Part 26 (1/2)
(_C. R._ 8, 736.) Another letter (May 9, 1557), in which he advises Hardenberg how to proceed against his opponents, begins as follows: ”Reverend Sir and Dear Brother. As you see, not only the controversy, but also the madness (_rabies_) of the writers who establish the bread-wors.h.i.+p is growing.” (9, 154.) He meant theologians who, like Timann and Westphal, defended Luther's doctrine that in the Lord's Supper the bread is truly the body of Christ and the wine truly the blood of Christ and that Christ is truly present also according to His human nature. Again, when at Heidelberg, in 1569, Hesshusius refused to acknowledge the Calvinist Klebitz (who had publicly defended the Reformed doctrine) as his a.s.sistant in the distribution of the Lord's Supper, and Elector Frederick III, the patron of the Crypto-Calvinists, who soon after joined the Reformed Church, demanded that Hesshusius come to an agreement with Klebitz, and finally deposed the former and dismissed the latter, Melanchthon approved of the unionistic methods of the Elector, and prepared ambiguous formulas to satisfy both parties.
In the _Opinion_ requested by the Elector, dated November 1, 1559, Melanchthon said: ”To answer is not difficult, but dangerous....
Therefore I approve of the measure of the ill.u.s.trious Elector, commanding silence to the disputants on both sides [Hesshusius and the Calvinist Klebitz], lest dissension occur in the weak church.... The contentious men having been removed, it will be profitable that the rest agree on one form of words. It would be best in this controversy to retain the words of Paul: 'The bread which we break is the communion (_koinonia_) of Christ.' Much ought to be said concerning the fruit of the Supper to invite men to love this pledge and to use it frequently.
And the word 'communion' must be explained: Paul does not say that the nature of the bread is changed, as the Papists say; He does not say, as those of Bremen do, that the bread is the substantial body of Christ; he does not say that the bread is the true body of Christ, as Hesshusius does; but that it is the communion, _i.e._, that by which the union occurs (_consociatio fit_) with the body of Christ, which occurs in the use, and certainly not without thinking, as when mice gnaw the bread....
The Son of G.o.d is present in the ministry of the Gospel, and there He is certainly efficacious in the believers, and He is present not on account of the bread, but on account of man, as He says, 'Abide in Me and I in you,' Again: 'I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,' And in these true consolations He makes us members of His, and testifies that He will raise our bodies. Thus the ancients explain the Lord's Supper.”
(_C. R._ 9, 961.) No doubt, Calvin, too, would readily have subscribed to these ambiguous and indefinite statements. C. P. Krauth pertinently remarks: ”Whatever may be the meaning of Melanchthon's words in the disputed cases, this much is certain, that they practically operated as if the worse sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not diminished, but aggravated, by their obscurity and double meaning. They did the work of avowed error, and yet could not be reached as candid error might.” (_Cons. Ref._, 291.)
206. Historians on Melanchthon's Doctrinal Departures.
Modern historians are generally agreed that also with respect to the Lord's Supper the later Melanchthon was not identical with the earlier.
Tschackert: ”Melanchthon had long ago [before the outbreak of the second controversy on the Lord's Supper] receded from the peculiarities of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper; he was satisfied with maintaining the personal presence of Christ during the Supper, leaving the mode of His presence and efficacy in doubt.” (532.) Seeberg, who maintains that Melanchthon as early as 1531 departed from Luther's teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, declares: ”Melanchthon merely does not want to admit that the body of Christ is really eaten in the Supper, and that it is omnipresent as such.” (4, 2, 449.) Theo. Kolde: ”It should never have been denied that these alterations in Article X of the _Augustana_ involved real changes.... In view of his gradually changed conception of the Lord's Supper, there can be no doubt that he sought to leave open for himself and others the possibility of a.s.sociating also with the Swiss.” (25.) Schaff: ”Melanchthon's later view of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin.” (1, 280.)
Such, then, being the att.i.tude of Melanchthon as to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, it was but natural and consistent that his pupils, who looked up to Master Philip with unbounded admiration, should become decided Calvinists. Melanchthon, chiefly, must be held responsible for the Calvinistic menace which threatened the Lutheran Church after the death of Luther. In the interest of fraternal relations with the Swiss, he was ready to compromise and modify the Lutheran truth. Sadly he had his way, and had not the tendency which he inaugurated been checked, the Lutheran Church would have lost its character and been transformed into a Reformed or, at least, a unionistic body. In a degree, this guilt was shared also by his older Wittenberg colleagues: Caspar Cruciger, Sr., Paul Eber, John Foerster, and others, who evidently inclined toward Melanchthon's view and att.i.tude also in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. Caspar Cruciger, for example, as appears from his letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 18, 1538, taught the bodily presence of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper, but not ”the division or separation of the body and blood.” (_C. R._ 3, 610.) Shortly before his death, as related in a previous chapter, Luther had charged these men with culpable silence with regard to the truth, declaring: ”If you believe as you speak in my presence then speak the same way in church, in public lectures, in sermons, and in private discussions, and strengthen your brethren, and lead the erring back to the right way, and contradict the wilful spirits; otherwise your confession is a mere sham and will be of no value whatever.” (Walther, 40.) Refusal to confess the truth will ultimately always result in rejection of the truth. Silence here is the first step to open denial.
207. Westphal First to Sound Tocsin.
Foremost among the men who saw through Calvin's plan of propagating the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper under phrases coming as close as possible to the Lutheran terminology, and who boldly, determinedly and ably opposed the Calvinistic propaganda was Joachim Westphal of Hamburg [born 1510; 1527 in Wittenberg; since 1541 pastor in Hamburg; died January 16, 1574]. Fully realizing the danger which threatened the entire Lutheran Church, he regarded it as his sacred duty to raise his voice and warn the Lutherans against the Calvinistic menace. He did so in a publication ent.i.tled: ”_Farrago Confusanearum et inter se Dissidentium Opinionum de Coena Domini_--Medley of Confused and Mutually Dissenting Opinions on the Lord's Supper, compiled from the books of the Sacramentarians,” 1552. In it he proved that in reality Calvin and his adherents, despite their seemingly orthodox phrases, denied the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper just as emphatically and decidedly as Zwingli had done. At the same time he refuted in strong terms the Reformed doctrine in the manner indicated by the t.i.tle, and maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of unbelievers.
Finally he appealed to the Lutheran theologians and magistrates everywhere to guard their churches against the Calvinistic peril. ”The _Farrago_,” says Kruske, ”signified the beginning of the end of Calvin's domination in Germany.” Schaff: ”The controversy of Westphal against Calvin and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism completed and consolidated the separation of the two Confessions,” Lutheran and Reformed. (_Creeds_ 1, 280.)
Thus Westphal stands preeminent among the men who saved the Lutheran Church from the Calvinistic peril. To add fuel to the anti-Calvinistic movement, Westphal, in the year following, published a second book: ”_Correct Faith (Recta Fides) Concerning the Lord's Supper_, demonstrated and confirmed from the words of the Apostle Paul and the Evangelists,” 1553. Here he again called upon all true disciples of Luther to save his doctrine from the onslaughts of the Calvinists, who, he declared, stooped to every method in order to conquer Germany for Zwinglianism.
Westphal's fiery appeals for Lutheran loyalty received a special emphasis and wide publicity when the Pole, John of Lasco (Laski), who in 1553, together with 175 members of his London congregation, had been driven from England by b.l.o.o.d.y Mary, reached the Continent. The liberty which Lasco, who in 1552 had publicly adopted the _Consensus Tigurinus_, requested in Lutheran territories for himself and his Reformed congregation, was refused in Denmark, Wismar, Luebeck and Hamburg, but finally granted in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after, in 1554, the Calvinistic preacher Micronius, who also sought refuge in Hamburg, was forbidden to make that city the seat of Reformed activity and propaganda. As a result, Calvin decided to enter the arena against Westphal. In 1555 he published his _Defensio Sanae et Orthodoxae Doctrinae de Sacramentis_, ”Defense of the Sound and Orthodox Doctrine Concerning the Sacraments and Their Nature, Power, Purpose, Use, and Fruit, which the pastors and ministers of the churches in Zurich and Geneva before this have comprised into a brief formula of the mutual Agreement” (_Consensus Tigurinus_). In it he attacked Westphal in such an insulting and overbearing manner (comparing him, _e.g._, with ”a mad dog”) that from the very beginning the controversy was bound to a.s.sume a personal and acrimonious character.
208. Controversial Publications.
After Calvin had entered the controversy Westphal was joined by such Lutherans as John Timann, Paul v. Eitzen, Erhard Schnepf, Alber, Gallus, Flacius, Judex, Brenz, Andreae and others. Calvin, on the other hand, was supported by Lasco, Bullinger, Ochino, Valerandus Pola.n.u.s, Beza (the most scurrillous of all the opponents of Lutheranism), and Bibliander.
In 1555 Westphal published three additional books: _Collection (Collectanea) of Opinions of Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, and _Faith (Fides) of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, Concerning the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ_, and _Adversus cuiusdam Sacramentarii Falsam Criminationem Iusta Defensio_, ”Just Defense against the False Accusation of a Certain Sacramentarian.” The last publication was a personal defense against the insults and invectives of Calvin and a further proof of the claim that the Calvinists were united only in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Coming to the support of Westphal, John Timann, Pastor in Bremen, published in 1555: ”_Medley (Farrago) of Opinions Agreeing in the True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Lord's Supper_, which the churches of the Augsburg Confession have embraced with firm a.s.sent and in one spirit according to the divine Word.”
In the following year Calvin wrote his _Secunda Defensio ... contra J.
Westphali Calumnias_, ”Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith, against the Calumnies of J. Westphal,” a vitriolic book, dedicated to the Crypto-Calvinists, _viz._, ”to all ministers of Christ who cultivate and follow the pure doctrine of the Gospel in the churches of Saxony and Lower Germany.” In it Calvin declared: ”I teach that Christ, though absent according to His body, is nevertheless not only present with us according to His divine power, but also makes His flesh vivifying for us.” (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 79.) Lasco also wrote two books against Westphal and Timann, defending his congregation at Frankfort, and endeavoring to show the agreement between the Calvinian doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the _Augsburg Confession_. In 1556 Henry Bullinger appeared on the battlefield with his _Apologetical Exposition, Apologetica Expositio_, in which he endeavored to show that the ministers of the churches in Zurich do not follow any heretical dogma in the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper.
In the same year, 1556, Westphal published _Epistola, qua Breviter Respondet ad Convicia I. Calvini_--”Letter in which He [Westphal]
Answers Briefly to the Invectives of J. Calvin,” and ”_Answer (Responsum) to the Writing of John of Lasco_, in which he transforms the _Augsburg Confession_ into Zwinglianism.” In the same year Westphal published ”_Confession of Faith (Confessio Fidei) Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist_, in which the ministers of the churches of Saxony maintain the presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Supper, and answer regarding the book of Calvin dedicated to them.” This publication contained opinions which Westphal had secured from the ministeriums of Magdeburg (including Wigand and Flacius), of Mansfeld, Bremen, Hildesheim, Hamburg, Luebeck, Lueneburg, Brunswick (Moerlin and Chemnitz), Hannover, Wismar, Schwerin, etc. All of these ministeriums declared themselves unanimously and definitely in favor of Luther's doctrine, appealing to the words of inst.i.tution as they read. In 1557 Erhard Schnepf [born 1595; active in Na.s.sau, Marburg, Speier, Augsburg; attended convents in Smalcald 1537; in Regensburg 1546, in Worms 1557; died 1558], then in Jena, published his _Confession Concerning the Supper_. In the same year Paul von Eitzen [born 1522; died 1598; refused to sign _Formula of Concord_] published his _Defense of the True Doctrine Concerning the Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ_.
Westphal also made a second attack on Lasco in his ”_Just Defense against the Manifest Falsehoods of J. A. Lasco_ which he spread in his letter to the King of Poland against the Saxon Churches,” 1557. In it he denounces Lasco and his congregation of foreigners, and calls upon the magistrates to inst.i.tute proceedings against them.
Calvin now published his _Ultima Admonitio_, ”Last Admonition of John Calvin to J. Westphal, who, if he does not obey (_obtemperet_) must thenceforth be held in the manner as Paul commands us to hold obstinate heretics; in this writing the vain censures of the Magdeburgians and others, by which they endeavored to wreck heaven and earth, are also refuted” 1557. Here Calvin plainly reveals his Zwinglianism and says: ”This is the summary of our doctrine, that the flesh of Christ is a vivifying bread because it truly nourishes and feeds our souls when by faith we coalesce with it. This, we teach, occurs spiritually only, because the bond of this sacred unity is the secret and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit.” (_C. R._ 37 [_Calvini Opp_. 9], 162.) In this book Calvin also, as stated above, appeals to Melanchthon to add his testimony that ”we [the Calvinists] teach nothing that conflicts with the _Augsburg Confession_.”
Though Calvin had withdrawn from the arena, Westphal continued to give public testimony to the truth. In 1558 he wrote several books against the Calvinists. One of them bears the t.i.tle: ”_Apologetical Writings (Apologetica Scripta) of J.W._, in which he both defends the sound doctrine concerning the Eucharist and refutes the vile slanders of the Sacramentarians,” etc. Another is ent.i.tled: _Apology of the Confession Concerning the Lord's Supper against the Corruptions and Calumnies of John Calvin_. In 1559 Theodore Beza donned the armor of Calvin and entered the controversy with his ”_Treatise (Tractatio) Concerning the Lord's Supper_, in which the calumnies of J. Westphal are refuted.”
Lasco's _Reply to the Virulent Letter of That Furious Man J. Westphal_, of 1560, appeared posthumously, he having died shortly before in Poland.
209. Brenz and Chemnitz.
Foremost among the influential theologians who besides Westphal, took a decided stand against the Calvinists and their secret abettors in Lutheran territories were John Brenz in Wuerttemberg and Martin Chemnitz in Brunswick. John Brenz [born 1499, persecuted during the Interim, since 1553 Provost at Stuttgart, died 1570], the most influential theologian in Wuerttemberg, was unanimously supported in his anti-Calvinistic att.i.tude by the whole ministerium of the Duchy. He is the author of the _Confession and Report (Bekenntnis und Bericht) of the Theologians in Wuerttemberg Concerning the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper_, adopted at the behest of Duke Christopher by the synod a.s.sembled in Stuttgart, 1559. The occasion for drafting and adopting this _Confession_ had been furnished by Bartholomew Hagen, a Calvinist. At the synod in Stuttgart he was required to dispute on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with Jacob Andreae, with the result that Hagen admitted that he was now convinced of his error, and promised to return to the Lutheran teaching.
The _Confession_ thereupon adopted teaches in plain and unmistakable terms that the body and blood of Christ are orally received by all who partake of the Sacrament, and that Christ, by reason of the personal union, is omnipresent also according to His human nature, and hence well able to fulfil the promise He gave at the inst.i.tution of the Holy Supper. It teaches the real presence (_praesentia realis_), the sacramental union (_unio sacramentalis_), the oral eating and drinking (_manducatio oralis_), also of the wicked (_manducatio impiorum_). It holds ”that in the Lord's Supper the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are, through the power of the word [of inst.i.tution], truly and essentially tendered and given with the bread and wine to all men who partake of the Supper of Christ; and that, even as they are tendered by the hand of the minister, they are at the same time also received with the mouth of him who eats and drinks it.” Furthermore, ”that even as the substance and the essence of the bread and wine are present in the Lord's Supper, so also the substance and the essence of the body and blood of Christ are present and truly tendered and received with the signs of bread and wine.” (Tschackert, 541.) It protests: ”We do not a.s.sert any mixture of His body and blood with the bread and wine, nor any local inclusion in the bread.” Again: ”We do not imagine any diffusion of the human nature or expansion of the members of Christ (_ullam humanae naturae diffusionem aut membrorum Christi distractionem_), but we explain the majesty of the man Christ by which He, being placed at the right hand of G.o.d, fills all things not only by His divinity, but also as the man Christ, in a celestial manner and in a way that to human reason is past finding out, by virtue of which majesty His presence in the Supper is not abolished, but confirmed.” (Gieseler 3, 2, 239f.) Thus, without employing the term ”ubiquity,” this _Confession_ prepared by Brenz restored, in substance, the doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ which Luther had maintained over against Zwingli, Carlstadt, and the Sacramentarians generally.
As stated above, Melanchthon ridiculed this _Confession_ as ”Hechinger Latin.” In 1561 Brenz was attacked by Bullinger in his _Treatise (Tractatio) on the Words of St. John 14_. In the same year Brenz replied to this attack in two writings: _Opinion (Sententia) on the Book of Bullinger_ and _On the Personal Union (De Personali Unione) of the Two Natures in Christ and on the Ascension of Christ into Heaven and His Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father_, etc. This called forth renewed a.s.saults by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Beza. Bullinger wrote: ”_Answer (Responsio)_, by which is shown that the meaning concerning 'heaven' and the 'right hand of G.o.d' still stands firm,” 1562. Peter Martyr: _Dialogs (Dialogi) Concerning the Humanity of Christ, the Property of the Natures, and Ubiquity_, 1562. Beza: _Answers (Responsiones) to the Arguments of Brenz_, 1564. Brenz answered in two of his greatest writings, _Concerning the Divine Majesty of Christ (De Divina Maiestate Christi)_, 1562, and _Recognition (Recognito) of the Doctrine Concerning the True Majesty of Christ_, 1564. In the _Dresden Consensus (Consensus Dresdensis)_ of 1571 the Philippists of Electoral Saxony also rejected the omnipresence (which they termed ubiquity) of the human nature of Christ.
In order to reclaim the Palatinate (which, as will be explained later, had turned Reformed) for Lutheranism the Duke of Wuerttemberg, in April, 1564, arranged for the Religious Discussion at Maulbronn between the theologians of Wuerttemberg and the Palatinate. But the only result was a further exchange of polemical publications. In 1564 Brenz published _Epitome of the Maulbronn Colloquium ... Concerning the Lord's Supper and the Majesty of Christ_. And in the following year the Wuerttemberg theologians published _Declaration and Confession (Declaratio et Confessio) of the Tuebingen Theologians Concerning the Majesty of the Man Christ_. Both of these writings were answered by the theologians of the Palatinate. After the death of Brenz, Jacob Andreae was the chief champion in Wuerttemberg of the doctrines set forth by Brenz.