The ministers of Hamburg also addressed a long epistle to the Wittenbergers, in which they condemn the principle expressed by them in their reply to those of Berlin, that it would be better to endure a hard servitude in indifferent things, than to leave the churches on their account. They thought that too many things were comprehended under this term, and wished the Theologians of Wittenberg to explain what they meant by indifferent things. Melanchthon replied in a very friendly manner, on the 16th of April. He begins thus: "We are pleased if you admonish and correct us in the spirit of love; for this is a very necessary duty in friendship, and much more in affairs of the church. But yet, we entreat you that you would judge us leniently, according to your wisdom, reputation, and benevolence; and that you would not condemn old friends who have labored much for more than twenty years, and have endured, and do still endure, the greatest conflicts, as we are furiously persecuted by certain other persons, with many false accusations. We therefore do not reply to them, lest hatred and discord might be still more inflamed,in these sorrowful times." He declares that, by the grace of God, the same Gospel is still preached in Wittenberg, as in Hamburg. They would never permit any alterations in doctrine, and in the Lord's Supper, because these were the eternal counsels of God. They had far more to contend with than those who abused them. They did not consent to anything in customs and ceremonies which contradict the word of God. He further declares that by indifferent things, or Adiaphora, they did not understand magical consecrations, adoration of images, nor carrying about of the consecrated bread and the like, which they rejected by their words and writings, yea, not even the ridiculous stuff which occurs at funerals. Among the Adiaphora, they counted those things which the ancient Church already possessed, such as festivals, public readings, confession and absolution before the Lord's Supper, examination at confirmation, ordination to the ministerial office, and the like. He also defends the principle that it would be better to endure a servitude not opposed to the word of God, than to leave the Church; and he also thinks they should rather have been comforted than condemned, inasmuch as they still adhered to the true foundation. In conclusion, he urges unity. But the Wittenbergers, and Melanchthon, who was looked upon as their leader, were to endure still severer conflicts. We, in passing, will merely refer to the two pastors,ZwillingandSchultz, in Torgau, who preferred to be deposed from their ministry, rather than wear the white surplice, and called those who wore it, traitors and idolators. Melanchthon regarded these manifestations with great regret, and in his sorrow wrote to the Prince of Anhalt: "I would rather go into exile, than contend continually with such obstinate men."
But Melanchthon's principal opponent at this time, andalso afterwards, wasMatthias Flacius, who indeed embittered his life in an indescribable manner. He was born of respectable parents in Albona, in Illyria, in the year 1520; and after the death of his father, went to Milan and Venice, to prosecute his studies. When a youth, he already loved the Bible, and intended to enter a cloister, to serve God better. But a pious monk, who afterwards suffered martyrdom for the Gospel's sake, dissuaded him from this step, and revealed to him how the Gospel, which had been darkened by the Papacy, had again been brought to light by Luther. This at once kindled a fire in the heart of the inflammable young man. Against the wishes of his relatives, and supplied with a very slender purse, he set out for Germany, and in the year 1539 arrived at Basle. He here found a really paternal friend in the well-known reformer,Simon Grynæus. He made rapid progress in the study of divinity, both at this place, and also in Tübingen, whither he went the following year. However, he felt himself drawn to Wittenberg, the mother-city of the Reformation. Here he enjoyed the good fortune, so often longed for, to hear Luther and Melanchthon; and he also enjoyed many benefits, especially at the hands of the latter. In Wittenberg, he for three years passed through severe inward conflicts, for he could not believe divine grace, and deeply felt the wrath of God abiding upon him. Bugenhagen brought the greatly-distressed young man to Dr. Luther, who, as is well known, had been made a powerful comforter by his own deep experience; and it seems that from that time, light began to arise in his troubled heart. In the year 1544, he was already professor of the Hebrew language in Wittenberg, and taught with great success. At his marriage in the year following, he rejoiced to see Dr. Luther present at thewedding. He was greatly attached to the reformer, and with him hated everything that savored of Popery. However, he evidently proceeded much further in this respect than Luther, who was willing to suffer wholesome customs to remain, even though they came from the Catholic Church. On this account, Flacius regarded the Interim with the greatest displeasure; and spoke with Eber, Maior, Pomeranus, and particularly Melanchthon, that they should zealously oppose it by word and deed. But when he saw that they would not consent, but rather, as we know already, accepted the Interim of Leipzig, he published various severe writings against the Interim and its defenders, yet without mentioning his name. And as the Interim succeeded notwithstanding all this, and was about to be introduced into Wittenberg, he resolved rather to leave Wittenberg than see this change. He removed to Magdeburg, where various persons, among them Amsdorf, who had been expelled from his bishopric, who were all highly incensed at the compliance of the Wittenbergers, had taken up their residence.
The most violent publications were sent forth from this Chancery of God, as Magdeburg was called. They gave various insulting names to their opponents at Wittenberg, such as knaves, Samaritans, and Baalites; but Melanchthon was the principal mark of their attacks, because they blamed him especially for the introduction of the Interim. In a letter toMoller, he thus temperately expresses his sentiments in regard to the Interim: "I often advised that no innovations should be made now, for the people would at once cry out that we were destroying the Gospel, or at least beginning to do so. But the courts exclaimed that it would be necessary to yield somewhat to the Emperor, so that he would not send his armies into these parts, andsuppress the Church, as he did in Swabia. But although I am not able to say whether we shall appease the Emperor by the re-introduction of a few indifferent ceremonies, yet the courtiers declare that such will be the case, and exhort us not to expose the fatherland and the Church to devastation, on account of these non-essential matters. We therefore contend for essential matters, for purity of doctrine, and the form of the Lord's Supper, so that the Papal mass may not be introduced again, as it was done amid the groans of all the godly, in Swabia. But I have never contended about holidays, the order of hymns, and similar matters; and I do not believe that such contention could be reconciled with the moderation needful in the present troubled state of the Church. But when some are opposed to all order, and all laws, it really seems far too uncivilized to me. I have many years ago wished that our churches might introduce a few ceremonies. A similarity in such matters, conduces to unity. Of course, there must be moderation in all such things. We do not make the least alterations in doctrine or essentials. But transubstantiation is the fountain of all the misery in which we find ourselves at the present time, and which awaits the Church in future. This has added strength to the Papal mass, concerning which we shall again hear the most severe commands of the Emperor at the next diet. You know that I have treated all other questions of dispute in a manner calculated to remove all doubts from the mind of every pious man, who judges leniently; but in regard to the question of transubstantiation, I have always been very short, owing to the slanderous judgments of some of our own side."
The men at Magdeburg, and Flacius particularly, would not be silent; but Melanchthon did not reply. He speaksof this in a letter toBaumgartner: "I have not yet answered our neighbors in the city of Parthenope, (Magdeburg,) because the facts themselves refute them; and what a conflagration would be caused, if we should reply!" He was induced to remain silent by his love of peace, and perhaps he also hoped that Flacius, owing to his extravagant views, would not secure many adherents. But in this he was mistaken; and he says himself, in a letter written September 20th, to PastorLauterbachof Pirna: "If they do not stop challenging us, I shall answer them. In the meantime I will refute this outcry by other useful writings. We see how the devil is spurring on unruly spirits, to create greater confusion. We will therefore call upon the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, to direct us." At last, October 1st, 1549, he replied to the attacks of Flacius. In answer to his reproach that doctrines were changed, and abolished ceremonies were being reintroduced, Melanchthon gives the unequivocal reply, that he confessed all that he had recorded in his book,Loci Communes, in which was found the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession of the year 1530. As far as thechange of customswas concerned, he was free to confess that he had advised the Franconians and others not to leave the churches on account of this servitude, provided it could be borne without impiety. "But when Flacius maintains that I have said the church ought by no means to be left, even if all the old abuses were to be introduced again, I pronounce this to be a palpable lie." He also particularly complains of this, that his opponent made use of expressions which had been uttered in private conversations and in jest. He concludes in a conciliatory manner, by saying that he had not taken up the pen on his own account, but for the sake of those who were injured by the writings ofFlacius. "They should satisfy themselves that they adhered to the true foundation faithfully in these churches, namely, the pure Gospel, all the articles of faith, and the use of the Sacraments without any perversion. And it is certain that the Son of God is present in such services, and hears the prayers of such an assembly."
In November he was summoned to Dresden on account of this affair. The Court of the Elector seems to have been at this time disturbed by the publications of Magdeburg. But let us hear what Melanchthon says of it, in a letter to the Prince of Anhalt: "They were deliberating at Court about a modest reply and refutation of the slanderous accusations of our neighbors. However, I advised them not to publish it; for it is very evident that such publications do not cure and pacify slanderous persons, but rather tend to irritate them more. And Pythagoras has said, we ought not to extinguish a fire by the sword. The newest publication of Magdeburg, in which they show very plainly that they thirst after my blood, was not yet known at court. I often think of departing: may God direct me! The end will show what kind of spirit rules those who are troubling our already sufficiently troubled churches still more."
These disputes still went on, and Flacius published Melanchthon's letters which had been written with great timidity during the Diet of Augsburg. These were accompanied by biting original notes from the hand of Flacius. Melanchthon said of him, in a letter written in January, 1550: "I believe that honorable men detest his poison. For he does not contend for a principal point of doctrine, but publishes books filled with slanders and lies, by which he wishes to gain these two points: to render me detested by the people, and even to rouse those against me who still regard me with friendly eyes. But God, the searcher of hearts, will protect me against this slanderer."
CHAPTER XXX.
THE CONFLICT WITH OSIANDER.
Wecan briefly pass over a conflict which arose in Hamburg, concerning the object of Christ's descent into hell. The superintendent,Æpinus, of that place, had expressed the opinion that Christ's descent into hell was the last stage of his humiliation, and that he there suffered the pains of hell for us. The Wittenbergers, at the head of whom we are always to regard Melanchthon, declared in an opinion that the descent into hell represented Christ's victory over hell and the devil, and counted it, as it indeed is, one of the stages of his exaltation. But, although the contending parties were not entirely satisfied, yet this conflict did not produce such results as that excited byOsiander, in regard to the doctrine of Justification, which may be called the heart's blood of the Evangelical Church. Andrew Osiander, or Hosenmann, or Hosen-Enderlein, was born of poor parents in Gunzenhausen, December 19th, 1498. He contended with great poverty in the school and University; but, by his talents, he soon acquired great knowledge, yet not equal to that of the learned Wittenberg Professor. Melanchthon always recognized his talents and other excellent gifts, so that he was anxious to draw him to Wittenberg to occupy the chair of Cruciger, when Osiander no longer wished to remain as Pastor in Nuremberg, on account of the Interim. Duke Albert of Prussia had once heard Osiander preach in Nuremberg, and had beengained over to the side of the Gospel by that sermon. The Duke always remembered this gratefully, and was rejoiced that he was now able to call him as first professor of Divinity, to the new University of Königsberg, in 1544. In his very first disputation, held April, 1549, he spoke ofJustification, but in such a way, that it was very evident that he did not stand upon the ground of the Evangelical, but rather of the Catholic Church. He explainedJustificationas meaning "to make just," and concluded that man becomes just before God by means of the righteousness or holiness communicated to him. He also entirely separated repentance from faith. When Melanchthon at first heard indistinct rumors of this Königsburg dispute, he regarded it as a mere battle of words; but he came to a very different conclusion when he received further particulars. On the 12th of August he wrote to Camerarius concerning Osiander, that he denied all imputation. And to a friend in Pomerania: "I do not believe that Osiander's controversy is a mere dispute about words, but he differs from our Church in a very important matter, and darkens our only consolation in true conflicts, or rather destroys it, by teaching us to rely upon essential righteousness, and does not lead us to the promise which offers us mercy by the obedience of the Mediator." Osiander continued to express his views more boldly, and was much displeased with those who were constantly appealing to Melanchthon. He said that they should no longer offend him by the stupid words: "Our preceptor Philippus teaches differently!" The confusion in Königsberg increased. He now also published his work: "A Confession concerning the only mediator Jesus Christ, and Justification." In this he maintains that the Redemption, by the death of Christ, has been bestowed upon all men. By Justification,man is not onlydeclared to be righteous, but he ismade righteous, inasmuch as the essential righteousness of God is communicated to him through faith in Jesus Christ. He disregarded the human nature of Christ entirely, and laid all stress upon his divinity, the righteousness of which enters the heart. He thus continued to adhere to his Catholic doctrine of Justification.
On the 1st of May, 1551, Melanchthon wrote a friendly letter to Osiander, in which he assures him of his high esteem, and says: "You are greatly mistaken if you suspect me of entertaining different feelings." He at the same time also, in a supplement, added a few propositions for serious examination. But at last, when the views of Osiander seemed to be spreading more and more, he in January, 1552, published his well-known work: "Reply to the work of Mr. Andrew Osiander concerning the justification of man." As this work presents the pure doctrine of the Evangelical Church concerning justification, in a clear and calm manner, and at the same time also displays the amiable character of Melanchthon, it will not be amiss to present some extracts. He says in the beginning, that he rejoiced that others had also expressed their views in regard to this article; however, he would likewise speak, having been called upon to do so, by many distinguished and other persons. He would express his opinions in a clear and simple manner, in order that those who have been filled with trouble and sorrow by this dispute, may see upon what it rests, and what will be for the comfort of their souls. He had never intended to depart from Luther's views in this very important article. "As for the slanderous attacks of Osiander, in which he does me wrong, I will leave these to God, who knoweth the hearts of all men, and who is our judge. I have always loved andhonored him, as every one knows, and I truly wonder whence all this bitterness proceeds.... I know that all my writings are too insignificant and weak, and therefore I have always submitted them to the judgment of our Church." He then proceeds to speak of theGrace of Godand thefree gifts, according to Romans v., and says,Graceis the forgiveness of Sin, and acceptance of our person with God; but thegiftis the divine presence in us, by which we are renewed, and find comfort and the beginning of life everlasting. These two, Grace and Gift, we have by the merits of Christ; and this is not gained by our works, but is alone obtained by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This faith must ever continue, receive and retain both Grace and Gift, for the sake of the Mediator Christ, even though Regeneration has been commenced. It is like this, when John says, thatGraceandTruthcame through the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith reposes all its confidence in the entire Lord Christ, God and man, even as the same Lord Christ God and man is Mediator and Redeemer according to both natures. For although the human nature alone felt wounds and sufferings, yet the whole Christ is Mediator and Redeemer. For this suffering would not have been the price, if the Redeemer were not God at the same time. They had at all times confessed that we must all undergo a change.
Melanchthon refutes Osiander's objection, by which he asserted that nothing had hitherto been said in our churches of the indwelling of God 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 God dwells in the saints, yet our nature abounds with great impurity, and sinful defects and desires. Here it was needful for the saints to havecomfort, and to know how they have forgiveness of Sins and Grace. All this is proved by passages of Scripture. He says that a principal passage is recorded in Rom. iii. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God 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 passages, 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 thatrighteousnesswhich makes us do right. Here there is no mention of a forgiveness of sins." To this we reply: "We call the Lord Christrighteousness, by whom we have forgiveness of sins, a merciful God, and besides, the presence of God within us." In this sense must we regard the Mediator Jesus Christ, God 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 God 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 passed by many other points, in order to avoid greaterdisputes. 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 principal point of the whole controversy."
Although the principal person was thus removed from the arena, yet the conflict did not cease, because his son-in-lawFunckexerted 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 championsin 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 God 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 Königsberg fell into the opposite error, and wished the humanity of Christ to be regarded alone in the work of Redemption and Justification. This wasFrancis 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 Königsberg. 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, oneLauterwaldof 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 God.
But we will leave these disputes here, to look upon the state of affairs in the German Empire.
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE CHANGED ATTITUDE OF THE ELECTOR MAURICE.
Pope PaulIII., 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 assist in passing 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 "godly." The Opinion also demands a safe conduct to and from the place of meeting of the Council. Maurice, by his ambassador in Augsburg, declared himself in the spirit of this Opinion. The Emperormade 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-calledSaxon Confession, which is merely a repetition 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 Anspach. 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, andthe 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 Cüstrin, who had come to the assistance 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 directionshow 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 constituted authority, and that God 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 namesSarcerius,Pacæus, 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 God 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 godly, that the Son of God may be pleased to lessen the chastisements which threaten us." And again: "Therefore take notice of the divine wrath, and pray that God, 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-lawPeucerhad 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 assuming a hostile attitude 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 pass 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 pass, 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 Passau, where the well-knownTreaty of Passauwas 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 hitherto 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 Cassel, 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 toMoller: "You know, that by the grace of God, Duke John Frederick of Saxony is with his wife and children in Thuringia. This return without arms is far more glorious than a bloody victory. Posterity too will enrol this example among the testimonies that God hears the prayers of the godly, 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 God 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 God'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, God 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 God in mercy has laid upon us a great and wearisome affliction, on account of our sins. But as his Omnipotent power, by the assistance 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 God, and the welfare of many of his fellow-men? This ornament is infinitely to be preferred above all bloody victories and triumphs. May your Highness continue to enjoy health and happiness!"
CHAPTER XXXII.
DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES, AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT A UNION.
Wemust 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 pass that the aged Amsdorf published a work in 1551, in which he accusesGeorge 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 atthe 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 God. 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 God. 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 title: "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 hadadhered to the word of God and the Confession of the Church, and had acted towards each other in a friendly spirit, intent upon the honor of God 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-calledSynergisticcontroversy, which caused Melanchthon great trouble. It is certain that he was most decidedly opposed to the doctrines of the ancient hereticPelagius; for he adhered to the truth expressed in the word of God, 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 God, without the Gospel, and without the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it cannot be assured or proved that he was aSynergist,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 God 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 passive 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 Nazianzen 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 assemble. 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 heardof this design, he endeavored to anticipate 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, "God will come!" He was succeeded by his brotherAugustus, 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 assigned 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 DukeChristopher, 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, willmeet, 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 Sleidanus, of Strasburg, arrived on the following day, and Pacæus 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 God, 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 God, 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 ofSchwenkfeldandOsiander. Schwenkfeld, like all fanatics of ancient and modern days, disregarded the written word of God, and thought that God 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-mentionederrors, 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 ofCeremonies, they insist upon unity in doctrine and in the sacraments. They reject the mass 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 mass, 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 toStrigel: "If the Swabians do not arrive to-day, as I believe they will not, we shalladjourn to-morrow, God 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 Passau, 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 principal difficulty was removed, and they at last, in the month of September, 1555, agreed upon theReligious 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 God, and we must beseech the Son of God to continue to guide us in future."
While the Evangelical Church was thus celebrating outwardtriumphs, and securing a firm position for herself, enemies were raging in her own bosom, who undoubtedly retarded her development. They were contending about a doctrine which is as plainly founded in the word of God, 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 piousJohn 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, namedJoachimWestphal, published a work in which he proved that the Reformed had given no less than eight-and-twenty explanations of the words of institution in the Lord's Supper, from the time of Zwingli to that of Calvin. In the following year he published a work against Calvin, entitled: "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 oneJohn von Lasco, who, together with a band of French and Dutch Protestants, had been banished from England by that severe Romanist, QueenMary. 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 participation of the body and blood of Christ, in and under the bread and wine. Westphal andJohn Timann, pastor in Bremen, arrayed themselves against Calvin; who, assisted 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 participation 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 Godhead has enteredinto 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 participation 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 toHardenbergin 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 friendMordeisenat 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, DukeChristopherof 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 theFlacian 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. Hewas at that time residing in Magdeburg, and had prepared a few "mild propositions to bring about a godly, 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 principally 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 God 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 God will judge the life and sentiments of every one, and he knows that I am only anxious to glorify the truth, to add to God'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 assuring 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 ambassador, 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 Rörer 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, untilthe 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 God 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. I do not believe that we really oppose each other in this question." In regard to the propositions for peace, he believed it would be best if they should be prepared by impartial judges. There must beoneconfession in doctrine, "and as we do not contend about ceremonies, but rather confess that we yield in these, do not any longer accuse us, and do not heap false charges upon us. Let us unite, with mutual good will, and by one confession, against the fearful fury of the enemies of the Sonof God, who is not only blasphemed by the Papists, but also by many others." But Flacius was not satisfied with this answer, and believed that it was necessary to have the matter decided by umpires.
On the 17th of January, 1557, the Superintendents Curtius of Lübeck, Paul von Eitzen of Hamburg, Mörlin of Brunswick, and Hennig of Lüneburg, met in Magdeburg, and pledged themselves to adhere to a confession which had been published in the year 1550, against the Interim, and which bore the title: "Confession, Instruction, and Admonition of the pastors and preachers of the Christian congregations of Magdeburg." Flacius, and his friends Wigand, Judex, and Baumgärtner, remained in the little town of Coswig, which was not far off, and exhorted the Superintendents, who had proceeded to Wittenberg with terms of agreement, that they should take a determined stand. On the morning of the 21st of January, the negotiations were begun in Melanchthon's residence. He addressed them in the most cordial manner, and assured them that he was desirous of peace, and had therefore remained silent. "I take a box on the ears, and still remain silent, while Flacius and Gallus do not stop their abuses." He agreed to accept the umpires, and Mörlin presented eight articles to him, which had been prepared at Brunswick, with this condition, that either side shall have the privilege to add to or take away from them what they pleased. The eight articles were as follows: 1. Unity of doctrine is to be restored, in accordance with the Augsburg Confession and the Smalkald articles. 2. All opposing errors of the Papists, Interimists, Anabaptists, and Sacramentarians, were to be rejected. 3. All corruptions, and especially that concerning the necessity of good works to salvation, in the article on Justification, which opposetrue apostolical doctrine and the Augsburg Confession, were to be put away and condemned. 4. The Saxon Churches are not able to depart from the Confession which they published during the last persecution. 5. No agreement in ceremonies should be entered into with the Papists until they agree with us in doctrine, and cease to persecute the true doctrine. 6. In the time of persecution a sincere Confession should be made, and no servitude opposed to Christian liberty should be permitted. 7. We also, in a most Christian manner, beseech our teacher to testify, by a public writing, that his views in regard to indifferent matters, and the necessity of good works to salvation, agree with the Confessions of our Churches; and 8. If one of the parties should be suspected of secretly adhering to some errors, an explanation should be required."
Melanchthon was at first highly displeased with these articles, but on the following day he replied as follows: "For thirty years I have labored not a little in these churches, in teaching, developing truths, in daily judgments, conferences, and in treacherous conflicts. And it would have been very becoming in you to spare and pity me. But now, that which the worthy Jacob Sturm prophesied to me has come to pass; for when he, together with some other friends, accompanied me a part of the way when I left Ratisbon, and I said to him, that we would not see each other again in this world, he replied: 'We shall still come to you some day to crucify you.' Articles are laid before me, in which I am not only required to strangle myself, but very many of my friends. You spare Flacius. You know yourselves what intimate friendship subsisted between some of you and myself. And on this account, I am so much the more surprised to see you treat me so harshly. If I do not agree to your articles, you will excite yourparty against me; but if I do agree, many in our churches will complain of me that I have given them cause for offence. There is, consequently, danger on both sides, and it would have been better to negotiate with many concerning this." He agreed to the first two articles; but to the third he wished to add, that, although new obedience is needful according to the law of God, and Christ did not suffer in order that we should abide in sin and death, yet the expression, good works are necessary to salvation, should not be employed. His writings were opened to the eyes of the whole world. "I accept the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, although they accuse us very much, as I would rather receive a blow than oppose harmony. As far as the seventh article is concerned, there is no necessity for a new publication, for every one is able to learn from my writings what I think of indifferent things." He concluded by entreating them not to oppose him at once, and that they should follow their own judgment rather than Flacius. Flacius was not satisfied with this reply, which was brought to Coswig by the mediators, and they returned to Wittenberg with several additions to the articles.
Melanchthon thanked them for their trouble, and said that he hoped they had now learned to know him as a man inclined to peace. "I shall, with God's help, abide by the general Confession of these churches, and shall not sow discord. I have always honored you as pious teachers of the Church, and I love you with all my heart. I replied to the articles you laid before me, so that I might not appear anxious to fly from the light, and unwilling to bring about harmony. And this shall be my last answer. If you are not satisfied with it, I appeal to the judgment of the Church." He adhered to his previous declaration,merely in other words. The mediators departed, without having effected their object; but Flacius would not yield. This conflict between Melanchthon and Flacius had also attracted the attention of DukeJohn Albert, of Mecklenburg; and he felt himself called upon to attempt to bring about a reconciliation. He therefore sentVenetus, of Rostock, and his counsellor,Mylius, to Wittenberg, with proposals of peace. These proposals were composed in the spirit of those of Magdeburg. When the envoys arrived in Wittenberg, about February 20th, they did not meet Philip, who was then on a journey to Dessau and Leipzig. When he had returned, heard their wishes, and saw the proposals, he replied very briefly, that Flacius entertained many errors; that the prince was ungracious; they sought to ruin him (Melanchthon); and that he would not condemn any of those who had been present at the debates concerning indifferent things, who are now dead. He expressed himself to this effect, and promised to present his reply on the following day. He retained the propositions, and examined them carefully.
On the following day he came, accompanied by his son-in-law Peucer. His answer was a very short one; and when the envoys requested him to prepare better propositions, he refused to do so, in a passionate manner, and said: "If you wish to crush me, do so; for this is the general lot of peace-makers. I commend myself to God." And Peucer also added: "You shall not in future trouble my father-in-law any more with such disputes." And with this they were dismissed. The envoys returned to Magdeburg, without having gained their purpose, in order to consult with Flacius and Wigand. Flacius was called to Jena in April, 1557, where the Gymnasium had been raised into an University.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE AT WORMS.
Inthe spring of 1557, he would have had an excellent opportunity to get rid of the Flacians, for the Elector of the Palatinate called him to the University of Heidelberg. "However, I have not yet come to any conclusion in regard to my removal," he wrote to Languentius from Leipzig, "because I must first learn the sentiments of the Court." He wrote to Camerarius: "I wrote this letter on the 31st of March, on which day, 420 years after Christ, Jerome died in his 91st year, in the town of Bethlehem, whither he had fled from the rage of his intriguing enemies. I would already have fled to those solitudes, if I had no family." But the Court would not permit him to go, and he remained. He was very much afraid of a journey to Denmark, whither the Elector wished to take him, because the king intended to assemble a number of Theologians, to discuss the sacramental controversy. Some one had told his father, 60 years before, that Philip would be shipwrecked on the Baltic Sea, and this sea he was now to cross. But no doubt he also dreaded a Conference where the subject of the Lord's Supper was to be discussed. A pastor of that place had spilt some wine, of which Melanchthon sarcastically remarked, "What a misfortune!" However, this journey was not undertaken; but another took its place. He wrote to Camerarius: "The Court would now prefer it, if I should go to the Rhine. But weshall remain here until new letters from Court order us to go, which is not at all disagreeable to me, because I look upon my stay here as a blessing." At last the orders arrived. He bade his hearers farewell on the 14th of August, in the following words: "I will not deliver any lectures to-day, because many poor students ask for letters of recommendation about the time of our departure. But I beseech the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has said, 'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' that he would guide us. And I also conjure you, for the Lord's sake, to commend yourselves and us to him in devout prayers, and that you may become an ornament of the Church by your becoming conduct."