DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES, AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT A UNION.
We must here revert to a conflict commenced at a former period against
Melanchthon by Cordatus. We did not conceal the fact that his formula
that good works are the condition without which we cannot be saved, was
a bold venture, which could easily be misinterpreted. When he used the
form of expression in the Leipzig Interim, that good works are necessary
to salvation, it was expressed indeed in a milder form, but still
admitted a bad interpretation.
It so came to pass that the aged Amsdorf published a work in 1551, in
which he accuses GEORGE MAIOR, Melanchthon's friend, in the most severe
manner, because he had adulterated the doctrine of Justification, by his
proposition that good works are necessary to salvation. Maior did not
owe him an answer long; he confessed his adherence to the Evangelical
doctrine of Justification, but at the same time adhered to his opinion
that good works are necessary to salvation, because no one could obtain
salvation by evil works, or without good works. But now Maior was
attacked from every side, and found it impossible to retain his position
as General Superintendent at Mansfeld any longer. His opinion was not
opposed to the doctrine of justification, for he said that good works
were necessary to salvation, because they must necessarily be produced
by faith, and because all men were obliged to obey God. But the opposite
side proved to him, that the formula made use of by him might easily
lead to misinterpretation, and should not be used, even if it were only
on account of the Catholics. Melanchthon, of whom we know that he did
not approve of a form which might easily be misconstrued, advised Maior
to desist from further disputes, for, he said, you are merely adding
fire to the flames. Maior was called to a professorship in Wittenberg in
the autumn of the year 1552. Instead of following Melanchthon's advice,
and abstaining from his formula for the sake of peace, he continued to
defend it. Melanchthon himself did not employ this formula any more, and
at a later period expressed himself against it in a very decided manner;
although he remarks in another place, that against the Antinomians we
should always maintain that the beginning of new obedience is necessary,
because it is a divine and unchangeable arrangement, that a rational
being must obey God. However, the most extravagant opponents did not
suffer themselves to be pacified by all these things. Amsdorf was so
involved in these contradictions, that he published a work, during
Melanchthon's lifetime, with this title: "That the Proposition, Good
works are injurious to salvation, is a true, just, and Christian
proposition, taught and preached by the saints Paul and Luther." If the
champions had adhered to the word of God and the Confession of the
Church, and had acted towards each other in a friendly spirit, intent
upon the honor of God and the discovery of the truth, they would not
have gone astray in this manner.
Such a spirit should also have been manifested in the so-called
_Synergistic_ controversy, which caused Melanchthon great trouble. It is
certain that he was most decidedly opposed to the doctrines of the
ancient heretic PELAGIUS; for he adhered to the truth expressed in the
word of God, that the powers of man are so much corrupted by original
sin, that he must first be awakened by the Holy Ghost before he is able
to make a beginning, and that he also needs the Holy Ghost as he
progresses. He teaches that the powers of human nature are greatly
affected, end unfitted to do good, and he represents the merits of
Christ as the only foundation of salvation. At the close of his life, in
reply to the Bavarian articles, he declares in the most positive manner:
"Sin and death cannot be removed by the free will of man, and man's will
cannot begin inward obedience without the Son of God, without the
Gospel, and without the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it cannot be assured or
proved that he was a _Synergist_, _i. e._, that he taught that in the
work of repentance, the natural will of man performs one part, and grace
the other. He was fully convinced that the grace of God alone
accomplishes what is good in us, and that the will of man merely
receives. The will of man could thus be active to a certain extent, but
could not produce the new life. The actual Synergistic controversy did
not arise until after the Leipzig Interim. In this, Melanchthon had said
that in the work of repentance, man was not passive like a block or a
statue. Flacius had repeatedly directed attention to this expression;
but it was Amsdorf who agitated this controversy towards the close of
Melanchthon's life. But we will not enter upon a consideration of this,
because the controversies concerning the freedom of the human will did
not develop themselves until after the death of our Reformer.
As such differences and disputes arose on every side in the Evangelical
Church, to its own injury and the joy of the Catholics, several princes,
especially Maurice and the Landgrave of Saxony, thought it necessary to
bring about a meeting of the Theologians, in order that these
controversies might be settled. The Osiandrian difficulties were to be
disposed of first, as they shook the very foundation of the Evangelical
Church. The meeting was to be held in Erfurt, June, 1553; but
Melanchthon did not expect any good from this, and freely declared his
opinion that such conferences produced no good effects, as Gregory of
Nazianzen had declared, "that he had not seen any Synods in his own day
which did not cause greater dissension than existed before." He also
said that there was no Theologian now who was able to restrain the
others, as Luther had done in former days. That they ought to adhere to
the Confession, on account of the Diet which should soon assemble. If
the Emperor should insist upon the Interim, they should explain to him
why they could not accept it. The Landgrave also entertained the same
views.
This plan, which had been projected by Maurice, was postponed by a
terrible disaster which fell upon him. The Margrave Albert continued to
disturb the public peace by predatory excursions, which were especially
directed against the monasteries of Franconia. Maurice therefore united
with King Ferdinand, and Duke Henry, of Brunswick, to suppress this
disturber. But when Albert heard of this design, he endeavored to
anticipate them, and fell upon Lower Saxony. On the 9th of July, 1553, a
battle was fought at Sievershausen. Maurice was victorious, but paid
dearly for it, for he received a gun-shot wound in the battle, which
caused his death two days afterwards. His last words were, "God will
come!" He was succeeded by his brother AUGUSTUS, who restored the
Misnian Lands in Thuringia and Franconia to the aged John Frederick. He
was a sincere man, devotedly attached to Evangelical truth, and enjoying
the full confidence of his subjects. Already, in the month of August, he
came to Wittenberg, and Melanchthon rejoiced to hear the most
encouraging promises from his own lips.
He confirmed the foundations which had been assigned for the support of
the University by his brother Maurice. He also earnestly wished that the
Theologians, who were not affording a very edifying and commendable
example by their continued disputes, might become reconciled among
themselves. This wish was shared by the pious Duke CHRISTOPHER, of
Wurtemberg; and he proposed a conference of the ministers at Weimar, in
order that they might discuss these points of difference. It was agreed
upon to hold a Synod at Naumburg. We have already heard that Melanchthon
dreaded such a conference, because he believed it would only make
matters worse. On the 17th of April, he wrote to a friend: "The Court
orders us to go to Naumburg, whither, as they write to us, the Swabian
and Hessian pastors will also come. Although they have been warned by so
many examples, that synods and hypocritical unions are productive of
great evils, yet they have ordered us to hold synods again." However, he
also wrote to Maienburg, May 11th: "Although the Synod of Naumburg,
which I always objected to, will meet, I must nevertheless attend it."
He went, accompanied by Forster and Camerarius, and reached Naumburg May
20th, 1554. The Hessian delegates, and the well-known Sleidanus, of
Strasburg, arrived on the following day, and Pacaeus and Salmuth, of
Leipzig, on the 23d of May.
Although Melanchthon at first entertained the greatest fears, because he
expected those two violent champions, Gallus and Flacius, whom he called
the two sons of Polyphemus, he now wrote to his son-in-law Peucer, as
early as May 23d: "To-day we shall, with the help of God, deliberate in
a friendly manner, and I hope that no disputes will arise among us. We
shall not expect any other Theologians, if they do not arrive here
within three days." The princes wished the Theologians to agree upon the
answer to be given to the Emperor, at the next Diet. In a declaration,
prepared by Melanchthon, the Theologians frankly say: "If his Imperial
Majesty should wish us to adopt again the Papal doctrine, which we
condemn, and the Interim also, we shall, by the grace of God, clearly
and positively refuse to do so."
They continued to say, that Protestants should abide by the Confession
delivered in Augsburg in 1530, because it contains "the only eternal
agreement of the divine Scriptures, and the true catholic Church of
Christ." Also, that the confession of Brentius, and that of Saxony,
fully coincided with this. The Theologians also expressed themselves
against the errors of SCHWENKFELD and OSIANDER. Schwenkfeld, like all
fanatics of ancient and modern days, disregarded the written word of
God, and thought that God revealed himself to man without this. He also
showed his perversion by other objections, which he raised against the
Evangelical Church. They therefore say: "Therefore we unanimously reject
the before-mentioned errors, and all the lies of Schwenkfeld." One of
the greatest errors of Osiander is his declaration, "that man is not
just on account of the obedience of Christ, but on account of the Deity
if it dwells in man." They maintain the Evangelical doctrine against
these Osiandrian heresies, in a very conclusive manner. In speaking of
_Ceremonies_, they insist upon unity in doctrine and in the sacraments.
They reject the mass without communicants. They allow private
confession, "but no one is to be burdened by an enumeration of his
sins." They wish holidays to be observed, and require uniformity in
this. They oppose the reintroduction of Latin hymns, of the garments
used in the mass, of vestments, and other ceremonies, "because it would
give rise to new dissensions and ruptures." The authorities, and
sensible Pastors, would know how to make a distinction between
essentials and non-essentials, and how to avoid all offence. Attention
should be paid to studies, ordination, consistories, and visitations,
all which matters had formerly been disregarded by the Bishops. As the
Bishops are persecutors of the pure doctrine, ordination cannot possibly
be given into their hands. The authorities are bound to see to it, that
the pure doctrine is preached in the churches, and that the consistories
would discharge their duties, in punishing vice and maintaining
discipline and harmony. Melanchthon was highly pleased with the harmony
among the Theologians at Naumburg; yet he did not conceal the fact from
himself, that his opponents would also raise a great outcry against the
resolutions of Naumburg. The Theologians of Wurtemberg had only
proceeded as far as Erfurt, for they had been expected for several days
in Naumburg, but in vain. On the 28th of May, Melanchthon wrote to
STRIGEL: "If the Swabians do not arrive to-day, as I believe they will
not, we shall adjourn to-morrow, God willing." He returned to
Wittenberg, as he had stated. Duke Christopher, however, was highly
pleased with the resolutions of Naumburg.
During Melanchthon's stay in Dresden, February, 1555, where he was
giving his opinion in regard to a visitation of the churches, the diet
of Augsburg had been opened on the 5th of February. The Emperor had
become completely disgusted with German affairs, particularly since the
revolt of Maurice, and he now left the direction of this diet, promised
in the treaty of Passau, to his brother Ferdinand. This diet witnessed
many disputes, especially urged by the Pope's nuncio. But fortunately
Pope Julius III. died about this time, and the nuncio was obliged to
return to Rome. Now one principal difficulty was removed, and they at
last, in the month of September, 1555, agreed upon the _Religious peace
of Augsburg_, which was highly advantageous to the Protestants. For they
not only obtained liberty of conscience in religion, but full civil
equality with the Catholics, and remained in the possession of the
ecclesiastical property which had been confiscated. But one unjust
resolution was also carried, that if a Catholic sovereign should wish to
become a Protestant at any future time, he should not indeed be
personally molested on this account, but should forfeit his office and
rank. Although the Protestants yielded very reluctantly, the decrees of
the diet were of the utmost value to them, for they secured a lasting
peace, and they no longer needed to care for the condemnations of a
General Council. Melanchthon wrote: "I look upon the peaceful conclusion
of the Diet of Augsburg as one of the favors of God, and we must beseech
the Son of God to continue to guide us in future."
While the Evangelical Church was thus celebrating outward triumphs, and
securing a firm position for herself, enemies were raging in her own
bosom, who undoubtedly retarded her development. They were contending
about a doctrine which is as plainly founded in the word of God, as it
is of great comfort to the heart. It is the doctrine that not only the
earthly elements of bread and wine, but also the true body and blood of
Christ are distributed in the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As a
middle path between the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the one hand,
and the one-sided doctrine of the Reformed, that we receive nothing but
bread and wine in memory of the Lord, on the other, it was objectionable
to the Catholics and the Reformed. Luther has triumphantly vindicated
this consoling doctrine in his writings.
But now there arose another man with a doctrine somewhat different,
which was adopted by many. This was the sagacious, learned, and pious
JOHN CALVIN, who was born in the year 1509. The Lutherans had hitherto
regarded him as belonging to their own party, especially since he had
been teaching with Bucer and Capito in Strasburg. When he had returned
to Geneva in 1541, from which city he had been banished before, and had
there built up the Evangelical Church with great zeal, he wrote a
Confession in regard to the Lord's Supper, in the year 1549. The
Zurichers had formerly suspected him of being a Lutheran, but now all
their doubts vanished, and they could call him their own, and harmony
was completely restored between German and French Switzerland. But that
which produced harmony in Switzerland caused dissensions in Germany,
although not immediately. Here they had enough to dispute in regard to
the so-called indifferent things, (Adiaphora,) and the heresies of
Osiander.
In the year 1552, a pastor in Hamburg, named JOACHIM WESTPHAL,
published a work in which he proved that the Reformed had given no less
than eight-and-twenty explanations of the words of institution in the
Lord's Supper, from the time of Zwingli to that of Calvin. In the
following year he published a work against Calvin, entitled: "The true
faith in regard to the Lord's Supper." This publication began to arouse
the zeal of the Lutherans against Calvin and his friends, which was
still more inflamed by one JOHN VON LASCO, who, together with a band of
French and Dutch Protestants, had been banished from England by that
severe Romanist, Queen MARY. He had confessed himself a follower of
Calvin, and therefore could not find a resting-place for himself and his
friends, either in Denmark or Germany. They were denounced from the
pulpits in every quarter. Calvin now published a work defending them and
his doctrine. He declared that, according to his doctrine, the Lord's
Supper was no empty ceremony, even though he did not believe in a
participation of the body and blood of Christ, in and under the bread
and wine. Westphal and JOHN TIMANN, pastor in Bremen, arrayed themselves
against Calvin; who, assisted by Bullinger of Zurich, and Lasco, soon
published a refutation. Most of the cities of Lower Saxony sided with
Westphal. The fire spread on every side, and Schnepf of Jena, Alber in
Mecklenburg, and Eitzen in Hamburg, attacked Calvin in the most violent
manner, who finally maintained an utter silence.
Calvin represented his own doctrine as a mediation between the Lutherans
and the Reformed. It did not teach an imaginary, but a real
participation of the body and blood of Christ, yet not with the mouth,
and it also opposes the view of an Omnipresence of Christ according to
his human nature. The fulness of the Godhead has entered into the body
of Christ, and from this body the Lord fills his people spiritually,
with a secret and mysterious power of life, whenever they receive the
bread and wine. This participation only refers to believers, although it
is also offered to unbelievers. So Calvin regarded the matter; but what
did Melanchthon say to all this? He did not express himself positively
in regard to either side, doubtless because he did not wish to pour
fresh oil into the fire. Yet he was provoked and driven to a decided
declaration of his sentiments by both sides. Gallus and Westphal
published a collection of declarations taken from his former writings,
by which they proved him to be on their side, and that he had at least
not thought as the Sacramentarians did, as long as Luther was alive.
Calvin also endeavored to lead him to declare himself, by stating that
he understood the Augsburg Confession precisely as it was understood by
its author, and that in this matter he could as little be separated from
Philippus as from his own heart. We may admit, without hesitation, that
Melanchthon agreed more with Calvin than with the stricter teachers of
the Lutheran Church; but he did not wish to begin a conflict while he
was the subject of a government which strictly adhered to Luther's
doctrine. He wrote to HARDENBERG in the beginning of 1556, that if his
life should be spared he would reply in a place where the courts could
not hinder him; and to his friend MORDEISEN at the Saxon court, who
reproached him on account of his bashfulness, he wrote: "I am certain
that your court will not suffer a defence of the truth in this article."
He therefore continued to adhere to the method of teaching he had
pursued hitherto. He always spoke of a presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper, but never of a bodily presence of his body and blood.
Some of the princes now again, as on former occasions, thought of
bringing about a reconciliation between the contending parties. As we
have already heard, Duke CHRISTOPHER of Wurtemberg was the most
prominent among them, for he made repeated attempts to induce the
princes and Theologians to hold a meeting, where the points of
difference might be discussed, and harmony restored. But his advances
met no response, if we except the aged Elector of the Palatinate,
FREDERICK. "I also wish," Melanchthon writes, "that learned and
well-meaning men might negotiate in peace concerning certain contested
points."
It appeared that the Theologians of Weimar were particularly opposed to
any union or compromise. These held a separate meeting in Weimar,
January, 1556, in which they declared that they would not unite with
those of Wittenberg, until they would pledge themselves unequivocally to
the Augsburg Confession, and would drop all Zwinglianism and Synergism.
They would faithfully abide by Luther's doctrine concerning the Lord's
Supper and free will.
Amsdorf, Schnepf, Strigel, Stolz, Aurifaber, and delegates from the
Palatinate and Wurtemberg, attended this meeting. Melanchthon called
this Synod the _Flacian Synod_, because he well knew that Flacius
exerted a great influence upon it. He expresses his regrets in regard to
this, in a letter to Camerarius, February 7th: "This sad dissension
troubles me so much, that I wish to leave this world; and I see that I
am not far distant from my journey's end."
But something occurred in the summer of the year 1556, which he perhaps
expected least of all. Flacius endeavored to bring about a
reconciliation with his former teacher. He was at that time residing in
Magdeburg, and had prepared a few "mild propositions to bring about a
godly, needful, and peaceful reconciliation between the Theologians of
Wittenberg and Leipzig, and others who have written against them," which
he had sent to Paul Eber, that he might deliver them to Melanchthon. In
the eleventh article he said, "If any persons shall teach and spread
errors which are injurious to religion and conscience, either publicly
or secretly, we will avoid such as a curse, and will not acknowledge
them as brethren, or receive them into fellowship, until they have
condemned and publicly renounced their errors. For such wounds in the
church cannot be healed or endured silently." It was principally owing
to this article that Eber did not present these propositions.
About this time the French scholar, HUBERT LANGUENTIUS, who had long
been one of Melanchthon's most intimate friends, arrived in Magdeburg.
They were anxious to employ him as mediator. An interview with
Melanchthon should take place in the little town of Coswig, and Flacius
promised to employ mild and peaceful expressions. Although Melanchthon
at first intended to accept the offer, he was afterwards induced to
change his opinion, and, on the 15th of July, wrote to his friend
Languentius: "I have for a long time been anxious for a conference with
pious and learned men, for the glory of God and the general good; but
what would be the use of an interview with such unlearned, raging, and
malicious persons as Stolz, Gallus, and Aurifaber." "A sweet friendship
and intimacy subsisted between Flacius and myself in former days, and I
should like to discuss the whole system of doctrine with him. But he has
circulated matters about me which I never uttered, and which never
entered into my thoughts. Therefore, I fear treacherous intentions in
all this. Oh! that he would act towards me with the same sincerity with
which I should wish to approach him! But not one of my friends is
willing to be present at such an interview, and they do not consider it
advisable for me to meet him alone. I am not concerned if others are
pleased to seek power and influence. The Son of God will judge the life
and sentiments of every one, and he knows that I am only anxious to
glorify the truth, to add to God's honor, and to promote the good of the
Church." On the 21st of July, Flacius expressed his regrets concerning
this reply in a letter to Languentius, and even wrote to Melanchthon,
justifying himself, and assuring him that he had no reason to complain
of him. Melanchthon replied on the 4th of September: "You recapitulate
your kindnesses towards me, and state that you did not publish a letter
written to Taupolus. I never wrote a syllable to him. In Augsburg, I
paid a visit to this Venetian ambassador, at the request of the Elector,
and spoke with him of the cause of the Reformation. I do not recollect
all the words of that conversation. For I did not think then that I
would be called to an account after the expiration of twenty-six years."
Others had concocted a letter from this, with which Roerer had already
reproached him, and which had been sent by the Margrave John. "You have
also published the Leipzig Interim in a mutilated manner, and with
notes. What induced you to attack an old friend, who loved you
sincerely, with such weapons? I ought not to be reproached with what I
never did; I am willing to confess all I have done. When the Augsburg
Interim appeared, and reached our country, I at first advised that the
churches should not be disturbed by any alterations whatever." He goes
on to say, that he had many disputes with the courtiers, until the
Elector declared that he did not wish a change of doctrine, but only
uniformity in outward ceremonies on festival days, in lections, and
dress. "This the people afterwards called Adiaphora. I knew that the
smallest changes would displease the people. But as doctrine was
untouched, I wished our friends rather to be willing to endure this
servitude, than to relinquish the service of the Gospel, and I confess
that I also gave this counsel to the Franconians. This I have done, but
I never changed the doctrine of the Confession. After this, you began to
enter your protest, but I yielded, and did not dispute. You are
perfectly welcome to bear off the victory, for I yield, and do not
contend about these ceremonies: and wish, with all my heart, that a
pleasant harmony might prevail throughout the Churches. I also
acknowledge that I erred in this matter, and pray God to forgive me that
I did not fly far away from those treacherous deliberations. I shall
refute all with which you and Gallus unjustly reproach me." In regard to
Maior's proposition, that good works are necessary to salvation, he had
exhorted him to explain his meaning, and to drop this form of
expression. That he himself did not use this expression, and merely
opposed the Antinomians by declaring: "New obedience is necessary,
because it is a necessary law that the creature should obey the Creator.
I do not believe that we really oppose each other in this question." In
regard to the propositions for peace, he believed it would be best if
they should be prepared by impartial judges. There must be _one_
confession in doctrine, "and as we do not contend about ceremonies, but
rather confess that we yield in these, do not any longer accuse us, and
do not heap false charges upon us. Let us unite, with mutual good will,
and by one confession, against the fearful fury of the enemies of the
Son of God, who is not only blasphemed by the Papists, but also by many
others." But Flacius was not satisfied with this answer, and believed
that it was necessary to have the matter decided by umpires.
On the 17th of January, 1557, the Superintendents Curtius of Luebeck,
Paul von Eitzen of Hamburg, Moerlin of Brunswick, and Hennig of Lueneburg,
met in Magdeburg, and pledged themselves to adhere to a confession which
had been published in the year 1550, against the Interim, and which bore
the title: "Confession, Instruction, and Admonition of the pastors and
preachers of the Christian congregations of Magdeburg." Flacius, and his
friends Wigand, Judex, and Baumgaertner, remained in the little town of
Coswig, which was not far off, and exhorted the Superintendents, who had
proceeded to Wittenberg with terms of agreement, that they should take a
determined stand. On the morning of the 21st of January, the
negotiations were begun in Melanchthon's residence. He addressed them in
the most cordial manner, and assured them that he was desirous of peace,
and had therefore remained silent. "I take a box on the ears, and still
remain silent, while Flacius and Gallus do not stop their abuses." He
agreed to accept the umpires, and Moerlin presented eight articles to
him, which had been prepared at Brunswick, with this condition, that
either side shall have the privilege to add to or take away from them
what they pleased. The eight articles were as follows: 1. Unity of
doctrine is to be restored, in accordance with the Augsburg Confession
and the Smalkald articles. 2. All opposing errors of the Papists,
Interimists, Anabaptists, and Sacramentarians, were to be rejected. 3.
All corruptions, and especially that concerning the necessity of good
works to salvation, in the article on Justification, which oppose true
apostolical doctrine and the Augsburg Confession, were to be put away
and condemned. 4. The Saxon Churches are not able to depart from the
Confession which they published during the last persecution. 5. No
agreement in ceremonies should be entered into with the Papists until
they agree with us in doctrine, and cease to persecute the true
doctrine. 6. In the time of persecution a sincere Confession should be
made, and no servitude opposed to Christian liberty should be permitted.
7. We also, in a most Christian manner, beseech our teacher to testify,
by a public writing, that his views in regard to indifferent matters,
and the necessity of good works to salvation, agree with the Confessions
of our Churches; and 8. If one of the parties should be suspected of
secretly adhering to some errors, an explanation should be required."
Melanchthon was at first highly displeased with these articles, but on
the following day he replied as follows: "For thirty years I have
labored not a little in these churches, in teaching, developing truths,
in daily judgments, conferences, and in treacherous conflicts. And it
would have been very becoming in you to spare and pity me. But now, that
which the worthy Jacob Sturm prophesied to me has come to pass; for when
he, together with some other friends, accompanied me a part of the way
when I left Ratisbon, and I said to him, that we would not see each
other again in this world, he replied: 'We shall still come to you some
day to crucify you.' Articles are laid before me, in which I am not only
required to strangle myself, but very many of my friends. You spare
Flacius. You know yourselves what intimate friendship subsisted between
some of you and myself. And on this account, I am so much the more
surprised to see you treat me so harshly. If I do not agree to your
articles, you will excite your party against me; but if I do agree,
many in our churches will complain of me that I have given them cause
for offence. There is, consequently, danger on both sides, and it would
have been better to negotiate with many concerning this." He agreed to
the first two articles; but to the third he wished to add, that,
although new obedience is needful according to the law of God, and
Christ did not suffer in order that we should abide in sin and death,
yet the expression, good works are necessary to salvation, should not be
employed. His writings were opened to the eyes of the whole world. "I
accept the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, although they accuse us
very much, as I would rather receive a blow than oppose harmony. As far
as the seventh article is concerned, there is no necessity for a new
publication, for every one is able to learn from my writings what I
think of indifferent things." He concluded by entreating them not to
oppose him at once, and that they should follow their own judgment
rather than Flacius. Flacius was not satisfied with this reply, which
was brought to Coswig by the mediators, and they returned to Wittenberg
with several additions to the articles.
Melanchthon thanked them for their trouble, and said that he hoped they
had now learned to know him as a man inclined to peace. "I shall, with
God's help, abide by the general Confession of these churches, and shall
not sow discord. I have always honored you as pious teachers of the
Church, and I love you with all my heart. I replied to the articles you
laid before me, so that I might not appear anxious to fly from the
light, and unwilling to bring about harmony. And this shall be my last
answer. If you are not satisfied with it, I appeal to the judgment of
the Church." He adhered to his previous declaration, merely in other
words. The mediators departed, without having effected their object; but
Flacius would not yield. This conflict between Melanchthon and Flacius
had also attracted the attention of Duke JOHN ALBERT, of Mecklenburg;
and he felt himself called upon to attempt to bring about a
reconciliation. He therefore sent VENETUS, of Rostock, and his
counsellor, MYLIUS, to Wittenberg, with proposals of peace. These
proposals were composed in the spirit of those of Magdeburg. When the
envoys arrived in Wittenberg, about February 20th, they did not meet
Philip, who was then on a journey to Dessau and Leipzig. When he had
returned, heard their wishes, and saw the proposals, he replied very
briefly, that Flacius entertained many errors; that the prince was
ungracious; they sought to ruin him (Melanchthon); and that he would not
condemn any of those who had been present at the debates concerning
indifferent things, who are now dead. He expressed himself to this
effect, and promised to present his reply on the following day. He
retained the propositions, and examined them carefully.
On the following day he came, accompanied by his son-in-law Peucer. His
answer was a very short one; and when the envoys requested him to
prepare better propositions, he refused to do so, in a passionate
manner, and said: "If you wish to crush me, do so; for this is the
general lot of peace-makers. I commend myself to God." And Peucer also
added: "You shall not in future trouble my father-in-law any more with
such disputes." And with this they were dismissed. The envoys returned
to Magdeburg, without having gained their purpose, in order to consult
with Flacius and Wigand. Flacius was called to Jena in April, 1557,
where the Gymnasium had been raised into an University.