Part 35 (1/2)
Four weeks later Duke John Albrecht of Mecklenburg sent messengers to Wittenberg for the same purpose, _viz._, of mediating between Melanchthon and Flacius, Melanchthon in particular having previously requested him to frame articles which might serve as a basis of peace.
The articles, composed by the theologians and counselors of the Duke, were more severe than those of the Lower Saxons. George Venetus, professor at Rostock, and Counselor Andrew Mylius were commissioned to present them, first at Wittenberg, then at Magdeburg. When the articles were submitted to Melanchthon, he again fell into a state of violent agitation. The report says: ”As soon as he noticed that Adiaphorism was criticized, and that he was requested to reject it even if only in a mild form, he instantly sprang up with great impatience and would not permit them [the delegates] to finish their speech (although they most earnestly, in the name of their prince, requested to be heard), but burst forth into invectives and denunciations of Illyricus and others, and finally also declaimed against the prince himself and his delegates, vociferating that Illyricus secretly entertained many repulsive errors, etc.” On February 27, Melanchthon delivered his answer to the delegates.
When these urged him to give a more favorable reply, he again interrupted them, exclaiming: ”Oppress me, if you so desire; such is the lot of the peaceful.... I commend myself to G.o.d.” After Melanchthon had left, Peucer, who had accompanied him, harshly told the delegates: ”Don't trouble my father-in-law any more with such matters. _Ihr sollt forthin meinen Schwaeher zufrieden la.s.sen mit solchen Haendeln_.” (9, 106f.)
Regarding the last (8) of the articles submitted by the delegates of Duke Albrecht which dealt with the Adiaphora, Melanchthon declared in his answer of February 27: ”I should not be astonished to have these two conditions [to confess the Adiaphoristic errors, etc.] imposed on me if I had been an enemy. The action of the Saxon pastors was milder. I may have been lukewarm in some transactions, but I certainly have never been an enemy.... Therefore I clearly state that I do not a.s.sent to these presentations [of Duke Albrecht], which are cunningly framed so that, if I accept them, I myself may cut my throat (_ut me, si eas recepero, ipse iugulem_).” (_C. R._ 9, 104.)
The Magdeburgers refused to partic.i.p.ate in these efforts of Count Albrecht, chiefly because, as they said, there was no hope for peace as long as Melanchthon remained under the influence of his Wittenberg friends. But even now Flacius did not entirely abandon his attempts to bring about a G.o.dly peace. In 1557 he asked Paul Vergerius, who pa.s.sed Jena on his way to Wittenberg, to treat with Melanchthon on the Adiaphoristic question. Melanchthon, however is reported to have said: ”Omit that; let us treat of other things.” Flacius also wrote to King Christian III of Denmark to influence Elector August to abolish the Adiaphoristic errors, but apparently without any result.
271. Clash at Colloquy in Worms, 1557.
The Diet at Regensburg, which adjourned in March of 1557, resolved that a colloquy be held at Worms to bring about an agreement between the Lutheran and Roman parties of the Empire. In order to prepare for the colloquy, a convention was held by the Lutherans in June, 1557, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. June 30 a resolution was adopted to the effect that all controversies among the Lutherans be suspended, and the Romanists be told at the prospective colloquy that the Lutherans were all agreed in the chief points of doctrine. Against this resolution Nicholas Gallus and several others entered their protest.
Self-evidently, also Flacius and his adherents who had always held that the controverted issues involved essential points of doctrine, could not a.s.sent to the resolution without violating their conscience, and denying their convictions and the truth as they saw it. Such being the situation, the wise thing for the Lutherans to do would have been to decline the colloquy. For, since also Ducal Saxony with its stanch Lutherans was held to attend it, a public humiliating clash of the Lutherans was unavoidable.
Before the formal opening of the colloquy, the Thuringian delegates at Worms received a letter from Flacius, dated August 9, 1557 in which he admonished them to make a determined confession, and to induce the other Lutheran theologians to reject the Interim, Adiaphorism, Majorism, Osiandrism and Zwinglianism. This was necessary, said Flacius, because the Romanists would, no doubt exploit the concessions made in the Leipzig Interim and the dissensions existing among the Lutherans. (_C.
R._ 9, l99ff.). Flacius expressed the same views in an opinion to the dukes of Saxony, who, in turn, gave corresponding instructions to their delegates in Worms. In a letter dated August 20, 1557 Duke John Frederick said it was impossible that, in defending the _Augsburg Confession_ against the Romanists, the Lutherans could stand as one man and speak as with one mouth (_fuer einen Mann und also ex uno ore_), if they had not previously come to an agreement among themselves and condemned the errors. For otherwise the Papists would be able to defeat the Lutherans with their own sword, _i.e._, their own polemical publications. (231.) On the same day, August 20, 1557, Flacius repeated his sentiments and admonitions in letters to Schnepf, Moerlin, and Sarcerius. (232ff.)
In a meeting of the Lutheran theologians at Worms, held September 5, Dr.
Basilius Monner, professor of jurisprudence at Jena made a motion in keeping with his instructions and the admonitions of Flacius, whereupon Erhard Schnepf, professor in Jena, read a list of the errors that ought to be rejected. But the majority, led by Melanchthon, opposed the motion. A breach seemed unavoidable. For Duke John Frederick had decided that his theologians could not partic.i.p.ate in the colloquy with Lutherans who refused to reject errors conflicting with the _Augsburg Confession_, nor recognize them as pure, faithful, loyal, and true members and adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_. (Preger 2, 67.) The imminent clash was temporarily warded off by the concession on the part of the Melanchthonians that the Thuringian theologians should be allowed freely to express their opinion on any article discussed at the colloquy. At the session held September 11, 1667, however, Bishop Michael Helding demanded to know whether the Lutherans excluded the Zwinglians, Calvinists, Osiandrists and Flacians (in the doctrine _de servo arbitrio_) from the _Augsburg Confession_. The Jesuit Canisius plied the Lutherans with similar questions: Whether they considered Osiander, Major, and others adherents of the _Augustana_. Melanchthon declared evasively that all evangelical delegates and pastors present were agreed in the _Augsburg Confession_. As a result the Thuringians decided to enter their protest. In a special meeting of the Lutherans the majority threatened to exclude the Thuringians from all following sessions if they dared to express their protest [containing the list of errors which they rejected] before the Papists. The consequence was that the Thuringians presented their protest in writing to the President, Julius Pflug, and departed from Worms. The Romanists, who from the beginning had been opposed to the colloquy, refused to treat with the remaining Lutheran theologians, because they said, it was impossible to know who the true adherents of the _Augsburg Confession_ were with whom, according to the Regensburg Resolution, they were to deal.
272. Efforts of Princes to Restore Unity: Frankfort Recess.
The Colloquy of Worms had increased the enmity and animosity among the Lutherans. It had brought their quarrels to a climax, and given official publicity to the dissensions existing among them,--a situation which was unscrupulously exploited by the Romanists also politically, their sinister object being to rob the Lutherans of the privileges guaranteed by the Augsburg Peace, and to compel them to return to the Roman fold.
In particular the Jesuits stressed the point that the dissensions among the Lutherans proved conclusively that they had abandoned the _Augsburg Confession_ to the adherents of which alone the provisions of the Augsburg Peace of 1555 applied. At the same time they embraced the opportunity to spread false reports concerning all manner of heresies that were tolerated in the Lutheran churches. This roused the Lutheran princes, who according to the Augsburg Peace Treaty were responsible to the Empire for the religious conditions within their territories, to bend all their energies toward healing the breach and restoring religious unity within their churches. Efforts to this effect were made especially at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1558, and at Naumburg, 1561. But instead of promoting peace among the Lutherans also these conventions of the princes merely poured oil into the flames by adding new subjects of dissension, increasing the general distrust, and confirming the conviction that Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was in danger indeed. For, instead of insisting on a clear confession of the truth and an unequivocal rejection of error, the princes endeavored to establish peace by ignoring, veiling, and compromising the differences.
At Frankfort, Otto Henry of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, Joachim of Brandenburg, Wolfgang of Zweibruecken, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Philip of Hesse discussed the religious situation and, on March 18, 1558, signed the so-called _Frankfort Recess_ (Agreement), in which they again solemnly pledged their adherence to the Holy Scriptures, the Ec.u.menical Symbols, the _Augsburg Confession_ of 1530, and its _Apology_. (_C. R._ 9, 494.) In the _Recess_ the princes stated that the existing dissensions encouraged the Romanists to proceed against the Lutherans, who, the princes declared, were not disagreed in their confession. In four articles the controverted questions concerning justification, good works, the Lord's Supper, and the adiaphora were dealt with, but in vague and ambiguous terms, the articles being based on Melanchthon's anti-Flacian opinion of March 4, 1558. (499ff.; 462ff.)
When the _Frankfort Recess_ was submitted for subscription to the estates who had not been present at Frankfort, it failed to receive the expected approval. It was criticized by the theologians of Anhalt, Henneberg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the Lower Saxon cities, and Regensburg. The strongest opposition, however, came from Ducal Saxony, where Flacius attacked the _Recess_ in two books. The first was ent.i.tled: ”_Refutatio Samaritani Interim_, in quo vera religio c.u.m sectis et corruptelis scelerate et perniciose confunditur--Refutation of the Samaritan Interim, in which the true religion is criminally and perniciously confounded with the sects.” The other: ”_Grund und Ursach', warum das Frankfurtisch Interim in keinem Wege anzunehmen sei_--Reason and Cause why the Frankfort Interim must Not be Adopted.” The chief objections of Flacius were: 1. The _Smalcald Articles_ should have been included in the confessions subscribed to. 2. The differences within the Lutheran Church should not have been treated as questions of minor import. 3. Major's statement should have been rejected as simply false, and not merely when falsely interpreted. 4. The statements concerning the Lord's Supper are ”dark, general, and ambiguous,” hence Crypto-Calvinistic. 5. The article on the adiaphora is ambiguous and altogether unsatisfactory. 6. The measures adopted to suppress theological discussions and controversies would lead to suppression of the truth (”binding the mouth of the Holy Ghost”) and tyrannizing of the churches by the princes. (Preger 2, 74.)
In his att.i.tude Flacius was supported by his colleagues in Jena and by Duke John Frederick. When a delegation appeared requesting him to sign the _Recess_, he declined and ordered his theologians to set forth his objection in a special book. Elector August, in turn, charged Melanchthon to write an apology of the _Recess_ against the ducal theologians; which, again, was answered by Flacius. In order to unite the opponents of the _Recess_, John Frederick invited the Lower Saxons to attend a convention in Magdeburg. When this failed, Flacius induced the Duke to publish a book treating particularly the doctrinal differences within the Lutheran Church. In the drafting and revision of this _Book of Confutation_, as it was called, the following theologians partic.i.p.ated: Strigel, Schnepf, Andrew Huegel, John Stoessel, Simon Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Sarcerius, Aurifaber, and Flacius. November 28, 1558, it received the sanction of the dukes. Among the Melanchthonians the _Book of Confutation_, which had made it a special point to refute and reject the errors of the Wittenberg Philippists, caused consternation and bitter resentment. For evidently its theological att.i.tude was incompatible with the _Recess_, and hence the breach now seemed incurable and permanent. By order of Elector August, Melanchthon, in the name of the Wittenberg faculty, wrote an opinion of the _Book of Confutation_. (_C. R._ 9, 763.) But contents as well as form of this opinion merely served to confirm the ducal theologians in their position. The Philippists also fortified themselves by publis.h.i.+ng the _Corpus Doctrinae_ (_Corpus Philippic.u.m_ or _Misnic.u.m_), which contained writings only of Melanchthon. The _Frankfort Recess_, therefore, instead of bringing relief to the Lutherans, only increased their mutual enmity and distrust. In order to reconcile John Frederick, the Duke of Wuerttemberg suggested a convention of princes at Fulda, on January 20, 1559. But when Elector August heard that besides the Duke of Saxony also other opponents of the _Frankfort Recess_ were invited, he foiled the plan by declining to attend.
273. General Lutheran Council advocated by Flacianists.
To heal the breach and end the public scandal, Flacius and his adherents fervently advocated the convocation of a General Lutheran Synod. In 1559 they published ”_Supplicatio Quorundam Theologorum ... pro Libera Christiana et Legitima Synodo_, Supplication of Some Theologians ... for a Free, Christian and Lawful Synod.” The doc.u.ment was signed by 51 superintendents, professors, and pastors, ”who after Luther's death,” as they emphasized, ”had contended orally and in writing against the corruptions and sects.” The signatures represented theologians from Ducal Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, Luebeck, Rostock, Wismar, Brunswick, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Koethen, Nordhausen, Schweinfurt, Regensburg, Lindau, Upper Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg, Electoral Saxony, Nuernberg, Augsburg, Baden, etc. Some of the first were: Amsdorf, Musaeus, Joachim Moerlin, Hesshusius, Max Moerlin, Gallus, Wigand, Judex, Westphal, John Freder of Wismar, Anton Otto of Nordhausen, Flacius. The _Supplication_ showed why a General Synod was necessary and how it was to be conducted. Its chief object, the _Supplication_ said, would be to pa.s.s on adiaphorism, Majorism, and synergism, all partic.i.p.ants in the Synod having previously been pledged on the _Augsburg Confession_, the _Apology_, and the _Smalcald Articles_, according to which all questions were to be decided. (Preger 2, 86f.)
The most violent opponent of this plan was Melanchthon. Fearing that the Flacianists might get control of the prospective general council, he, in advance, denounced and branded it as a ”Robber Synod (_Raeubersynode_), advocated by the ignorant Flacian rabble.” Three weeks before his death, March 28, 1560 he wrote: ”Since they [the Flacians] cannot kill me, the object of these hypocrites is to expel me. For long ago they have said that they would not leave a foot of ground for me in Germany. _Hoc agunt isti hypocritae, ut me pellant, c.u.m sanguinem meum haurire non possint; et quidem oratio istorum vetus est, qua dixerunt, se mihi non relicturos esse in Germania vestigium pedis_.” (_C. R._ 9, 1079.) Philip of Hesse consented to attend the general synod with the proviso that the power of the Jena theologians be curbed and also the Swiss be admitted. (Preger 2, 93.) That the plan of the Flacianists failed was chiefly due to Elector August, who declined to attend the synod.
274. Futile Efforts of Princes at Naumburg.
In lieu of the General Lutheran Council advocated by the Flacians, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, in March, 1559, recommended as the best means to heal the breach a convention of all the Lutheran princes and estates to be held at Naumburg, deliberations to begin January 20, 1561.
The object of this a.s.sembly, he said, was neither to discuss the differences among the Lutherans, nor to formulate any condemnations, but only to renew the subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ and to consider how the Lutherans might present a united front and a unanimous confession at the next diet and at the prospective papal council. All finally consented to attend, including Duke John Frederick, Elector August (who, instigated by Melanchthon, first had declined partic.i.p.ation), and the Crypto-Calvinist, Elector Frederick of the Palatinate. Expecting no results favorable to genuine Lutheranism from this a.s.sembly, the Jena theologians renewed their request for a general synod and sent their _Supplication_ to Naumburg with an additional writing, dated January 23, 1561, in which they admonished the princes not to enter into an unG.o.dly and unionistic agreement, rather to eliminate the errors of Major, Osiander, etc. But the princes, whose object was to settle matters without the theologians, declined to consider their pet.i.tion, and, on February 8, the last day of the convention, returned the doc.u.ments to their authors in Jena.
After comparing the various editions of the _Augsburg Confession_, the Naumburg a.s.sembly decided to subscribe to the _Confession_ as delivered 1530 in Augsburg and published 1531 in German and Latin at Wittenberg.
But when, in the interest of Calvinism, whither he at that time already was openly tending, Elector Frederick, supported by Elector August, demanded that the edition of 1540 be recognized as the correct explanation of the original _Augustana_, the majority of the princes yielded, and, as a result, the Variata of 1540 alone was mentioned in the Preface (_Praefatio_), in which the princes stated the reasons for renewing their subscription to the _Augsburg Confession_ at Naumburg.
This Preface, prepared by Elector Frederick and the Wittenberg Crypto-Calvinist Cracow, also a.s.serted that hitherto no doctrinal corruptions or deviations from the _Augsburg Confession_ had been tolerated among the Lutherans. It mentioned neither the controversies within the Lutheran Church nor the _Smalcald Articles_.
Evidently, to subscribe to this Preface was impossible for genuine Lutherans. Duke John Frederick was told by his theologians Moerlin and Stoessel that, if he signed it, they would resign and leave. The duke replied that he, too, would mount his horse and depart rather than put his signature to a doc.u.ment in which the errors introduced by the Philippists, etc., were not rejected. Ulrich of Mecklenburg took the same stand. And failing in his efforts to have the Preface changed in accordance with his convictions, the Duke entered his protest and left Naumburg without any further conference with the princes. When hereupon the latter sent messengers to Weimar, John Frederick remained firm. As conditions of his subscription the Duke demanded that in the Preface the apostasy during the Interim be confessed, the distinctive features of the Lutheran doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper be brought out clearly, the recognition of the Variata of 1540 as a doctrinal norm be eliminated, and the _Smalcald Articles_ be recognized with the rest of the Lutheran symbols. Unwilling to accede to these demands, the princes closed the discussions at Naumburg without the Duke,--hence also without having attained their goal: peace among the Lutherans.
The Preface containing the objectionable features was signed by the Electors of the Palatinate, Saxony, and Brandenburg, by Christopher of Wuerttemberg, Philip of Hesse, Carl of Baden, and quite a number of other princes and cities. However, Duke John Frederick did not by any means stand alone in his opposition to the ambiguous, unionistic Naumburg doc.u.ment. He was supported by Ulrich of Mecklenburg (who also left Naumburg before the close of the convention), Ernest and Philip of Brunswick, Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Adolf of Holstein, Francis of Saxon-Lauenburg, the counts of Schwartzburg, Mansfeld, s...o...b..rg, Barby, and a number of other princes and cities, among the latter Regensburg, Augsburg, Stra.s.sburg, Nuernberg and Windsheim. Besides, the loyal Lutherans were represented also in the territories of almost all the princes who had signed the Preface. Margrave John of Brandenburg emphatically declared his dissatisfaction with the subscription of his delegate at Naumburg. Before long also August of Saxony, Wolfgang of the Palatinate, Christopher of Wuerttemberg, and Joachim of Brandenburg signified their willingness to alter the Preface in accordance with the views and wishes of John Frederick, especially regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the princes declared that from the beginning they had understood the Preface in the strict Lutheran sense.
In the Preface of the _Book of Concord_ signed by the Lutheran princes, we read: ”Now, our conferences and those of our ill.u.s.trious predecessors, which were undertaken with a G.o.dly and sincere intention, first at Frankfort-on-the-Main and afterwards at Naumburg, and were recorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful settlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors and false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our mind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as many of us as partic.i.p.ated in the transactions at Naumburg, wholly reserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if in the course of time, anything would be desired with respect to the _Augsburg Confession_, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would further declare all things thoroughly and at length.” (CONC. TRIGL. 15.) Even Philip of Hesse finally consented to the changes demanded by Duke John Frederick. Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, however, who had misled and, as it were, hypnotized the Lutheran princes at Naumburg, openly embraced the Reformed confession and expelled all consistent Lutherans. For the cause of Lutheranism the loss of the Palatinate proved a great gain internally, and helped to pave the way for true unity and the formulation and adoption of the _Formula of Concord_. And more than any other individual it was Flacius who had helped to bring about this result. (Preger 2, 102.)