet. _Tuli etiam antea servitutem paene deformem,_ c.u.m saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua filoneikia erat non exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi serviret. Et scio, omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita aliqua in gubernatione vitia modeste et arte ferenda et dissimulanda esse....
Forta.s.sis natura sum ingenio servili." (_C. R._ 6, 879f.)
Even before Melanchthon had, in private letters to his friends, displayed a similar vein of ill will toward Luther, whom he evidently feared because of his own secret doctrinal deviations. (_Lehre und Wehre_ 1908, 61. 68.) No doubt, as stated above, fear was also among the motives which induced him to identify himself with the Leipzig Interim.
But evidently his own theological att.i.tude, too, differed little from the spirit pervading this doc.u.ment. At any rate, the letter to Carlowitz does not support the a.s.sumption that Melanchthon really outraged his own convictions when he wrote and adopted the Interim. As a matter of fact, he also continued to defend the Interim; and it was as late as 1556 before he was ready to make even a qualified admission of one of the errors connected with it.
While, therefore, the Lutheran Church will always gratefully acknowledge the splendid services which Melanchthon rendered in the work of Luther"s Reformation, it must at the same time be admitted and cannot be gainsaid that, in the last a.n.a.lysis, Melanchthon, by reason of his deviations from Luther, which will be set forth more fully in the following, was the ultimate cause and originator of most of the dissensions which began to distract the Lutheran Church soon after the death of Luther. Andrew Musculus, who a.s.sisted in drafting the _Formula of Concord,_ brought out this fact (though in terms too strong) when he characterized Melanchthon as a "philosophical theologian and a patriarch of all heretics."
(Meusel, _Handl._ 4, 710.) In a way, Melanchthon may even be regarded as the indirect cause of the Smalcald War and its unfortunate issue, inasmuch, namely, as his vacillating and compromising att.i.tude and his incompetent leadership created conditions of internal weakness among the Lutherans, which invited the aggression of Pope and Emperor.
XII. The Adiaphoristic Controversy.
136. Contents of the Leipzig Interim.
To exhibit the insidious character of the Leipzig Interim more fully, we submit the following quotations. In its Introduction we read: "As far as the doctrine of the state and nature of man before and after the Fall is concerned, there is no controversy" (between the Lutherans and Romanists). The article "Of Justification," in which the Lutheran _sola fide_ is omitted, declares: "The merciful G.o.d does not work with man as with a block, but draws him, so that his will also cooperates if he be of understanding years." Again: "And they who have thus received the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, and in whom the Holy Ghost begins faith and trust in the Son of G.o.d, love and hope, then become heirs of eternal salvation for the Savior"s sake." In the article "Of Good Works" we read: "Nevertheless, the new virtues and good works are so highly necessary that, if they were not quickened in the heart there would be no reception of divine grace." Again: "It is certainly true that these virtues, faith, love, hope, and others, must be in us and are necessary to salvation.... And since the virtues and good works, as has been said, please G.o.d, they merit also a reward in this life, both spiritual and temporal, according to G.o.d"s counsel, and still more reward in the eternal life, because of the divine promise."
The article "Of Ecclesiastical Power" runs as follows: "What the true Christian Church gathered in the Holy Ghost, acknowledges, determines, and teaches in regard to matters of faith is to be taught and preached, since it neither should nor can determine anything contrary to the Holy Scriptures." Self-evidently, Romanists construed this as an _a priori_ endors.e.m.e.nt of the Council and its resolutions. In the article "Of Ecclesiastical Ministers" we read: "And that all other ministers should be subject and obedient to the chief bishop [the Pope] and to other bishops who administer their episcopal office according to G.o.d"s command, using the same for edification and not for destruction; which ministers should be ordained also by such bishops upon presentation by the patrons." This article conceded the primacy of the Pope and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishops. The article "Of Ordination"
declares: "Also, that, as has been said, upon presentation by patrons, ministers should hereafter be ordained with Christian ceremonies by such bishops as administer their episcopal office, and that no one should be allowed to be in the ministry unless, as has been said, he be presented by the patrons and have the permission of the bishops." That was tantamount to a restoration of the "sacrament" of episcopal ordination.
The Interim furthermore demanded the immediate reintroduction of abolished ceremonies, such as exorcism and other ceremonies of Baptism, confirmation by bishops, auricular confession, extreme unction, episcopal ordination, and the like. We read: "That repentance, confession, and absolution, and what pertains thereto, be diligently taught and preached; that the people confess to the priests, and receive of them absolution in G.o.d"s stead, and be also diligently admonished and urged to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; also, that no one be admitted to the highly venerable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ [in this indirect way only the cup of the laity is referred to in the Interim] unless he have first confessed to the priest and received of him absolution." Again: "Although in this country the unction [Extreme Unction] has not been in use for many years, yet ... such unction, according to the apostle, may be hereafter observed." Again: "That henceforth the ma.s.s be observed in this country with ringing of bells, with lights and vessels, with chants, vestments, and ceremonies." Among the holidays to be observed the Interim mentions also Corpus Christi and the festivals of the holy Virgin Mary. Again we read: "The images and pictures of the sufferings of Christ and of the saints may be also retained in the churches." Again: "In the churches where the canonical hours have been formerly observed, the devout Psalms shall be sung in chapters and towns at the appointed time and on other high festivals, and also on Sundays." "Likewise, that on Fridays and Sat.u.r.days, as well as during fasts, the eating of meat be abstained from and that this be observed as an external ordinance at the command of His Imperial Majesty." The clause, "that this be observed," etc., was regarded by Flacius and Gallus as implying self-deception and hypocrisy on the part of the Interimists. (Frank 4 72. 119.) Again, as to the apparel of priests, that "a distinction be observed between ministers and secular persons, and that proper reverence be paid the priestly estate." The Introduction of the Interim gives the a.s.surance that the Lutherans would obey the Emperor and be found disposed toward peace and unity. The Conclusion adds the humble promise: "In all other articles we are ready ... in a friendly and submissive manner to confer with Your Beloved and Princely Graces, and to settle our differences in a Christian way." (_C.
R._ 7, 258. Jacobs, _Book of Concord,_ 2, 260.)
137. Issue in Adiaphoristic Controversy.
From the pa.s.sages quoted it appears that the Leipzig Interim was inoculated with the germs of many controversies. However, while in the beginning its offensive doctrinal features were not fully and generally recognized and realized, the Emperor"s demand for, and approval of, the Wittenberg and Leipzig theologian"s reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies immediately created an acute situation and a great commotion everywhere. The resulting theological conflict pertaining to the latter point in particular was called the Adiaphoristic or Interimistic Controversy. And, as explained above, even after the Interim had become a dead letter politically, this controversy did not subside, because its paramount object was not merely to pa.s.s a correct judgment on past events during the Interim, nor even to obtain norms for similar situations in the future, but, above all, to eliminate from our Church the spirit of indifferentism, unionism, and of direct as well as indirect denial of the Gospel-truth.
Accordingly, the exact issue in the Adiaphoristic Controversy was: May Lutherans, under conditions such as prevailed during the Interim, when the Romanists on pain of persecution and violence demanded the reinst.i.tution of abolished papal ceremonies, even if the ceremonies in question be truly indifferent in themselves, submit with a good conscience, that is to say, without denying the truth and Christian liberty, without sanctioning the errors of Romanism, and without giving offense either to the enemies or to the friends of the Lutheran Church, especially its weak members? This was affirmed by the Interimists and denied by their opponents.
138. Opposition to the Adiaphorists.
Prominent among the theologians who partic.i.p.ated in the controversy against the Adiaphorists were Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, and others, who in Magdeburg opened a most effective fire on the authors, sponsors, and advocates of the Interim. Following are some of the chief publications which dealt with the questions involved: "Opinion concerning the Interim, by Melanchthon, June 16, 1548," published by Flacius without the knowledge of Melanchthon.--"Report on the Interim by the Theologians of Meissen," 1548.--"That in These Dangerous Times (in diesen geschwinden Laeuften) Nothing is to be Changed in the Churches of G.o.d in Order to Please the Devil and the Antichrist," by John Hermann, 1548. A Latin edition of this publication appeared 1549, mentioning Flacius as its author.--"A Brief Report (Ein kurzer Bericht) on the Interim from which One may Easily Learn the Doctrine and Spirit of That Book,"
1548.--"A General Protest and Writ of Complaint (Eine gemeine Protestation und Klageschrift) of All Pious Christians against the Interim and Other Sinister Schemes and Cruel Persecutions by the Enemies of the Gospel, by John Waremund, 1548." Waremund was a pseudonym for Flacius.--"Against the Interim, Papal Ma.s.s, Canon, and Master Eisleben,"
1519.--"Against the Vile Devil (Wider den schnoeden Teufel), who Now Again Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light, _i.e._, against the New Interim, by Carolus Azarias Gotsburgensis, 1549." Of this book, too, Flacius was the author. (Preger 1, 67.)--"Apology (Entschuldigung) of Matthias Flacius Illy. to a Certain Pastor," 1549.--"Several Letters of the Venerable D. M. Luther concerning the Union of Christ and Belial, Written 1530 to the Theologians at the Diet in Augsburg," 1549, with a preface by Flacius.--"Apology of Matthias Flacius Illy., Addressed to the University of Wittenberg, regarding the Adiaphora," 1549.--"Writing of Matthias Flacius Illy. against a Truly Heathen, yea, Epicurean Book of the Adiaphorists (in which the Leipzig Interim is Defended) in Order to Guard Oneself against the Present Counterfeiters of the True Religion," 1549.--"Answer of Magister Nicolas Gallus and Matthias Flacius Illy. to the Letter of Some Preachers in Meissen regarding the Question whether One should Abandon His Parish rather than Don the Ca.s.sock" (_linea vestis, Chorrock_).--"Against the Extract of the Leipzig Interim, or the Small Interim," by Flacius, 1549.--"Book concerning True and False Adiaphora (_Liber de Veris et Falsis Adiaphoris_), in which the Adiaphoristic Controversy is Explained Almost in Its Entirety, by Flacius, 1549." This book, which is most frequently quoted and deals most thoroughly with the questions involved, is found in Schluesselburg"s _Catalogus Haereticorum_ 13, 154ff.--"An Admonition (Vermahnung) to be Constant in the Confession of the Truth, in Cross and Prayer, by Flacius," 1549.--"A Christian Admonition by Matthias Flacius Illy. to be Constant in the True, Pure Religion of Jesus Christ and in the Augsburg Confession," 1550.--"Against the Alleged Power and Primacy of the Pope, Useful to Read at This Time, when the Whole World Endeavors again to Place the Expelled Antichrist into the Temple of Christ, by Matthias Flacius Illy."--"Against the Evangelist of the Holy Chorrock, D. Geitz Major, by Matthias Flacius Illy., 1552."--For a complete list of the writings of Flacius against the Interim, see Preger"s _Matthias Flacius Illyricus,_ 2, 540 ff.
Even the t.i.tles of these publications indicate that the Adiaphoristic Controversy did not lack violence and virulence. This animosity against the Interimists was chiefly due to the fear that their policy would finally lead to the complete undoing of the Reformation. For while Melanchthon still believed in and hoped for, an understanding with the Romanists, Flacius saw through their schemes and fully realized the impending danger. In the reintroduction of Catholic ceremonies which Melanchthon regarded as entirely harmless, Flacius beheld nothing but the entering wedge, which would gradually be followed by the entire ma.s.s of Romish errors and abuses and the absolute dominance of Pope and Emperor over the Lutheran Church. The obedience demanded by the Emperor, said Flacius, consists in this, that "we abandon our true doctrine and adopt the G.o.dless Papacy." In all its details, he explained, the ultimate purpose of the Interim is none other than the reestablishment of Popery, of which even such seemingly trifling matters as the reintroduction of the _Chorrock (linea vestis)_ were but the beginning, as it were, the breach in the dam which was bound ultimately to result in a complete submersion of Lutheranism. (Frank 4, 74. 76. 119.)
Since the loyal Lutherans, in keeping with the teaching of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, regarded the Papacy as antichristendom, they could not but abhor the concessions made by the Interimists as treachery against the truth. From the very outset Flacius and Gallus insisted that their opponents answer the question, "whether the Pope with his government is the true Antichrist in the Church as according to the Word of G.o.d he has been publicly declared to be in our churches, and whether he still should and must be regarded and confessed as such." And if Luther"s doctrine was to stand, how, then, they argued, could a union be effected between the enemies of the Gospel (the Antichrist and his bishops) and the Lutherans without idolatry and denial of the religion of Christ? (53. 107.) On the t.i.tle-page of his _Apology,_ of 1549, Flacius declares: "The upshot [of the Interim] is the establishment of the Papacy and the installation of the Antichrist in the temple of Christ, the encouragement of the wicked to flaunt their victory over the Church of Christ and to grieve the G.o.dly, likewise weakening, leading into doubt, separation and innumerable offenses." (Schaff 1, 301.) Regarding the acknowledgment of the Pope and bishops by the Interim, Flacius remarked: "Mark well, here the werewolf (_Baerwolf_), together with his fellow-wolves, is placed over the little flock of Christ. There is, however, no danger whatever; for, as is added [in the Interim: "The Pope should use his power not for destruction, but for edification"], they have counted the sheep and commanded the wolves to be gentle. In my opinion this is certainly a good adiaphoron to restore Antichrist to the temple from which he has been expelled by the Finger of G.o.d." (Preger 1, 191.) Accordingly, burning with shame and indignation, and trembling with fear for the future of Lutheranism, Flacius charged Melanchthon with want of faith and with treason against the truth, and characterized the Leipzig Interim as an unholy union of Christ and Belial, of light and darkness, of Christ and Antichrist.
While Flacius thus denounced the Interim as well as its authors and abettors, he at the same time admonished and encouraged the Lutheran pastors to be steadfast in confessing the truth, in spite of cross and persecution, and to stand by their flocks as true shepherds. That minister, he said, who denies or fails to confess the truth, or who yields to a tyrant, deserts his Church. We must not only confess with our mouths, but by deeds and actions as well. Not abandonment of the flock, but suffering is the best way to win the victory over a tyrant.
Flacius also earnestly warned the people against yielding to the princes and acknowledging, hearing, and following their own ministers if they advocated and introduced the Interim. Moreover, he encouraged both pastors and laymen to resist the tyranny of princes demanding the reinst.i.tution of the Roman ceremonies. "A government," said he in his _Admonition,_ "no matter which, has not the authority to forbid pastor to preach the pure doctrine." When the government persecutes the truth, we must not yield, no matter what the consequences may be. Christians will sacrifice everything to a tyrannical prince, but not "the truth, not the consolation of divine grace, nor the hope of eternal life."
(Frank 4, 68. 117.)
139. Doctrinal Position of Anti-Adiaphorists.
The theological position occupied by the opponents of the Adiaphorists may be summarized as follows: Ceremonies which G.o.d has neither commanded nor prohibited are adiaphora (_res mediae, Mitteldinge_) and _ceteris paribus_ (other things being equal), may be observed or omitted, adopted or rejected. However, under circ.u.mstances testing one"s faith they may become a matter of principle and conscience. Such is the case wherever and whenever they are demanded as necessary, or when their introduction involves a denial of the truth, an admission of error, an infringement of Christian liberty, an encouragement of errorists and of the enemies of the Church, a disheartening of the confessors of the truth, or an offense to Christians, especially the weak. Such conditions, they maintained, prevailed during the time of the Interim, when both Pope and Emperor plainly declared it to be their object to reestablish the Romish religion in Lutheran churches; when the adoption of the Interim and the reinst.i.tution of the papal ceremonies were universally regarded, by Catholics as well as Protestants, as the beginning of just such a reestablishment of the Papacy; when the timid Wittenberg and Leipzig theologians, instead of boldly confessing the Gospel and trusting to G.o.d for the protection of His Church, compromised the truth and yielded to the demands of the Romanists in order to escape persecution when the consciences of Lutherans were perplexed and confused wherever the abolished rites were reinst.i.tuted. Accordingly, they declared that under the prevailing circ.u.mstances the reintroduction of the Romish ceremonies was nothing short of a denial of Christian faith and of Christian love as well.