Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

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.

Calvin repeatedly expressed his unbounded admiration for Luther as a "preeminent servant of Christ —praeclarus Christi servus." (C. R. 37, 54.) In his Answer of 1543 against the Romanist Pighius he said: "Concerning Luther we testify without dissimulation now as heretofore that we esteem him as a distinguished apostle of Christ, by whose labor and service, above all, the purity of the Gospel has been restored at this time. De Luthero nunc quoque sicut hactenus non dissimulanter testamur, eum nos habere pro insigni Christi apostolo, cuius maxime opera et ministerio restituta hoc tempore fuerit Evangelii puritas." (Gieseler 3, 2, 169.) Even after Luther had published his Brief Confession, in which he unsparingly denounces the Sacramentarians (deniers of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper), and severs all connection with them, Calvin admonished Bullinger in a letter dated November 25, 1544, to bear in mind what a great and wonderfully gifted man Luther was, and with what fortitude, ability, and powerful teaching he had shattered the kingdom of Antichrist and propagated the salutary doctrine. "I am frequently accustomed to say," he declared, "that, even if he should call me a devil I would accord him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent servant of God." In the original the remarkable words of Calvin read as follows: "Sed haec cupio vobis in mentem venire, primum quantus sit vir Lutherus, et quantis dotibus excellat, quanta animi fortitudine et constantia quanta dexteritate, quanta doctrinae efficacia hactenus ad profligandum Antichristi regnum et simul propagandam salutis doctrinam incubuerit. Saepe dicere solitus sum, etiamsi me diabolum vocaret, me tamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam, qui tamen, ut pollet eximiis virtutibus, ita magnis vitiis laboret." (Gieseler 3, 2, 169; C. R. 39 [Calvini Opp. 11], 774.)

However, though he admired the personality of Luther, Calvin, like Zwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg 1529, revealed a theological spirit which was altogether different from Luther's. In particular, he was violently opposed to Luther's doctrines of the real presence in the Lord's Supper and of the majesty of the human nature of Christ. Revealing his animus, Calvin branded the staunch and earnest defenders of these doctrines as the "apes" of Luther. In his Second Defense against Westphal, 1556, he exclaimed: "O Luther, how few imitators of your excellences, but how many apes of your pious ostentation have you left behind! O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quam multas vero sanctae tuae iactantiae simias reliquisti!" (Gieseler 3, 2, 209.)

True, when in Strassburg, Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession (1539 or 1540), and was generally considered a Lutheran. However, in his Last Admonition to Westphal, of 1557 and in a letter of the same year to Martin Schalling, Calvin wrote: "Nor do I repudiate the Augsburg Confession, to which I have previously subscribed, in the sense in which the author himself [Melanchthon in the Variata of 1540] has interpreted it. Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est." (C. R. 37, 148.) According to his own confession, therefore, Calvin's subscription to the Augustana, at least as far as the article of the Lord's Supper is concerned, was insincere and nugatory. In fact Calvin must be regarded as the real originator of the second controversy on the Lord's Supper between the Lutherans and the Reformed, even as the first conflict on this question was begun, not by Luther, but by his opponents, Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius. For the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549, referred to above, cannot but be viewed as an overt act by which the Wittenberg Concord, signed 1536 by representative Lutheran and Reformed theologians, was publicly repudiated and abandoned by Calvin and his adherents, and whereby an anti-Lutheran propaganda on an essentially Zwinglian basis was inaugurated. Calvin confirmed the schism between the Lutherans and the Reformed which Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius had originated.

198. Calvin's Zwinglianism

The doctrine of Calvin and his adherents concerning the Lord's Supper is frequently characterized as a materially modified Zwinglianism. Schaff maintains that "Calvin's theory took a middle course, retaining, on the basis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith, and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in Switzerland, gained much favor in Germany and opened a fair prospect for union." (Creeds 1, 280.) As a matter of fact, however, a fact admitted also by such Calvinists as Hodge and Shedd, Calvin's doctrine was a denial in toto of the real presence as taught by Luther. (Pieper, Dogm. 3, 354.) Calvin held that after His ascension Christ, according to His human nature, was locally enclosed in heaven, far away from the earth. Hence he denied also the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Holy Supper. In fact, Calvin's doctrine was nothing but a polished form of Zwingli's crude teaching, couched in phrases approaching the Lutheran terminology as closely as possible. Even where he paraded as Luther, Calvin was but Zwingli disguised (and poorly at that) in a seemingly orthodox garb and promenading with several imitation Lutheran feathers in his hat.

In the Formula of Concord we read: "Although some Sacramentarians strive to employ words that come as close as possible to the Augsburg Confession and the form and mode of speech in its churches, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is truly received by believers, still, when we insist that they state their meaning properly, sincerely, and clearly, they all declare themselves unanimously thus: that the true essential body and blood of Christ is absent from the consecrated bread and wine in the Holy Supper as far as the highest heaven is from the earth… Therefore they understand this presence of the body of Christ not as a presence here upon earth, but only respectu fidei (with respect to faith), that is, that our faith, reminded and excited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates itself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but nevertheless spiritual only;… consequently nothing else is received by the mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine." (971, 2f.) This is, and was intended to be, a presentation of Calvinism as being nothing but Zwinglianism clothed in seemingly orthodox phrases.

That this picture drawn by the Formula of Concord is not a caricature or in any point a misrepresentation of Calvinism appears from the Consensus Tigurinus itself, where we read: "In as far as Christ is a man, He is to be sought nowhere else than in heaven and in no other manner than with the mind and the understanding of faith. Therefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to include Him under elements of this world. Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo nec aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perversa et impia superstitio est, ipsum sub elementis huius mundi includere." Again: "We repudiate those [who urge the literal interpretation of the words of institution] as preposterous interpreters." "For beyond controversy, they are to be taken figuratively… as when by metonymy the name of the symbolized thing is transferred to the sign —ut per metonymiam ad signum transferatur rei figuratae nomen." Again: "Nor do we regard it as less absurd to place Christ under, and to unite Him with, the bread than to change the bread into His body. Neque enim minus absurdum iudicamus, Christum sub pane locare vel cum pane copulare, quam panem transubstantiare in corpus eius." Again: "When we say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this mode of speech expresses a distance of place… because the body of Christ… being finite and contained in heaven, as in a place, must of necessity be removed from us by as great a distance as the heaven is removed from the earth —necesse est, a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quanto caelum abest a terra." (Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum, 196.) Such was the teaching cunningly advocated by Calvin and his adherents the Crypto-Calvinists in Germany included but boldly and firmly opposed by the loyal Lutherans, and finally disposed of by Articles VII and VIII of the Formula of Concord.

199. Melanchthon's Public Attitude

As stated, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper was received with increasing favor also in Lutheran territories, notably in Southern Germany and Electoral Saxony, where the number of theologians and laymen who secretly adopted and began to spread it was rapidly increasing. They were called Crypto-Calvinists (secret or masked Calvinists) because, while they subscribed to the Augsburg Confession, claimed to be loyal Lutherans, and occupied most important positions in the Lutheran Church, they in reality were propagandists of Calvinism, zealously endeavoring to suppress Luther's books and doctrines, and to substitute for them the views of Calvin. Indeed, Calvin claimed both privately and publicly that Melanchthon himself was his ally. And, entirely apart from what the latter may privately have confided to him, there can be little doubt that Calvin's assertions were not altogether without foundation. In fact, theologically as well as ethically, Melanchthon must be regarded as the spiritual father also of the Crypto-Calvinists.

True, originally Melanchthon fully shared Luther's views on the Lord's Supper. At Marburg, 1529, he was still violently opposed to the Zwinglians and their "profane" teaching in an Opinion on Carlstadt's doctrine, of October 9, 1625, he affirms that Christ, both as God and man, i. e., with His body and blood is present in the Supper. (C. R. 1, 760.) In September of the following year he wrote to Philip Eberbach: "Know that Luther's teaching [concerning the Lord's Supper] is very old in the Church. Hoc scito, Lutheri sententiam perveterem in ecclesia esse." (823.) This he repeats in a letter of November 11, also to Eberbach. In an Opinion of May 15 1529: "I am satisfied that I shall not agree with the Strassburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingli and his compeers write falsely concerning the Sacrament." (1067.) June 20 1529, to Jerome Baumgaertner: "I would rather die than see our people become contaminated by the society of the Zwinglian cause. Nam mori malim, quam societate Cinglianae causae nostros contaminare. My dear Jerome, it is a great cause, but few consider it. I shall be lashed to death on account of this matter." (C. R. 1, 1077; 2, 18.) November 2, 1529, to John Fesel: "I admonish you most earnestly to avoid the Zwinglian dogmas. Your Judimagister [Eberbach], I fear, loves these profane disputations too much. I know that the teaching of Zwingli can be upheld neither with the Scriptures nor with the authority of the ancients. Concerning the Lord's Supper, therefore, teach as Luther does." (1, 1109.) In February, 1530, he wrote: "The testimonies of ancient writers concerning the Lord's Supper which I have compiled are now being printed." (2, 18.) In this publication Melanchthon endeavored to show by quotations from Cyril, Chrysostom Vulgarius, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Augustine that Zwingli's interpretation of the words of institution does not agree with that of the ancient Church. (23, 732.) According to his own statement, Melanchthon embodied Luther's doctrine in the Augsburg Confession and rejected that of the Zwinglians. (2, 142. 212.)

At Augsburg, Melanchthon was much provoked also when he heard that Bucer claimed to be in doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. In his Opinion Concerning the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians, written in August, 1530, we read: "1. The Zwinglians believe that the body of the Lord can be present in but one place. 2. Likewise that the body of Christ cannot be anywhere except locally only. They vehemently contend that it is contrary to the nature of a body to be anywhere in a manner not local; also, that it is inconsistent with the nature of a body to be in different places at the same time. 3. For this reason they conclude that the body of Christ is circumscribed in heaven in a certain place, so that it can in no way be elsewhere at the same time and that in truth and reality it is far away from the bread, and not in the bread and with the bread. 4. Bucer is therefore manifestly wrong in contending that they [the Zwinglians] are in agreement with us. For we say that it is not necessary for the body of Christ to be in but one place. We say that it can be in different places, whether this occurs locally or in some other secret way by which different places are as one point present at the same time to the person of Christ. We, therefore, affirm a true and real presence of the body of Christ with the bread. 5. If Bucer wishes to accept the opinion of Zwingli and Oecolampadius, he will never dare to say that the body of Christ is really with the bread without geometric distance. 9. Here they [the Zwinglians] wish the word 'presence' to be understood only concerning efficacy and the Holy Spirit. 10. We, however, require not only the presence of power, but of the body. This Bucer purposely disguises. 11. They simply hold that the body of Christ is in heaven, and that in reality it is neither with the bread nor in the bread. 12. Nevertheless they say that the body of Christ is truly present, but by contemplation of faith, i. e., by imagination. 13. Such is simply their opinion. They deceive men by saying that the body is truly present, yet adding afterwards, 'by contemplation of faith,' i. e., by imagination. 14. We teach that Christ's body is truly and really present with the bread or in the bread. 15. Although we say that the body of Christ is really present, Luther does not say that it is present locally, namely, in some mass, by circumscription; but in the manner by which Christ's person or the entire Christ is present to all creatures… We deny transubstantiation, and that the body is locally in the bread," etc. (2, 222. 311. 315.)

Such were the views of Melanchthon in and before 1530. And publicly and formally he continued to adhere to Luther's teaching. In an Opinion written 1534, prior to his convention with Bucer at Cassel, he said: "If Christ were a mere creature and not God, He would not be with us essentially, even if He had the government; but since He is God, He gives His body as a testimony that He is essentially with us always. This sense of the Sacrament is both simple and comforting… Therefore I conclude that Christ's body and blood are truly with the bread and wine, that is to say, Christ essentially, not figuratively. But here we must cast aside the thoughts proffered by reason, viz., how Christ ascends and descends, hides Himself in the bread, and is nowhere else." (2. 801.) In 1536 Melanchthon signed the Wittenberg Concord, which plainly taught that the body and blood of Christ are received also by unworthy guests. (CONC. TRIGL. 977, 12ff.) In 1537 he subscribed to the Smalcald Articles, in which Luther brought out his doctrine of the real presence in most unequivocal terms, declaring that "bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians." (CONC. TRIGL. 493, 1.) In his letter to Flacius of September 5, 1556, Melanchthon solemnly declared: "I have never changed the doctrine of the Confession." (C. R. 8, 841.) September 6, 1557, he wrote: "We all embrace and retain the Confession together with the Apology and the confession of Luther written previous to the Synod at Mantua." (9, 260.) Again, in November of the same year: "Regarding the Lord's Supper, we retain the Augsburg Confession and Apology." (9, 371.) In an Opinion of March 4, 1558, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper the Son of God is truly and substantially present in such a manner that when we use it, ["]He gives us with the bread and wine His body," etc., and that Zwingli was wrong when he declared "that it is a mere outward sign, and that Christ is not essentially present in it, and that it is a mere sign by which Christians know each other." (9, 472f.) Several months before his death, in his preface to the Corpus Philippicum, Melanchthon declared that in the Holy Supper "Christ is truly and substantially present and truly administered to those who take the body and blood of Christ," and that in it "He gives His body and blood to him who eats and drinks." (Richard. 389.)

200. Melanchthon's Private Views

While Melanchthon in a public and formal way, continued, in the manner indicated, to maintain orthodox appearances till his death, he had inwardly and in reality since 1530 come to be more and more of a stranger to Luther's firmness of conviction, also with respect to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Influenced by an undue respect for the authority of the ancient fathers and misled by his reason or, as Luther put it, by his philosophy, he gradually lost his firm hold on the clear words of the institution of the Holy Supper. As a result he became a wavering reed, driven to and fro with the wind, now verging toward Luther, now toward Calvin. Always oscillating between truth and error, he was unable to rise to the certainty of firm doctrinal conviction, and the immovable stand which characterized Luther. In a letter dated May 24, 1538, in which he revealed the torments of his distracted and doubting soul, he wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Know that for ten years neither a night nor a day has passed in which I did not reflect on this matter," the Lord's Supper. (C. R. 3, 537.) And his doubts led to a departure from his own former position, – a fact for which also sufficient evidences are not wholly lacking. "Already in 1531," says Seeberg, "Melanchthon secretly expressed his opinion plainly enough to the effect that it was sufficient to acknowledge a presence of the divinity of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but not a union of the body and the bread. Ep., p.85." (Dogg. 4, 2, 447.)

That Melanchthon's later public statements and protestations concerning his faithful adherence to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession must be more or less discounted, appears, apart from other considerations, from his own admission that he was wont to dissimulate in these and other matters; from his private letters, in which he favorably refers to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution; from his communication to Philip of Hesse with regard to Luther's article on the Lord's Supper at Smalcald, referred to in a previous chapter; from the changes which he made 1540 in Article X of the Augsburg Confession; from his later indefinite statements concerning the real presence in the Holy Supper; from his intimate relations and his cordial correspondence with Calvin; from his public indifference and neutrality during the eucharistic controversy with the Calvinists; and from his unfriendly attitude toward the champions of Luther in this conflict.

201. Misled by Oecolampadius and Bucer

That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities rather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that Oecolampadius's Dialogus of 1530 – which endeavored to show that the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in the writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine, and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (C. R. 2, 217), says, was written "with greater exactness (accuratius) than he is otherwise wont to write" – made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is shown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer, he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a result, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the Zwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the conference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong terms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating and drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is truly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's Opinion in this matter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa das unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi gegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den Zaehnen zerbissen werde." (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when writing thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his object merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the sacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return from Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at Cassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign opinion. (C. R. 2, 822)

As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the compromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood are truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not really connected with the bread and wine, the signs or signa exhibitiva, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther and Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remaining question therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread and body, – and of what need is this question? Tantum igitur reliqua est quaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid opus est?" (C. R. 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he had written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and wine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I would not demand anything further." (C. R. 2, 787.) In February he wrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far from the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us (reipsa convenire); nor do I condemn them." (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065.) This, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthon said: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of Bucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet. Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare." (C. R. 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062.) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip of Hesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one hand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the other, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (C. R. 2, 836. 841.)

202. Secret Letters and the Variata of 1540

In the letter to Camerarius of January 10, 1535, referred to in the preceding paragraph, Melanchthon plainly indicates that his views of the Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion now," says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me, although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally or when I shall have more reliable messengers. Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo, quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios." (2, 822.) Two days later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he regarded as dangerous, as, e. g., in his defamatory letter to Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; C. R. 1, 754), in which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who are to be execrated… Concerning the Concord, however, no action whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the mystery typically and tropically [peri tupou kai tropikos], while the opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on account of this opinion. And many applaud such judgments without any good reason, and strengthen the fury of the tyrants. To tell the truth, this matter pains me not a little. Therefore my only request is that you do not pass on this matter rashly, but consult also the ancient Church. I most fervently desire that a concord be effected without any sophistry. But I desire also that good men may be able to confer on this great matter in a friendly manner. Thus a concord might be established without sophistry. For I do not doubt that the adversaries would gladly abandon the entire dogma if they believed that it was new. You know that among them are many very good men. Now they incline toward Luther, being moved by a few testimonies of ecclesiastical writers. What, then, do you think, ought to be done? Will you forbid also that we confer together? As for me, I desire that we may be able frequently to confer together on this matter as well as on many others. You see that in other articles they as well as we now explain many things more skilfully (dexterius) since they have begun to be agitated among us more diligently. However, I conclude and ask you to put the best construction on this letter, and, after reading it, to tear it up immediately, and to show it to nobody." (C. R. 2, 823f.; Luther, St. L. 17, 2060.)

In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated April 23, 1538, Melanchthon declares: "In order not to deviate too far from the ancients, I have maintained a sacramental presence in the use, and said that, when these things are given, Christ is truly present and efficacious. That is certainly enough. I have not added an inclusion or a connection by which the body is affixed to, concatenated or mixed with, the bread. Sacraments are covenants [assuring us] that something else is present when the things are received. Nec addidi inclusionem aut coniunctionem talem, qua affigeretur to arto, to soma, aut ferruminaretur, aut misceretur. Sacramenta pacta sunt, ut rebus sumptis adsit aliud… What more do you desire? And this will have to be resorted to lest you defend what some even now are saying, viz., that the body and blood are tendered separately —separatim tradi corpus et sanguinem. This too, is new and will not even please the Papists. Error is fruitful, as the saying goes. That physical connection (illa physica coniunctio) breeds many questions: Whether the parts are separate; whether included; when [in what moment] they are present; whether [they are present] apart from the use. Of this nothing is read among the ancients. Nor do I, my dear Veit, carry these disputations into the Church; and in the Loci I have spoken so sparingly on this matter in order to lead the youth away from these questions. Such is in brief and categorically what I think. But I wish that the two most cruel tyrants, animosity and sophistry, would be removed for a while, and a just deliberation held concerning the entire matter. If I have not satisfied you by this simple answer, I shall expect of you a longer discussion. I judge that in this manner I am speaking piously, carefully, and modestly concerning the symbols, and approach as closely as possible to the opinion of the ancients." (C. R. 3, 514f.) A month later, May 24, Melanchthon again added: "I have simply written you what I think, nor do I detract anything from the words. For I know that Christ is truly and substantially present and efficacious when we use the symbols. You also admit a synecdoche. But to add a division and separation of the body and blood, that is something altogether new and unheard of in the universal ancient Church." (3, 536; 7, 882.)

Evidently, then, Melanchchton's attitude toward the Reformed and his views concerning the Lord's Supper had undergone remarkable changes since 1530. And in order to clear the track for his own changed sentiments and to enable the Reformed, in the interest of an ultimate union, to subscribe the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon, in 1540, altered its Tenth Article in the manner set forth in a previous chapter. Schaff remarks: Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper "was in various ways officially recognized in the Augsburg Confession of 1540." (1, 280.) Such at any rate was the construction the Reformed everywhere put on the alteration. It was generally regarded by them to be an essential concession to Calvinism. Melanchthon, too, was well aware of this; but he did absolutely nothing to obviate this interpretation – no doubt, because it certainly was not very far from the truth.

203. Not in Sympathy with Lutheran Champions

When Westphal, in 1552, pointed out the Calvinistic menace and sounded the tocsin, loyal Lutherans everywhere enlisted in the controversy to defend Luther's doctrine concerning the real presence and the divine majesty of Christ's human nature. But Melanchthon again utterly failed the Lutheran Church both as a leader and a private. For although Lutheranism in this controversy was fighting for its very existence, Master Philip remained silent, non-committal, neutral. Viewed in the light of the conditions then prevailing, it was impossible to construe this attitude as pro-Lutheran. Moreover, whenever and wherever Melanchthon, in his letters and opinions written during this controversy, did show his colors to some extent, it was but too apparent that his mind and heart was with the enemies rather than with the champions of Lutheranism. For while his letters abound with flings and thrusts against the men who defended the doctrines of the sacramental union and the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, he led Calvin and his adherents to believe that he was in sympathy with them and their cause.

Melanchthon's animosity ran high not only against such extremists as Saliger (Beatus) and Fredeland (both were deposed in Luebeck 1568 and Saliger again in Rostock 1569) who taught that in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, denouncing all who denied this as Sacramentarians (Gieseler 3, 2, 257), but also against all those who faithfully adhered to, and defended, Luther's phraseology concerning the Lord's Supper. He rejected the teaching of Westphal and the Hamburg ministers, according to which in the Lord's Supper, the bread is properly called the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, and stigmatized their doctrine as "bread-worship, artolatreia." (C. R. 8, 362. 660. 791; 9, 470. 962.)

In a similar manner Melanchthon ridiculed the old Lutheran teaching of the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature as a new and foolish doctrine. Concerning the Confession and Report of the Wuerttemberg Theologians, framed by Brenz and adopted 1559, which emphatically asserted the real presence, as well as the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature, Melanchthon remarked contemptuously in a letter to Jacob Runge, dated February 1, 1560 and in a letter to G. Cracow, dated February 3, 1560, that he could not characterize "the decree of the Wuerttemberg Fathers (Abbates Wirtebergenses) more aptly than as Hechinger Latin (Hechingense Latinum, Hechinger Latein)," i. e., as absurd and insipid teaching. (9, 1035f.; 7, 780. 884.)

204. Melanchthon Claimed by Calvin

In 1554 Nicholas Gallus of Regensburg republished, with a preface of his own, Philip Melanchthon's Opinions of Some Ancient Writers Concerning the Lord's Supper. The timely reappearance of this book, which Melanchthon, in 1530, had directed against the Zwinglians, was most embarrassing to him as well as to his friend Calvin. The latter, therefore, now urged him to break his silence and come out openly against his public assailants. But Melanchthon did not consider it expedient to comply with this request. Privately, however, he answered, October 14, 1554: "As regards your admonition in your last letter that I repress the ignorant clamors of those who renew the strife concerning the bread-worship, know that some of them carry on this disputation out of hatred toward me in order to have a plausible reason for oppressing me. Quod me hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam praecipue odio mei eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me opprimendum." (8, 362.)

Fully persuaded that he was in complete doctrinal agreement with his Wittenberg friend on the controverted questions, Calvin finally, in his Last Admonition (Ultima Admonitio) to Westphal, 1557, publicly claimed Melanchthon as his ally, and implored him to give public testimony "that they [the Calvinists and Zwinglians] teach nothing foreign to the Augsburg Confession, nihil alienum nos tradere a Confessione Augustana." "I confirm," Calvin here declared, "that in this cause [concerning the Lord's Supper] Philip can no more be torn from me than from his own bowels. Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli." (C. R. 37 [Calvini Opp. 9], 148. 149. 193. 466; Gieseler 3, 2, 219, Tschackert, 536.) Melanchthon, however, continued to preserve his sphinxlike silence, which indeed declared as loud as words could have done that he favored the Calvinists, and was opposed to those who defended Luther's doctrine. To Mordeisen he wrote, November 15, 1557: "If you will permit me to live at a different place, I shall reply, both truthfully and earnestly to these unlearned sycophants, and say things that are useful to the Church." (C. R. 9, 374.)

After the death of Melanchthon, Calvin wrote in his Dilucida Explicatio against Hesshusius, 1561: "O Philip Melanchthon! For it is to you that I appeal, who art living with Christ in the presence of God and there waiting for us until we shall be assembled with you into blessed rest. A hundred times you have said, when, fatigued with labor and overwhelmed with cares, you, as an intimate friend, familiarly laid your head upon my breast: Would to God I might die on this bosom! But afterwards I have wished a thousand times that we might be granted to be together. You would certainly have been more courageous to engage in battle and stronger to despise envy, and disregard false accusations. In this way, too, the wickedness of many would have been restrained whose audacity to revile grew from your pliability, as they called it. O Philippe Melanchthon! Te enim appello, qui apud Deum cum Christo vivis, nosque illic exspectas, donec tecum in beatam quietem colligamur. Dixisti centies, quum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu! Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus. Certe animosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina et ad spernendam invidiam falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quoque modo cohibita fuisset multorum improbitos, quibus ex tua mollitie, quam vocabant, crevit insultandi audacia." (C. R. 37 [Calvini Opp. 9], 461f.) It was not Melanchthon, but Westphal, who disputed Calvin's claim by publishing (1557) extracts from Melanchthon's former writings under the title: Clarissimi Viri Ph. Melanchthonis Sententia de Coena Domini, ex scriptis eius collecta. But, alas, the voice of the later Melanchthon was not that of the former!

205. Advising the Crypto-Calvinists

In various other ways Melanchthon showed his impatience with the defenders of Luther's doctrine and his sympathy with their Calvinistic opponents. When Timann of Bremen, who sided with Westphal, opposed Hardenberg, a secret, but decided Calvinist, Melanchthon admonished the latter not to rush into a conflict with his colleagues, but to dissimulate. He says in a letter of April 23, 1556: "Te autem oro, ne properes ad certamen cum collegis. Oro etiam, ut multa dissimules." (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-worship 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 assistant 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 illustrious 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 God 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 associating also with the Swiss." (25.) Schaff: "Melanchthon's later view of the Lord's Supper agreed essentially with that of Calvin." (1, 280.)