THE death of Luther (February 18, 1546) left Melancthon at the head of the Reformation in Germany; and his views on the Supper were almost, if not entirely, identical with those of the Reformed; i.e., the Swiss reformers as distinguished from Lutherans. His love of peace and his respect for Luther had caused him to hold his views in abeyance while Luther lived; but after Luther’s death, this very love of peace led him into a war that lasted as long as he lived. For, holding views so favorable to those of the opposition, and believing, besides, that even in the widest difference of opinion on this subject, there was nothing that justified any division, much less such bitter contention, between the friends of the Reformation, his desire for peace induced him to propose a union of Lutherans and Zwinglinas. This immediately caused a division among the Lutherans, and developed what Mosheim calls the “rigid Lutherans” and the “moderate Lutherans,”—the moderate Lutherans favoring union, and the rigid Lutherans attacking with renewed vigor all together, and Melancthon in particular.SITI March 9, 1888, page 151.1

Just here also another element of contention for the rigid Lutherans was introduced. Calvin appeared as a kind of mediator between the Lutherans and Zwinglians; and he proposed by modifying the opinions of both parties to effect a more perfect union; but instead of his efforts being acceptable, the rigid Lutherans accused all who in the least degree favored the union of being Crypto-Calvinists, i.e., secret Calvinists. By thus adding an epithet, the prejudice was increased against any effort toward conciliation; and besides, a bitter controversy was opened between the Lutherans and the Calvinists.SITI March 9, 1888, page 151.2

The bitterness of the opponents of Melancthon was increased by his connection with the “Interim,” which was this: In 1547 a Diet was held at Augsburg, and Charles V. required of the Protestants that they should submit the decision of religious contests to the Council of Trent. The greater part of the members of the Diet consented. But under the pretext of a plague raging in Trent, the Pope issued a bull transferring the council to Bologna. The legates and all the rest of the Papal party obeyed the Pope, but the emperor ordered all of the German bishops to remain at Trent. This virtually dissolved the council; and as the Pope refused to re-assemble the council at Trent, and the Emperor refused to allow his bishops to go to Bologna, plainly there could be no council to decide the religious contests, and the action of the Diet was nullified. Now, to keep the matter under control until the difference between the Pope and the emperor could be settled, and the council re-assembled, Charles ordered Julius Pflugius, bishop of Nuremburg, Michael Sidonius, a creature of the Pope, and John Agricola, of Eisleben, to draw up a formulary which might serve as a rule of faith and worship for both Protestants and Catholics, until the council should be ready to act upon the question. This formulary, from its purpose of being only to cover the interval that should elapse till the council should act, was called the “Interim.” But instead of pacifying the contestants, it only led to new difficulties, and involved the whole empire in violence and bloodshed.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.1

Maurice, elector of Saxony, affected to remain neutral in regard to the “Interim,” neither accepting nor rejecting it; but finally in 1518 he assembled the Saxony nobility and clergy in several conferences, to take counsel about what should be done. In all these conferences, Melancthon was accorded the chief place; and he finally gave it as his opinion “that the whole of the book of ‘Interim’ could not by any means be adopted by the friends of the Reformation; but declared at the same time that he saw no reason why it might not be adopted as authority in things that did not relate to the essential parts of religion, or in things which might be considered indifferent.” This decision set his enemies all aflame again, and with Flacius at their head, the defenders of Lutheranism attacked Melancthon and the doctors of Wittemberg, and Leipsic “with incredible bitterness and fury, and accused them of apostasy from the true religion.”—Mosheim.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.2

Melancthon and his friends, however, were able to defend themselves; and a warm debate followed upon these two points: “1. Whether the points that seemed indifferent to Melancthon were so in reality. 2. Whether in things of an indifferent nature, and in which the interests of religion are not essentially concerned, it be lawful to yield to the enemies of the truth.” And right here we are brought to the contemplation of the greatest hindrance that ever affected the Reformation—that is, scholasticism.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.3

Luther and all the other reformers stood upon the platform of “The word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God.” They abandoned the sophistries of the schools, and rested solely upon this declaration, which must be the basis of every true reform in all ages. And just so far as that principle is abandoned, so much will the work be retarded. While this principle was adhered to, the Reformation succeeded gloriously; when the principle was abandoned, the Reformation suffered accordingly. In the word of God, lies the strength of the work of God. In this position there was another great advantage that the reformers held over their Papal antagonists. As long as they stood by the word of God alone, they occupied a field with which the Papists were wholly unacquainted; and the more the reformers studied and applied the word of God, the more easily they could defeat their adversaries. Their adversaries knew it, and therefore they employed every artifice to draw the reformers into the scholastic field; for there the Papists had every advantage which the Protestants had in the other. While the leaders of the Reformation lived, the Papists were unsuccessful in every attempt in this direction, and so the Reformation was successful everywhere; but when these leaders were removed from the world, and their faith and zeal were not inherited by their successors, and when to the craftiness of the Papists were added the zeal and artfulness of Loyola and his order, the Protestants were finally corrupted by the arts and stratagems of their opponents and induced to revive the subtleties of the schools in defending and illustrating religious truth. So it may be said with truth that, while the Protestants imbibed scholasticism from the Catholics, they allowed the Catholics to steal from them their zeal. All that will be needed to prove and illustrate it, will be simply to mention the subjects of controversy that engaged the Protestant disputants for more than a hundred years.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.4

Out of the debate about things indifferent grew several others, from which arose yet others, and so on indefinitely. While Melancthon and his colleagues were at Leipsic discussing the “Interim,” among other things they had said, “The necessity of good works in order to the attainment of eternal salvation, might be held and taught, conformably to the truth of the gospel.” This declaration was severely censured by the rigid Lutherans, as being contrary to the doctrine and sentiments of Luther. George Major maintained the doctrine of good works, and Amsdorf the contrary. In this dispute Amsdorf was so far carried away by his zeal for the doctrine of Luther, as to maintain that good works are an impediment to salvation. This added new fuel to the flame, and on it raged.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.5

Out of this debate grew the one known as the “Synergistical” controversy, from a Greek word signifying co-operation. The disciples of Melancthon, let by Strigelius, held from him that man co-operates with divine grace in the work of conversion. The Lutherans, led by Flacius, head of the university of Saxe-Weimar, held that God is the only agent in the conversion of man. The dispute led to yet another, concerning the natural powers of the human mind. On this subject a public debate was held at Weimar in1560, between Flacius and Strigelius. Flacius maintained that “the fall of man extinguished in the human mind every virtuous tendency, every noble faculty, and left nothing but universal darkness and corruption.” Strigelius held that this degradation of the powers of the mind was by no means universal. And, hoping to defeat his opponent by puzzling him, put this question: “Should original sin, or the corrupt habit which the human soul contracted by the fall, be classed with substances or accidents?” Flacius replied that “original sin is the very substance of human nature.” This bold assertion opened another controversy on the nature and extent of original sin.SITI March 9, 1888, page 152.6

(To be continued.)

March 2, 1888

March 16, 1888