Chapter XIX: Part 19

From the fourth series of 41 theses directed by Luther against the Antinomians we quote: "12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine of the Papists concerning repentance as of hell and the devil himself. 13. Much more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whatever in the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught in reality simply wish that there be no repentance. 15. The argument: 'Whatever is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end, must not be taught,' etc., amounts to nothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth that man is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not be taught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders, adulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence such things must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing toward justification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolished and not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without the Law' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without the assistance of the Law,' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demands fulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faith in Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works, without the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good works follow spontaneously, without the Law, _i.e._, without the help or coercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nor necessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less for salvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvation are necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to save that which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the restitution of all things, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is not destroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become such as he was, and even better." (St. L. 20. 1639ff.; E. 4. 433.)

189. Luther's Third Public Disputation against the Antinomians.

Soon after his second disputation Luther obtained evidence of Agricola's relapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was another disputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, in which Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled their hearers into carnal security. He also explained that the passages culled from his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hence misinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressed to consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of the consolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them to secure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifying power of the Law. (Drews, 421f.; Tschackert, 482.)

From the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submit the following: "1. The Law has dominion over man as long as he lives. [Rom. 7, 1.] 2. But he is freed from the Law when he dies. 3. Necessarily, therefore, man must die if he would be free from the Law. 7. These three: Law, sin, and death, are inseparable. 8. Accordingly so far as death is still in man, in so far sin and the Law are in man. 9. Indeed, in Christ the Law is fulfilled, sin abolished, and death destroyed. 11. That is, when, through faith we are crucified and have died in Christ, such things [the Law fulfilled, sin abolished, and death destroyed] are true also in us. 13. But the fact itself and experience testify that the just are still daily delivered to death. 14. Necessarily, therefore, in as far as they are under death, they are still also under the Law and sin. 15. They [the Antinomians] are altogether inexperienced men and deceivers of souls who endeavor to abolish the Law from the church. 16. For this is not only foolish and wicked, but also absolutely impossible. 17. For if you would abolish the Law, you will be compelled to abolish also sin and death. 18. For death and sin are present by virtue of the Law, as Paul says [2 Cor. 3, 6]: 'The letter killeth,' and [1 Cor. 15, 56]: 'The strength of sin is the Law,' 19. But since you see that the just die daily what a folly is it to imagine that they are without the Law! 20. For if there were no Law, there would be neither sin nor death. 21. Hence they should have first proved that the just are altogether without sin and death. 22. Or that they no longer live in the flesh, but are removed from the world. 23. Then it might justly be taught that also the Law is altogether removed from them and must not be taught in any way. 24. This they cannot prove, but experience itself shows the contrary to their very faces. 25. So, then, the impudence of the teachers who wish to remove the Law from the church is extraordinary. 26. Yet it is a much greater impudence, or rather insanity, when they assert that even the wicked should be freed from the Law, and that it should not be preached to them. 29. If, however, they pretend that their church or their hearers simply are all pious men and Christians, without the Law, 30. Then it is evident that they are altogether of unsound mind and do not know what they say or affirm. 31. For this is nothing else than to imagine that all their hearers have been removed from this life. 35. Thus it [the Law] is also given to the pious, in so far as they are not yet dead and still live in the flesh. 40. Now, in as far as Christ is raised in us, in so far we are without Law, sin, and death. 41. But in as far as He is not yet raised in us, in so far we are under the Law, sin, and death. 42. Therefore the Law (as also the Gospel) must be preached, without discrimination, to the righteous as well as to the wicked. 44. To the pious, that they may thereby be reminded to crucify their flesh with its affections and lusts, lest they become secure. [Gal. 5, 24.] 45. For security abolishes faith and the fear of God, and renders the latter end worse than the beginning. [2 Pet. 2, 20.] 46. It appears very clearly that the Antinomians imagine sin to have been removed through Christ essentially and philosophically or juridically (_formaliter et philosophice seu iuridice_) 47. And that they do not at all know that sin is removed only inasmuch as the merciful God does not impute it [Ps. 32, 2], and forgives it (_solum reputatione et ignoscentia Dei miserentis_). 61. For if the Law is removed, no one knows what Christ is, or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. 66. The doctrine of the Law, therefore, is necessary in the churches, and by all means is to be retained, as without it Christ cannot be retained. 67. For what will you retain of Christ when (the Law having been removed which He fulfilled) you do not know what He has fulfilled? 69. In brief, to remove the Law and to let sin and death remain, is to hide the disease of sin and death to men unto their perdition. 70. When death and sin are abolished (as was done by Christ), then the Law would be removed happily; moreover, it would be established, Rom. 3, 31." (Drews 423ff.; St. L. 20, 1642ff.; E. 4, 436ff.)

190. Agricola's Retraction Written and Published by Luther.

Seeing his position in the Wittenberg University endangered, Agricola was again ready to submit. And when a public retraction was demanded, he even left it to Luther to formulate the recantation. Luther did so in a public letter to Caspar Guettel in Eisleben, entitled, _Against the Antinomians--Wider die Antinomer_, which he published in the beginning of January, 1539. (St. L. 20, 1610.) In a crushing manner Luther here denounced "the specter of the new spirits who dare thrust the Law or the Ten Commandments out of the church and relegate it to the courthouse."

Complaining of "false brethren," Luther here says: "And I fear that, if I had died at Smalcald [1537], I should forever have been called the patron of such [antinomian] spirits, because they appeal to my books. And all this they do behind my back, without my knowledge and against my will, not even considering it worth while to inform me with as much as a word or syllable, or at least to ask me regarding the matter. Thus I am compelled to proceed against Magister John Agricola," etc. (1611.) "But since he was afraid that he might not express it in a manner such as would be considered satisfactory, he has fully authorized and also requested me to do it [write the retraction for Agricola] as well as I could, which, he being satisfied, I agreed to do, and herewith have done, especially for the reason that after my death neither Master Eisleben himself nor anybody else might be able to pretend that I had done nothing in this matter and simply allowed everything to pass and go on as fully satisfactory to me." (1612.)

Referring to his former statements appealed to by Agricola, Luther continues: "I have indeed taught, and still teach, that sinners should be led to repentance by the preaching of, and meditation upon, the suffering of Christ, so that they may realize how great God's wrath is over sin, seeing that there is no other help against it than that God's Son must die for it.... But how does it follow from this that the Law must be abandoned? I am unable to discover such an inference in my logic, and would like to see and hear the master who would be able to prove it. When Isaiah says, chap. 53, 8: 'For the transgression of My people was He stricken,' tell me, dear friend, is the Law abandoned when here the suffering of Christ is preached? What does 'for the transgression of My people' mean? Does it not mean: because My people have sinned against, and not kept, My Law? Or can any one imagine that sin is something where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the Law must with it also abolish sins. If he would allow sins to remain, he must much more allow the Law to remain. For Rom. 6, 13 [4, 15] we read: 'Sin is not imputed where there is no law.' If there is no sin Christ is nothing. For why does He die if there be neither Law nor sin for which He was to die? From this we see that by this spiritism [_Geisterei_] the devil does not mean to take away the Law, but Christ, who fulfilled the Law. [Matt. 5, 17.] For he well knows that Christ may well and easily be taken away, but not so the Law, which is written in the heart." (1613f.) "Therefore I request of you, my dear Doctor [Guettel], that, as you have done heretofore, you would continue in the pure doctrine and preach that sinners should and must be led to repentance not only by the sweet grace and suffering of Christ, who has died for us, but also by the terrors of the Law." (1615.) "For whence do we know what sin is if there is no Law and conscience? And whence shall we learn what Christ is, what He has done for us, if we are not to know what the Law is which He has fulfilled for us, or what sin is, for which He has atoned? And even if we did not need the Law for us and were able to tear it out of our hearts (which is impossible), we nevertheless must preach it for the sake of Christ (as also is done and must be done), in order that we may know what He has done and suffered for us. For who could know what and for what purpose Christ has suffered for us if no one were to know what sin or the Law is? Therefore the Law must certainly be preached if we would preach Christ." (1616.) "This, too, is a peculiar blindness and folly, that they imagine the revelation of wrath to be something else than the Law (which is impossible); for the revelation of wrath is the Law when realized and felt, as Paul says [Rom. 4, 15]: '_Lex iram operatur_. The Law worketh wrath.'" (1618.)

By way of conclusion Luther remarked: "Let this suffice at present, for I hope that since Master Eisleben is converted and retracts, the others, too, who received it [the antinomian error] from him, will abandon it, which God may help them to do! Amen." (1619.) At the same time, however he did not withhold the opinion that Agricola's self humiliation would hardly be of long duration. "If he continues in such humility," said Luther, "God certainly can and will exalt him; if he abandons it, then God is able to hurl him down again." (1612.)

191. Luther's Fourth Disputation against the Antinomians.

Luther's distrust was not unfounded, for Agricola continued secretly to teach his antinomianism, abetted in his sentiments among others also by Jacob Schenck [since 1536 first Lutheran pastor in Freiberg, Saxony; 1538 dismissed on account of his antinomianism 1540 professor in Leipzig; later on deposed and finally banished from Saxony]. Indeed in March, 1540, Agricola even lodged a complaint with the Elector, charging Luther with "calumnies." In the first part of the following month Luther answered these charges in a _Report to Doctor Brueck Concerning Magister John Eisleben's Doctrine and Intrigues_. (St. L. 20, 1648ff.) About the same time; Count Albrecht of Mansfeld denounced Agricola to the Elector as a dangerous, troublesome man. Hereupon the Elector on June 15 1540, opened formal legal proceedings against Agricola, who, as stated above, removed to Berlin in August without awaiting the trial, although he had promised with an oath not to leave before a legal decision had been rendered. (Drews, 611.) Incensed by the treacherous conduct of Agricola, Luther, September 10, 1540, held a final disputation on a sixth series of theses against the Antinomians, charging them with destroying all order human as well as divine. (St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)

Regarding Agricola's duplicity, Luther, in his _Report_ to Brueck, said in substance: According to the statements of Caspar Guettel and Wendelin Faber, Agricola had for years secretly agitated against the Wittenbergers and founded a sect at Eisleben calling themselves Minorish [Minorists]; he had branded and slandered their doctrine as false and impure, and this, too, without conferring with them or previously admonishing them; he had come to Wittenberg for the purpose of corrupting and distracting the Church; his adherents had made the statement that Eisleben would teach the Wittenbergers theology and logic; he had inveigled Hans Lufft into printing his Postil by falsely stating that it had been read and approved by Luther; in his dealings with the Wittenbergers he had acted not as an honest man, let alone a pious Christian and theologian, but treacherously and in keeping with his antinomian principles; parading as a loyal Lutheran at public conventions and laughing and dining with them, he had misled "his old, faithful friend" [Luther] to confide in him, while secretly he was acting the traitor by maligning him and undermining his work. In the _Report_ we read: "Agricola blasphemes and damns our doctrine as impure and false (_i.e._, the Holy Spirit Himself in His holy Law); he slanders and defames us Wittenbergers most infamously wherever he can; and all this he does treacherously and secretly, although we have done him no harm, but only did well by him, as he himself must admit. He deceives and attacks us [me], his best friend and father, making me believe that he is our true friend. Nor does he warn me, but, like a desperate treacherous villain, secretly works behind our back to cause the people to forsake our doctrine and to adhere to him, thus treating us with an ungratefulness, pride, and haughtiness such as I have not frequently met with before." (1656.)

In his charge against Luther, Agricola had said that it was dangerous to preach the Law without the Gospel, because it was a ministry of death (_ministerium mortis_). Luther answered in his _Report_ to Brueck: "Behold now what the mad fool does. God has given His Law for the very purpose that it should bite, cut, strike, kill, and sacrifice the old man. For it should terrify and punish the proud ignorant, secure Old Adam and show him his sin and death, so that, being humiliated, he may despair of himself, and thus become desirous of grace, as St. Paul says: 'The strength of sin is the Law; the sting of death is sin,'[1 Cor. 15, 56.] For this reason he also calls it _bonam, iustam, sanctam_--good, just, holy. Again, Jeremiah [23, 29]: 'My Word is like a hammer that breaketh the rock to pieces.' Again: '_Ego ignis consumens_, etc.--I am a consuming fire,' Ps. 9, 21 [20]: '_Constitue legislatorem super eos, ut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes_--Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men.' Thus St. Paul does Rom. 1 and 2 and 3 making all the world sinners by the Law, casting them under the wrath of God, and entirely killing them before God. But here our dear Master Grickel appears on the scene and invents a new theology out of his own mad and reckless fool's head and teaches: One must not kill and reprove the people, _i.e._, one must not preach the Law. Here he himself confesses publicly in his suit [against Luther] that he has condemned and prohibited the preaching of the Law." (St. L. 20, 1657.)

The _Report_ continues: "Since, now, the little angry devil who rides Master Grickel will not tolerate the Law, _i.e., mortificantem, irascentem, accusantem, terrentem, occidentem legem_,--the mortifying, raging, accusing, terrifying, killing Law,--it is quite evident what he intends to do through Master Grickel's folly (for he nevertheless wishes to be praised as preaching the Law after and under the Gospel, etc.), _viz._, to hide original sin and to teach the Law no further than against future actual sins, for such is the manner of his entire Postil; even as the Turks, Jews, philosophers, and Papists teach who regard our nature as sound; but Master Grickel does not see that it is just this which his little spirit [devil] aims at by his bragging and boasting, that he, too, is preaching the Law.... Thus Christ and God are altogether vain and lost. And is not this blindness beyond all blindness that he does not want to preach the Law without and before the Gospel? For are these not impossible things? How is it possible to preach of forgiveness of sins if previously there have been no sins? How can one proclaim life if previously there is no death? Are we to preach to angels who have neither sin nor death concerning forgiveness of sins and redemption from death? But how can one preach of sins or know that there are sins, if the Law does not reveal them? For according to its proper office the Gospel does not say who [is a sinner] and what is sin; it does, however, indicate that there must be some great hurt, since so great a remedy is required; but it does not say how the sin is called, or what it is. The Law must do this. Thus Master Eisleben must in fact (_re ipsa_) allow the Law to perform its duty (_occidere_, to kill, etc.) prior to the [preaching of the] Gospel, no matter how decidedly he, with words only, denies it, to spite the Wittenbergers, in order that he also, as _novus autor_ (new author), may produce something of his own and confuse the people and separate the churches." (1658.)

From the 20 theses which Luther treated in his last disputation against the Antinomians we cull the following: "1. The inference of St. Paul: 'For where no law is there is no transgression' [Rom. 4, 15] is valid not only theologically, but also politically and naturally (_non solum theologice, sed etiam politice et naturaliter_). 2. Likewise this too: Where there is no sin, there is neither punishment nor remission. 3. Likewise this too: Where there is neither punishment nor remission, there is neither wrath nor grace. 4. Likewise this too: Where there is neither wrath nor grace, there is neither divine nor human government. 5. Likewise this too: Where there is neither divine nor human government, there is neither God nor man. 6. Likewise this too: Where there is neither God nor man, there is nothing except perhaps the devil. 7. Hence it is that the Antinomians, the enemies of the Law, evidently are either devils themselves or the brothers of the devil. 8. It avails the Antinomians nothing to boast that they teach very much of God, Christ, grace, Law, etc. 10. This confession of the Antinomians is like the one when the devils cried: 'Thou art the Son of the living God,' [Luke 4, 34; 8, 28.] 12. Whoever denies that the damning Law must be taught in reality simply denies the Law. 14. A law which does not damn is an imagined and painted law as the chimera or tragelaphus. 15. Nor is the political or natural law anything unless it damns and terrifies sinners Rom. 13, 1. 5; 1 Pet. 2, 13ff. 17. What the Antinomians say concerning God, Christ, faith, Law, grace, etc., they say without any meaning as the parrot says its '_chaire_, Good day!' 18. Hence it is impossible to learn theology or civil polity (_theologiam aut politiam_) from the Antinomians. 19. Therefore they must be avoided as most pestilential teachers of licentious living who permit the perpetration of all crimes. 20. For they serve not Christ, but their own belly [Rom. 16, 18], and, madmen that they are, seek to please men, in order that from them, as a man's judgment, they may gain glory." (Drews, 613; St. L. 20, 1647; E. 4, 441.)--Regarding Luther's disputations against the Antinomians Planck pertinently remarks that they compel admiration for his clear and penetrating mind, and rank among the very best of his writings. (1, 18; Frank 2, 311.)

192. "Grickel" Remained Grickel.

At the instance of Elector Joachim, negotiations were begun with Luther, which finally led to a sort of peaceful settlement. Agricola was required to send (which he also did) a revocation to the preachers, the council, and the congregation at Eisleben. However, the new and enlarged edition (1541) of the catechism which Agricola had published in 1527 revealed the fact that also this last recantation was insincere; for in it he repeated his antinomistic teaching, though not in the original defiant manner. Little wonder, then, that despite the formal settlement, cordial relations were not restored between Luther and Agricola. When the latter visited Wittenberg in 1545, Luther refused to see the man whom he regarded incurably dishonest. "Grickel," said he, "will remain Grickel to all eternity, _Grickel wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickel bleiben_."

And "Grickel" he did remain; for in 1565 he published a sermon in which he said: "Every one who is to be appointed as teacher and preacher shall be asked: What do you intend to teach in the church? He shall answer: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. But when further asked: What does the Gospel preach? he shall answer: The Gospel preaches repentance and forgiveness of sins." Considering this a further evidence that Agricola still adhered to, and was now ready once more to champion, his old errors, the preachers of Mansfeld registered their protest in a publication of the same year. A controversy, however, did not materialize, for Agricola died the following year. (Planck 5, 1, 47; Frank 2, 267.)

193. False Propositions of Agricola.

Following are some of Agricola's radical statements concerning the Law and the Gospel. The first thesis of his _Positions_ of 1537 reads: "Repentance is to be taught not from the Decalog or from any law of Moses, but from the violation of the Son through the Gospel. _Poenitentia docenda est non ex decalogo aut ulla lege Mosis, sed ex violatione Filii per evangelium_." (E. 4. 420.) Thesis 13: "In order to keep the Christian doctrine pure, we must resist those [Luther and Melanchthon] who teach that the Gospel must be preached only to such whose hearts have previously been terrified and broken by the Law. _Quare pro conservanda puritate doctrinae resistendum est iis, qui docent, evangelium non praedicandum nisi animis prius quassatis et contritis per legem_." (421.) Thesis 16: "The Law merely rebukes sin, and that, too, without the Holy Spirit; hence it rebukes to damnation." Thesis 17: "But there is need of a doctrine which does not only condemn with great efficacy, but which saves at the same time; this, however, is the Gospel, a doctrine which teaches conjointly repentance and remission of sins." (421.) In his _Brief Summary of the Gospel_, Agricola says: "In the New Testament and among Christians or in the Gospel we must not preach the violation of the Law when a man breaks or transgresses the Law, but the violation of the Son, to wit that he who does not for the sake of the kingdom of heaven willingly omit what he should omit, and does not do what he should do, crucifies Christ anew." (St. L. 20, 1622ff.; Frank 2, 313, Gieseler 3, 2, 137; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 265ff.)

A commingling of the Law and Gospel always results in a corruption of the doctrines of conversion, faith, and justification. Such was the case also with respect to Agricola, who taught that justification follows a contrition which flows from, and hence is preceded by, love toward God. Turning matters topsy-turvy, he taught: Repentance consists in this, that the heart of man, experiencing the kindness of God which calls us to Christ and presents us with His grace, turns about, apprehends God's grace, thanks Him heartily for having spared it so graciously, begins to repent, and to grieve heartily and sorrowfully on account of its sins, wishes to abstain from them, and renounces its former sinful life. "This," says Agricola, "is repentance (_poenitentia, Buessen_) and the first stage of the new birth, the true breathing and afflation of the Holy Spirit. After this he acquires a hearty confidence in God, believing that He will condone his folly and not blame him for it, since he did not know any better, although he is much ashamed of it and wishes that it had never happened; he also resolves, since he has fared so well, never to sin any more or to do anything that might make him unworthy of the benefit received as if he were ungrateful and forgetful; he furthermore learns to work out, confirm, and preserve his salvation in fear and trembling...: this is forgiveness of sins." (Frank 2, 247.) These confused ideas plainly show that Agricola had a false conception, not only of the Law and Gospel, but also of original sin, repentance, faith, regeneration, and justification. Essentially, his was the Roman doctrine, which makes an antecedent of what in reality is an effect and a consequence of conversion and justification. Viewed from this angle, it occasions little surprise that Agricola consented to help formulate and introduce the Augsburg Interim in which the essentials of Lutheranism were denied.

194. Poach, Otto, Musculus, Neander.

The antinomistic doctrines rejected, in particular, by Article VI of the _Formula of Concord_, were represented chiefly by Andrew Poach, Anton Otto, Andrew Musculus, and Michael Neander. Poach, born 1516, studied under Luther and was an opponent of the Philippists, he became pastor in Halle in 1541; in Nordhausen, 1547; in Erfurt, 1550; Uttenbach, near Jena, 1572, where he died 1585. At Erfurt, Poach was deposed in 1572 on account of dissensions due to the antinomistic controversies. He signed the _Book of Concord_.--Otto [Otho; also called Herzberger, because he was born in Herzberg, 1505] studied under Luther; served as pastor in Graefenthal, and from 1543 in Nordhausen where he was deposed in 1568 for adherence to Flacius. However, when Otto, while antagonizing Majorism and synergism, in sermons on the Letter to the Galatians of 1565 rejected the Third Use of the Law, he was opposed also by Flacius, who reminded him of the fact that here on earth the new man resembles a child, aye, an embryo, rather than a full-fledged man.

In his zealous opposition to the Majorists, Andrew Musculus (Meusel, born 1514; studied at Leipzig 1532-1538, then at Wittenberg; became a zealous and passionate adherent of Luther, whom he considered the greatest man since the days of the apostles; from 1540 till his death, September 29, 1581, professor and pastor, later on, General Superintendent, in Frankfurt-on-the-Oder) also made some extreme statements. Later on, however, he cooperated in preparing and revising the _Formula of Concord_. Musculus wrote of Luther: "There is as great a difference between the dear old teachers and Luther as there is between the light of the sun and that of the moon; and beyond all doubt, the ancient fathers, even the best and foremost among them, as Hilary and Augustine, had they lived contemporaneously with him, would not have hesitated to deliver the lamp to him, as the saying is." (Meusel, _Handl_. 4, 709; Richard, 450.)

The most prominent opponents of these Antinomians were the well-known theologians Moerlin, Flacius, Wigand, and Westphal (chiefly in letters to Poach). The controversy was carried on with moderation, and without any special efforts to cause trouble among the people. The main issue was not--as in the conflict with Agricola--whether the Law is necessary in order to effect contrition and prepare men for the Gospel, but the so-called Third Use of the Law (_tertius usus legis_), _i.e._, whether the Law is, and is intended to be, of service to Christians after their regeneration; in particular, whether the regenerate still need the Law with respect to their new obedience.

The conflict with Poach arose from the Majoristic controversy. Dealing in particular with the aberrations of Menius, the Synod at Eisenach, 1556, adopted seven theses which Menius was required to subscribe. The first declared: "Although the proposition, Good works are necessary to salvation, may be tolerated hypothetically and in an abstract way in the doctrine of the Law (_in doctrina legis abstractive et de idea tolerari potest_), nevertheless there are many weighty reasons why it ought and should be avoided no less than this one: Christ is a creature." (Preger 1, 383.) While Flacius, Wigand, and Moerlin defended the thesis, Amsdorf (who first, too, adopted it, but later on withdrew his assent; Seeberg 4, 488), Aurifaber, and especially Poach rejected it. This marked the beginning of the so-called Second Antinomistic Controversy. Poach denied that the Law has any promise of salvation. Even the most perfect fulfilment of the Law, said he, is but the fulfilment of a duty which merits no reward. The only thing one may acquire by a perfect fulfilment is freedom from guilt and punishment. Fulfilment of our duty (_solutio debiti_) does not warrant any claim on salvation. Yet Poach was careful to declare that this did not apply to the fulfilment of the Law which Christ rendered for us. Why? Poach answered: Because Christ, being the Son of God, was not obliged to fulfil the Law. When, therefore, He did fulfil it in our stead, He rendered satisfaction to divine justice, so that righteousness can now be imputed to us and we become partakers of eternal life.

Poach wrote: "It would not be correct to say: In the doctrine of the Law all the works commanded in the Law are necessary to salvation. _In doctrina legis omnia opera mandata in lege sunt necessaria ad salutem_." (Schluesselburg 4, 343.) Again: "The works of Christ, which are the fulfilment of the Law, are the merit of our salvation. Our works, which ought to have been the fulfilment of the Law, do not merit salvation, even though they were most perfect, as the Law requires,--which, however, is impossible. The reason is that we are debtors to the Law. Christ, however, is not a debtor to the Law. Even if we most perfectly fulfilled all the commandments of God and completely satisfied the righteousness of God, we would not be worthy of grace and salvation on that account, nor would God be obliged to give us grace and salvation as a debt. He justly demands the fulfilment of His Law from us as obedience due Him from His creature, which is bound to obey its Creator. _Etiamsi nos omnia mandata Dei perfectissime impleremus et iustitiae Dei penitus satisfaceremus, tamen non ideo digni essemus gratia et salute, nec Deus obligatus esset, ut nobis gratiam et salutem daret ex debito. Sed iure requirit impletionem legis suae a nobis, ut debitam obedientiam a sua creatura, quae conditori suo obedire tenetur_." (274.) Again: "The Law has not the necessity of salvation, but the necessity of obligation (_non habet lex necessitatem salutis, sed necessitatem debiti_). For, as said, even though a man would most perfectly do the works of the Law, he would not obtain salvation on account of these works. Nor is God under obligation to man, but man is under obligation to God. And in the Law God requires of man the obedience he owes; He does not require an obedience with the promise of salvation." (276.)

As to Otto, he distinguished, in a series of Latin theses a double office of the Law, the ecclesiastical; and political--_officium ecclesiasticum_ and _officium politicum_. The former is to give knowledge of sin; the latter, to coerce the old man and maintain order among the obstinate. He denied that the Law in any way serves Christians with respect to good works. Otto declared: "The Law is useful and necessary neither for justification nor for any good works. But faith in Christ the Mediator alone is useful and necessary both for justification and the good works themselves. _Lex enim non modo ad iustificationem sed neque ad ulla bona opera utilis et necessaria est. Sed sola fides in Christum mediatorem utilis et necessaria est tam ad iustificationem quam ad ipsa bona opera_." Quoting Luther, he said: "The highest art of Christians is to know nothing of the Law, to ignore works. _Summa ars Christianorum est nescire legem, ignorare opera_," _i.e._, in the article of justification, as Otto did not fail to add by way of explanation. (Luther, Weimar 40, 1, 43; Tschackert, 485.) Seeberg remarks that in reality, Poach and Otto were merely opposed to such an interpretation of the Third Use of the Law as made the Law a motive of good works, and hence could not be charged with antinomianism proper. (4, 488f.)

Planck, Frank, and other historians have fathered upon Otto also a series of radical German theses, which, however, were composed, not by Otto, but probably by some of his adherents. These theses, in which all of the errors of Agricola are revamped, were discussed at the Altenburg colloquy, 1568 to 1569; their author, however, was not mentioned. We submit the following: "1. The Law does not teach good works, nor should it be preached in order that we may do good works. 3. Moses knew nothing of our faith and religion. 5. Evangelical preachers are to preach the Gospel only, and no Law. 7. A Christian who believes should do absolutely nothing, neither what is good nor what is evil. 10. We should pray God that we may remain steadfast in faith till our end, without all works. 14. The Holy Spirit does not work according to the norm or rule of the Law, but by Himself, without the assistance of the Law. 16. A believing Christian is _supra omnem obedientiam_, above all Law and all obedience. 17. The rebuking sermons of the prophets do not at all pertain to Christians. 21. The Law, good works, and new obedience have no place in the kingdom of Christ, but in the world just as Moses and the government of the Pope. 25. The Law has no place in the Church or in the pulpit, but in the court-house (_Rathaus_). 28. The Third Use of the Law is a blasphemy in theology and a monstrosity in the realm of nature (_portentum in rerum natura_). 29. No man can be saved if the Third Use of the Law is true and is to be taught in the Church. The Holy Spirit in man knows nothing of the Law; the flesh, however, is betimes in need of the Law." (Tschackert, 485; Planck 5, 1, 62.) Frank also quotes: "The Christians or the regenerate are deified (_vergoettert_); yea, they are themselves God and cannot sin. God has not given you His Word that you should be saved thereby (_dass du dadurch sollst selig werden_); and whoever seeks no more from God than salvation (_Seligkeit_) seeks just as much as a louse in a scab. Such Christians are the devil's own, together with all their good works." (2, 326. 275.)

Also Musculus is numbered among the theologians who were not always sufficiently discreet and guarded in their statements concerning the necessity of good works and the use of the Law. All expressions of the Apostle Paul regarding the spiritual use of the Law, said Musculus, must be understood as referring to such only as are to be justified, not to those who are justified (_de iustificandis, non de iustificatis_). But he added: "For these, in as far as they remain in Christ, are far outside of and above every law. _Hi enim, quatenus in Christo manent, longe extra et supra omnem legem sunt_." (Tschackert. 486.)

Michael Neander of Ilfeld, a friend of Otto was also suspected of antinomianism. He denied that there is any relation whatever between the Law and a regenerate Christian. But he, too, was careful enough to add: "in as far as he is just or lives by the spirit, _quatenus est iustus seu spiritu vivit_." In a letter, Neander said: "I adhere to the opinion that the Law is not given to the just in any use or office whatsoever, in so far as he is just or lives by the spirit.... 'For the Law,' as Luther says in his marginal note to Jeremiah, chap. 31, 'is no longer over us, but under us, and does not surround us any more.' Love rules and governs all laws, and frequently something is true according to the Law, but false according to love (_saepeque aliquid lege verum, dilectione tamen falsum est_). For love is the statute, measure, norm, and rule of all things on earth.... The Law only accuses and damns, and apart from this it has no other use or office, _i.e._, the Law remains the norm of good works to all eternity, also in hell after the Last Day, but for the unjust and reprobate, and for the flesh in every man. To the just, regenerated, and new man, however, it is not the norm of good works, _i.e._, the Law does not govern, regulate, and teach the just man; _i.e._, it is not active with respect to him as it is with respect to an unjust man, but is rather regulated and governed and taught by the just man. It no longer drives the just (as it did before conversion and as it still drives the flesh), but is now driven and suffers, since as just men we are no longer under the Law, but above the Law and lords of the Law. How, therefore, can the Law be a norm to the just man when he is the lord of the Law, commands the Law, and frequently does what is contrary to the Law (_cum iustus legis sit dominus, legi imperet et saepe legi contraria faciat_)?... When the just man meditates in the Law of the Lord day and night, when he establishes the Law by faith, when he loves the Law and admires the inexhaustible wisdom of the divine Law, when he does good works written and prescribed in the Law (as indeed he alone can), when he uses the Law aright,--all these are neither the third, nor the fourth, nor the twelfth, nor the fiftieth use or office of the Law,... but fruits of faith, of the Spirit, or regeneration.... But the Old Man, who is not yet new, or a part of him which is not as yet regenerated, has need of this Law, and he is to be commanded: 'Put on the new man; put off the old.'" (Schluesselburg 4, 61; Tschackert, 484.)

195. Melanchthon and the Philippists.

A further controversy concerning the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel was caused by the Philippists in Wittenberg whose teaching was somewhat akin to that of Agricola. They held that the Gospel, in the narrow sense of the term, and as distinguished from the Law, is "the most powerful preaching of repentance." (Frank 2, 327.) Taking his cue from Luther, Melanchthon, in his _Loci_ of 1521 as well as in later writings, clearly distinguished between Law and Gospel. (_C. R._ 21, 139; 23, 49; 12, 576.) True, he had taught, also in the _Apology_, that, in the wider sense, the Gospel is both a preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sin. But this, as the _Formula of Concord_ explains, was perfectly correct and in keeping with the Scriptures. However, in repeating the statement that the Gospel embraces both the preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins, Melanchthon was not always sufficiently careful to preclude misapprehension and misunderstanding. Indeed, some of the statements he made after Luther's death are misleading, and did not escape the challenge of loyal Lutherans.

During a disputation in 1548, at which Melanchthon presided, Flacius criticized the unqualified assertion that the Gospel was a preaching of repentance, but was satisfied when Melanchthon explained that the term Gospel was here used in the wider sense, as comprising the entire doctrine of Christ. However, when Melanchthon, during another disputation, 1556, declared: The ministry of the Gospel "rebukes the other sins which the Law shows, as well as the saddest of sins which is revealed by the Gospel (_hoc tristissimum peccatum, quod in Evangelio ostenditur_), _viz._, that the world ignores and despises the Son of God." Flacius considered it his plain duty to register a public protest. It was a teaching which was, at least in part, the same error that Luther, and formerly also Melanchthon himself, had denounced when espoused by Agricola, _viz._, that genuine contrition is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel; by the preaching, not of the violation of the Law, but of the violation of the Son. (_C. R._ 12, 634. 640.)

These misleading statements of Melanchthon were religiously cultivated and zealously defended by the Wittenberg Philippists. With a good deal of animosity they emphasized that the Gospel in its most proper sense is also a preaching of repentance (_praedicatio poenitentiae, Busspredigt_), inasmuch as it revealed the baseness of sin and the greatness of its offense against God, and, in particular, inasmuch as the Gospel alone uncovered, rebuked, and condemned the hidden sin (_arcanum peccatum_) and the chief sin of all, the sin of unbelief (_incredulitas et neglectio Filii_), which alone condemns a man. These views, which evidently involved a commingling of the Law and the Gospel, were set forth by Paul Crell in his Disputation against John Wigand, 1571, and were defended in the _Propositions Concerning the Chief Controversies of These Times_ (also of 1571), by Pezel and other Wittenberg theologians. (Frank 2, 277. 323.)

As a consequence, the Philippists, too, were charged with antinomianism, and were strenuously opposed by such theologians as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Wigand. Wigand attacked the Wittenberg _Propositions_ in his book of 1571, _Concerning Antinomianism, Old and New_. Pezel answered in his _Apology of the True Doctrine on the Definition of the Gospel_, 1571; and Paul Crell, in _Spongia, or 150 Propositions Concerning the Definition of the Gospel, Opposed to the Stupid Accusation of John Wigand_, 1571. The teaching of the Philippists was formulated by Paul Crell as follows: "Since this greatest and chief sin [unbelief] is revealed, rebuked, and condemned by the Gospel alone, therefore also the Gospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, a preaching and a voice of repentance or conversion in its true and proper sense. _A solo evangelio, cum peccatum hoc summum et praecipuum monstretur, arguatur et damnetur expresse ac nominatim solum etiam evangelium vere ac proprie praedicatio ac vox est poenitentiae sive conversionis vere et proprie ita dictae_." (277. 327.)

This doctrine of the Philippists, according to which the Gospel in the narrow and proper sense, and as distinguished from the Law, is a preaching of repentance, was rejected by Article V of the _Formula of Concord_ as follows: "But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses himself as a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel, are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through Christ's merit." (803, 7.)

XVIII. The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy.

196. Contents and Purpose of Articles VII and VIII.

In all of its articles the _Formula of Concord_ is but a reafflrmation of the doctrines taught and defended by Luther. The fire of prolonged and hot controversies through which these doctrines passed after his death had but strengthened the Lutherans in their conviction that in every point Luther's teaching was indeed nothing but the pure Word of God itself. It had increased the consciousness that, in believing and teaching as they did, they were not following mere human authorities, such as Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, but the Holy Scriptures, by which alone their consciences were bound. Articles VII and VIII of the _Formula of Concord_, too, reassert Luther's doctrines on the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ as being in every particular the clear and unmistakable teaching of the divine Word,--two doctrines, by the way, which perhaps more than any other serve as the acid test whether the fundamental attitude of a church or a theologian is truly Scriptural and fully free from every rationalistic and enthusiastic infection.

The Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of the true body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating and drinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing communicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood of Christ, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neither a local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal and transcendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is not Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real presence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent power of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the Sacrament.

The Eighth Article treats of the person of Christ, of the personal union of His two natures, of the communication of these natures as well as of their attributes, and, in particular, of the impartation of the truly divine majesty to His human nature and the terminology resulting therefrom. One particular object of Article VIII is also to show that the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, as taught by the Lutheran Church, does not, as was contended by her Zwinglian and Calvinistic adversaries, conflict in any way with what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ, His human nature, His ascension, and His sitting at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. The so-called Appendix, or Catalogus, a collection of passages from the Bible and from the fathers of the ancient Church, prepared by Andreae and Chemnitz was added to the _Formula of Concord_ (though not as an authoritative part of it) in further support of the Lutheran doctrine particularly concerning the divine majesty of the human nature of Christ.

Both articles, the seventh as well as the eighth, were incorporated in the _Formula of Concord_ in order thoroughly to purify the Lutheran Church from Reformed errors concerning the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ, which after Luther's death had wormed their way into some of her schools and churches, especially those of Electoral Saxony, and to make her forever immune against the infection of Calvinism (Crypto-Calvinism)--a term which, during the controversies preceding the _Formula of Concord_ did not, as is generally the case to-day, refer to Calvin's absolute decree of election and reprobation, but to his doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as formulated by himself in the _Consensus Tigurinus_ (Zurich Consensus), issued 1549. The subtitle of this confession reads: "Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria Ministrorum Tigurinae Ecclesiae, et D. Iohannis Calvini Ministri Genevensis Ecclesiae, iam nunc ab ipsis autoribus edita." In this confession, therefore, Calvin declares his agreement with the teaching of Zwingli as represented by his followers in Zurich, notably Bullinger. Strenuous efforts were made by the Calvinists and Reformed everywhere to make the _Consensus Tigurinus_ the basis of a pan-Protestant union, and at the same time the banner under which to conquer all Protestant countries, Lutheran Germany included, for what must be regarded as being essentially Zwinglianism. The _Consensus_ was adopted in Switzerland, England, France, and Holland. In Lutheran territories, too, its teaching was rapidly gaining friends, notably in Southern Germany, where Bucer had prepared the way for it, and in Electoral Saxony where the Philippists offered no resistance. Garnished as it was with glittering and seemingly orthodox phrases, the _Consensus Tigurinus_ lent itself admirably for such Reformed propaganda. "The consequence was," says the _Formula of Concord_, "that many great men were deceived by these fine, plausible words--_splendidis et magnificis verbis_." (973, 6.) To counteract this deception, to establish Luther's doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, and to defend it against the sophistries of the Sacramentarians: Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Crypto-Calvinists--such was the object of Articles VII and VIII of the _Formula of Concord_.

197. John Calvin.

Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France. He began his studies in Paris, 1523 preparing for theology. In 1529 his father induced him to take up law in Orleans and Bourges. In 1531 he returned to his theological studies in Paris. Here he experienced what he himself describes as a "sudden conversion." He joined the Reformed congregation, and before long was its acknowledged leader. In 1533 he was compelled to leave France because of his anti-Roman testimony. In Basel, 1535, he wrote the first draft of his _Institutio Religionis Christianae_. In Geneva where he was constrained to remain by William Farel [born 1489; active as a fiery Protestant preacher in Meaux, Strassburg, Zurich, Bern, Basel, Moempelgard, Geneva, Metz, etc.; died 1565], Calvin developed and endeavored to put into practise his legalistic ideal of a theocratic and rigorous puritanical government. As a result he was banished, 1538. He removed to Strassburg, where he was held and engaged by Bucer. He attended the conventions in Frankfort, 1539; Hagenau, 1540; Worms, 1540; and Regensburg, 1541. Here he got acquainted with the Lutherans notably Melanchthon. September 13, 1541, he returned to Geneva, where, woefully mixing State and Church, he continued his reformatory and puritanical efforts. One of the victims of his theocratic government was the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus, who, at the instance of Calvin, was burned at the stake, October 27, 1553. In 1559 Calvin established the Geneva School, which exercised a far-reaching theological influence. He died May 27, 1564.