THE CONFLICT WITH OSIANDER.
We can briefly pass over a conflict which arose in Hamburg, concerning
the object of Christ's descent into hell. The superintendent, AEPINUS, of
that place, had expressed the opinion that Christ's descent into hell
was the last stage of his humiliation, and that he there suffered the
pains of hell for us. The Wittenbergers, at the head of whom we are
always to regard Melanchthon, declared in an opinion that the descent
into hell represented Christ's victory over hell and the devil, and
counted it, as it indeed is, one of the stages of his exaltation. But,
although the contending parties were not entirely satisfied, yet this
conflict did not produce such results as that excited by OSIANDER, in
regard to the doctrine of Justification, which may be called the heart's
blood of the Evangelical Church. Andrew Osiander, or Hosenmann, or
Hosen-Enderlein, was born of poor parents in Gunzenhausen, December
19th, 1498. He contended with great poverty in the school and
University; but, by his talents, he soon acquired great knowledge, yet
not equal to that of the learned Wittenberg Professor. Melanchthon
always recognized his talents and other excellent gifts, so that he was
anxious to draw him to Wittenberg to occupy the chair of Cruciger, when
Osiander no longer wished to remain as Pastor in Nuremberg, on account
of the Interim. Duke Albert of Prussia had once heard Osiander preach in
Nuremberg, and had been gained over to the side of the Gospel by that
sermon. The Duke always remembered this gratefully, and was rejoiced
that he was now able to call him as first professor of Divinity, to the
new University of Koenigsberg, in 1544. In his very first disputation,
held April, 1549, he spoke of _Justification_, but in such a way, that
it was very evident that he did not stand upon the ground of the
Evangelical, but rather of the Catholic Church. He explained
_Justification_ as meaning "to make just," and concluded that man
becomes just before God by means of the righteousness or holiness
communicated to him. He also entirely separated repentance from faith.
When Melanchthon at first heard indistinct rumors of this Koenigsburg
dispute, he regarded it as a mere battle of words; but he came to a very
different conclusion when he received further particulars. On the 12th
of August he wrote to Camerarius concerning Osiander, that he denied all
imputation. And to a friend in Pomerania: "I do not believe that
Osiander's controversy is a mere dispute about words, but he differs
from our Church in a very important matter, and darkens our only
consolation in true conflicts, or rather destroys it, by teaching us to
rely upon essential righteousness, and does not lead us to the promise
which offers us mercy by the obedience of the Mediator." Osiander
continued to express his views more boldly, and was much displeased with
those who were constantly appealing to Melanchthon. He said that they
should no longer offend him by the stupid words: "Our preceptor
Philippus teaches differently!" The confusion in Koenigsberg increased.
He now also published his work: "A Confession concerning the only
mediator Jesus Christ, and Justification." In this he maintains that the
Redemption, by the death of Christ, has been bestowed upon all men. By
Justification, man is not only _declared to be righteous_, but he is
_made righteous_, inasmuch as the essential righteousness of God is
communicated to him through faith in Jesus Christ. He disregarded the
human nature of Christ entirely, and laid all stress upon his divinity,
the righteousness of which enters the heart. He thus continued to adhere
to his Catholic doctrine of Justification.
On the 1st of May, 1551, Melanchthon wrote a friendly letter to
Osiander, in which he assures him of his high esteem, and says: "You are
greatly mistaken if you suspect me of entertaining different feelings."
He at the same time also, in a supplement, added a few propositions for
serious examination. But at last, when the views of Osiander seemed to
be spreading more and more, he in January, 1552, published his
well-known work: "Reply to the work of Mr. Andrew Osiander concerning
the justification of man." As this work presents the pure doctrine of
the Evangelical Church concerning justification, in a clear and calm
manner, and at the same time also displays the amiable character of
Melanchthon, it will not be amiss to present some extracts. He says in
the beginning, that he rejoiced that others had also expressed their
views in regard to this article; however, he would likewise speak,
having been called upon to do so, by many distinguished and other
persons. He would express his opinions in a clear and simple manner, in
order that those who have been filled with trouble and sorrow by this
dispute, may see upon what it rests, and what will be for the comfort of
their souls. He had never intended to depart from Luther's views in this
very important article. "As for the slanderous attacks of Osiander, in
which he does me wrong, I will leave these to God, who knoweth the
hearts of all men, and who is our judge. I have always loved and
honored him, as every one knows, and I truly wonder whence all this
bitterness proceeds.... I know that all my writings are too
insignificant and weak, and therefore I have always submitted them to
the judgment of our Church." He then proceeds to speak of the _Grace of
God_ and the _free gifts_, according to Romans v., and says, _Grace_ is
the forgiveness of Sin, and acceptance of our person with God; but the
_gift_ is the divine presence in us, by which we are renewed, and find
comfort and the beginning of life everlasting. These two, Grace and
Gift, we have by the merits of Christ; and this is not gained by our
works, but is alone obtained by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This
faith must ever continue, receive and retain both Grace and Gift, for
the sake of the Mediator Christ, even though Regeneration has been
commenced. It is like this, when John says, that _Grace_ and _Truth_
came through the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith reposes all its confidence in
the entire Lord Christ, God and man, even as the same Lord Christ God
and man is Mediator and Redeemer according to both natures. For although
the human nature alone felt wounds and sufferings, yet the whole Christ
is Mediator and Redeemer. For this suffering would not have been the
price, if the Redeemer were not God at the same time. They had at all
times confessed that we must all undergo a change.
Melanchthon refutes Osiander's objection, by which he asserted that
nothing had hitherto been said in our churches of the indwelling of God
in us. He then proceeds and says, that a distinction must be made
between the righteousness of the saints after the resurrection, and of
the saints during this life. Although God dwells in the saints, yet our
nature abounds with great impurity, and sinful defects and desires. Here
it was needful for the saints to have comfort, and to know how they
have forgiveness of Sins and Grace. All this is proved by passages of
Scripture. He says that a principal passage is recorded in Rom. iii.
"Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood." This all refers to the merits of Christ, and cannot be
referred to the essential righteousness of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. He adds several other clear passages, which all speak of the
merit of Christ. (Rom. 5, 1 John 1, Hebrews 10, Isaiah 53.) Here there
is reference to Christ's merit alone, which we apply by faith. And this
was preached also from the beginning, by the prophets. Osiander is
mistaken, when he says: "I call that _righteousness_ which makes us do
right. Here there is no mention of a forgiveness of sins." To this we
reply: "We call the Lord Christ _righteousness_, by whom we have
forgiveness of sins, a merciful God, and besides, the presence of God
within us." In this sense must we regard the Mediator Jesus Christ, God
and man, and hide ourselves in his wounds. Osiander confounds cause and
effect. If he objects that this doctrine was calculated to fill men with
a false security, they would reply: "We must teach the truth, give God
the honor due to him, rebuke sin, and comfort troubled hearts with true
comfort, although our hearers are not all alike." He is surprised that
Osiander rejects this proposition: "Faith is a reliance upon mercy which
is promised us for the Mediator's sake." "There must be a difference
between the faith which the devils have, and this faith which accepts
the promise, and by which the heart obtains comfort and joy." In
conclusion, he remarks, that he had written all this in haste, and had
passed by many other points, in order to avoid greater disputes. But he
did not thus avoid them; for Osiander is said to have remarked, when he
read Melanchthon's confession, that "he would so bleed Melanchthon, that
his blood should flow throughout Germany." He subsequently published two
works, one of which was called "Bleeding of Mr. Philip," and the other
"Refutation of the groundless and useless answer of Philip Melanchthon."
These contained slanders after the manner of Flacius. He not only
attacked Melanchthon, but also the other teachers of Wittenberg, in the
most violent manner. He particularly reproached them for not ordaining
or declaring any one a Master or Doctor, unless he solemnly promised to
teach in accordance with the three Confessions of Faith of the ancient
Church, and also the Augsburg Confession. Melanchthon, in his reply,
acknowledged this to be the case; but also that it had been introduced
twenty years before by Luther, Bugenhagen, and Jonas, and was not only
useful but necessary. But while the conflict was thus waged in the most
violent manner, Osiander died, very unexpectedly, on the 17th of
October, 1552. When Melanchthon received the tidings of his death, he
wrote to Veit Winsheim: "As you see, he had a short pilgrimage. Oh that
he had made a better use of it! Why was he so enraged against us? Merely
because we maintain that we must build upon the merits of Christ, and
not upon our new life. This was the principal point of the whole
controversy."
Although the principal person was thus removed from the arena, yet the
conflict did not cease, because his son-in-law FUNCK exerted a great
influence upon the aged Duke Albert. But when these errors of Osiander
found adherents and champions in Germany, particularly in Nuremberg,
they were finally condemned by the Church. They are still haunting
various places, and find champions in the pulpit and the lecture-room.
It is nothing less than the spirit of Osiander, to disregard too much
the sufferings and death of Christ, that is, his humanity in general,
and to look to the exalted one almost exclusively, and to place the
sinner's justification before God more in the righteousness and
holiness, which are communicated to him from thence. As Osiander had
given prominence to the divine nature of Christ in his office as
Mediator, another teacher of Koenigsberg fell into the opposite error,
and wished the humanity of Christ to be regarded alone in the work of
Redemption and Justification. This was FRANCIS STANKAR, born in Mantua
in Italy, who had left his native land for the love of the Gospel. He
had formerly been teaching Hebrew in Krakau, and from thence came to
Koenigsberg. He here quarreled with Osiander, and resigned his office.
When Melanchthon was asked in regard to his opinion of Stankar's views,
he declared that Christ is Mediator according to both natures, for not
only suffering and death, but also victory and intercession were
necessary attributes of a Mediator. He also published a full opinion in
reference to this, in the year 1553. Besides these, one LAUTERWALD of
Hungary, also departed from the doctrine of Justification. He went to
greater lengths than Osiander, for he taught that Repentance and new
obedience were necessary to obtain the Grace of God.
But we will leave these disputes here, to look upon the state of affairs
in the German Empire.