The Life of Philip Melanchthon Part 10

Melanchthon refutes Osiander's objection, by which he a.s.serted that nothing had hitherto been said in our churches of the indwelling of G.o.d in us. He then proceeds and says, that a distinction must be made between the righteousness of the saints after the resurrection, and of the saints during this life. Although G.o.d dwells in the saints, yet our nature abounds with great impurity, and sinful defects and desires. Here it was needful for the saints to have comfort, and to know how they have forgiveness of Sins and Grace. All this is proved by pa.s.sages of Scripture. He says that a princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage is recorded in Rom. iii.

"Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom G.o.d hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." This all refers to the merits of Christ, and cannot be referred to the essential righteousness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He adds several other clear pa.s.sages, which all speak of the merit of Christ. (Rom. 5, 1 John 1, Hebrews 10, Isaiah 53.) Here there is reference to Christ's merit alone, which we apply by faith. And this was preached also from the beginning, by the prophets. Osiander is mistaken, when he says: "I call that _righteousness_ which makes us do right. Here there is no mention of a forgiveness of sins." To this we reply: "We call the Lord Christ _righteousness_, by whom we have forgiveness of sins, a merciful G.o.d, and besides, the presence of G.o.d within us." In this sense must we regard the Mediator Jesus Christ, G.o.d and man, and hide ourselves in his wounds. Osiander confounds cause and effect. If he objects that this doctrine was calculated to fill men with a false security, they would reply: "We must teach the truth, give G.o.d the honor due to him, rebuke sin, and comfort troubled hearts with true comfort, although our hearers are not all alike." He is surprised that Osiander rejects this proposition: "Faith is a reliance upon mercy which is promised us for the Mediator's sake." "There must be a difference between the faith which the devils have, and this faith which accepts the promise, and by which the heart obtains comfort and joy." In conclusion, he remarks, that he had written all this in haste, and had pa.s.sed by many other points, in order to avoid greater disputes. But he did not thus avoid them; for Osiander is said to have remarked, when he read Melanchthon's confession, that "he would so bleed Melanchthon, that his blood should flow throughout Germany." He subsequently published two works, one of which was called "Bleeding of Mr. Philip," and the other "Refutation of the groundless and useless answer of Philip Melanchthon."

These contained slanders after the manner of Flacius. He not only attacked Melanchthon, but also the other teachers of Wittenberg, in the most violent manner. He particularly reproached them for not ordaining or declaring any one a Master or Doctor, unless he solemnly promised to teach in accordance with the three Confessions of Faith of the ancient Church, and also the Augsburg Confession. Melanchthon, in his reply, acknowledged this to be the case; but also that it had been introduced twenty years before by Luther, Bugenhagen, and Jonas, and was not only useful but necessary. But while the conflict was thus waged in the most violent manner, Osiander died, very unexpectedly, on the 17th of October, 1552. When Melanchthon received the tidings of his death, he wrote to Veit Winsheim: "As you see, he had a short pilgrimage. Oh that he had made a better use of it! Why was he so enraged against us? Merely because we maintain that we must build upon the merits of Christ, and not upon our new life. This was the princ.i.p.al point of the whole controversy."

Although the princ.i.p.al person was thus removed from the arena, yet the conflict did not cease, because his son-in-law FUNCK exerted a great influence upon the aged Duke Albert. But when these errors of Osiander found adherents and champions in Germany, particularly in Nuremberg, they were finally condemned by the Church. They are still haunting various places, and find champions in the pulpit and the lecture-room.

It is nothing less than the spirit of Osiander, to disregard too much the sufferings and death of Christ, that is, his humanity in general, and to look to the exalted one almost exclusively, and to place the sinner's justification before G.o.d more in the righteousness and holiness, which are communicated to him from thence. As Osiander had given prominence to the divine nature of Christ in his office as Mediator, another teacher of Konigsberg fell into the opposite error, and wished the humanity of Christ to be regarded alone in the work of Redemption and Justification. This was FRANCIS STANKAR, born in Mantua in Italy, who had left his native land for the love of the Gospel. He had formerly been teaching Hebrew in Krakau, and from thence came to Konigsberg. He here quarreled with Osiander, and resigned his office.

When Melanchthon was asked in regard to his opinion of Stankar's views, he declared that Christ is Mediator according to both natures, for not only suffering and death, but also victory and intercession were necessary attributes of a Mediator. He also published a full opinion in reference to this, in the year 1553. Besides these, one LAUTERWALD of Hungary, also departed from the doctrine of Justification. He went to greater lengths than Osiander, for he taught that Repentance and new obedience were necessary to obtain the Grace of G.o.d.

But we will leave these disputes here, to look upon the state of affairs in the German Empire.

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

THE CHANGED ATt.i.tUDE OF THE ELECTOR MAURICE.

Pope Paul III., who had caused the Emperor Charles much trouble, died, and was succeeded in February, 1550, by Julius III., who owed his elevation to the Papal chair to the Emperor, and therefore also proved to be more accommodating. His very first step was to transfer the Council back again from Bologna to Trent. The Council of the Church was to be continued there on May 1st, 1551. When the Emperor opened a new Diet at Augsburg, July 26th, 1550, he requested the States to send delegates to the Council. At the request of the Elector, Melanchthon had written an Opinion, in which he urged the propriety of requesting the Emperor to call a Council in Germany; further, that the Pope should not be Judge, but subject himself to the Council. Besides this, the articles already adopted in Trent should be reconsidered, and these resolutions should not depend altogether upon the hostile Archbishops, Bishops, and Prelates, but the Evangelical side should also be heard, and a.s.sist in pa.s.sing resolutions in accordance with the divine Scriptures. But it mattered not whether the Council was called that of Trent or not, if the decrees were only "G.o.dly." The Opinion also demands a safe conduct to and from the place of meeting of the Council. Maurice, by his amba.s.sador in Augsburg, declared himself in the spirit of this Opinion. The Emperor made the very best promises that the States should find a safe conduct and hearing. After this, the Elector summoned Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and Camerarius to Dresden in February, 1551, in order to hear their opinions in regard to the Council, and the men who should be sent to attend it. It appears that Melanchthon prepared his Opinion in Dresden. It again required that the articles should first of all be considered over again. That it should be stated, that they did not demand any other doctrine than that adhered to in the Churches of Misnia. This would be found in the Augsburg Confession, or in the Liturgy of the Elector of Brandenburg. The Prince ought to abide by this. They were not yet united in Dresden, but Melanchthon soon after received orders to prepare a new confession of faith. In May he retired to Dessau for a few days, in order to prepare this. He set out with this view, that it should be so prepared, that the doctrine of the Church might be plainly learned from it, and that it should be delivered in the name of the Clergy, and not of the Princes. This is the so-called _Saxon Confession_, which is merely a repet.i.tion of the Augsburg Confession. He communicated a rough draft to the Court, and afterwards added some points in regard to Ordination, Examinations, and Church Visitations.

This Confession throughout breathes a determined spirit, and does not endeavor to bring about an agreement with opposing doctrines. It was signed by the envoy of the Margrave John, by many Saxon pastors, and afterwards also by the deputies of Mansfeld, Strasburg, Pomerania, and Ans.p.a.ch. But not a word more was said of the journey of the Saxon Clergy to Trent: the whole matter seemed to have been put to rest. In the meantime, the Elector Maurice had received orders to subdue the stubborn city of Magdeburg; he accepted the Imperial commission, and the city defended itself in the powerful siege with great heroism. All Protestants anxiously regarded the fate of Magdeburg. Germany began to feel the oppressions of the Emperor, and especially of his Spanish troops, more and more from day to day. Not only Protestants, but also Catholics, were highly incensed; especially, too, because the captive Landgrave, Philip, was treated in the most unworthy manner. The Protestants were greatly excited against Maurice, for they regarded him as the betrayer of his relative, John Frederick, his own father-in-law, and the German cause, and also as a denier of the Gospel. And now, to crown all, he permitted himself to be employed against faithful Magdeburg. Maurice felt this, and as he had for some time been dissatisfied with the course of the Emperor, he resolved to separate himself from him. In the midst of his victory over the brave Margrave John von Custrin, who had come to the a.s.sistance of Magdeburg, he, as some one says, "went over to the Opinion of the conquered." He entered into a secret league with several Protestant princes, and promised to confess the Augsburg Confession again, and to risk his land and people in defence of this and German liberty. While he was negotiating with France to obtain money, and promised the King various German cities, he continued the siege of Magdeburg to conceal his real purpose. When France entered into an agreement with him, he offered pardon and religious protection to the city of Magdeburg, and also received their oath of allegiance.

At this time, and also for the purpose of deceiving the Emperor, Melanchthon and Maior received orders to depart for Trent. In Nuremburg they should expect further orders. But they did not find any particular directions how they should act; nothing was said of the manner of their journey, of their expenses, or an escort.

Melanchthon wrote to the Electoral Chancellor, MORDEISEN, on the 13th of December, 1551: "I was surprised at this unexpected order. But as I do not wish to appear disobedient, I will depart for Leipzig to-morrow, and thence to you at Dresden, to learn further what you wish me to do, although I shall not be able to make this journey without danger at the present time, owing to my sorrows and bodily feebleness." He immediately carried out this proposed plan of his journey. He did not receive more light from the communications of the Electoral counsellors. However, he began to understand the Elector's object, and from Misnia he wrote to Eber: "Although many find fault with our journey, and I would rather enjoy the society and countenances of my family and friends, yet I obey, whether they are urging this matter at Court in earnest, or to deceive; so that it may not appear that we, as has frequently been said, wish to avoid a public meeting, either from fear or wantonness." But when he heard that the Elector intended to unite with France in opposing the Emperor, he was much concerned, and thus expresses it in a letter to Maurice himself, January, 1552: "It is indeed to be deplored that the Emperor does not release the Landgrave; but a union with France is unadvisable, as it cannot be depended upon. To unite with such persons, who were only anxious for disturbances, is sad and discreditable.

Besides this, your Grace knows that the Emperor is the const.i.tuted authority, and that G.o.d generally observes his law, to overthrow those who oppose authorities. The advice given by some, to take advantage of the Emperor before he would fall upon us with the execution of the Council, was not an argument in favor of war and tumult."

But the Elector seemed really to be in earnest in regard to his representation in the Council, and personally addressed a letter to the Synod of Trent, in which he names SARCERIUS, PACaeUS, and Melanchthon, as his deputies. From Leipzig, Melanchthon wrote to Wittenberg, requesting those who boarded with his family to seek another place: "For I have a long and dangerous journey before me, which the Son of G.o.d may direct, as I heartily pray he would do. But as the time of my return is uncertain, I did not wish to burden my family with too many cares." He also bade his hearers an affectionate farewell: "I conjure you to unite your prayers with the sighs of all the G.o.dly, that the Son of G.o.d may be pleased to lessen the chastis.e.m.e.nts which threaten us." And again: "Therefore take notice of the divine wrath, and pray that G.o.d, in his wrath, would not forget mercy, for the sake of his Son. And in order that the prayer may be more fervent, let your walk become Christian, and your hearts be awakened to repentance, according to the word of the Lord: 'Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you.'" After saying that the Church was dear to the Lord, he closes thus: "May you comfort yourselves with this consolation, which in public and private dangers shows the haven in which Christian hearts find rest; and in the meantime, may you be happy!"

He departed on the 14th of January; and on the 22d of the same month, he and his companions, to whom his son-in-law PEUCER had joined himself, reached Nuremberg. But it began to be more evident that these envoys were merely journeying to Trent in order to deceive. Tidings were brought from every quarter, that the Elector was a.s.suming a hostile att.i.tude against the Emperor. The envoys remained in Nuremberg without any further instructions, and Melanchthon preferred remaining here, to going to Trent for the purpose of engaging in fruitless disputations. At last, when no further directions came, he resolved to return, and arrived in Wittenberg on the 20th of March.

In the meantime, Maurice had given information to the Saxon and Hessian Chambers, that it was intended to deliver the imprisoned princes; and soon his armies, and those of William of Hesse, and the Margrave Albert, departed from Culmbach, and united. While they were entering Augsburg, the King of France seized Metz, and called himself the defender of German liberty. The Emperor, who was at that time at Innsbruck, had not the remotest idea of treachery until he read the declaration of the confederate princes, circulated throughout Germany, in which, not without reason, too, they accused him of suppressing the freedom of the German Empire. As he was without troops and money, and was suffering from his old complaint, the gout, he attempted to escape to the Netherlands; but Maurice had already seized the narrow pa.s.s of Ehrenberg, so that the Emperor was compelled to return to Innsbruck.

When Maurice saw that the Emperor was about to receive aid from various quarters, he resolved to storm the pa.s.s, and to seize the Emperor in Innsbruck. But during the night, Charles fled over the Tyrol to Villach, in Carinthia. The day before, he had announced liberty to his captive, John Frederick, under this condition, that he would voluntarily follow the Imperial Court for a short time longer. Full of joy, the liberated prince sang a spiritual song of thanksgiving, and followed the Emperor.

But the Council of Trent had been scattered like chaff before the wind, for they thought that Maurice was coming to disperse them. King Ferdinand, who had always been a better friend of the Germans than his brother, acted the part of mediator.

A meeting was held in Pa.s.sau, where the well-known _Treaty of Pa.s.sau_ was agreed upon, on the 2d of August, 1552. In this treaty, so important to the Protestants, perfect religious freedom is secured to them, and they are to receive equal civil rights at the next diet; those who were banished received pardon, and the Landgrave Philip was restored to liberty. At first the Emperor would not consent to the treaty, but finally yielded to the earnest representations of his brother Ferdinand.

The oppressions. .h.i.therto experienced in Germany now ceased; the exiled ministers returned, and the Interim had reached its well-deserved end.

John Frederick and the Landgrave Philip were at liberty again. When the latter, who had endured many afflictions, had returned to his dominions, he immediately entered a church in Ca.s.sel, and for a long time remained before the altar engaged in prayer. John Frederick, by his steadfast faithfulness and unwavering faith, had extorted the unwilling respect of the Emperor; while Maurice had lost it to a considerable degree. When some one from Saxony welcomed John Frederick in Nuremberg, he said: "Go and tell it in your home that I come without arms, and that I do not intend to cause a civil warfare, and shall rather lose the remaining portion of my dominions than bring desolation upon the Fatherland."

Melanchthon wrote to MOLLER: "You know, that by the grace of G.o.d, Duke John Frederick of Saxony is with his wife and children in Thuringia.

This return without arms is far more glorious than a b.l.o.o.d.y victory.

Posterity too will enrol this example among the testimonies that G.o.d hears the prayers of the G.o.dly, and softens our afflictions even in this world."

When the old defender of the Faith returned to his own country, he was everywhere welcomed in the most joyful and affecting manner. From Wittenberg too, a letter of congratulation, written by Melanchthon, was sent to their old patron. They express their joy in this: "First of all, that G.o.d has sustained your Grace in strength of body and soul, in Christian comfort and fidelity in your hours of trouble, and that he has thus adorned you with many virtues, even as Daniel was preserved among the lions. And then also for this praiseworthy and joyful deliverance."

The letter also refers to the blessings this deliverance will bring upon the church, and closes thus: "We pray with all humility, that your Grace may be and continue to be our most gracious Lord. For it has always been, and is still our intention, with G.o.d's grace, to maintain unity in Christian doctrine with the churches of these lands, although we have been sorely tried, and great confusion ensued, from which, however, G.o.d delivered us; and we are still engaged in great, heavy, and highly important matters."

John Frederick expressed his thanks in a very friendly reply. He says: "It is indeed true, that G.o.d in mercy has laid upon us a great and wearisome affliction, on account of our sins. But as his Omnipotent power, by the a.s.sistance of his Holy Spirit, has maintained us wonderfully in the true confession of his saving word, and has also preserved our health, so also has his Almighty power graciously freed us from captivity, and restored us to our own dominions again." He expresses his regrets that there had been so many disputes and changes in the church during this time, and says, that if they had adhered to Luther's doctrine, "no alteration by mere human wisdom would have been undertaken or permitted."

Melanchthon also expressed his joy at the return of their prince in a very hearty Preface to the fourth volume of Luther's works. He says: "What greater privilege can be bestowed upon any man, than this grace, to spend his life for the glory of G.o.d, and the welfare of many of his fellow-men? This ornament is infinitely to be preferred above all b.l.o.o.d.y victories and triumphs. May your Highness continue to enjoy health and happiness!"

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES, AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT A UNION.

We must here revert to a conflict commenced at a former period against Melanchthon by Cordatus. We did not conceal the fact that his formula that good works are the condition without which we cannot be saved, was a bold venture, which could easily be misinterpreted. When he used the form of expression in the Leipzig Interim, that good works are necessary to salvation, it was expressed indeed in a milder form, but still admitted a bad interpretation.

It so came to pa.s.s that the aged Amsdorf published a work in 1551, in which he accuses GEORGE MAIOR, Melanchthon's friend, in the most severe manner, because he had adulterated the doctrine of Justification, by his proposition that good works are necessary to salvation. Maior did not owe him an answer long; he confessed his adherence to the Evangelical doctrine of Justification, but at the same time adhered to his opinion that good works are necessary to salvation, because no one could obtain salvation by evil works, or without good works. But now Maior was attacked from every side, and found it impossible to retain his position as General Superintendent at Mansfeld any longer. His opinion was not opposed to the doctrine of justification, for he said that good works were necessary to salvation, because they must necessarily be produced by faith, and because all men were obliged to obey G.o.d. But the opposite side proved to him, that the formula made use of by him might easily lead to misinterpretation, and should not be used, even if it were only on account of the Catholics. Melanchthon, of whom we know that he did not approve of a form which might easily be misconstrued, advised Maior to desist from further disputes, for, he said, you are merely adding fire to the flames. Maior was called to a professorship in Wittenberg in the autumn of the year 1552. Instead of following Melanchthon's advice, and abstaining from his formula for the sake of peace, he continued to defend it. Melanchthon himself did not employ this formula any more, and at a later period expressed himself against it in a very decided manner; although he remarks in another place, that against the Antinomians we should always maintain that the beginning of new obedience is necessary, because it is a divine and unchangeable arrangement, that a rational being must obey G.o.d. However, the most extravagant opponents did not suffer themselves to be pacified by all these things. Amsdorf was so involved in these contradictions, that he published a work, during Melanchthon's lifetime, with this t.i.tle: "That the Proposition, Good works are injurious to salvation, is a true, just, and Christian proposition, taught and preached by the saints Paul and Luther." If the champions had adhered to the word of G.o.d and the Confession of the Church, and had acted towards each other in a friendly spirit, intent upon the honor of G.o.d and the discovery of the truth, they would not have gone astray in this manner.

Such a spirit should also have been manifested in the so-called _Synergistic_ controversy, which caused Melanchthon great trouble. It is certain that he was most decidedly opposed to the doctrines of the ancient heretic PELAGIUS; for he adhered to the truth expressed in the word of G.o.d, that the powers of man are so much corrupted by original sin, that he must first be awakened by the Holy Ghost before he is able to make a beginning, and that he also needs the Holy Ghost as he progresses. He teaches that the powers of human nature are greatly affected, end unfitted to do good, and he represents the merits of Christ as the only foundation of salvation. At the close of his life, in reply to the Bavarian articles, he declares in the most positive manner: "Sin and death cannot be removed by the free will of man, and man's will cannot begin inward obedience without the Son of G.o.d, without the Gospel, and without the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it cannot be a.s.sured or proved that he was a _Synergist_, _i. e._, that he taught that in the work of repentance, the natural will of man performs one part, and grace the other. He was fully convinced that the grace of G.o.d alone accomplishes what is good in us, and that the will of man merely receives. The will of man could thus be active to a certain extent, but could not produce the new life. The actual Synergistic controversy did not arise until after the Leipzig Interim. In this, Melanchthon had said that in the work of repentance, man was not pa.s.sive like a block or a statue. Flacius had repeatedly directed attention to this expression; but it was Amsdorf who agitated this controversy towards the close of Melanchthon's life. But we will not enter upon a consideration of this, because the controversies concerning the freedom of the human will did not develop themselves until after the death of our Reformer.

As such differences and disputes arose on every side in the Evangelical Church, to its own injury and the joy of the Catholics, several princes, especially Maurice and the Landgrave of Saxony, thought it necessary to bring about a meeting of the Theologians, in order that these controversies might be settled. The Osiandrian difficulties were to be disposed of first, as they shook the very foundation of the Evangelical Church. The meeting was to be held in Erfurt, June, 1553; but Melanchthon did not expect any good from this, and freely declared his opinion that such conferences produced no good effects, as Gregory of n.a.z.ianzen had declared, "that he had not seen any Synods in his own day which did not cause greater dissension than existed before." He also said that there was no Theologian now who was able to restrain the others, as Luther had done in former days. That they ought to adhere to the Confession, on account of the Diet which should soon a.s.semble. If the Emperor should insist upon the Interim, they should explain to him why they could not accept it. The Landgrave also entertained the same views.

This plan, which had been projected by Maurice, was postponed by a terrible disaster which fell upon him. The Margrave Albert continued to disturb the public peace by predatory excursions, which were especially directed against the monasteries of Franconia. Maurice therefore united with King Ferdinand, and Duke Henry, of Brunswick, to suppress this disturber. But when Albert heard of this design, he endeavored to antic.i.p.ate them, and fell upon Lower Saxony. On the 9th of July, 1553, a battle was fought at Sievershausen. Maurice was victorious, but paid dearly for it, for he received a gun-shot wound in the battle, which caused his death two days afterwards. His last words were, "G.o.d will come!" He was succeeded by his brother AUGUSTUS, who restored the Misnian Lands in Thuringia and Franconia to the aged John Frederick. He was a sincere man, devotedly attached to Evangelical truth, and enjoying the full confidence of his subjects. Already, in the month of August, he came to Wittenberg, and Melanchthon rejoiced to hear the most encouraging promises from his own lips.

He confirmed the foundations which had been a.s.signed for the support of the University by his brother Maurice. He also earnestly wished that the Theologians, who were not affording a very edifying and commendable example by their continued disputes, might become reconciled among themselves. This wish was shared by the pious Duke CHRISTOPHER, of Wurtemberg; and he proposed a conference of the ministers at Weimar, in order that they might discuss these points of difference. It was agreed upon to hold a Synod at Naumburg. We have already heard that Melanchthon dreaded such a conference, because he believed it would only make matters worse. On the 17th of April, he wrote to a friend: "The Court orders us to go to Naumburg, whither, as they write to us, the Swabian and Hessian pastors will also come. Although they have been warned by so many examples, that synods and hypocritical unions are productive of great evils, yet they have ordered us to hold synods again." However, he also wrote to Maienburg, May 11th: "Although the Synod of Naumburg, which I always objected to, will meet, I must nevertheless attend it."

He went, accompanied by Forster and Camerarius, and reached Naumburg May 20th, 1554. The Hessian delegates, and the well-known Sleida.n.u.s, of Strasburg, arrived on the following day, and Pacaeus and Salmuth, of Leipzig, on the 23d of May.

Although Melanchthon at first entertained the greatest fears, because he expected those two violent champions, Gallus and Flacius, whom he called the two sons of Polyphemus, he now wrote to his son-in-law Peucer, as early as May 23d: "To-day we shall, with the help of G.o.d, deliberate in a friendly manner, and I hope that no disputes will arise among us. We shall not expect any other Theologians, if they do not arrive here within three days." The princes wished the Theologians to agree upon the answer to be given to the Emperor, at the next Diet. In a declaration, prepared by Melanchthon, the Theologians frankly say: "If his Imperial Majesty should wish us to adopt again the Papal doctrine, which we condemn, and the Interim also, we shall, by the grace of G.o.d, clearly and positively refuse to do so."

They continued to say, that Protestants should abide by the Confession delivered in Augsburg in 1530, because it contains "the only eternal agreement of the divine Scriptures, and the true catholic Church of Christ." Also, that the confession of Brentius, and that of Saxony, fully coincided with this. The Theologians also expressed themselves against the errors of SCHWENKFELD and OSIANDER. Schwenkfeld, like all fanatics of ancient and modern days, disregarded the written word of G.o.d, and thought that G.o.d revealed himself to man without this. He also showed his perversion by other objections, which he raised against the Evangelical Church. They therefore say: "Therefore we unanimously reject the before-mentioned errors, and all the lies of Schwenkfeld." One of the greatest errors of Osiander is his declaration, "that man is not just on account of the obedience of Christ, but on account of the Deity if it dwells in man." They maintain the Evangelical doctrine against these Osiandrian heresies, in a very conclusive manner. In speaking of _Ceremonies_, they insist upon unity in doctrine and in the sacraments.

They reject the ma.s.s without communicants. They allow private confession, "but no one is to be burdened by an enumeration of his sins." They wish holidays to be observed, and require uniformity in this. They oppose the reintroduction of Latin hymns, of the garments used in the ma.s.s, of vestments, and other ceremonies, "because it would give rise to new dissensions and ruptures." The authorities, and sensible Pastors, would know how to make a distinction between essentials and non-essentials, and how to avoid all offence. Attention should be paid to studies, ordination, consistories, and visitations, all which matters had formerly been disregarded by the Bishops. As the Bishops are persecutors of the pure doctrine, ordination cannot possibly be given into their hands. The authorities are bound to see to it, that the pure doctrine is preached in the churches, and that the consistories would discharge their duties, in punishing vice and maintaining discipline and harmony. Melanchthon was highly pleased with the harmony among the Theologians at Naumburg; yet he did not conceal the fact from himself, that his opponents would also raise a great outcry against the resolutions of Naumburg. The Theologians of Wurtemberg had only proceeded as far as Erfurt, for they had been expected for several days in Naumburg, but in vain. On the 28th of May, Melanchthon wrote to STRIGEL: "If the Swabians do not arrive to-day, as I believe they will not, we shall adjourn to-morrow, G.o.d willing." He returned to Wittenberg, as he had stated. Duke Christopher, however, was highly pleased with the resolutions of Naumburg.

During Melanchthon's stay in Dresden, February, 1555, where he was giving his opinion in regard to a visitation of the churches, the diet of Augsburg had been opened on the 5th of February. The Emperor had become completely disgusted with German affairs, particularly since the revolt of Maurice, and he now left the direction of this diet, promised in the treaty of Pa.s.sau, to his brother Ferdinand. This diet witnessed many disputes, especially urged by the Pope's nuncio. But fortunately Pope Julius III. died about this time, and the nuncio was obliged to return to Rome. Now one princ.i.p.al difficulty was removed, and they at last, in the month of September, 1555, agreed upon the _Religious peace of Augsburg_, which was highly advantageous to the Protestants. For they not only obtained liberty of conscience in religion, but full civil equality with the Catholics, and remained in the possession of the ecclesiastical property which had been confiscated. But one unjust resolution was also carried, that if a Catholic sovereign should wish to become a Protestant at any future time, he should not indeed be personally molested on this account, but should forfeit his office and rank. Although the Protestants yielded very reluctantly, the decrees of the diet were of the utmost value to them, for they secured a lasting peace, and they no longer needed to care for the condemnations of a General Council. Melanchthon wrote: "I look upon the peaceful conclusion of the Diet of Augsburg as one of the favors of G.o.d, and we must beseech the Son of G.o.d to continue to guide us in future."

While the Evangelical Church was thus celebrating outward triumphs, and securing a firm position for herself, enemies were raging in her own bosom, who undoubtedly r.e.t.a.r.ded her development. They were contending about a doctrine which is as plainly founded in the word of G.o.d, as it is of great comfort to the heart. It is the doctrine that not only the earthly elements of bread and wine, but also the true body and blood of Christ are distributed in the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As a middle path between the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the one hand, and the one-sided doctrine of the Reformed, that we receive nothing but bread and wine in memory of the Lord, on the other, it was objectionable to the Catholics and the Reformed. Luther has triumphantly vindicated this consoling doctrine in his writings.

But now there arose another man with a doctrine somewhat different, which was adopted by many. This was the sagacious, learned, and pious JOHN CALVIN, who was born in the year 1509. The Lutherans had hitherto regarded him as belonging to their own party, especially since he had been teaching with Bucer and Capito in Strasburg. When he had returned to Geneva in 1541, from which city he had been banished before, and had there built up the Evangelical Church with great zeal, he wrote a Confession in regard to the Lord's Supper, in the year 1549. The Zurichers had formerly suspected him of being a Lutheran, but now all their doubts vanished, and they could call him their own, and harmony was completely restored between German and French Switzerland. But that which produced harmony in Switzerland caused dissensions in Germany, although not immediately. Here they had enough to dispute in regard to the so-called indifferent things, (Adiaphora,) and the heresies of Osiander.

In the year 1552, a pastor in Hamburg, named JOACHIM WESTPHAL, published a work in which he proved that the Reformed had given no less than eight-and-twenty explanations of the words of inst.i.tution in the Lord's Supper, from the time of Zwingli to that of Calvin. In the following year he published a work against Calvin, ent.i.tled: "The true faith in regard to the Lord's Supper." This publication began to arouse the zeal of the Lutherans against Calvin and his friends, which was still more inflamed by one JOHN VON LASCO, who, together with a band of French and Dutch Protestants, had been banished from England by that severe Romanist, Queen MARY. He had confessed himself a follower of Calvin, and therefore could not find a resting-place for himself and his friends, either in Denmark or Germany. They were denounced from the pulpits in every quarter. Calvin now published a work defending them and his doctrine. He declared that, according to his doctrine, the Lord's Supper was no empty ceremony, even though he did not believe in a partic.i.p.ation of the body and blood of Christ, in and under the bread and wine. Westphal and JOHN TIMANN, pastor in Bremen, arrayed themselves against Calvin; who, a.s.sisted by Bullinger of Zurich, and Lasco, soon published a refutation. Most of the cities of Lower Saxony sided with Westphal. The fire spread on every side, and Schnepf of Jena, Alber in Mecklenburg, and Eitzen in Hamburg, attacked Calvin in the most violent manner, who finally maintained an utter silence.

Calvin represented his own doctrine as a mediation between the Lutherans and the Reformed. It did not teach an imaginary, but a real partic.i.p.ation of the body and blood of Christ, yet not with the mouth, and it also opposes the view of an Omnipresence of Christ according to his human nature. The fulness of the G.o.dhead has entered into the body of Christ, and from this body the Lord fills his people spiritually, with a secret and mysterious power of life, whenever they receive the bread and wine. This partic.i.p.ation only refers to believers, although it is also offered to unbelievers. So Calvin regarded the matter; but what did Melanchthon say to all this? He did not express himself positively in regard to either side, doubtless because he did not wish to pour fresh oil into the fire. Yet he was provoked and driven to a decided declaration of his sentiments by both sides. Gallus and Westphal published a collection of declarations taken from his former writings, by which they proved him to be on their side, and that he had at least not thought as the Sacramentarians did, as long as Luther was alive.

Calvin also endeavored to lead him to declare himself, by stating that he understood the Augsburg Confession precisely as it was understood by its author, and that in this matter he could as little be separated from Philippus as from his own heart. We may admit, without hesitation, that Melanchthon agreed more with Calvin than with the stricter teachers of the Lutheran Church; but he did not wish to begin a conflict while he was the subject of a government which strictly adhered to Luther's doctrine. He wrote to HARDENBERG in the beginning of 1556, that if his life should be spared he would reply in a place where the courts could not hinder him; and to his friend MORDEISEN at the Saxon court, who reproached him on account of his bashfulness, he wrote: "I am certain that your court will not suffer a defence of the truth in this article."

He therefore continued to adhere to the method of teaching he had pursued hitherto. He always spoke of a presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but never of a bodily presence of his body and blood.

Some of the princes now again, as on former occasions, thought of bringing about a reconciliation between the contending parties. As we have already heard, Duke CHRISTOPHER of Wurtemberg was the most prominent among them, for he made repeated attempts to induce the princes and Theologians to hold a meeting, where the points of difference might be discussed, and harmony restored. But his advances met no response, if we except the aged Elector of the Palatinate, FREDERICK. "I also wish," Melanchthon writes, "that learned and well-meaning men might negotiate in peace concerning certain contested points."

It appeared that the Theologians of Weimar were particularly opposed to any union or compromise. These held a separate meeting in Weimar, January, 1556, in which they declared that they would not unite with those of Wittenberg, until they would pledge themselves unequivocally to the Augsburg Confession, and would drop all Zwinglianism and Synergism.

They would faithfully abide by Luther's doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and free will.

Amsdorf, Schnepf, Strigel, Stolz, Aurifaber, and delegates from the Palatinate and Wurtemberg, attended this meeting. Melanchthon called this Synod the _Flacian Synod_, because he well knew that Flacius exerted a great influence upon it. He expresses his regrets in regard to this, in a letter to Camerarius, February 7th: "This sad dissension troubles me so much, that I wish to leave this world; and I see that I am not far distant from my journey's end."

But something occurred in the summer of the year 1556, which he perhaps expected least of all. Flacius endeavored to bring about a reconciliation with his former teacher. He was at that time residing in Magdeburg, and had prepared a few "mild propositions to bring about a G.o.dly, needful, and peaceful reconciliation between the Theologians of Wittenberg and Leipzig, and others who have written against them," which he had sent to Paul Eber, that he might deliver them to Melanchthon. In the eleventh article he said, "If any persons shall teach and spread errors which are injurious to religion and conscience, either publicly or secretly, we will avoid such as a curse, and will not acknowledge them as brethren, or receive them into fellowship, until they have condemned and publicly renounced their errors. For such wounds in the church cannot be healed or endured silently." It was princ.i.p.ally owing to this article that Eber did not present these propositions.

About this time the French scholar, HUBERT LANGUENTIUS, who had long been one of Melanchthon's most intimate friends, arrived in Magdeburg.

They were anxious to employ him as mediator. An interview with Melanchthon should take place in the little town of Coswig, and Flacius promised to employ mild and peaceful expressions. Although Melanchthon at first intended to accept the offer, he was afterwards induced to change his opinion, and, on the 15th of July, wrote to his friend Languentius: "I have for a long time been anxious for a conference with pious and learned men, for the glory of G.o.d and the general good; but what would be the use of an interview with such unlearned, raging, and malicious persons as Stolz, Gallus, and Aurifaber." "A sweet friendship and intimacy subsisted between Flacius and myself in former days, and I should like to discuss the whole system of doctrine with him. But he has circulated matters about me which I never uttered, and which never entered into my thoughts. Therefore, I fear treacherous intentions in all this. Oh! that he would act towards me with the same sincerity with which I should wish to approach him! But not one of my friends is willing to be present at such an interview, and they do not consider it advisable for me to meet him alone. I am not concerned if others are pleased to seek power and influence. The Son of G.o.d will judge the life and sentiments of every one, and he knows that I am only anxious to glorify the truth, to add to G.o.d's honor, and to promote the good of the Church." On the 21st of July, Flacius expressed his regrets concerning this reply in a letter to Languentius, and even wrote to Melanchthon, justifying himself, and a.s.suring him that he had no reason to complain of him. Melanchthon replied on the 4th of September: "You recapitulate your kindnesses towards me, and state that you did not publish a letter written to Taupolus. I never wrote a syllable to him. In Augsburg, I paid a visit to this Venetian amba.s.sador, at the request of the Elector, and spoke with him of the cause of the Reformation. I do not recollect all the words of that conversation. For I did not think then that I would be called to an account after the expiration of twenty-six years."

Others had concocted a letter from this, with which Rorer had already reproached him, and which had been sent by the Margrave John. "You have also published the Leipzig Interim in a mutilated manner, and with notes. What induced you to attack an old friend, who loved you sincerely, with such weapons? I ought not to be reproached with what I never did; I am willing to confess all I have done. When the Augsburg Interim appeared, and reached our country, I at first advised that the churches should not be disturbed by any alterations whatever." He goes on to say, that he had many disputes with the courtiers, until the Elector declared that he did not wish a change of doctrine, but only uniformity in outward ceremonies on festival days, in lections, and dress. "This the people afterwards called Adiaphora. I knew that the smallest changes would displease the people. But as doctrine was untouched, I wished our friends rather to be willing to endure this servitude, than to relinquish the service of the Gospel, and I confess that I also gave this counsel to the Franconians. This I have done, but I never changed the doctrine of the Confession. After this, you began to enter your protest, but I yielded, and did not dispute. You are perfectly welcome to bear off the victory, for I yield, and do not contend about these ceremonies: and wish, with all my heart, that a pleasant harmony might prevail throughout the Churches. I also acknowledge that I erred in this matter, and pray G.o.d to forgive me that I did not fly far away from those treacherous deliberations. I shall refute all with which you and Gallus unjustly reproach me." In regard to Maior's proposition, that good works are necessary to salvation, he had exhorted him to explain his meaning, and to drop this form of expression. That he himself did not use this expression, and merely opposed the Antinomians by declaring: "New obedience is necessary, because it is a necessary law that the creature should obey the Creator.