The Mediate and Mediating Attitude of the Lutheran Church shows itself in its fundamental conception of the essence of Christianity as the union of the Divine and human, of which the prototype is found in the Person of Christ, and illustrations of it in the Scriptures, the church, the sacraments, the Christian life, etc. In the varied ways in which this union is conceived of lies the deepest and most inward ground of the divergence that exists between the three western churches. The Catholic church wishes to see the union of the Divine and human; the Lutheran, wishes to believe it; the Reformed, wishes to understand it. The tendency prevails in the Catholic church to confound these two, the Divine and the human, and that indeed in such a way that the human loses its human character, and its union with the Divine is regarded as constituting identity. The Reformed church, again, is prone to separate the two, to look upon the Divine by itself and the human by itself, and to regard the union as a placing of the one alongside of the other, as having not an objective but a merely subjective, not a real but a merely ideal, connection. But the Lutheran church, guarding itself against any confusion as well as any separation of the two elements, had sought to view the union as the most vital, rich, and inward communion, interpenetration, and reciprocity. In the view of the Catholic church the human and earthly, which is so often a very imperfect vehicle of the Divine, in which the Divine often attained to a very incomplete development, is to be regarded as in and by itself already the Divine. So is it in the idea of the church, and hence the doctrine of a merely external and visible church, which as such is only the channel of salvation. So is it in the historical development of the church, and hence the absolute authority of tradition and the reversal of the true relations between Scripture and tradition. So too is it with the doctrine of the sacraments, and hence the idea of an opus operatum and of transubstantiation. So in regard to the priesthood, hence hierarchism; so in regard to the idea of sanctification, and hence semipelagianism and the doctrine of merits. Thoroughly antagonistic to all this was the view of the Reformed church. It was inclined rather to sever completely the Divine in Christianity from its earthly, visible vehicle, and to think of the operation of the Divine upon man as merely spiritual and communicated only through subjective faith. It renounced all tradition, and thereby broke off from all historical development, whether normal or abnormal. In its doctrine of Scripture, the literal significance of the word was often exalted above the spirit; in its doctrine of the church, the significance of the visible church over that of the invisible. In its doctrine of the Person of Christ, the human nature of the glorified Saviour was excluded from a personal full share in all the attributes of His divinity. In the doctrine of the sacraments, supernatural grace and the earthly elements were separated from one another; and in the doctrine of predestination the Divine foreknowledge of man’s volitions was isolated, etc. The Lutheran church, on the other hand, had at least made the effort to steer between those two extremes, and to bind into a living unity the truth that lies at the foundation of both. In the Scripture it wishes as little to see the spirit without the word, as the word without the spirit; in history it recognises the rule and operation of the Spirit of God within the human and ecclesiastical developments; and it rejects only the false tradition which has not had its growth organically from Holy Scripture, but rather contradicts it. In its doctrine of the church it holds with equal tenacity to the importance of the visible church and that of the invisible. In its doctrine of the Person of Christ it affirms the perfect humanity and the perfect divinity in the living union and richly communicating reciprocity of the two natures. In its doctrine of the sacraments it gives full weight as well to the objective Divine fact which heavenly grace presents in earthly elements as to the subjective condition of the man, to whom the sacrament will prove saving or condemning according as he is a believer or an unbeliever. And, finally, it expresses the belief that in the Divine decree the apparent contradiction between God’s foreknowledge and man’s self-determination is solved, while it regards predestination as conditioned by the foreknowledge of God; whereas Calvinism reverses that relation.
§ 141. Doctrinal Controversies in the Lutheran Church.[403]
Even during Luther’s lifetime, but much more after his death, various doctrinal controversies broke out in the Lutheran church. They arose for the most part upon the borderlands either of Calvinism or of Catholicism, and were generally occasioned by offence taken at the attitude of the more stiff and dogged of Luther’s adherents by those of the Melanchthonian or Philippist school, who had irenical and unionistic feelings in regard to both sides. The scene of these conflicts was partly in the electorate of Albertine Saxony and in the duchy of Ernestine Saxony. Wittenberg and Leipzig were the headquarters of the Philippists, and Weimar and Jena of the strict Lutherans. There was no lack on either side of rancour and bitterness. But if the Gnesio-Lutherans went far beyond the Melanchthonians in stiffnecked irreconcilableness, slanderous denunciation, and outrageous abuse, they yet showed a most praiseworthy strength of conviction, steadfastness, and martyrlike devotion; whereas their opponents not infrequently laid themselves open to the charge, on the one hand, of a pusillanimous and mischievous pliability, and, on the other hand, of using unworthy means and covert, deceitful ways. Their controversies reached a conclusion after various alternations of victory and defeat, with often very tragic consequences to the worsted party, in the composition of a new confessional document, the so called Formula Concordiæ.
§ 141.1. The Antinomian Controversy, A.D. 1537-1541, which turned upon the place and significance of the law under the Christian dispensation, lay outside the range of the Philippist wranglings. John Agricola, for a time pastor in his native town of Eisleben, and so often called Master Eisleben, in A.D. 1527 took offence at Melanchthon for having in his visitation articles (§ [127, 1]) urged the pastors so earnestly to enjoin upon their people the observance of the law. He professed, indeed, for the time to be satisfied with Melanchthon’s answer, which had also the approval of Luther, but soon after he had, in A.D. 1536, become a colleague of both in Wittenberg, he renewed his opposition by publishing adverse theses. He did not contest the pedagogical and civil-political use of the law outside of the church, but starting from the principle that an enjoined morality could not help man, he maintained that the law has no more significance or authority for the Christian, and that the gospel, which by the power of Divine love works repentance, is alone to be preached. Melanchthon and Luther, on the contrary, held that anguish and sorrow for sin are the fruits of the law, while the saving resolution to reform is the effect of the gospel, and insisted upon a continued preaching of the law, because from the incompleteness of the believer’s sanctification in this world a daily renewing of repentance is necessary. After several years of oral and written discussion, Agricola took his departure from Wittenberg in A.D. 1540, charging Luther with having offered him a personal insult, and was made court preacher at Berlin, where, in A.D. 1541, having discovered his error, he repudiated it in a conciliatory exposition. The reputation in which he was held at the court of Brandenburg led to his being at a subsequent period made a collaborateur in drawing up the hated Augsburg Interim (§ [136, 5]). As his antinomianism every now and again cropped up afresh, the Formula Concordiæ at last settled the controversy by the statement that we must ascribe to the law, not only a usus politicus and usus elenchticus for terrorizing and arresting the sinner, but also a usus didacticus for the sanctifying of the Christian life.
§ 141.2. The Osiander Controversy, A.D. 1549-1556.—Luther had, in opposition to the Romish doctrine of merits, defined justification as purely an act of God, whose fruit can be appropriated by man only by the exercise of faith. But he distinguished from justification as an act of God for man, sanctification as the operation of God in man. The former consists in this, that Christ once for all has offered Himself up on the cross for the sins of the whole world, and that now God ascribes the merit of the sacrificial death of Christ for every individual as though it had been his own, i.e. juridically; the believer is thus declared, but not made righteous. The believer, on the ground of his having been declared righteous, is made righteous by means of a sanctifying process penetrating the whole earthly life and constantly advancing, but in this world never absolutely perfect, which is effected by the communication of the new life which Christ has created and brought to light. Andrew Osiander proposed a theory that diverged from this doctrine, and inclined toward that set forth in the Tridentine Council (§ [136, 4]), but distinguished from the Romish view by decided attachment to the Protestant principle of justification by faith alone. He had been from A.D. 1522 pastor and reformer at Nuremberg, and had proclaimed his ideas without thereby giving offence. This first happened when, after his expulsion from Nuremberg on account of the interim, he had begun to announce his peculiar doctrine in the newly founded University of Königsberg, where he had been appointed professor by Duke Albert of Prussia in A.D. 1549 (§ [126, 4]). Confounding sanctification with justification, he wished to define the latter, not as a declaring righteous but as a making righteous, not as a juridical but as a medicinal act, wrought by an infusion, i.e. a continuous influx of the righteousness of Christ. The sacrificial death of Christ is for him only the negative condition of justification, its positive condition rests upon the incarnation of Christ, the reproduction of which in the believer is justification, which is therefore to be referred not to the human but rather to the Divine nature in Christ. Along with this, he also held by the conviction that the incarnation of God in Christ would have taken place in order to complete the creation of the image of God in man even had the fall never happened. The main point of his opposition was grounded upon this: that he believed the juridical theory to have overlooked the religious subjective element, which, however, is still present in faith as the subjective condition of declaring righteous. The keen and bitter controversy over these questions spread from the university among the clergy, and thence to the citizens and families, and soon came to be carried on on both sides with great passionateness and heat. The favour publicly shown to Osiander by the duke, who set him as Bishop of Samland at the head of the Prussian clergy, increased the bitterness felt toward him by his opponents. Among these was Martin Chemnitz, a scholar of Melanchthon, and from A.D. 1548 rector of the High School at Königsberg. Also Professor Joachim Mörlin, a favourite pupil of Luther, Francis Staphylus, who afterwards went back to the Romish church (§ [137, 8]), and Francis Stancarus of Mantua, a man who bears a very bad reputation for his fomenting of quarrels, were among Osiander’s most inveterate foes. Stancarus carried his opposition to Osiander so far as to maintain that Christ has become our righteousness only in respect of His human nature. The opinions received from abroad were for the inmost part against Osiander. John Brenz, of Württemburg [Württemberg], however, clined rather to favour Osiander’s view than that of his opponents, while Melanchthon, in giving utterance to the Wittenberg opinion, endeavoured by removing misunderstandings to reconcile the opposing parties, but on the main point decided against him. Even Osiander’s death in A.D. 1552 did not put an end to the controversy. At the head of his party now appeared the court preacher, John Funck, who, standing equally high in favour with the duke, filled all positions with his own followers. In his overweening conceit he mixed himself up in political affairs, and put himself in antagonism with the nobles and men of importance in the State. A commission of investigation on the Polish sovereignty at their instigation found him guilty of high treason, and had him beheaded in A.D. 1566.The other Osiandrianists were deposed and exiled. Mörlin, from A.D. 1533 general superintendent of Brunswick, was now honourably recalled as Bishop of Samland, reorganized the Prussian church, and in conjunction with Chemnitz, who had been from A.D. 1554 preacher in Brunswick, where he died in A.D. 1586 as general superintendent, composed for Prussia a new doctrinal standard in the Corpus doctrinæ Pruthenicum of A.D. 1567.[404]
§ 141.3. Of much less importance was the Æpinus Controversy about Christ’s descent into hell, which John Æpinus, first Lutheran superintendent at Hamburg, in his exposition of the 16th Psalm, in A.D. 1542, interpreted, after the manner of the Reformed theologians, of His state of humiliation, and as the completion of the passive obedience of Christ in the endurance of the pains of hell; whereas the usual Lutheran understanding of it was, that it referred to Christ’s triumphing over the powers of hell and death in His state of exaltation. An opinion sent from Wittenberg, in A.D. 1550, left the matter undetermined, and even the Formula of Concord was satisfied with teaching that Christ in His full personality descended into hell in order to deliver men from death and the power of the devil.—An equally peaceful settlement was brought about in the Kargian Controversy, A.D. 1563-1570, about the significance of the active obedience of Christ, which the pastor of Anspach, George Karg or Parsimonius, for a long time made a subject of dispute; but afterwards he retracted, being convinced of his error by the Wittenberg theologians.
§ 141.4. The Philippists and their Opponents.—Not long after the Augsburg Confession had been accepted as the common standard of the Lutheran church two parties arose, in which tendencies of a thoroughly diversant character were gradually developed. The real basis of this opposition lay in the diverse intellectual disposition and development of the two great leaders of the Reformation, which the scholars of both inherited in a very exaggerated form. Melanchthon’s disciples, the so-called Philippists, strove in accordance with their master’s example to make as much as possible of what they had in common, on the one hand, with the Reformed and, on the other hand, with the Catholics, and to maintain a conciliatory attitude that might aid toward effecting union. The personal friends, scholars, and adherents of Luther, on the contrary, for the most part more Lutheran than Luther himself, emulating the rugged decision of their great leader and carrying it out in a one-sided manner, were anxious rather to emphasise and widen as far as possible the gulf that lay between them and their opponents, Reformed and Catholics alike, and thus to make any reconciliation and union by way of compromise impossible. Luther attached himself to neither of these parties, but tried to restrain both from rushing to extremes, and to maintain as far as he could the peace between them.—The modification of strict Augustinianism which Melanchthon’s further study led him to adopt in the editions of his Loci later than A.D. 1535 was denounced by the strict Lutherans as Catholicizing, but still more strongly did they object to the modification of the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession which he introduced into a new rendering of it, the so-called Variata, in A.D. 1540. In its original form it stood thus: Docent, quod corpus et sanguis Domini vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in cœna Domini et improbant secus docentes. For these words he now substituted the following: Quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in cœna Domini. This statement was indeed by no means Calvinistic, for instead of vescentibus the Calvinists would have said credentibus. Yet the arbitrary and in any case Calvinizing change amazed the strict Lutherans, and Luther himself bade its author remember that the book was not his but the church’s creed. After Luther’s death the Philippist party, in the Leipzig Interim of A.D. 1519, made several other very important concessions to the Catholics (§ [136, 7]), and this led their opponents to denounce them as open traitors to their church. Magdeburg, which stubbornly refused to acknowledge the interim, became the city of refuge for all zealous Lutherans; while in opposition to the Philippist Wittenberg, the University of Jena, founded in A.D. 1548 by the sons of the ex-elector John Frederick according to his desire, became the stronghold of strict Lutheranism. The leaders on the Philippist side were Paul Eber, George Major, Justus Menius, John Pfeffinger, Caspar Cruciger, Victorin Strigel, etc. At the head of the strict Lutheran party stood Nicholas Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius. The former lived, after his expulsion from Naumburg (§ [135, 5]), an “exul Christi,” along with the young dukes at Weimar. On account of his violent opposition to the interim, he was obliged, in A.D. 1548, to flee to Magdeburg, and after the surrender of the city he was placed by his ducal patrons in Eisenach, where he died in A.D. 1565. The latter, a native of Istria, and hence known as Illyricus, was appointed professor of the Hebrew language in Wittenberg in A.D. 1544, fled to Magdeburg in A.D. 1549, from whence he went to Weimar in A.D. 1556, and was called to Jena in A.D. 1557.
§ 141.5. The Adiaphorist Controversy, A.D. 1548-1555, as to the permissibility of Catholic forms in constitution and worship, was connected with the drawing up of the Leipzig Interim. That document described most of the Catholic forms of worship as adiaphora, or matters of indifference, which, in order to avoid more serious dangers, might be treated as allowable or unessential. The Lutherans, on the contrary, maintained that even a matter in itself unessential under circumstances like the present could not be treated as permissible. From Magdeburg there was poured out a flood of violent controversial and abusive literature against the Wittenberg renegades and the Saxon apostates. The altered position of the latter from A.D. 1551 hushed up in some measure the wrath of the zealots, and the religious Peace of Augsburg removed all occasion for the continuance of the strife.
§ 141.6. The Majorist Controversy, A.D. 1551-1562.—The strict Lutherans from the passing of the interim showed toward the Philippist party unqualified disfavour and regarded them with deep suspicion. When in A.D. 1551, George Major, at that time superintendent at Eisleben, in essential agreement with the interim, one of whose authors he was, and with Melanchthon’s later doctrinal views, maintained the position, that good works are necessary to salvation, and refused to retract the statement, though he somewhat modified his expressions by saying that it was not a necessitas meriti, but only a necessitas conjunctionis s. consequentiæ; and when also Justus Menius, the reformer of Thuringia, superintendent at Gotha, vindicated him in two tractates,—Amsdorf in the heat of the controversy set up in opposition the extreme and objectionable thesis, that good works are injurious to salvation, and even in A.D. 1559 justified it as “a truly Christian proposition preached by St. Paul and Luther.” Notwithstanding all the passionate bitterness that had mixed itself up with the discussion, the more sensible friends of Amsdorf, including even Flacius, saw that the ambiguity and indefiniteness of the expression was leading to error on both sides. They acknowledged, on the one hand, that only faith, not good works in themselves, is necessary to salvation, but that good works are the inevitable fruit and necessary evidence of true, saving faith; and, on the other hand, that not good works in themselves, but only trusting to them instead of the merits of Christ alone, can be regarded as injurious to salvation. Major for the sake of peace recalled his statement in A.D. 1562.
§ 141.7. The Synergistic Controversy, A.D. 1555-1567.—Luther in his controversy with Erasmus (§ [125, 3]), as well as Melanchthon in the first edition of his Loci, in A.D. 1521, had unconditionally denied the capacity of human nature for independently laying hold upon salvation, and taught an absolute sovereignty of Divine grace in conversion. In his later edition of the Loci, from A.D. 1535, and in the Augsburg Confession of A.D. 1540, however, Melanchthon had admitted a certain co-operation or synergism of a remnant of freewill in conversion, and more exactly defined this in the edition of the Loci of A.D. 1548 as the ability to lay hold by its own impulse of the offered salvation, facultas se applicandi ad gratiam; and though even in the Leipzig Interim of A.D. 1549 the Lutheran shibboleth solê was constantly recurring, it was simply with the object of thoroughly excluding any claim of merit on man’s part in conversion. Luther with indulgent tolerance had borne with the change in Melanchthon’s convictions, and only objected to the incorporation of it in the creed of the church. But from the date of the interim the suspicion and opposition of the strict Lutherans increased from day to day, and burst forth in a violent controversy when John Pfeffinger, superintendent at Leipzig, also one of the authors of the detested interim, published, in A.D. 1555, his Propositiones de libero arbitrio, in defence of Melanchthon’s synergism. The leaders of the Gnesio-Lutherans, Arnsdorf in Eisenach, Flacius in Jena, and Musacus in Weimar, felt that they durst not remain silent, and so they maintained, as alone the genuine Lutheran doctrine, that the natural man cannot co-operate with the workings of Divine grace upon him, but can only oppose them. By order of the Duke John Frederick they prepared at Weimar, in A.D. 1559, as a new manifesto of the restored Lutheranism, a treatise containing a refutation of all the heresies that had hitherto cropped up within the Lutheran church. One of those invited to take part in the work, Victorin Strigel, professor at Jena, was made to suffer for the sympathy which he evinced for synergism by enduring close and severe imprisonment. The duke, however, soon again became more favourable to Strigel, who in A.D. 1560 vindicated himself at a public disputation in Weimar against Flacius, and was soon afterwards called to Leipzig. When in A.D. 1561 the duke set up a consistory in Weimar, and transferred to it the right hitherto exclusively exercised in Jena of ecclesiastical excommunication and the censorship of theological books, and the Flacian party opposed this “Cæsaro-papism” with unmeasured violence, all the adherents of the party were driven out of Jena and out of the whole territory, and their places filled with Melanchthonians. This victory of Philippism, however, was of but short duration. In order to regain the lost electoral rank, the duke allowed himself to be beguiled into taking part in the so-called Grumbach affair. He was cast into the imperial prison, and his brother John William, who now assumed the government, hastened, in A.D. 1567, to restore the overthrown theological party. Even in electoral Saxony interest in the Catholicizing synergism, at least, after Melanchthon’s death, in A.D. 1560, was gradually lost sight of in proportion as the controversy about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper gradually gained prominence.