Book (\(4- Copyright N° COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE LUTHERANS IN THE MOVEMENTS FOR CHURCH UNION J. L. NEVE, D.D. Professor of Symbolics and History of Doctrines in the Hamma Divinity School of Wittenberg College in Springfield, Ohio The Lutheran Publication House Philadelphia. Copyright 1921 by J. L. NEVE OCT 23 192 §)CIA627501 CI- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE. THE WITTENBERG CONCORD 5-18 CHAPTER TWO. LUTHERANISM IN ITS STRUGGLE WITH CALVINISM 19-48 I. Calvinism as a New Type of Protestantism 20 II. The First Conflict Between Calvinism and Lutheranism 22 III. Inroads of Calvinism upon Lutheran Territory 25 IV. Considerations for the Appreciation of the Conflict 29 V. Final Separation of the Two Churches 30 VI. Further Loss of Lutheran Territory 36 VII. Special Character of the Reformed Church in Germany.. 40 CHAPTER THREE. THE UNION MOVEMENTS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 49-80 Introductory Reflections 49 I. The Sendomire and the Montbeliard Colloquies 52 II. The "Palatinate Irenicum" 55 III. The Advance of Paraeus 56 IV. The Leipzig Colloquy 57 V. The Convention at Thorn 62 VI. The Colloquy at Cassel ....64 VII. The Colloquy at Berlin 70 VIII. The Endeavors of John Dury J7 CHAPTER FOUR. GEORGE CALIXTUS AND HIS OP- PONENTS 81-109 I. Preparatory Influences upon Calixtus ... 82 II. Theories of Calixtus and the Reply of the Lutherans 86 Calixtus on Fundamentals and Nonfundamentals . . 86 Appeal to Tradition and Apostles' Creed 87 Religion as an Opposite to Theology 89 The "Inner Union" Claimed, 92 III. Estimate of the Principles of Calixtus and of the Lutherans of His Age 96 Distinction Between Church and Individual 96 The Teaching of Calixtus as a Reaction Against the Orthodoxism of His Age 99 The "Internal Union" 100 Calixtus Failed to Appreciate the Reformation 101 Humanism 102 IV. Polemical Activity of the Lutherans 105 Tfee Charge of Syncretism 103 Jena versus Wittenberg 105 The Severity of Polemics 107 CHAPTER FIVE. THE PRUSSIAN UNION 110-137 I. Preparatory Development 112 II. Proclamation of the Union and the First Stage of its Development 116 III. The Reaction 120 IV. The Plan of an Absorptive Union Changed into a Confederation 127 CHAPTER SIX. THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA 138-197 I. Historical Orientation 140 II. Facts Explanatory of the Growth of the Synod 141 Support from the Union Circles of the Fatherland.. 141 Reaction Against Confessional Lutheransm in America ... 142 Liberal Attitude in Matters of Dictrine and practice 144 III. The Special Union Features 148 Objective Truth Opposed to its Subjective Conception 149 Scripture versus Creed 153 An Under-Estimation of the Differences Between Lutherans and Reformed 163 Lord's Supper ^ 163 Baptism 169 Word 171 Public Teaching of the Synod 173 Its Confessional Paragraph 190 CHAPTER SEVEN. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO PRESENT-DAY MOVEMENTS IN AMERICA 198-226 I. The Problem of Church Union in America is Not the Same as in Germany 198 II. Some Motives for Church Union Examined 205 III. The Persistency of the Difference 214 PRELIMINARY REMARKS What is offered in this book is a reprint taken from articles as they appeared in the "Lutheran Quarterly" (Gettysburg, Pa.,) during the years from January 1918 to July 1921. The suggestion for the preparation of these detailed historical reviews was received when in the fall of 1917 we promised to read a paper before the American Society of Church History in New York on the "Union Movements between the Lutherans and the Re- formed." After having given the matter a little more thought we felt that it was impossible to treat this sub- ject with any degree of adequacy in a single paper. We therefore decided to limit ourselves in our reading before the Society to a discussion of the union movements in the sixteenth century, which culminated in the Witten- berg Concord, and then to continue our investigation along the line indicated in the table of contents of this book, thus covering all the efforts at union with the Re- formed, in which the Lutheran Church has been engaged. The contents of Chapter V was read at another meeting of the American Society of Church History. The author is grateful to Drs. William W. Rockwell and Henry Preserved Smith, professors in Union Theological Seminary, for their- courtesy in making possible for him the use of a very valuable collection of works on Polem- ics and Irenics, which was gathered in Germany by the late Dr. Briggs and which is now a part of the library of Union Theological Seminary. He also acknowledges with much appreciation some valuable aid received from the "Reference Department" of the Lutheran Bureau in New York. This in an age of union movements. The Episcopa- lians, the Disciples, the Presbyterians have inaugurated special movements. 1 The Lutheran Church is expected to participate, and she is misunderstood when she finds herself unable to do so. It has been our aim in these articles to call attention to the lessons of history for judg- ing the union problem as it exists for the Lutheran Church today. The union of American Protestantism with the Lutherans as participants is a problem alto- gether different from the endeavor of bringing the sis- ters and the daughters of the Reformed Church family into a common understanding. To arrive at a basis for judging this problem the historical precedents have to be investigated. This leads us to a study of the union movements among the Germans in the sixteenth, the sev- enteenth and the nineteenth century. Here alone it is where the union movements between Lutherans and Re- formed have had a history. A careful student will find that the union problem is fundamentally the same to-day as it was in the sixteenth and succeeding centuries. It is the question of how to overcome the doctrinal differ- ence between the Lutheran and the Reformed types of Protestantism. The tendency in the union movements of to-day is to ignore this difference. There is a double reason for this general attitude: (1) In the camp of the Reformed churches — and here the movements usually started (cf. p. 50 ff.) — there was always a noticeable readiness to unite with the Lutherans even without doctrinal agreement. It seems that it was always seen by the Re- formed churchmen that Lutheranism cannot continue to exist in an atmosphere of unionism or doctrinal indiffer- ence; that it would be bound to alter its distinguishing features and eventually settle down upon a position of an absorptive union in which the Reformed type of religion would survive. (2) Liberalistic theology which has a strong following in the denominations has changed the conception of the Scriptures. They are not regarded as authoritative, not as the source of truth; they are used merely as a kind of commentary on the personal religious i We refer to our review on pages 199-205. life of the Christian. The formal principle of the Re- formation is abandoned. The objective faith is of no in- terest anymore. The emphasis is upon the Christian experience and the "value judgments." This new the- ology has made many ministers indifferent to the distinc- tion between Lutherans and Reformed. Ritschl, although he was professor in the university of a Lu- theran province, was an ardent advocate of the Union. The Lutheran Church insists upon the "formal prin- ciple" of the Reformation. If she is to be drawn into a union with other churches it must be a union in the truth of God's Word. The Lutheran Church does not stand alone on that. There are many in the Presbyterian Church who take the same position. 2 Their apprehension is chiefly with regard to the liberalism in so many of the churches. The Lutheran Church is convinced that con- fessional indifference breeds and fosters liberalism. The differences between Luther on the one hand and Zwingli and Calvin on the other were on Scripture truth and, therefore, they must be overcome by a real agreement on those differences. The churchmen of the two camps must come together and discuss these differences with the same cordiality, frankness, thoroughness, patience and earnestness that characterized the Leipzig Colloquy in 1632. 3 If it is impossible to find a union in that way then the Lutheran Church will be convinced that it can- not be accomplished by any other procedure. Also this should be said : Creedal truth cannot come to an expression except through forms that are more or less theological in nature. In the customary demand that church union must take place on the basis of "pure reli- gion," on the basis of the "fundamentals," to the exclu- sion of "theology" and the "non-fundamentals" there is a fallacy which we have aimed to point out in many places of the articles presented in this book (pp. 56f., 70, 75f., 79, 86-98, 105-107, 117, 129, 150-153, 157f, 211-214). 2 The present agitation among the Presbyterians over the Plan for Organic Union (see pp. iooff. 225) and the negative decision of their presbyteries furnishes an interesting confirmation of our statement. ♦ The Lutheran Church does not insist on hair-splitting distinctions on non-fundamentals as such, but there are matters which some may insist upon calling non-funda- mentals, that are after all necessary for qualifying the fundamentals, and such cannot be treated with indiffer- ence in arriving at a basis for church union. We wish to say just a word on the somewhat technical form of these investigations. We had to be critical, and much material was to be crowded into brief paragraphs. Such work always demands its own form of expression. Inasmuch as the historical material on the problem of union between Lutherans and Reformed has never been written up in English we felt that the foundation for a more popular discussion of the subject (which is de- sirable) ought to be in this form of critical research. For this reason we have been liberal in attaching foot notes, 491 in number, in which, for the most part, we have aimed to indicate the literature for re-examination and, perhaps, for a further development of the study. In examining the table of contents it may seem that the history surrounding the Schwabach and the Marburg Articles should have been taken in with the investiga- tions of the first chapter. We admit that this could have been done with much profit for our general purpose. Yet it may be said that in the Wittenberg Concord we have the first and the only tangible result of the union move- ments of the sixteenth century. Since some needed corrections could not be made in the body of articles, after the reprints had been taken, we would, therefore, ask the reader not to overlook the following. CORRIGENDA: Page 21, line 4 from bottom read mediation, not meditation. Page 22, line 1 from top read sixth, not last. Page 48, line 2 from bottom read nineteenth, not eighteenth. Page 88, line 4 from bottom read Sub. 4, not Sub. 3. CHAPTER I. THE WITTENBERG CONCORD. Literature: The works on Church History. We mention: Kurtz, 14th ed. (Leipzig, 1906), revised by Tschackert (p. 136, 8). Kawerau in vol. Ill of Moeller's Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Tuebingen, 1907), pp. 86ff., lOOff., 124ff. Koestlin, Martin Luther, 5th ed., re- vised and completed by Kawerau, vol. II, pp. 326-356; 576-583 (Berlin, 1903). The articles on "Wittenberg Concord" in the Realencyclopaedie (quoted as R. E.), 3rd ed., vol. XXI, pp. 383ff., by Kolde (cf. Schaff-Herzog) ; in Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon, 1st ed., VII, pp. 285ff. ; in Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 545, by Jacobs and Haas, (New York, 1899). Planck, Geschichte des protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, vol. Ill, pp. 337-408. Heppe, Die konfes- sionelle Entwicklung der alt-protestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 72ff., 76ff. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 4th ed. (New York, 1899), pp. 525ff. Seeberg, History of Doctrines, (Philadelphia, 1905), pp. 390ff. (cf. p. 350). Loofs, Dogmengeschichte 4th ed. (Halle, 1906), pp. 878, (cf. pp. 862ff.) Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, (New York, 1906), p. 290. See also in R. E. the articles on "Bucer" by Gruenberg, (R. E., Ill, pp. 603ff.), on "Marburg Colloquy" by Kolde (R. E. XII, 248ff.) ; and on "Tetrapolitana" by Mueller (XIX, pp. 559ff.) ; Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum and Union (Leipzig, 1839, pp. 365-397. As to original sources, represented largely in the form of monograph- ical publications, containing the correspondence of the times, see the enumeration in Kolde's article in the R. E. (vol. XXI, p. 383f.) The union movements between Lutherans and Re- formed in the sixteenth century cannot be fully under- stood if we do not keep in mind that on the part of Philip of Hessia and of Bucer as the spokesman of the cities in Southern Germany (especially Strasburg) the political situation was one of the chief motives for all the en- deavors that led to the Wittenberg Concord. We may say that these negotiations began in the steps that were taken preparatory to the Marburg Colloquy (October 2nd and 3rd, 1529) and that, therefore, Philip was the father of the whole movement. 4 His aim, together with Zwingli, was to oppose a strong united front to Charles V and the Roman Catholic princes of Germany. At the time of Marburg and up to the Augsburg Diet in 1530 Philip had been looking to Zuerich as the centre of a contemplated coalition. It was Zwingli's plan to win Philip of Hessia and to isolate Wittenberg (Kawerau, in Moeller's Church History, III, p. 104). This plan, Kawerau points out, had practically failed when Philip, at Augsburg (1530), added his signature to the Confession of the Saxons. 5 The founding of the Smalcald Federation (February 27th, 1530), finally, became the decisive factor that ren- dered impotent the political plans of Zwingli, which, if they had been successful, would have divided German Protestantism at a very early date. Political considerations were also shaping the actions of the Lutherans at Augsburg. Zwingli and all that leaned to him were under the ban during the days of Augsburg (1530) for two reasons: (1) because of Zwingli's political plans which made him obnoxious to the emperor; (2) because of his symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper, which was especially abhorred by the Romanists. Melanchthon, in order not to endanger the cause of the Lutherans, or, more particularly, the 4 Cf. Kolde in R. E. on "Marburger Religionsgespraech," XII, 249, i off. 5 Ibid. p. 108; cf. 116, 117. cause of his elector 6 did not risk to meet Bucer person- ally while at Augsburg, because of the latter's associa- tion with Zwingli in the past. And because of their leaning to Zwingli most of the Cities of Upper Germany were not permitted to subscribe the Augsburg Confes- sion. 7 After the adjourning of the Augsburg Diet the cities of Upper Germany 8 found themselves in a precarious situation. In case of attack by the emperor they would be the first to be overrun. They saw that their salvation was in the direction of a union with Wittenberg. In April 1532 these cities joined the Smalcald Federation by subscribing to the Augsburg Confession along with their own Confessions which they were not asked to renounce. This joining of the Smalcald Federation, however, did not mean a religious acknowledging of these Upper Ger- mans by the Lutherans. To bring about a confessional union which at the same time would strengthen the po- litical ties was the task to which Martin Bucer devoted himself with an indefatigable zeal. Of what kind was the union that Bucer was aiming at? He meant it as a union that should include the Zwingli- ans, and he meant it as a union by compromise. As was stated already, the cities in the South, with the exception of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, had not been permitted to sign the Augsburg Confession so that Stras- burg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen had to hand in a Confession of their own: the Tetrapolitana. 9 This document in the composition of which Bucer had an im- portant part they themselves characterized as being "neither Lutheran nor Zwinglian." 10 This was not with- out a purpose. The way for a future union with the Wit- tenbergers was to be kept open. At the same time it was 6 Cf. Neve, "Lutheran Symbolics (Columbus, O.), p. 85f. 7 Mueller in R. E. XIX, 560, 38, 55; 561, 7. 8 Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau, Ulm, Biberach, and Augsburg had not been permitted to sign the Confession of the Saxons. 9 See article by Mueller in R. E. XIX, 560, 54. 10 Ibidem, with reference to Dobel, Memmingen im Reforma- tionszeitalter, part IV, p. 42. 8 hoped that it would serve the Swiss as a bridge to Luth- eranism. 11 It was upon this basis ("neither Lutheran nor Zwingl- ian") that Bucer proceeded with his endeavours at unit- ing the two wings of Protestantism. He persuaded him- self that Luther and Zwingli had not understood each other; that the seemingly consubstantial expressions in Luther's Grosses Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl 12 were not intended to convey what they seemed to teach ; also that Zwingli would be willing to admit a positive gift in the Supper, besides the mere symbolical meaning of it. In Strasburg they had always emphasized the presence of Christ's whole person in the Supper, communicating him- self to the believers. The question was now how he could induce Luther to abandon some of his realism, and move Zwingli to add to his signification theory. As a key for solving the difficulty he brought a phrase into play, which he had already employed in a writing of 1528 (a year and a half before the Marburg Colloquy) un- der the title "Vergleichung Dr. Luther's und seines Ge- genteils vom Abendmahl Christi," namely that Christ was present in a "sacramental" way. 13 He now spoke of a "sacramental presence" of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. This brought him nearer to Luther. He ii Cf. Kawerau in Moeller, III, p. 113; Mueller in R. E. XIX, 564, 4. Article XVIII of the'Tetrapolitana" deals with the Lord's Supper. It is there said "that in this Sacrament Christ gives to his disciples and believers His true Body, truly to eat and to drink as a meat for the souls, and for eternal life." Quoted by Kolde in R. E. XXI, 561, 43ff. This sentence reveals the median type of teaching as it prevailed in Strasburg. Heppe, in "Konfessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche" (p. 74) calls attention to the avoidance of the phrase customary with Luther "in the bread" (in pane). But note in the above quoted sentence especi- ally the emphasis upon the teaching which was characteristic of the Strasburgers in their subsequent dealing with Luther namely that the true Body and Blood is received only by the believers. As to the Zwinglianizing tendencies with regard to other articles of faith, see Mueller in R. E. XIX, p. 561, 49ft. The fundamental difference from Rome was also brought out a great deal stronger than in the Augsburg Confession. The Roman Mass is condemned in most severe language : "ein grausamer Krempelmarkt," "ein unleidlicher Greuel." Ibid. p. 561, 55. Cf. Heppe, pp. 73, 74. 12 Erl. Ed. XXX, isiff. 13 Gruenberg, in R. E. Ill, 608, 34, article "Martin Bucer." 9 admitted that bread and wine are not mere signs, but signa exhibitiva. While the bread is eaten the Body of Christ is truly offered and received. The union between bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ, how- ever, does not consist in any mixture of what these heavenly and earthly elements are in their true essenti- ality, but it is a "sacramental union." 14 To this Confession of Bucer Luther could not object, because he also rejected the impanation theory and a Capernaitic eating and drinking. 15 Nevertheless, Bucer found it exceedingly difficult to satisfy Luther who feared that the phrase "sacramental presence" might be used for placing a spiritualistic interpretation upon whatever the other side might admit in the direction of the Real Presence. Bucer soon saw that he could expect no con- cessions to the Zwinglian side from Luther. To make sure that he would not be deceived with spiritualistic in- terpretation's of definitions which in themselves were not objectionable Luther even declared through Melanchthon, at the meeting in Cassel (1535) "that in and with the bread the Body of Christ is eaten in such a way that all which the bread works and suffers the Body of Christ works and suffers; that the Body is distributed, eaten and manducated (mit den Zaehnen zerbissen) . 16 In this 14 Cf. the reports by Gruenberg in R. E. Ill, 609, 30; by Kolde in R. E. XXI, 391, 14; by Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther II, 330; Corp. Ref. II, 807, 827. 15 See Formula of Concord, Epitome, art. VII, Affirmative 6; Negative 20; cf. art. VIII, Aff. 12. Solid Decl. VII, 64. 16 De Wette, Briefe Luthers IV, 5591. Melanchthon, in a letter to Cammerarius, said that he could bring this message only as a reporter of an opinion that was not his own (nuntius alienae sen- tentiae). Corp. Ref. II, 822. Kawerau says : "Nowhere else has Luther uttered his view with an expression that sounds so offen- sive as he did at this occasion. It is true that he used the same words in his very severe controversy with Zwingli in his Grosses Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl (1528, Luther's Works, Erl. Ed. XXX, p. 297), but not without immediately qualifying his statement. At this moment he chose to make his declaration brief and sharp (schroff). So much he desired reliably to establish the actual at- titude of Bucer to his teaching and to ward off the appearance as if people who are opposed to it had united with him, or that he himself had abandoned his original position." (Koestlin-Kawerau II, 329). Compare the language of the Formula of Concord on this subject (Part II, Art. VII, 105). 10 practice of painstaking care to guard the doctrine of the Keal Presence Luther continued through all his negotia- tions with Bucer. When after that meeting in Cassel the latter defended himself by employing terms that were unobjectionable Luther wrote characteristically: "If they mean in their heart what their words say then I know at this time not how to reproach them. 17 Against the pleading of Bucer that the people at Strasburg felt deeply against a teaching according to which the Body of Christ is received also by the unbelievers he remained un- yielding; all that Bucer succeeded in wresting from Lu- ther at that final conference in Wittenberg (1536) was the permission to make that artificial and unmaintain- able distinction between unbelievers and unworthy. 18 We see that as far as Luther was concerned Bucer' s in- tention to bring about a union by compromise was not realized. The Wittenberg Concord is a Lutheran docu- ment all through. 19 What was the attitude of the Swiss 17 Wo ihr Herz stehet wie die Worte lauten, so weiss ich auf diesmal die Worte nicht zu strafen. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331. 18 Cf. Gruenberg, R. E. Ill, 609, 50. Kolde R. E. XXI, 394, 38. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 340. 19 Kolde, R. E. XXI, 396, 36. The text of the Wittenberg Con- cord is contained in the Corp. Ref. Ill, 375ft. It is translated into English in Jacobs' Book of Concord (not People's Edition) II, 253. We miss this document in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom. In the Wittenberg Concord we have, first, articles concerning the Lord's Supper. The first article says that with (cum) bread and wine Christ's Body and Blood are truly and essentially present, offered and received. The second article rejects impanation and the ex- istence of the Body outside of the action in the Sacrament. The third teaches the Real Presence independent of the worthiness of the servant of the Church and of the receiver, as long as the ad- ministration takes place according to the institution of Christ. The "unworthy" receive the Sacrament to their judgment. There was discussion also with regard to Baptism, particularly with re- gard to infant faith. Here they agreed "that through Baptism there come to infants the forgiveness of original sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost who is efficacious in them (the children) ac- cording to their measure Although we do not understand of what nature this action of God in infants is, nevertheless it is certain that in them new and holy movements are wrought For although we must not imagine that infants understand, never- theless these movements and inclinations to believe Christ, and love God, are, in a measure, like the movements of faith and love. This is what we say when we say that infants have faith. For we speak thus that it may be understood that infants cannot become holy and be saved without the divine action in them." The Bap- 11 to Bucer's mediating activity, and how was the Witten- berg Concord received by the South German cities? We hear that even Zwingli, when Bucer first visited him after he had seen Luther in Coburg (1530), admit- ted the presence of Christ's Body in the Supper. But he qualified his statement by saying that it was not a bodily presence. 20 Fisher says correctly : "Zwingli was not the man to veil his opinions." 21 When Bucer soon after- wards drew up a formula in which he employed the words corpus verum Zwingli objected, at first moderately, 22 but soon in very strong language. 23 Bullinger, after the death of Zwingli, in a Confession of 1534, shows a cer- tain approach to the Tetrapolitana. 24 But he is far from an admission of the Real Presence in Luther's sense. In February 1536, about three months before the Witten- berg Concord was signed, the First Helvetic Confession was composed. 25 In this Confession there was progress over the original position of Zwingli in that the Sacra- ments were defined as consisting not only in signs, but also in essential things to be communicated. These are the "true communion of His Body and Blood," which then is qualified as Himself given to the believers for the strengthening of faith. 26 It was impossible for Bucer to reconcile Luther to such statements. tism in case of extreme necessity (Nottaufe) was justified. Pri- vate absolution to which there had been opposition in the South was admitted, because of the opportunity it affords to comfort the spiritually depressed and to instruct the religiously ignorant; aur- icular confession was rejected. (Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, p. 287. Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 545. Kolde, R. E. XXI, 395, 11). 20 Kolde in R. E. XXI, p. 388, 1. 21 Fisher, History of Doctrines, p. 290. 22 Kolde ut supra, p. 389, 22. 23 Ibid. p. 389, 22-27. 24 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 327. 25 Bucer himself had co-operated in the construction of this document. The authors agreed that it should not be published for the present as the outcome of the meeting with the Lutherans (in May) was to be awaited. Schaff, Creeds I, 388f. Kolde ut supra, p. 392, 45. 26 This Confession is contained in Schaff's Creeds of Christen- dom III, 2iiff. Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 334. Seeberg, History of Doctrines II, 390. Heppe, ut supra, p. 84. The point of interest is in the question: What did Bucer mean when he three months later agreed to the terms in the Wittenberg Concord? 12 But what was the attitude of the Cities of Upper Ger- many to the Wittenberg Concord? After hesitation on the part of some 27 all subscribed. But those of the Cities that had developed in their Reformation views under the influences from the South never ceased to interpret Art. X of the Augsburg Confession in the light of that median type as represented in the Tetrapolitana, which always formed the background for Bucer's approaches to the Lu- theran position. 28 The Real Presence was to them, as to Bucer, a spiritual one. As Christ's Body is spiritual so there was to them only one way of receiving, namely through the spirit of the believer. 29 The Wittenberg Concord failed to accomplish the union that Bucer was laboring for. Luther tried for a number of years his utmost to win the Swiss. Up to two years before his death he abstained from all controversy against the Zwinglians in the hope that by such attitude a union on the basis of the Real Presence might develop. 30 But he found that his silence was more and more interpreted as an abandonment of his former position. Even 27 Ulm, for instance, where they talked of the "new doctrine" which their representative had brought home from Wittenberg. Kolde, referring to his book Analecta Lutherana, p. 280L 28 Moeller's Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill by Kawerau, p. 125. 29 Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 39of. Loofs, p. 879. Heppe, pp. 76, 48. 30 Here is of special interest a letter which Luther wrote un- der the date of December first, 1537, to the followers of Zwingli in Zuerich. It was an answer to a letter received from them, in which they had emphasized their conception of a merely spiritual pres- ence in the Eucharist. In this letter Luther prays to God that he might be permitted to complete the work of reconciliation begun in the Wittenberg Concord, and he asks them to work for the same end. For himself and his friends he promises that in writing and preaching they would be quiet and mild, in order not to in- terfere with the development. And, referring to the difference in the doctrine of the Sacrament, he wrote : "Since we do not yet understand each other fully, it is well to exercise mutual kindness, and always hope the best until all turpid waters have fully set- tled." The letter of the Swiss is given in Enders' Briefwechsel XI, I57f.. together with Luther's answer (Latin), p. 157. German in the Historie des Sakramentsstreits, p. 400; also in Enders XI, 294 and in Erl. Ed. of Luther's Works, LV, 190. Extracts of both letters are given in Koestlin-Kawerau II, pp. 350 and 352; also in Planck, Geschichte des Protestant. Lehrbegriffs III, Book 8, p. 399ff. 13 Schwenkfeld prided himself with being upon common ground with him. 31 His consent to removing the prac- tice of elevation at celebrating the Lord's Supper in the Wittenberg Churches was taken as proof of his conver- sion to the spiritualistic views of his former opponents. 32 In the publication of the First Helvetic Confession he saw the determination of Bullinger and his friends in Zuerich to resist the Real Presence conception. Furthermore, since that meeting in Cassel (1534), referred to above, he had observed with growing concern the changing at- titude of Melanchthon. 33 As standard-bearer of the Real Presence which he saw founded in the Scriptures and which he always regarded as essential to his system of teaching he feels his respon- sibility for transmitting it to the Protestant Church of the future. In 1543 he announced: "After so many Confessions which I have published I must send out one more; I shall do it soon, and it will be my last." 34 As a final impulse for carrying out this plan there came into his hands, in the summer of 1544, a document, prepared by Bucer and Melanchthon, which contained articles of faith for introducing the Reformation in the city of Co- logne. Here Bucer's mediating interpretation of the Real Presence was openly expressed, with an ignoring even of the Wittenberg Concord. 35 In Sept. 1544 Luther 31 Corp. Ref. Ill, 983ft". ; IV, 797- De Wette, Brief e V, 463, 6i3f. 32 De Wette, Brief e V, 236. Corp. Ref. Ill, 4S8; IV, 735- 33 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 335. Regarding the relation of Me- lanchthon's Variata edition of the Augsburg Confession to the general union movement see Neve, Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 2o8ff. ; cf. pp. giff. 34 De Wette V, 644L "Ich muss deshalb nach so vielen Be- kenntnissen, die ich getan, noch eines ausgehen lassen; das will ich ehestens machen, und es soil mein letztes sein." 35 Together with bread and wine Christ offers truly His Body. He who firmly believes the promise receives Christ's Body truly for his salvation. There was nothing said of a receiving also by the "unworthy." Advice was given to dismiss "all fleshly thoughts in this mystery." Luther characterized the document with the following words : Es treibt lange viel Geschwaetz von Nutzen, Frucht und Ehre des Sakraments, aber von der Substanz mum- melt es, dass man nicht vernehmen soil, was es davon halte, in aller Maase wie die Schwaermer tun. De Wette, Briefe V, 572ff., 577- Corp. Ref. V, 3i3f., 293, 304. 14 published his Brief Confession of the Lord's Supper. 86 In very sharp language he rejects the teaching of Carl- stadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Schwenkfeldt (He calls him Stenkefeldt) , and points his finger at "their disciples in Zuerich and wherever they are." This publication marks the final failing of the Witten- berg Concord and with it the failing of the union move- ments of the sixteenth century as far as the relation be- tween Lutherans and Reformed is concerned. There is a question that forces itself upon us, and this would be the place to attempt an answer. Why was Lu- ther so unyielding at Marburg and here in his dealing with Bucer and with the Swiss ? To charge common stub- bornness would be very unhistorical. Prof. J. P. Fischer says in his History of Doctrines (p.290) : "It is not to Lu- ther's discredit that he had no relish for the ambiguities of compromise" ; and Phil. Schaff, writing of Bucer 37 says "He labored with indefatigable zeal for an evangelical union and hoped to attain it by elastic compromise form- ulas . . . which concealed the real difference and in the end satisfied neither party." No, Luther had a very serious reason for his unyielding position. He stood for a religi- ous interest in which his conscience was involved. Prof. Kawerau, himself a man of the Prussian Union, in dis- cussing the Marburg Coloquy, has a fine appreciation of the religious interest for which Luther stood in his con- flict with Zwingli. 38 The Sacrament, Kawerau explains, was to Luther an act in which God incarnate Himself condescends to seal for the individual the forgiveness of his sins. He insists upon a receiving of Christ's Body also by the unworthy because, as he said, the reality of Christ's appointed gift must never be made dependent upon our thinking and believing. 39 It is the principle of realism that goes through his whole system. We see it 36 Kurtz Bekenntnis D. Martin Luther's vom Heiligen Sakra- ment. Erl. Ed. XXXII, 379- 37 Creeds I, 526. 38 Moeller, Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill, by Kawerau, 3rd. ed., p. 891. 39 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 339. 15 in his conception of the Word as a means of grace just as much as in his teaching of the Sacrament. Stripped of Luther's conception of the Real Presence, the historical Lutheran Church goes out of existence. If this one doc- trine is untenable then a whole number of other tenets of Lutheranism, that are based upon the same principle, must go, and historical Lutheranism is no more. Much of what is called Lutheranism in Germany has gradually become another thing, simply because this one corner- stone, the Real Presence and what goes with it, has been abandoned or has been relegated to the sphere of indif- ference. It is of special interest to observe that the dif- ferent Norwegian bodies of Lutherans in our country have united upon the old historical Lutheran platform, and that the English speaking bodies of Lutherans, the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod of the South, are effecting their union upon the same basis,. There is among all the Lutheran synods of America not one that does not emphasize Luther's doc- trine of the Real Presence; not simply because Luther taught it — there are many teachings of Luther, which the Lutheran Church has not symbolized — but because they accept Luther's principle of realism in exegesis and be- cause they see that the doctrines of Lutheranism are an organism from which it is impossible to eliminate one part without affecting the life of the whole. Luther stood for distinct religious interests, he could not yield, and under the historical circumstances he had to sound, before his death, the note that went out with his last con- fession in 1544. He might have done it with less violence, but his declaration that he was yet standing upon the old ground was one that had to be made. The question has been asked whether Bucer was sin- cere in his mediating activities. He was charged with insincerity both from the Zwinglian and the Lutheran side. The Zwinglians, that is Bullinger and his friends in Zuerich, mistrusted his interpretation of the Witten- berg Concord, and in a meeting at Basle (1536) they de- cided to find out the truth by submitting his statements 16 to Luther, 40 and Bucer had times when it was hard for him to convince the Swiss of his honesty. 41 Luther, on the other hand, met Bucer with much distrust at Coburg (1530). He wrote: Martin Bucer nihil respondeo.* 2 And while he at times put great confidence in him and welcomed him heartily yet there were moments when he feared that he could not trust him and that he had to test his sincerity. 43 Even after the agreement upon the Wit- tenberg Concord in 1536 he felt an aversion to Bucer*s diplomatic activities in trying to win the Swiss to a recognition of the new basis by saying that a real differ- ence between the two sides was not existing, and he ad- monished him to desist from representations not quite in harmony with truth. 44 Amsdorf and Osiander had no confidence in Bucer. The charge of insincerity has been repeated by many historians. To arrive at a fair judg- ment we need, of course, to think of the difficulty of the task he had set before himself. Then we need to consider that when he spoke of a truly "essential" presence of Christ's Body (purposely avoiding Luther's term "sub- stantial") he always meant by that only a spiritual pres- ence. 45 When he rejected consubstantiation 46 he meant by that more than the Formula of Concord does. This was Luther's constant fear. But if we remember the persistency with which he in all his dealings with Luther did reject consubstantiation and emphasized a sacramen- tal union (which however, in his mind was not quite the same as what the Lutherans understood by that term), if we call to our mind the letter which he wrote to Lu- ther after that meeting with Melanchthon in Cassel (1534)\ 47 in which he frankly explained to what extent 40 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 350. 41 Kolde R. E. XXI, 398, 24. 42 Enders' Briefwechsel VIII, 258. 43 See Kolde ut supra, 393, 25. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331, 338. 44 Ibid. 351. 45 Ibid. 348. 46 Ibid. 330. Corp. Ref. II, 8091; cf. 8261. Referred to by Kolde ut supra 391, 17-30- 47 Quoted in extract by Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331. 17 only he could agree with him, if we finally think of how he at that meeting at Wittenberg (1536) when Luther in- sisted upon a receiving of the Body also by the unbe- lievers, consented only to a receiving by the unworthy, by which he meant those "who are in the Church and have faith, yet do not discern the Lord's Body, do not properly estimate this gift of Christ": 48 it seems to us that in consideration of all this it cannot be maintained that Bucer was intentionally insincere. He honestly believed that there was a middle ground upon which Luther and his opponents could meet if they only understood each other. 49 His was the Strasburg type of teaching. He stands in the history of the Reformation as "the great compromise theologian" (Seeberg II, 390), but because there is no middle ground between the realistic and the spiritualistic position 50 he became "the stepping stone to Calvinism. 51 The fact is that Bucer regarded the whole object of controversy as of only minor importance. His biographer in the R. E. says : He had more appreciation of Luther's occasional stubbornness than of his religious motives in the matter. For this reason he was always so easily ready for large concessions and for ever new for- mulations. 52 The Wittenberg Concord failed and yet there is trace- able to this document and its negotiations a number of positive results which we shall enumerate at the close of this discussion: (1) The polemics between Luther and his opponents ceased for a number of years. (2) This served for the strengthening of the Smalcald Federation. (3) The cities of Upper Germany were drawn into a common confessional interest with the Lutherans. (4) 48 Ibid. 348; cf. Luth. Cyclopedia, p. 545. 49 With regard to whether Bucer was sincere see Gruenberg in R. E. Ill, 610, 32ff. 50 It is not without interest for the student of the History of Doctrines to observe that from the beginning of Christianity there were in the Church the two views, the realistic and the spiritual- istic. In Irenaeus for instance we have Luther's realistic position while in Origen we have the spiritualistic teaching of Berengar, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin. 51 Loofs, Dogmengeschichte 879. 52 Gruenberg in R. E. Ill, 610, 4off. 18 Thus a way was paved for future Calvinistic influences upon German Protestantism. (5) Melanchthon became encouraged in his efforts at modifying original Lutheran- ism. 53 (6) Philip of Hessia also was encouraged in the endeavors which he inaugurated at Marburg. It is, therefore, only historically logical that in centuries fol- lowing Hessia (or parts of Hessia) introduced the union. (7) But it may also be traced to the negotiations leading to the Wittenberg Concord that later in the Prussian Union as in the union movements in other parts of Ger- many Lutheranism became the predominating element. 54 (8) The most important among the positive results was the lesson that a union by compromise between Lutherans and Reformed, doctrinally speaking, is an impossibility. If in following centuries any union between Lutherans and Reformed did succeed it was not by a compromise in the field of doctrine. 53 "'Bucerism is the contemporaneous pendant of Melanchthon- ean Lutheranism," Seeberg II, 393. Cf. Heppe 75, 84. Koestlin- Kawerau II, 328. 54 Cf. Heppe 82. CHAPTER II. LUTHERANISM IN ITS STRUGGLE WITH CALVINISM. Literature: Seeberg, History of Doctrines II, 390ff., 386ff. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte (4th ed.), 875ff., 902ff. Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte II, (2nd ed. by Seeberg), 543ff., 556ff., 638ff. Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte, (14th ed., 1909, from Reformation on revised by Tschackert), 161, 152. English edition of 1888, §§ 141, 144, 154. Moel- ler, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill, by Ka- werau (3rd ed.), 181ff., 299ff. C. W. Hering, Geschichte der Kirchlichen Unionsversuche 1836, 1, 184ff., 258ff. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom I, 554ff., 536f. Plitt, Ein- leitung in die Augustana II, 79-102. Fritschel, Formula of Concord, Luth. Pub. Soe'y, Phila., 1916, pp 181-193 ; 194- 202 ; 203-212. Cf . extract of Fritschel's book in Neve, In- troduction to Luth. Symbolics (2nd ed. will appear under different title), Luth. Book Concern, Columbus, O., pp. 384-428. On Altered and Unaltered Ausburg Confes- sion, see the same book, 86-100, cf. 207-210. Kruske, Johann von Lasko und der Sakramentsstreit, Leipzig, 1901. Wangemann, Joh. Sigismund und Paul Gerhardt, 1-100. Stahl, Luth. Kirche und die Union, 107-123. G. W. Richards, The Heidelberg Catechism, Phila., 1913, pp. 32ff., 77ff. The following articles in Hauck,Realencyclo- paedie der Protestantischen Theologie und Kirche (quoted as R. E.) deal with the matters of this chapter: "Joachim Westphal" by Kawerau (XX, 185ff.) ; "Hard- enberg" by Bertheau (VII, 408ff.) ; "Tilemann Hesshu- sen" by Hackenschmidt (VIII, 8ff) ; "Naumberger Fuer- stentag" by Kawerau (XIII, 661ff.) ; "Melanchthon" by Kirn (XII, 513ff.) ; "Philippisten" by Kawerau (XV, (19) 322ff.) ; "Krell" by Weiss (XI, 85ff.) ; "Orthodoxie" by Burger (XIV, 495ff.) ; "Neostadiensium Admonitio" by Miiller (XIII, 709f.) ; "Protestantismus" by Kattenbusch (XVI, 162f.) ; "Heidelberger Katechismus" by Lauter- burg (X, 164ff.) Before we proceed to discuss the union movements in the age of George Calixtus and in the century that fol- lowed, we have to insert a chapter on the new doctrinal conflict that was inaugurated by the appearance of Cal- vinism. Whatever in coming centuries worked for union between Lutherans and Reformed, or for a spirit of toler- ation between the two Churches, it had reference to the relation between Lutheranism and Calvinism. I. CALVINISM AS A NEW TYPE OF PROTESTANTISM. With the activities of Martin Bucer there had been cre- ated in Strasburg a "median type of theology'' as we have seen in the first chapter of these discussions. 1 The spe- cial feature of this theology with regard to the Eucharist was the emphasis upon the spiritual receiving of Christ's Body and Blood, conditioned on the faith of the com- municant. Now let us keep in mind that Calvin was in Strasburg from 1538 to 1541. But already before his coming there he had received decisive influences from Bucer. 2 But with the ascendency of Calvin, Bucer's the- ology was almost everywhere merged in Calvinism, and so it was Calvin who became the chief representative of that mediating conception of the Lord's Supper which characterized the South West of Germany. 3 We may say i Compare again Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, 3gof. 2 Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, p. 878. Cf. Calvin's discussion of the Lord's Supper in the first edition (1536) of his Institutiones IV, 17, §5- 3 See also Hering, Geschichte der kirchl. Unionsversuche I, i86ff. 21 that Calvinism was simply the higher form of Bucerism. We can, therefore, understand that for a time Calvin could be regarded as an "Upper-German Lutheran" (ein oberdeutscher Lutheraner) . 4 The influences from Lu- ther are clearly traceable in Calvin. 5 Seeberg also writes : "Calvin, like Bucer, drew his first inspiration from Lu- ther. Luther's ideas moulded him in a general way as a theologian and also in his views of particular doctrines. Yet he was a Lutheran only in the same sense as Bucer. Or, we may say, the impulses which made Calvin a theo^ logian and churchman proceeded not only from the influ- ences of Luther, but also from that conception of religion and of the Church and her duty which prevailed at Stras- burg." 6 Then (1541) Calvin followed the call back to Geneva. Here he succeeded in effecting a doctrinal agreement with Bullinger and the followers of Zwingli in Zurich, which was expressed in the Consensus Tigurimcs of 1549. This confessional document is pronounced by E. Staehelin "the solemn act by which the Zwinglian and Calvinistic refor- mations were joined in everlasting wedlock as the one great Reformed Church." 7 On the doctrine of the Sup- per there was in that Consensus, with regard to the form of expression, an approach to Zwingli; but in substance we have here the teaching of Calvin as a further develop- ment of Zwingli's conception after the manner of Bucer's meditation. 8 For lack of space we cannot here develop and review in detail Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper in its dis- tinction from or its relation to that of Luther. We refer 4 Cf. Loofs, p. 877, 879; also Thomasius-Seeberg, Dogmenge- schichte II, 547. 5 Lang, Bekehrang Calvins, 47ff., referred to by Seeberg and Loofs. 6 History of Dictrines II, 393. 7 Staehelin, Johann Calvin II, 121. 8 The text of the Consensus Tigurinus is omitted by Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, chiefly because of its length. It is given by Niemeyer in his collection of Reformed Confessions, pp. 123-310. Cf. Thomasius-Seeberg II, 547L Seeberg II, 417. Loofs, p. 896. Hering I, I96f. 22 the reader to the last chapter of these essays. But for a brief characterization we may say that Calvin did not hesitate to call Zwingli's merely figurative conception profane. 9 The signs in the Sacrament are not empty, but they offer what they signify. As bread and wine nourish the body so Christ's Body and Blood nourish the soul. Calvin even speaks of a presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. But it is not a real Presence, because the Body is far removed from us in space ; it is a presence through the Holy Spirit when we have faith and in faith are drawn to Christ. Even then the body is not received, but the spirtual influences that proceed from the Christ in whose presence the believer is. Seeberg remarks "The difference is always equally manifest — Calvin having in mind the spiritual influence, and Luther the real bodily presence." 10 II. THE FIRST CONFLICT BETWEEN CALVINISM AND LUTHERANISM. Calvin's influence soon began to be felt outside of Switzerland, especially in England, France and the Neth- erlands. It also extended to Germany, the activities of Bucer in connection with the Wittenberg Concord offer- ing the point of connection. At first there was on the part of the Lutherans no protest against the Confessio Tigurinus, nor against any writing of Calvin that had appeared before the publication of this new Confession. In 1540 he had published a French tract on the Supper, which he republished in Latin in the year of Luther's death (1546). Here he had emphasized a real presence and a real receiving of Body and Blood. But in 1548 he published this writing in a new edition with larger em- 9 Corp. Ref. XXXIX, 438. 10 II, 414; cf. Calvin's Institutions IV, 17, §5- Hering I, i84ff., 197. 23 phasis upon a purely spiritual receiving. 11 Some may not yet have been f amliar with these writings ; others — the followers of Melanchthon — favored the Strasburg type of teaching, which seemed simply to be reflected in the position of Calvin ; and again others, who were guard- ing zealously the purity of Luther's doctrine, may have been waiting for some one to take up the controversy. This one finally appeared when in 1552 Joachim West- phal, of Hamburg, began his polemical activity against Calvin. 12 The first publication of Westphal 13 was fol- lowed the next year by another writing 14 of the same au- thor. Then something occurred that brought Calvin, who so far had ignored Westphal, into active warfare against the Lutheran party in Germany. John von Lasko, a Pole, who as an adherent of Calvin had been serving a Protestant congregation in London under Ed- ward IV, had to flee from "Bloody Mary" (1553), and he, with 175 members of his congregation made application for permission to settle on the continent. He applied first in Denmark, but was refused. With the same result the fugitives applied in a number of cities in the North- ern part of Germany. The Lutheran governments every- where feared that Lasko's outspoken dissent from the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper might result in schismatic movements that would destroy the peace of Church and State. In that day religious union was re- garded as necessary to political union. This treatment of Lasko and his followers became the occasion for Cal- vin to attack the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. He did it in his Defensio, etc., of 1555, 15 and in writings that ii Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther II, 577. Hering I, 196. 12 See Kurtz, Church History, 1888, §141, 10; latest German edi- tion (14th, 1906) §161, 10. Kawerau in W. Moeller, Kirchenge- schichte III, 186, 281. 13 The title was Farrago Confuseanarum, etc., 5 volumes. For a characterization of the work see Kawerau in R. E. XXI, 186, 36. 14 Recta Fides, etc. 15 Printed in Corp. Ref. XXXVII, iff.; cf. Kawerau in R. E. XXI, 187, 33- u followed 16 with such superciliousness of spirit 17 that it developed into a heated controversy between Lutherans and Calvinists, with many theologians of both sides par- ticipating. 18 Calvin replied in a third and last writing, Ultima Admonitio, etc., 19 in which, among other things he said that he received the Augsburg Confession in the sense as it had been interpreted by its own author, mean- ing by that the Variata edition which he, with others, had subscribed at the Colloquy in Worms, 1540. 20 This is especially interesting, because it shows that Calvin wanted to be a Lutheran. And we can see how the Lu- therans, in their struggle with Calvinism, were driven to demand the recognition of the Unaltered edition of the Augsburg Confession, the Invariata. 21 The silence of Melanchthon in this whole controversy gave him and his followers in general the name "Crypto- Calvinists." Since the days of Calvin's stay at Stras- burg, Melanchthon had begun more and more to lean to him, particularly with regard to the Supper. So we can understand how this controversy embarrassed him. The embarrassment was increased still more when Gallus, of Regensburg, published a book in which he collated from former writings of Melanchthon how he nad expressed himself against Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 22 16. Secunda Defensio in Corp. Ref. XXXVII, 4iff.; cf. R. E. XXI, 188, 26. 17 Admitted even by an advocate of Calvin as Hering, I, 203. 18 Kruske, Joh. V. Lasko und der Sakramentsstreit. Leipzig, 1001. As to the alleged wrong done to Lasko and his fellow- fugitives, Kawerau (R. E. XXI, 187, 8) asks whether under like circumstances Calvinistic governments would not have acted as did the Lutherans. In that day Church and civil government were so interwoven that dissension in the Church always meant disturbance for the government. We would also remark that in reporting this affair it should never have been omitted that Lutherans in the different cities kept the fugitives for weeks and supported them to the best of their abilitv. See Hering I, 200. 19 Corp. Ref. XXXVII, 137ft-, cf. R. E. XXI, 188, 31, 20 R. E. XXI, 187, 59. Kawerau in Moeller's Kirchengeschichte III, 141. Salig, Augsb'g Conf. I, 491. Staehelin, Joh. Calvin I, 234. Corp. Ref. IV, 33ft. ; XLIII, 305. 21 On this subject cf. Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbol- ics, pp. 95ff- 22 R. E. XXI, 188, 27. 2* A similar publication was issued by Westphal. Later in this chapter (sub 7) we shall discuss Melanchthonianism in its relation to Calvinism more in detail and in a con- nected way. The step of Westphal of publicly calling attention to the fundamental difference between Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper and that held by Luther has been criticized by Reformed writers up to the present time. 23 But Westphal certainly has been justified by history even to this day. Among the many Lutheran synods of America there can be no longer union except on the basis of the old historic Lutheranism with regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Much as we may regret the bitterness of the conflict, history, as viewed from the standpoint of Lutheranism, has shown that Westphal performed a most needed service to the Church. Kawerau says: "If he had not done it some one else would." 24 It opened the eyes of Lutheran' Germany to the silent propaganda for Cal- vin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and it revealed the fact that Melanchthon and his followers were willing to trade Luther's conception for the teaching of Calvin. It taught the Lutherans the necessity for insisting upon the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. In brief, it spelled the beginning of the end of Calvin's dominion over Ger- many, 25 or at least limited it to a nanow territory. 26 Calvin who, in his replies to Westphal, wrote as if West- phal's activity was of no account certainly had deceived himself as to the vitality of the old Lutheran position. 27 III. THE INROADS OF CALVINISM UPON LUTHERAN TERRITORY. We can easily understand that Calvin's view of the 23 Cf. Dalton, Miscellanen, 1905, p. 302&. 24 R. E. XXI, 186, 60. 25 Kruske, ut supra, p. 83. 26 Kawerau in R. E. XXI, 186, 57. 27 See Hering, p. 203. 26 Sacrament maintained itself in the south-west of Ger- many where for decades Bucerism had had its adherents. But it extended also to other parts of Germany, to Bre- men, for instance, where a conflict occurred between Har- denberg and his strictly Lutheran opponents. 28 The po- sition taken by Hardenberg is of special interest. He corresponded much with Melanchthon, and, when driven to a definite statement, he rejected Luther's doctrine of the Real Presence, refusing to accept by oath the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession. He declared that he could accept the Bible only. The Augsburg Confession, he said, was a product of the time, composed to please the emperor and the pope, this being particularly true of Art. X which contains too much of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. 29 We cannot here relate the whole history of how Bre- men was lost to the Lutheran Church, but must refer the reader to the literature on that subject. Pezel, a Me- lanchthonian of Wittenberg, was called as pastor. He introduced a catechism which taught Calvinism under Melanchthonian forms of expression. Later the Heidel- berg Catechism was accepted. At first Bremen refused to be called Calvinistic, but soon the ministers accepted even Calvin's doctrine of Predestination and Bremen was regularly represented at the Synod of Dort. 30 As Hardenberg was out of place in north Ger- many so was Hesshusius a misfit in the south-west (at Heidelberg) where moderation would have done better service for the Lutheran Church. 31 Hesshusius was one of the most combative of Lutheran theologians. When 28 Read in Kurtz, Engl, edition, §144, 2; last German edition (1006), §152, 2. Moeller-Kawerau, Kirchengeschichte III (1907), p. 306. Tschackert, Entstehung, etc., pp. 537ff. Cf. Hering, ut supra, I, 204-212; also article "Hardenberg" in R. E. VII. 29 Cf. Hering I, 205f. 30 Since 1638, through the efforts of a Danish prince, the Dom was given over to the many citizens that had refused to leave the Lutheran Church. 31 Cf. Richards, Heidelberg Catechism, 1913, p. 39ff. 27 his arguments were not received he threatened with phys- ical violence, and he even led his followers into riots. 32 At the end of his life he regretted that he had not re- buked more severely the errorists (die Rottengeister) .. Somewhere in these discussions we must try to find an explanation of the severity of Lutheran polemics that characterized the controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here we cannot permit the in- terruption. Let us see how the Palatinate was lost to the Lutheran Church. Elector Frederick III. had dis- missed Hesshusius and had begun to feel opposed to a strict Lutheranism. At the Day of Princes at Naumburg he favored the Augustawi Variata as against the Invari- ata. 33 He studied for himself the different views on the Lord's Supper. Finally the arguments of a physician (who had written a book on the subject) together with a Theological Estimate (Gutachten) from Melanchthon (Corp. Ref. IX, 960), helped him to decide for Calvinism (1561). 34 Now Caspar Olevianus and Zach. Ursinus, the makers of the Heidelberg Catechism, were called. The church service was adapted to Calvinistjc ideals: Paint- ings, baptismal fonts, altars were removed, and the organs closed. The opposing ministers were driven from the country and Reformed ministers from other coun- tries were put in their place. 35 The loss of the Palatinate was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church. The crypto-Calvinistic agitations were also extended to Electoral Saxony where Melanchthon and his school at Wittenberg had been working into the hands of Calvin with all kinds of machinations. 36 The repulsive charac- 32 Hackenschmidt in R. E. VIII, p. 9, 11; p. 10, 20. 33 See Kawerau in R. E. XIII, 664. 34 Hering I, 221. Melanchthon wrote: "It is not difficult, but dangerous to answer." Cf. Kahnis, Der Innere Gang des Deutschen Protestantismus I, 54; cf. Corp. Ref. IX, 961. Richards, Heidelberg Catechism, p. 4if. 35 Moeller-Kawerau III, 30iff.; Kurtz, Engl. ed. §144, 1; German ed. (1906) §152, 1. Tschackert, 539; article on "Tilemann Heshu- sius" in R. E. VIII. 36 Read Kurtz, Engl., §141, 10, 13; German, §161, 4, 10, 13. Fritschel, Formula of Concord, pp. 52, 177, 181, 1836*. 28 ter of their duplicity in this propaganda is nowhere more graphically described than by Geo. J. Fritschel, in his book, "Formula of Concord." 57 To be historically fair it must be admitted that there was, on the part of the Melanchthonians, an element of self-defense. 38 The Flacianists were setting the stage for their destruction. But their aim was, under the guise of general Bucerian and Melanchthonian terms to displace Luther's doctrine of the Real Presence by the doctrine of Calvin, and they knew that by doing so they were deceiving the Elector August of whom they knew that he was trusting them to preserve the genuine Lutheran doctrine. 39 The anony- mously published Exegesis Perspicua, given in extract by Fritschel (pp. 189-193), finally brought their plan into the open. A great protest arose. The eyes of the elec- tor were opened with the result that the Melanchthonians were driven from Wittenberg and their leaders impris- oned. 40 A thanksgiving service in all churches and a memorial coin celebrated the victory of Lutheranism over Calvinism in Saxony (1574). 41 A new attempt un- der Elector Christian I, who had married into the family of the Elector of the Palatinate met at first with success, but it came to naught under the prince that followed him. Here chancellor Nicholas Krell had been the moving power for the Calvinistic party. He was incarcerated and after ten years of prison life executed. In this case, how- ever, political conditions contributed to the tragedy. But that among the charges his confessional activities were conspicuous may be judged from the blade of the sword with which he was decapitated, which is shown in the Dresden Museum, and which bears the inscription : "Cave 2,7 Luth. Publ. Soc'y, Phila., 1916, pp. 182-93. 38 Kawerau in R. E. XV, 327, 44. 39 R- E. XV, 328, 5. 40 Peucer, the son-in-law of Melanchthon, who as physician and trusted adviser of the elector had been the right hand of the Melanchthonians had to suffer in prison for twelve years. 41 See Moeller-Kawerau III, 290ft". Kutrz, Engl., §141, 10. Tschackert 548f. Calviniane." The records of this execution constitute a dark page in the history of Lutheranism. 42 IV. A FEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE APPRECIATION OF THE CONFLICT. Judged from a large view-point it can not be denied that in this whole conflict Lutheranism was on the de- fensive. Historic Lutheranism had to fight for its life. There was a plan to crowd it out of Germany and to sup- plant it by another type of Protestantism. The Calvin- ists wanted to be recognized as the real Lutheranism, in spite of the fact that they taught only a "spiritual pres- ence" in place of Luther's "Real Presence." The differ- ence between the two conceptions of the Lord's Supper was clouded by the employment of Bucero-Melanchthon- ian forms of expression. It was this plan that Luther- anism had to expose in order to save its own life. Very characteristic is the case of Frederick III in the Palati- nate. When the Lutheran estates at the diet of Augs- burg, in 1564, accused him that he had broken the Augs- burg Religious Peace Treaty of 1555 by introducing Cal- vinism into his country, he replied that he had never read Calvin's writings, that he did not know what Calvinism was, and that he still held to the Augsburg Confession (Variata), as he had done at Naumburg. 43 And yet only the year before he had publicly introduced the Heidelberg Catechism ! There was certainly something to be cleared up. It may seem strange that in our discussions we are al- ways speaking of the Lord's Supper, as if this were the only distinguishing doctrine between Lutheranism and Calvinism. But we must remember that we are dealing 42 See article "Krell" in R. E. XI, 85ft. Read Kurtz, Engl., §141, 13. Moeller-Kawerau III, 297. 43 Cf. Kurtz, German ed. §152, 1. Richards, ut supra, p. 44. so with the relation between Lutherans and Reformed in Germany. In Germany it was, especially in the first stages of the conflict, exclusively the doctrine of the Sup- per that appeared as the point of division; predestination has there always been evaded as a subject of contro- versy. It is true that the Reformed Church of Germany to-day has forms of piety, which show the relation with the Reformed Churches in other countries, but at the 'time here under consideration Calvinism was yet in its formative period. Its principles had not yet worked themselves out. The scientific process of generalization and classification, on the part of observing historians, had not even begun. More time must elapse before such could take place. But on the doctrine of the Supper many minds had been awakened through Luther's contro- versies with Zwingli, Carlstadt and Schwenkfeld, and by the movements that led to the Wittenberg Concord ; and this doctrine, therefore, readily offered itself as a pulse of the doctrinal life of the two Churches. (Cf. p. 13f.) V. THE FINAL SEPARATION BETWEEN LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM IN THE FORMULA OF CONCORD AND IN THE NEUSTADT ADMONITION. We have seen that at first Calvin was looked upon by many as an "Upper-German Lutheran" and his view on the Supper had a silent propaganda in Germany. We 'have also seen that finally there arose a controversy in Which it was made clear that Calvin's doctrine of the Supper was fundamentally different from that of Luther ; — a controversy that was intensified through the crypto- Calvinistic agitations which led to the loss of the Palati- nate to Lutheranism, with Electoral Saxony in danger of .being lost also. Now we shall see how the consciousness of that fundamental difference which resulted from those controversies was expressed in a Lutheran Confession, 31 the Formula of Concord, to which the Reformed replied in a very significant writing, the Neostadiensium Admo- nito. We cannot here discuss the Formula of Concord as a whole. For such a study we must refer to Fritschel's book which has been quoted before. 44 Here we have to do with the Formula only in so far as it gave decisions on the problems that were under discussion in the contro- versies between Lutherans and Reformed. The Formula of Concord, which was first published in 1577, in the form of little monographs, states the posi- tion of Lutheranism in twelve articles; of these, Articles VII ,on the Eucharist, VIII, on the Person of Christ, IX, on the Descent to Hell, and XI, on Predestination, cover the controversies. But since we have in these investiga- tions limited ourselves to the "Union Movements Between Lutherans and Reformed" in Germany (which in their confessional statements, particularly in the Brandenburg Confessions, have excluded Calvin's doctrine of Predesti- nation and even in the Heidelberg Catechism have evaded a discussion of it) we can confine ourselves to a discussion of the essential features of Articles VII, VIII, and IX. It is true that the spirit of legalism, an outstanding char- acteristic of the Reformed Church, finds a remarkable corrective in the articles of the Formula which deal with the relation of Law and Gospel (V and VI) . Neverthe- less these articles were historically not occasioned by po- sitions of the Swiss Reformers. Moreover, legalism as a product of Calvin's principle of the sovereignty of God is more evident among the Reformed Churches outside of the German Reformed — we mention especially the Puri- tans. It will, therefore, be better to consider this feature in the discussions of the last chapter of these essays where we shall deal with the Reformed Churches in general in their doctrinal and practical distinction from Lutheran- ism. 44 Geo. J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord, 1916, Philadel- phia, Pa. An extract of this book is contained in J. L. Neve, In- troduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 384-428. 32 In Art. VII the Formula of Concord uses painstaking care to guard the interpretation of Art. X of the Augs- burg Confession on the Lord's Supper by describing the kind of real presence that was meant by Luther in his controversy with the Sacramentarians, and in his agree- ment with the Upper Germans in the Wittenberg Con- cord. The Catechism and especially the Smalcald Ar- ticles are referred to. The bodily presence is taught upon the basis of the words of institution. 45 Thus it is taught that, on account of the sacramental union between the earthly and the heavenly elements, Christ's Body and Blood are truly and essentially present and received with the bread and wine. It is, however, not a "physical or earthly" presence. 46 From such a view of the real pres- ence it follows that communicants receive the Body of Christ "with the mouth" (ore) which, however, does not mean a capernaitic eating (manducation) , for it takes place in a supernatural, incomprehensible, heavenly way. With this sacramental mode of receiving Christ's essen- tial Body by worthy and unworthy communicants, there goes also a spiritual receiving by faith only, which can also take place outside of the use of the Sacrament. 47 The pious, indeed, receive the Body and Blood of Christ as an infallible pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven, and that Christ dwells in them and wishes to be efficacious in them. 48 The discussions in this article are so thorough and exhaustive that all loopholes for the vagueness of Melanchthon, for the suggestions of Bucer, and for the definitions of Calvin are stopped up. There can be no mistake henceforth as to what Lutheranism is in distinction from Calvinism. To have made this clear in every respect is the significance of this article in the Formula of Concord. 49 45 §§46-59. Our references are to H. E. Jacobs', Peoples' Ed. of the Book of Concord. 46 §§5,6; cf. 17. 47 §§i5, 16; 41, 42; 63-66. 48 §§63, 44- 49 Cf. Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, 386ft". Tschackert, Entstehung, 549!?. Fritschel, Book of Concord 194-202. 33 But the Formula carried its decisions back to the doc- trine of the person of Christ where the root of the dif- ference had already appeared in the controversy be- tween Luther and Zwingli. The latter had taken the po- sition that according to His Body Christ cannot be pres- ent in the Supper, because omnipresence belongs to the divine nature only. Calvin agreed with Zwingli. Here the Formula of Concord, in its system of the personal union and the communicatio idiomatum, teaches the ge- nus majestaticum according to which there are communi- cated to Christ's human nature certain attributes of the divine nature so that the whole Christ, undivided in one person, can be and is present where in His Word He promises to be present. 50 This doctrine is proved by quo- tations from the Scriptures. 51 As to the question whether such a communication is possible the Formula answers characteristically: "No one can know better or more thoroughly than the Lord Christ Himself." (§53). We cannot here review all the statements and arguments of the Formula on the person of Christ and, therefore, have contented ourselves with what is especially germane to our general discussion. 52 50 §§16, 17; cf. corresponding parts in the "Solid Declaration." This feature of Luther's Christology was not a mere invention for the purpose of simply furnishing a support for the doctrine of the Real Presence, as Schaff and many others have viewed it (see Creeds of Christendom I, 288). What Luther wished to establish with his strong emphasis upon the personal union was nothing less than the full value of the atonement wrought by Christ, the God-man. If the humanity of Christ is so separated from His di- vinity that there is no real communion, no communication of the divine attributes to the humanity, then there is no real validity in the suffering of Christ. Luther says : "If the devil should per- suade me that in Christ a mere man was crucified and died for me, then I would be lost, but if I can attach to it the importance that Christ died for me as real God and man then such doctrine will outweigh and destroy sin, death, hell and all misery." (Compare the exhaustive treatment of this subject in Plitt, Einleitung in die Augustana II, 79-102, in particular p. 95. 51 §§54-59. 52 Cf. Seeberg and Tschackert ut supra. Fritschel, pp. 203-212 Tholuck, Christliches Leben im 17. Jahrhundert, p. 2iff. 34 In the brief Article IX, on the Descent to Hell, we can also see the Lutheran emphasis upon the personal union of God and man in Christ. "The entire person, God and man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell and took from the devil all his might." Among the replies to the Formula by the Reformed the Newstad Admonition (Neostadiensium Admonitio) was especially significant, for two reasons: (1) This book, covering 455 quarto pages, was written with great thor- oughness by Zach. Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism; and (2) it was written at the in- struction of Count Casimir, of Neustadt in the Palatinate and published in the name of the Newstad theologians. 53 These theologians at first labored for a Melanchthonian middle type of Protestantism, but in fact found them- selves entirely on the side of Calvin, agreeing with him even in the doctrine of Predestination although not press- ing this point to the extent that was done in other coun- tries. An impression of the Newstad Admonition may be had by a mere quotation of the captions to the twelve chap- ters: (1) The person of Christ, a review of the true doctrine; (2) The Lord's Supper, a review of the true doctrine; (3) Refutation of the false accusation of our churches with regard to false dogmas; (4) The author- ity of the Augsburg Confession; (5) The true meaning of the Augsburg Confession ; (6) Regarding the authority of Dr. Luther; (7) Concerning the unjust condemnation of our doctrine in the Book of Concord ; (8) Proof of false assertions in the Book of Concord; (9) Proof of contra- dictions in the Book of Concord; (10) The procedure of 53 After the death of Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate (1576), who had introduced Calvinism, the city of Heidelberg with the University returned for a time to Lutheranism under the reign of his son, Elector Ludwig (1576-83). His brother, John Casimir, gathered about him at Newstad the Reformed theologians who were expelled from Heidelberg. Chief of them was Ursinus; others were Junius, Tossanus, Zanchius. Cf. Moeller-Kawerau III, 303*. 35 the theologians in bringing about concord, and the part of a Christian magistrate in church controversies; (11) The inconvenience in the carrying out of this concord; (12) An epilogue on the true method for establishing Christian concord in the churches. In chapter two the Real Presence in the sense of Lu- ther is rejected. With regard to the person of Christ in chapter one it is declared that the essential attributes of the divine nature cannot be communicated everywhere to the human nature; the accidental attributes only, which do not constitute Christ's divine nature, are given to his human nature in the state of glory. In chapters eight and nine the Lutheran position is charged with incon- sistency and with being in conflict with the Scriptures. Chapters four and five are of special interest, because they contribute to a correct apprehension of the German Reformed. The author declares that he does not reject the Augsburg Confession (Variata) y but he protests against a binding subscription, which can be claimed only by the Bible. Confessions can be subscribed to only so far {quatenus) as they agree with the Scriptures. 54 While the Admonition has no deliverance on predestination as such, yet we know that Ursinus stood with Calvin on this subject, as is evident in chapter nine. In the manner of the strict predestinarians of succeeding ages Luther's writing against Erasmus on free-will is quoted against Art. XI of the Formula on predestination. 55 This Newstad Admonition was first published in Latin and then translated into German. At the instruction of the three Lutheran electors of Brandenburg, Saxony and the Palatinate the theologians Chemnitz, Selnecker and 54 Here the position of the Lutherans with their demand of a quia subscription is usually misunderstood. For a review of this question, see Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 22-30; cf. also article "Orthodoxie" in R. E. XIV, p. 496. 55 Cf. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, p. 44, note 13. See our explanation in the last of these discourses. 36 Kirchner replied in the so-called "Erfurt Book" of sev- eral volumes (1583). 56 Let us repeat : In the Formula of Concord and in the News tad Admonition the consciousness of the funda- mental difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism was expressed as a finality. The breach became perma- nent. Henceforth the two tendencies of Protestantism, the realistic and the spiritualistic, stand opposed to each other as Church against Church. From now on we have also the names "Lutherans" and "Reformed" as adopted by the churches themselves and meaning what they mean to-day. The term "Lutheran" had been used by the Romanists since 1520 as a designa- tion of all adherents of the Reformation. After the in- troduction of Calvinism into the Palatinate the distinc- tion is made between "Lutherans" and "Calvinists." But after 1585 the followers of Luther began to call them- selves "Lutherans." 57 The followers of Calvin refused to be called Calvinists; they called themselves "Re- formed," intending thereby to indicate that they aimed at a reformation also of Lutheranism in Germany which had kept too much of the Roman leaven. 58 VI. FURTHER LOSS OF LUTHERAN TERRITORY. Before we can devote ourselves to a study of the union movements we will have to make clear to what extent Cal- vinism succeeded in gaining ground in Lutheran Ger- many. Immediately after the death of Melanchthon an in- creasing influence of Calvin was felt in Germany particu- 56 See the articles on "Neostadiensium Admonitio" in Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon IV, 756 and in R. E. XIII, 70of. Cf. arti- cle on "Ursinus" in Meusel VII, 26. 57 Cf. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, p. 928; cf. Heppe, Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnung reformierter imd lutherischer Konfession." 58 Cf. Moeller-Kawerau III, p. 300. Richards, p. 44. 37 larly where there had been sympathy with Melanchthon's views. Calvin's Institutiones come into successful com- petition with Melanchthon's Loci. In quite a number of dominions the doors were opened to Calvinism. We have already heard of the Palatinate and Bremen, but further inroads were made. (a). Nassau. Melanchthonians from Wittenberg and Reformed theologians from the Palatinate were employed by Count John VI for the introduction of Calvinism into Nassau-Dillenburg. In 1578, at the Dillenburg Synod, the Vai*iata was accepted as an authentic interpretation of the Invariata, and the church services were arranged according to Reformed ideals. Then (1581), the Heidel- berg Catechism was adopted. At Herford a Reformed university was established. A number of small domin- ions in the neighborhood (Sayn, Wittgenstein, Solms- Braunfels, Isenburg, Wied) joined in the movement which reached its conclusion in the Herborn General Synod of 1586. 59 (b) . Anhalt. John George I, was among those who refused to sign the Formula of Concord. A declaration on the Lord's Supper was made that kept itself within Melanchthonian forms of expression. The first step of the prince in the Calvinization of the land was taken by removing the practice of exorcism in Baptism. John Arndt, who felt that he could not yield to the decree, had to leave the country. After the prince had married a daughter of the Reformed John Casimir (of the Palati- nate) he proceeded to put the Reformed Church service in place of the Lutheran, and Luther's Catechism was re- moved. Ministers and congregations resisted. It was declared that the intention was only to remove some rem- nants of Roman superstition. It was to be a "reforma- tion." It was here where the term "Reformed" as a name for the adherents of Calvin in Germany came first into use. In connection with the adoption of the Confes- sio Anhaltina, it was officially declared that the country 59 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305f. ss had not ceased to stand upon the Augsburg Confession (Variata) . But in reality it was a mild Calvinism. Lu- theranism was restored only in Anhalt-Zerbst (since 1644) under Prince John who had been trained by his mother in the Lutheran faith. 60 (c). Hesse-Cassel. Landgrave Philip, of Hesse, had died in 1567. The little country was divided in the old German way between his four sons. 61 Here we are in- terested only in Hesse-Cassel (Lower Hesse) under Wil- liam IV. He was decidedly unionistic in his church policy, like his father had been. So he refused to accept the Formula of Concord, kept the Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum and paved the way for the introduction of Calvinism. This was completely carried out under his son Moritz (since 1592), and political complications only kept him from carrying out his plan also with regard to other parts of Hesse. Moritz was untiring in his propa- ganda for Calvinism in other countries (in Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Lippe) , 62 (d). Lippe. Into this little thoroughly Lutheran do- minion Count Simon VI introduced Calvinism (1602). The chief promoter was the General Superintendent H. Dreckmeyer. The change was made by force of arms against much resistance of clergy and people. 63 One city (Lemgo) withstood for eleven years and saved its Lu- theranism. (e). The Conversion of Elector Sigismund of Bran- denburg to Calvinism was an occurrence of the greatest consequence for German Lutheranism in coming cen- turies. The grandfather of John Sigismund, Elector John George, was a strict Lutheran. He subscribed the Formula of Concord and even made his grandson sign a pledge that he would remain faithful to the Lutheran Church (1593). But already the father of John Sigis- 60 Kurtz, English, §144, 3; German ed. §152, 3. Moeller-Kawe- rau III, p. 307. 61 How that was done, see Kurtz, Engl., §154, 1. 62 Moeller-Kawerau III, 3o8ff. Kurtz, English, §154, 1; German §152, 5. Hering, Unionsversuche I, 258ff. 63 Kurtz, Engl., §154, 2. 39 mund, Joachim Frederick (1598-1608), had begun to de- part from Lutheranism. It came in connection with the special policy of the Hohenzollern of striving after more territory. His eyes were also upon the country along the Rhine (Kleve) which was Reformed. The relation to electoral Saxony changed, and there was an approach to the Palatinate (1587). His sons were sent to the Stras- burg university. Marriage relations with the Palatinate followed. Sigismund studied Hospinian's Concordia Dis- cors. 6 * In addition to this he came under the influence of Moritz of Hesse 65 as also under the influence of theologi- ans who had gone on from Melanchthonianism to Calvin- ism (such as Finck). In 1613 John Sigismund publicly changed his confession by receiving, together with fifty- four others, in the Dom at Berlin the Lord's Supper after the Reformed manner. (His wife Anna had refused to join). This step of the elector was followed by much excitement oh the part of the people, because according to the existing law (cuius regio, ejus religio) a prince had the authority to make his subjects follow him or force them to emigrate. He did not make use of this power. He only forbade polemics in the pulpit. An attempt was made to replace the Augsburg Confession Invariata by the Variata, but in face of threatening opposition the plan had to be abandoned. In 1614 Sigismund published his Confession (Confessio Sigismundi) as an invitation for all who would join him. The Confession was in- tended as an improvement of the Augsburg Confession and as a reformation of Lutheranism from remnants of Romanism. The doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's Body was rejected, also the practice of exorcism in Bap- tism and the use of wafers instead of the breaking of the bread in the communion. The Reformed doctrine of the Sacraments was adopted, but with regard to predestina- tion the universality of grace was insisted on. At Frank- 64 Written 1607 as a refutation of the Formula of Concord, to which L. Hutter, of Wittenberg, in 1614, opposed his Concordia Concors. 65 Cf. above, sub. c, and Kurtz, Engl., §154, 1. 40 fort (on the Oder) a university was established which was practically Reformed and, therefore, avoided by the clergy who patronized Wittenberg. 66 VII. THE CHARACTER OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN GER- MANY, PARTICULARLY ITS RELATION TO MELANCH- The question is whether there is an essential difference between Calvinism as we have it in other countries and the Reformed Church in Germany. Has the German Re- formed Church been essentially modified by Melanch- thonianism? This question is of special interest in a critical review of the union movements between this Church and the Lutherans. We refer to the following literature: In Protestantische Realencyclopaedie (R. E.) the articles " Pi^otestantismus" by Kattenbusch (XVI, 162f.), "Philiyyismus" by Kawerau (XV, 322ff.), and "MeUinchtkon" by Kirn (XII, 562, 12ff.) ; also Stahl, Die Lutherische Kircke und die Union, 2nd ed., pp. 107-123. H. Schmid, Geschichte der Synkretistischen Streitigkei- ten, pp. lOff ) , G. W. Richards, The Heidelberg Catechism, 1913, pp. 87-105. Before we can enter into a discussion of this problem in- telligently we need to make very clear what is meant by Melanchthonianism. By Melanchthonianism we under- stand what the Germans are accustomed to express by "Philipism," namely the doctrinal elements in the teach- ings of Melanchthon, on which he departed from the teachings of Luther and with which he formed a school against the stricter Lutherans (Gnesio-Lutherans) . In 66 Moeller-Kawerau III, 3ioff. Kurtz, English, §154, 3; German, §152, 7. Schaff, Creeds I, 554-63. Wangemann, Joh. Sigismund und Paul Gerhardt, pp. 1-100. Neve, article "Paul Gerhardt in the Church Troubles of His Time" in Lutheran Quarterly 1907, pp. 365ff- 41 this discussion we must confine ourselves to matters in which he approached Bucer and Calvin : the Lord's Sup- per and the Person of Christ. We have to keep in mind that Melanchthon had no doctrine of the Eucharist of his own. It was in his nature to evade the controversy rather than to solve the problem. He preferred to leave conflict- ing principles untouched. There is something eclectic about him. 67 It cannot be said that he ever adopted Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, especially its characteris- tic formulas of the exaltation of the believing soul into heaven and of the communication of Christ's humanity to the believer through the Spirit. 68 Neither did he re- ject it. But his approach to Calvin is in the conception of a personal presence of Christ in the Supper. This he had taken over from Bucer. He liked this conception be- cause he thought that he could use it as a formula for union. We must agree when Stahl says: Melanchthon's conception of a general presence of Christ in the Supper is after all Calvin's doctrine not openly expressed. There is no middle doctrine between Luther and Calvin. As soon as the Lutheran view is abandoned, the Reformed view is the only thing that is left. Calvin, Bucer, Me- lanchthon mark only different theological types of the Reformed doctrine. 69 A characteristic of the Bucero- Melanchthonian expressions is their elasticity. As to the real doctrine which Melanchthon held for himself his- torians are not agreed. Kim 70 calls attention to the fact that the pupils of Melanchthon have interpreted their teacher differently on this subject (Peucer different from Hemmig and Major). But the fact that Melanchthon supported Hardenberg in Bremen 71 and that through his written estimate (Gutachten) he was instrumental in con- firming Elector Frederick III in views 72 that took the 67 Stahl, p. io8f. 68 Institutiones IV, 17, 9, 10, 18. 69 Die Luth. Kirche u. d. Union, p. inf. 70 R. E. XII, 526, 20. 71 R. E. VII, 412. Corp. Ref. IX, I9ff. 72 Corp. Ref. IX, 96off. 42 Palatinate over to Calvinism shows that between the doc- trines of Luther and Calvin he favored Calvinism. But he himself did not make the choice, because he saw the salvation of German Protestantism in a tenacious adher- ence to his unionistic formulas. He refused to go beyond the expression of Paul, I Cor. 10:16, that the bread is "the communion of the Body of Christ." In Art. X of the Augsburg Confession, in the Variata form, he uses the preposition cum. This can have the signification "through the means of" ; when so interpreted it is Lutheran. But it may also mean simultaneously or in connection with; when so understood it is Calvinistic. The oral reception of the Body of Christ and its reception also by the un- worthy offer the test as to which signification is accepted. Melanchthon rejected the oral receiving of Christ's Body. 73 The fundamental trouble with Melanchthon was his failure to appreciate Luther's great thought of the mystery in the organic union between the divine and the human as well as the communication of the divine through the created. Melanchthonianism as an organized party 74 suffered a severe defeat in the drama that took place in Saxony, as we have described above. This defeat at that time was not merely the result of the severe polemics of the strict Lutherans, but it had its source in the lack of character and positiveness of the Melanchthonian position. 75 Me- lanchthon's doctrine of the Lord's Supper lacked in Bib- lical foundation and in dogmatic completeness. It could appeal to those only with an indifferent attitude of mind. And the Christology of the Melanchthonians falls short in that it refuses to draw logical consequences from ad- mitted premises. Melanchthonianism, in the points un- der consideration, was too neutral; it lacked in positive- ness. Kawerau calls attention to the fact that after the introduction of the Formula of Concord wherever Me- 73 Corp. Ref. IX, 1046. 7A Cf. R. E. XV, 323, IS- 75 Kawerau remarks that Philippism remained etwas Halbes. R. E. XV, 329, 5i. 43 lanchthonianism still persisted there came forth no schol- arship that could be compared with the literary produc- tions of Concordia Lutheranism. 76 But what was the influence of Melanchthonianism upon further developments in Germany ? While it is true that for the time being Melanchthonianism was defeated through the very general adoption of the Formula of Concord and the publication of the Book of Concord — de- feated to such an extent that for a century the name of the praeceptor Germaniae could hardly be mentioned without arousing indignation, 77 yet it was by no means dead. Germany, consisting of many different independ- ent dominions and principalities, secured to Melanchthon- ianism safe places of refuge. 78 Where subscription to the Formula of Concord was refused Melanchthonianism as a rule found a field for its influence. An important instrument through which Melanchthon- ianism kept exercising an influence with practical results was the Augsburg Confession in the Variata form. It served as an instrument for the introduction of a milder or even a complete Calvinism in many territories. It was before the Thirty Years' War when, according to the Augsburg Religious Peace Treaty of 1555, the adherents to the Augsburg Confession alone were entitled to tolera- tion. By accepting the Variata and interpreting Art. X on the Lord's Supper in a Bucerian or fully Calvinistic sense Calvinism was introduced. Thus as mentioned above, Frederick III of the Palatinate, when the Lutheran princes threatened to proceed against him for having made his country Calvinistic, answered that he was stand- ing upon the Augustana Variata. But his real creed was contained in the Heidelberg Catechism. At Nassau, Bre- 76 R. E. XV, 329, 55. 77 Dr. Polykarp Leyser at a disputation in Wittenberg tore the picture of Melanchthon from the wall and threw it to the ground. 78 Kattenbusch, in R. E. XVI, 163, 8. 44 men, Anhalt and in Brandenburg the Variata was used for the same purpose. 79 It is an interesting question and for the consideration of our general subject a very practical one whether Me- lanchthonianism has actually modified Calvinism in Ger- many or not. Is the Calvinism of Germany, or the "Re- formed" Church of Germany, different from the same form of Protestantism , or from the "high Calvinism" in other countries? This is a question that cannot be an- swered with a simple yes or no. It must be admitted that in the parts of Germany that embraced Calvinism there has been an almost general tendency to exclude or to evade Calvin's doctrine of Predestination. so When it came to the Lord's Supper Calvin's doctrine prevailed everywhere. But after all the question is whether or not even this view has been modified by Melanchthonian forms of expression. This has certainly been the case in Anhalt (see above sub. 6. b) if we are to be guided by the Repetitio Anhaltina of 1581. 81 - Neither can it be denied that the Confession of Sigismund of 1614 (see sub. 6, e) bears a somewhat Melanchthonian character. To quote Schaff : "In regard to the controverted articles, Sigis- mund rejects the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's Body and exorcism in Baptism as a superstitious ceremony, and the use of the wafer instead of the break- ing of bread in the communion. He adopts the Reform- ed doctrine of the Sacraments, and of the eternal and un- conditioned election of grace, yet with the declaration that God sincerely wished the salvation of all men and was not the author of sin and damnation." 82 The terms employed on the Lord's Supper are indeed Bucero-Melanchthonian. 79 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305!. Kurtz, English ed. §§144, 2; 154, 1 (Moeller-Kawerau III, 307f., jo8f.) §154. 3- (Moeller-Kawerau III, 312ft.) Cf. Neve, Altered and Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Luth. Lit. Bd., Burlington, Iowa) p. 361. 80 Cf. Richards. Heidelberg Catechism, p. ioiff. 81 It is not a strictly Reformed Confession, but dating from the Melanchthonian transition period it represents more "a milder type of Lutheranism in opposition to the Flacian party." (Schaff, Creeds I, 564). 82 Creeds I, 556. 45 We read of a "sacramental connection" of the earthly and heavenly elements, of an "undivided distribution" of bread and the Body of Christ. But the emphasis is upon the cum in the sense of simultaneous, as can be seen from the statement that the bread is received with the mouth, but the Body of Christ through faith. It is the Calvin- istic "side by side" expressions as against the Lutheran conception of an organic union. 83 However, it must be admitted that there appears in these Confessions, as well as the Confessions of Brandenburg, that grew out of the colloquies at Leipzig (1631) and at Thorn (1645), some- thing of the Melanchthonian indefiniteness and elasticity of expression. When we make this admission it should, however, be remembered that at Bremen, Lippe and on the Rhine the Reformed Church was of a strictly Calvin- istic type. But before the conclusion of our investigation, we will have to consider for a moment the chief Confession of the Reformed Church in Germany, which is the Heidel- berg Catechism. Very few of the Reformed in the age of the union movements knew or cared to know the Bran- denburg Confessions, but the Heidelberg Catechism was learned by every child. What is the confessional char- acter of this catechism? Dr. G. W. Richards, professor in the Reformed Seminary at Lancaster, Pa., in his book on the Heidelberg Catechism, mentions three points in which the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism differs from Lutheranism : with regard to the Sacraments, to the person of Christ, and to the Church. In Baptism the for- giveness of sins is in no wise received through the water in connection with the Word, for the application of water is only a symbol through which a certain assurance of for-r giveness is granted. See the answer to question 73 : "I am washed with the Blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water, whereby the filthiness of 83 Stahl, n6ff. m the Body is taken away." Dr. Richard interprets : "The washing with the Blood and Spirit is not accomplished through the water ; it is merely symbolized by the water." Regarding the Supper it is answered to question 75 "that with His crucified Body and shed Blood, He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth, the bread and the cup of the Lord." Again Dr. Richards interprets: "This nourishment, however, is not given in, with and under the bread and wine. For the bread and cup of the Lord are no more than 'certain tokens of the Body and Blood of Christ — not vehicles and instruments/ The most that one could claim is, that the spiritual food is imparted by the mediation of the Holy Spirit at the same time that the bread and wine are re- ceived. Nor does any one, save the believer, receive the Body and Blood of Christ; the unbeliever receives only bread and wine. This fact is not stated in so many words, but it is a legitimate inference from the whole tenor of the Catechism." 84 In questions 46 and 47 the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's Body is clearly excluded. Under question 44 we have Calvin's doctrine of Christ's descent to hell. That on the doctrine of the Church the Heidelberg Catechism is in agreement with Zwingli and Calvin can be seen in its language on the office of the keys and on church discipline (cf. ques- tions 83-85). In addition to this we mention the Puri- tanic strictness of the Catechism in its rejection of images in the Church (q. 98). Cautiousness of expression and an obvious unwillingness to commit itself are character- istic of the Heidelberg Catechism. This is to be explain- ed by the fact that its task was the reconciliation of an entirely Lutheran population to Calvin's type of Protest- antism. But the Catechism is truly Reformed. * 84 Richards, p. 90. 47 And yet there is a characteristic difference between the Heidelberg and Calvin's own Catechism. 85 His leading principle, the glorification of God in the congregation of the elect, appears constantly. "The Catechism of Calvin seeks to teach men how to glorify God and every part is controlled by that idea — God's glory and God's will. It is theological and legalistic in spirit." 86 The first ques- tion of Calvin's Catechism reads : "What is the chief end of human life?" The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism reads : "What is your sole comfort in life and death?" Calvin is speculative, the Heidelberg is prac- tical. The writer agrees with Dr. Richards when he re- marks : "One may define it as Calvinism modified by the German genius." 87 This must have been the reason that the Catechism refrains from committing itself to Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Our conclusion, then, is that there is a difference be- tween "high Calvinism" and the Calvinism of the German Reformed. The Calvinism which appears in connection with the "union movements between Lutherans and Re- formed," among the Germans, is a Calvinism translated into the German. It is a difference, however, not in es- sence, but only in degree. It should not be overlooked that the Swiss Confessions have also had their influence upon the German Reformed. Neither should it be over- looked that the influences from England through much 85 Calvin evidently was not pleased with the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism. He never mentions it. "Er schwieg sich aus." He had hoped that his Catechism would become the only Catechism for the Churches under his influence. But the Synod of Dort, in which were representatives of almost all the Reformed Churches, recognized the Heidelberg as a book of symbolic value. In Holland (since 1586) preachers and teachers were obligated to its acceptance; in Germany and to the East, wherever Calvinism found a hold, it came into use everywhere; in East-Friesland, on the lower Rhine, at Juelich, Kleve and Berg, in Nassau-Siegen, Witgenstein, Solms and Wied, Bremen, Lippe, Anhalt, Hesse- Cassel, Brandenburg, Prussia and Hungary. The Reformed Churches in France, England, Scotland kept their own Cate- chisms. Cf. the article of M. Lauterburg in R. E. X, p. 172. 86 Richards, p. 99. 87 See Richards, ut supra, pp. 96, cf. 103. 48 literature and through personal touch — we only need to think of the union endeavors of Duraeus 85 — have been many. We have come to the end of the second chapter. We have studied the Lutherans and the Reformed as they stood opposed to each other when the need of a union was felt. We are now ready for a critical review of the union movements through the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, which shall be our task in the next two chap- ters. 88 Cf. Kurtz, Church History, §154, 4. CHAPTER III. THE VARIOUS UNION MOVEMENTS OF THE SEVEN- TEENTH CENTURY. Literature: Some of the literature used in this chap- ter was given with full title and time of publication in preceding chapters. It is enumerated at the beginning or at the close of the separate sections and referred to in the text of the discussions. These works are especi- ally Kurtz, Moeller-Kawerau III, Stahl, Wangemann,, Hering, Schaff. The following are here added: Aw- gusti, Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, etc. (collection of Reformed confessions cf. Schaff, Creeds I, 355), 1827, pp. 386ff., 398ff. Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis (1840), pp. 553ff., 669ff. Boeckel, Die Bekenntnisschriften der Reformierten Kirche (1847), pp. 669ff. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union (1853), pp. 73ff., pp. 118ff. Schmid, Geschichte der synkretis- tischen Streitigkeiten (1846). Zoeckler, Augsburgische Konfession. Neve, Paul Gerhardt in Lutheran Quar- terly (1907). Zezschwitz, Die kirchlichen Normen der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft (1870). Rietschel, Die Gewaehrung der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft (1869). The following articles of Hauck's Protestantische Realency- klopaedie (R. E.) have been used: "Konsensus von Sendomir" by Erbkam (XVIII, 215ff.) ; on Cassel Col- loquy by Mirbt (III, 744ff.) ; "David Paraeus" by Ney (XIV, 686) ; "Leipzig Colloquium" by Hauck (XI, 363ff.) ; "Naumburger Fuerstentag" by Kawerau (XIII, 661ff.); "Sigismund" by Kawerau (XVIII, 331ff.) ; "Synkretismus" by Tschackert (XIX, 243, cf. Meusel and Lutheran Encyclopedia on Syncretism) ; "Duraeus" 49 60 (John Dury) by Tschackert (V, 92ff.; cf. New Schaff- Herzog IV, 37ff.) In the preceding chapter we considered developments in the second half of the sixteenth century and showed how the division between the two churches of Protestant- ism became permanent. We have seen how the Church of Calvin, in seemingly Melanchthonian forms, yet de- cidedly Calvinistic on the means of grace, gained ground in Germany so that the two churches stood opposed to each other, weakening the cause of Protestantism in se- vere controversy at a time when over against the on- slaught of Romanism in the Thirty Years' War confes- sional harmony was very much needed. A union was the crying need of the age, and to satisfy this need of a union between Lutherans and Reformed one "Irenicum" after the other was published, colloquies were held, churchmen and princes were active. These union move- ments and endeavors, interspersed with confessional conflicts as their unavoidable counterpart, characterize the seventeenth century or, more correctly, the closing part of the sixteenth and the larger part of the seven- teenth. In the present chapter we shall describe these various union movements, and in a following chapter on " George Calixtus and His Opponents" we shall discuss the conflicting principles between the men of union and the men of the confessions. It may be said in general that the greater willingness and readiness for a union was always on the part of the Reformed; the Lutherans never took the initiative, and when they were approached they distrusted their oppo- nents, and their polemics was characterized by much se- verity. The historian has no difficulty in explaining this phenomenon. In the first place, the Lutherans and the Reformed respectively regarded their disagreements from a different point of view. Although never willing to yield their position on the person of Christ, the Lord's Supper and the means of grace in general, the Reformed were willing nevertheless to unite with the Lutherans or 51 at least to step into a relation of mutual recognition, to abstain from controversy and to unite in action. They were inclined to regard the differences as more or less theological. Zwingli in 1529 offered Luther the hand of fellowship notwithstanding their disagreement. As early as 1525 he advised to treat the disagreement as a synkretismon. 1 The views of George Calixtus, particu- larly his distinction between fundamentals and non-fun- damentals and his limiting the fundamentals to what is necessary to be believed for salvation, appealed to many in the Reformed Church. The Lutherans refused to so distinguish between religion and theology when the ques- tion of union and confessional recognition was under dis- cussion. What Calixtus regarded as merely theological and therefore non-fundamental, this the Lutherans con- sidered as of highly religious significance because it de- termined the real content of what Calixtus called the fundamentals. In the view of the Lutherans the species reveals the essence of the genus. So they looked upon the theological differences as differences that affected re- ligion itself. The suggestion to desist from controversy and to recognize each other notwithstanding the exist- ing differences they rejected as syncretism and infidelity to truth. In the second place, the Lutherans felt that their ter- ritory had been invaded. The Palatinate was lost. From here and supported by the Philippists, a continuous propaganda for Calvinism was kept up. Underhand methods were used, as for instance in Saxony, to crowd out Lutheranism. Hesse became another center of prop- aganda. Then followed the conversion of Elector Sigis- mund of Brandenburg, also through influences from the Palatinate and from Hesse. Historic Lutheranism had to fight for its life. Under the circumstances it was cer- tainly natural that the Lutherans were irritated. At the close of the next chapter we shall have occasion to treat more in detail of the psychology in the controversial ac- tivity of the Lutherans. i Zwinglii Opp., ed. Schuler, VII, 390. 52 There was a third reason why the Lutherans were dis- inclined to participate in the conferences. These were as a rule called by princes favoring the Reformed cause. It was particularly in court circles where Lutheranism with its doctrines of the Real Presence and ubiquity was looked upon as a kind of barbarism as compared with the spiritual views of Calvinism and the humanism of the Melanchthonian school. The Lutherans could always trust the force of the principles of the Augsburg Con- fession, where these had opportunity to assert them- selves; but in too many cases that freedom was absent. It was a foregone conclusion that Lutheranism was to be crowded out. It was the State Church condition that put Lutheranism at a disavantage in many cases. When a prince changed his religion, he had the legal right to de- mand of his subjects that they follow him; if they re- fused he could force them to emigrate. The first meas- ure was to drive the protesting ministers out of the country, as it was in the Palatinate when Frederick III left the Lutheran Church. When a prince did not regard it wise to force his religion upon his country he labored for union and arranged for conferences in which the Lutheran side was at a disadvantage, as it was in Hesse and in Brandenburg. In the account which is to be given in this chapter not all union movements were of like importance. Some of "me conferences were indeed of little significance (for instance the one at Moempelgard) ; others were super- ficial (the Sendomir Consensus, the Thorn and Cassel colloquies) ; others were under the control of extreme partizanship (like the Berlin Conference). The most helpful of all conferences, because of its thoroughness and frankness in dealing with the differences, was the Leipzig Colloquy. I. TWO UNION MOVEMENTS AT THE CLOSE OF THE SIX- TEENTH CENTURY. I. The caption of our chapter which limits our ac- 53 count to the union movements in the seventeenth century permits of only a brief review of two conventions that took place in the last quarter of the preceding century. One of these was the general synod that was held in Sendomir, Poland, in 1570, and the other was the col- loquy at Moempelgard, held in 1586. 2 (a). At Sendomir (1570) it was the aim of uniting the Bohemian Brethren (Moravians), the Lutherans and the adherents of the Swiss Reformation. A union of all Protestants in old Poland was urged as a political neces- sity over against the Roman influence by the Protestant faction of the Polish nobility which was almost exclu- sively Reformed. 3 The Reformed representatives were in the majority, in fact they regarded the convention as a Reformed synod and, therefore, simply presented the second Helvetic Confession to be adopted as the Polish National Confession. The Bohemian Brethren were willing to agree, provided their own Confession was not rejected. The Lutherans suggested that a new Confes- sion be drafted. This was finally done, and so the Con- sensus Sendomir iensis came into existence.* On the Lord's Supper considerable concessions were made to the Lutherans in that it was stated that the elements were not empty signs, but that they communicate to the be- lievers what they signify, namely the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Consensus was Melanchthonian in char- acter. 5 The article on the Lord's Supper in Melanch- thon's Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae* was taken over in its entirety with the remark that it was in accord with the Second Helvetic Confession. 7 The absence of Luth- er's terminology and definitions can be seen throughout in the portions quoted from the Repetitio. 8 The facul- 2 The old Moempelgard is the present Montbeliard in France. (Dep't Daubs). From 1395 to 1793 it was ruled by Wurtemberg. 3 Erbkam in R. E. XVIII, 23. 4 See the text in Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum, etc. 553ff. Also in Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union, pp. 73ff. 5 Shaff, Creeds I, 587. 6 Corp. Ref. XXVIII, 4i5ff. 7 Cf. R. E. XVIII, 217, 20. 8 Cf. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch, p. 75ff. 64 ties of several Lutheran universities disapproved of the agreement. 9 It soon became evident that a lasting con- fessional peace had not been established. 30 (b). The Moempelgard Colloquy of 1586 was called by Count Frederick of Wurtemberg, chiefly for the pur- pose of settling the question whether the Huguenot refu- gees from France (Reformed) could be admitted to the Lord's Supper at the Lutheran altars in Moempelgard without virtually and in fact making themselves mem- bers of the Lutheran Church. 11 In the history of the altar fellowship question this Moempelgard Colloquy is of special interest. The Reformed theologians, here present, Beza, Zanchius, Ursinus, establishing themselves upon their principle "Sacramenta sunt notae profes- sionis," took the position that one who was not of their own Church could not be admitted with the Reformed to the Lord's Supper, because "it would make too common the sacramental fellowship-badge, if the Reformed were to commune with those not under their banner, but of the counterpart" ("das sakramentliche Losungszichen gemein machen mit denen, die nicht des Fahnens sind, sondern zum Gegenpart gehoeren.") 12 The Lutheran Count Frederick of Wurtemberg declared at the close of the colloquy that the Reformed should be admitted to the Lutheran altar without losing their membership in the Reformed Church. But this proved to be a too hasty decision. The Lutheran theologians of Wurtemberg criticized it, and so the Count changed the rule declaring "that Christ had instituted the Supper also for the pur- pose that by it as a mark (Feld-und Merkzeichen) it may be known to what faith the individual is inclining. For he who communes with a church of whatever name 9 Salig, Historie der Augsb. Conf. II, 785. 10 As special literature we refer to Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union, pp. 397-407; R- E. XVIII, 215-19; Schaff, Creeds I, 586ft ; Wangemann, Sieben Buecher Preussischer Kirch- engeschichte I, 376-80; Kurtz, Church Historj', Engl. Ed., 1888, §139, 18; Moeller-Kawerau, Kirchengeschichte III, 365. 11 Wangemann, Una Sancta I, 1, 149^. 12 Wangemann, p. 152. 55 therewith indicates that he holds the doctrine of that church." 13 Count Frederick used the occasion for making the con- ference a colloquy on the doctrinal differences between the followers of Luther and Calvin. Thus the Lutherans Andreae and Luk. Osiander met the Reformed theo- logians Beza, Musculus, Huebner and Alberius for a dis- cussion of the following five articles : The Lord's Supper, The Person of Christ, Paintings in the Churches, Baptism and Predestination. An agreement was reached only with regard to the paintings. Beza defended Calvin's doctrine of predestination in its strictest form, and he rejected decisively the Lutheran teaching of the ubiquity. At the close of the conference Count Frederick asked the participants as much as possible to refrain from contro- versy in their writings. He suggested that each give the other the hand of Christian fellowship. Beza and his associates were willing, but Andreae, while ready to extend his hand as a sign of personal respect and friendly feeling, declared that he could not give his hand as a token of fellowship in the faith. Upon this Beza also refused the hand of personal friendship, and they parted in a spirit of irritation. 14 II. THE "PFAELZER IRENICUM." The "Pfaelzer Irenicum" of 1606 is here mentioned for the sake of completeness. It was an anonymous ap- peal for confessional peace from the quarters of the Re- formed in the Palatinate. It was promptly rejected by Polycarp Leyser at Wittenberg in a writing of the fol- lowing year. He reminds the opponents in the Pala- tinate of the oppression of the Lutherans in their country, the expulsion of the Lutheran ministers, of the hardship and the tears resulting from these measures. 13 Zezschwitz, Die kirchlichen Normem der Abendmahlsgemein- schaft (1870), p. 39. Cf. Rietschel, Die Gewaehrung der Abend- mahlsgemeinschaft; Wangemann I, 1. 52I 14 Hering Unionsversuche I, 2741. 56 He assures them that the Lutherans had also been pray- ing for at least a political peace; but a religious peace, a brotherly union without agreement in the truth, would be against the Scriptures. Galatians 2:5, 11; 2 John 2; 2 Thes. 2 :10 ; 2 Timothy 2 :25 were quoted. By entering into a peace of the kind as desired by the publishers of the "Irenicum" the Lutherans would practically approve of the errors which, for conscience's sake, they had to reject. These errors were affecting the doctrines of the universality of grace, the means of grace and the person of Christ. Leyser further protests against the distinc- tion made between faith or the foundation for faith and the theological opinion with regard to faith. The dif- ferences between Lutherans and Reformed he said, are more than merely theological opinions ; they are insepar- ably interwoven with faith itself. The errors of the op- ponents affect the foundation of faith. For this reason the Lutherans could not listen to the appeal to desist from polemics, although conscious of the duty that con- troversy should be conducted without bitterness and without personalities. The form and spirit of the reply showed the determination not to make peace with the Reformed Church. 15 III. THE ADVANCE OF PARAEUS. Another "Irenicum" was published by David Paraeus, professor at the Heidelberg university in 1614. He pro- posed that a union between the two churches be worked out by a general synod of all Protestants in Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries, suggesting that even before such a union could be realized the adherents of both churches might continue to hold their peculair views and differing opinions which ought not to hinder them from regarding each other as brethren and treat- ing each other according to Romans 14: Iff. Agreement, he said, already existed in all essentials except in one 15 The title of the writing was : "De pace ecclesiae evange- licae," 1607. See extract in Hering I, 275-83. 57 point only, which did not affect the ground of salvation. In view of Rome's preparation for a religious war which threatened common Protestantism he plead that both sides should bury their differences. 16 But these sugges- tions of Paraeus were rejected by the Wittenberg theo- logians, especially in a writing of Leonard Hutter, and also by the University of Tuebingen. Paraeus was in spe- cial disfavor with the Lutherans, because in 1605, in pub- lishing a commentary on the prophet Hosea, he had dedi- cated his work to Landgrave Maurice of Hesse praising him for introducing Reformed services in Marburg. The Lutherans (Prof. Fr. Bellmann of Wittenberg) now de- clared that a synod was unnecessary, because the errors of the Reformed had been sufficiently examined, adding that it would also be impossible because Lutheran theo- logians would not meet in peaceful conference with the Calvinists. Paraeus replied in an eloquent dissertation in Latin, which was read at the fiftieth anniversary of the university at Heidelberg. 17 IV. THE COLLOQUY AT LEIPZIG. 18 This colloquy was occasioned by a political convention between Elector John George I, of Saxony, Elector George William, of Brandenburg, and the Landgrave William of Hesse. They had agreed on a political union of German Protestantism ("Leipziger Bund",) by which they could resist the emperor's edict of restitution with- out being compelled to unite with Gustavus Adolphus. The princes in conference at Leipzig were accompanied 16 R. E. XIV, 689, 3ff. 17 See the extract of this address in Hering I, 286-06. 18 Literature : Colloquium Lipsicum (in Augusti, Corpus libr. symb. 1827, pp. 386ft.) Hauck in R. E. XI, 363f. Meusel IV, 23if. Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 274. Schaff, Creeds I, 558ff. Hering, Unionsversuche I, 327-59. Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, Book 1, i7off. Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union, pp. 407-14. Kurtz, §153, 8. 58 by their theologians. 19 The Reformed theologians of Brandenburg and Hesse, chief speaker among them was Dr. Bergius, asked the Lutherans (Dr. Hoe von Hoe- negg, together with Dr. Pol. Leyser and Prof. Dr. Hoepfner, of Leipzig) to enter with them into a pri- vate colloquy for the purpose of promoting peace between the two churches of Protestantism. Under the pressure of overhanging tribulation the unexpected took place: Hoenegg, the uncompromising foe of Calvinism, and the two other men accepted the invitation with the understanding that it was to be a private conference, with the object of examining to what extent both sides were in agreement with the Augsburg Confession. The con- ference was held in the lodging place of Hoe von Hoenegg and lasted from the 3rd to the 23rd of March. The Re- formed theologians declared that they accepted the Augs- burg Confession of 1530, emphasizing that the Confes- sion in this form was recognized and subscribed in Bran- denburg and Hesse. But they stated that they also ac- cepted the Variata of 1540 and its successors. They ap- pealed to the declaration made at the "Day of Princes" at Naumburg in 1561 that in the Variata editions "the Confession was merely repeated in a somewhat more stately and elaborate manner, explained and enlarged on the basis of the Holy Scriptures." Here, of course, was the real crux. It had always been held by the Reformed that in adopting both editions it was permissible to in- terpret Article X on the Lord's Supper in the edition of 1530 (the so-called Invariata) by the more elastic and in- definite words of the Variata of 1540 and thus defend Calvin's conception of a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 20 The difference of position as to the texts was not discussed. But the Lutherans stated that 19 The Brandenburg elector by his court preacher Dr. John Bergius, the Landgrave of Hesse by Dr. Crocius and his court- preacher Neuberger, the Saxon elector who was residing at Dres- den by his courtpreacher Dr. Hoe von Hoenegg. 20 Cf. Kawerau in R. E. XIII, 665. Rudelbach p. 409. Richard, Confessional History, p. 206. Neve, Altered and Unaltered Augsb'g Conf. (Luth. Lit. Board, Burlington, la.), pp. 32, 36ff. Also Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 9iff., and 207ff. 59 they identified themselves with the declaration in the in- troduction of the Formula of Concord (§4). In the doc- trine of the Lord's Supper, the Reformed did their ut- most to approach the Lutherans as far as their consci- ence would permit. Both sides agreed that in the sacra- mental eating or receiving (sakramentliche Niessung) the earthly elements on the one hand and the Body and Blood of Christ on the other are at the same time (zu- gleich) and together (miteinander) received (genossen). 2: Never has there been a closer approach between repre- sentatives of the two churches as far as terms are con- cerned. But even here the meaning that was put into the terms cannot have been the same on both sides, be- cause there was division as soon as it came to the omni- presence of Christ's human nature, to the oral receiving of Christ's Body and to the question whether worthy and unworthy alike receive the Body. In order to remove the offense which the Reformed usually take at the sugges- tion of an oral receiving 22 the Lutheran theologians at Leipzig stated with much care that while the blessed bread and the Body of the Lord were received with one and the same organ (uno et eodem organo oris) yet the mode of receiving Christ's Body was different from the mode of receiving the bread. The oral receiving of the bread, they said, is without means; but the Body and Blood of Christ are received not without means, but through and by virtue of the blessed elements, in a heavenly, supernatural way, in a manner that is known to God alone, with the exclusion of any natural manduca- tion. 23 In Article III on the Person of Christ a very large agreement was discovered, which was expressed in 21 See Wangemann, p. 171. 22 The phrase "oral manducation" should be avoided as a de- scription of the Lutheran conception, because the Lutheran con- fessions reject decidedly a Capernaitic eating and drinking. The Lutherans teach an oral receiving, but not oral manducation. 23 Wangemann, ibidem. Hering I, 340. 60 twelve essential points. A disagreement appeared, how- ever, in denning the states of Christ. 24 Regarding the rest of the Augsburg Confession, agree- ment was recorded on Articles I-II; V-IX; XI-XXVIII. The reader will ask: Why was the important Article IV on Justification not among the articles of agreement? Here the Saxon theologians felt that full harmony would depend upon the attitude on the doctrine of predestina- tion in regard to which, at that time, after the adjourn- ment of the Synod of Dort, there was so much discussion. The matter was taken up in connection with Article XIX on the Cause of Sin. It was found that there was essen- tial agreement on the doctrine of justification. The dis- agreement concerning predestination appeared in this that the Lutherans insisted upon an election for salva- tion "in view of faith" (intuitu fidei), which the Re- formed rejected. The Reformed confessed that only a limited number of men, known to God alone, had been elected from all eternity without respect to a foreseen faith or any inclination to accept grace. But they de- clared at the same time that they believed in God's seri- ous willingness to save all men, and they rejected a vol- untas signi. With regard to the non-elect the Reformed declared simply that condemnation was the divine judg- ment following man's sin and unbelief. 25 It was agreed that the particulars of the colloquy should not be made public. For this reason only four copies of the protocol were made, three for the princes and one for the theological faculty at Leipzig. But soon all was known in England, France, Switzerland, Holland and Sweden, and detailed reports appeared in print. 26 The significance of this Leipzig Colloquy should here be noted: (1) It was the surprise of the time that the 24 Cf. Augusti, pp. 398-99. A thorough review of agreement and disagreement concerning the doctrine of the person of Christ is given in Hering I, 334-39. See also Rudelbach, pp. 4ioff. 25 Cf. Hering I, 341L Schaff I, 559. Collection of Reformed Confessions by Niemeyer (pp. 653-68) and Boeckel (pp. 443-56) ; also in Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union pp. 96-117. 26 R. E. XI, 364, 47ff- 61 Lutheran theologians, such outspoken antagonists of Cal- vinism as Hoe von Hoenegg and Polycarp Leyser, had been willing to spend twenty days in a colloquy with the Reformed and that the discussions had been conducted in such a friendly spirit. (2) The Reformed theologians went to the limit in meeting the Lutherans, which can be seen especially on the subject of the Person of Christ. (3) The colloquy was conducted with entire honesty on both sides and with a thoroughness that contrasted fa- vorably with many other conferences of a like nature (the Sendomir Consensus of 1570 and the Cassel Collo- quy as instances). (4) "The proceedings were charac- terized by great theological ability" (Schaff). (5) As Rudelbach observes correctly, this Leipzig Colloquy is in the same class with the colloquy between Luther and Zwingli at Marburg and the discussions that preceded the Wittenberg Concord of 1637. The differences were not smoothed over, but the participants looked them into the face and tried to meet them. For this reason more progress was here made than at other occasions. 27 (6) The friends of a union, especially among the Reformed, felt very much encouraged. Among them was the Scotch theologian Duraeus (Dury) of whose life-long efforts at bringing about a union we shall treat later (sub. VIII). But notwithstanding all this, nothing practical and tangible resulted from the Leipzig Colloquy. The under- standing was from the beginning that it was to be a private conference. Princes and churches were not to be held responsible or to be embarrassed by the agree- ments that were reached. The Reformed with their ma- terial concessions could promise nothing for their asso- ciates; not for their associates among the German Re- formed, to say nothing of their fellow-believers in other countries. The failure to agree on the Lord's Supper, particularly, was evidence of a fundamental difference. 27 Read the beautiful treatment of the problem of a true union by Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union p. 344, especially p. 419. 62 Of this difference both sides had become conscious since the publication of the Formula of Concord and the later confessions of the Reformed Church in the various coun- tries. Furthermore, time enough had passed for gain- ing perspectives of the opposing views, which, by the activity of the theologians of the two churches, had now crystallized into dogmas and confirmed the break between the two churches. The time for a union by agreement on the differing dogmas was a thing of the past. 28 V. THE CONVENTION AT THORN, 1645. Of little significance for the purposes of our discussion was the convention of Thorn in 1645, chiefly because too much was attempted. King Wladislav IV of Poland de- sired to unite not only Lutherans and Reformed, but with these also the Roman Catholics of his domain. This was impossible, because the Romanists simply wished to lead the Protestants back to the fold from which they had strayed. These were simply to see their errors and then to come back repenting. The Roman dignitary at the head of his group frankly admitted that this was their expectation. Thirty-six sessions were held, of which only five were public. These sessions were utterly fruit- less, because, according to an order that had been given by the king, a disputation on the differences was not per- mitted. The three parties were simply to state their differences once or twice; argumentation was to be ex- cluded. Neither profit nor progress could be secured in such a way. So the king had to dismiss the convention. Nothing had beeen accomplished. The Thorn conven- tion is an illustration of what can be expected of a union 28 Soon the controversy broke out anew, even between the very participants of the colloquy. Cf. J. Berg's publication of 1635 "Relation der Privat-Conferenz zu Leipzig, 1631," nebst einer Vorrede, darin auf dasjenige, was Herr Hoe von Hoenegg zu seiner Rettung fuergebracht, gebuehrlich geantwortet wird." To this Dr. Hoenegg replied in his "Unvermeidliche Rettung," etc. (1635). 63 movement when political interests are the all-overshad- owing motive and when truth is not honestly sought. Two features of this convention, however, are of par- ticular interest for a history of the union movements be- tween Lutherans and Reformed: (1) The Reformed theologians, headed by Dr. J. Bergius, court preacher of Frederick William I of Brandenburg, brought with them to this convention a statement of their doctrine which was afterwards published as the "Thorn Declaration*' (Declaratio Thorunensis), and, like Sigismund's Confes- sion and the protocol of the Leipzig colloquy, was ac- cepted as a symbolical book in Brandenburg. 29 (2) The other feature of interest at this Thorn convention was the appearance of Professor George Calixtus of the Helmstedt University as a counsel for the Reformed side. At this the Lutherans took much offense, and it was here where the so-called "syncretistic controversies" received much of their impetus. 30 But conditions had shaped themselves in such a way that at Thorn there was noth- ing left for Calixtus but to step into the Reformed group with which, however, he could not justly be accused of being in harmony. With the permission of the Bran- denburg elector, on whose territory the convention was to be held, Calixtus, the famous exponent of irenics, had come from far with the intention of joining the Luth- erans as their counsel. But the Lutheran delegates, un- der the lead of Calovius 31 and Huelsemann 32 refused to accept him, and Calovius, particularly, managed to ex- clude him from the Lutheran group. 33 They objected to him because of his literary activity in behalf of irenics which from now on went generally under the name syn- cretism. In order to become a recognized member of the convention, so that his journey would not altogether be 29 Latin in Niemeyer (pp. 669-689) ; German in Boeckel (pp. 865-884) ; cf. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch, pp. n8ff. 30 See Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 245ft. 31 Later professor at Wittenberg. 32 Later professor at Strasburg. 33 R. E. XIX, 245, 1-29. 64 in vain, he made himself a party of the Reformed group. 34 But in matters of confessional difference between Luth- erans and Reformed he sided with the Lutherans. 35 The theological position of George Calixtus, especially his type of irenics, will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. 36 VI. THE COLLOQUY AT CASSEL. This conference which was held 1661, from July 1st to 9th, was arranged by the Reformed Landgrave William IV of Hesse. It was his intention to bring the two uni- versities in his domain, Marburg (Reformed) and Rin- teln (Lutheran), together into one faith. 37 The Luth- eran representatives (Peter Musaeus and J. Hennich) were men of the Helmstedt school. The program for discussion covered the following four loci: the Lord's Supper, predestination, the person of Christ, and Bap- tism. On the Lord's Supper it was agreed that abso- lutely necessary for salvation is the spiritual eating of the Body of Christ, which is a work of true faith in the crucified Saviour whose merit is appropriated. 38 Here it may be of profit for the reader to quote the following paragraph (61) from Part II of the Formula of Con- cord : "There is, therefore, a twofold eating of the flesh of Christ, one 'spiritual,' of which Christ especially treats (John 6 :54) , which occurs in no other way than with the spirit and faith, in the preaching and consideration of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for sal- vation to all Christians; without which spiritual partici- 34 R. E. XIX, 746, 44-54. 35 Rudelbach, p. 418. 36 Literature on the Thorn convention: Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 746ff. Schaff, Creeds I, 56off. Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, 1. pp. 88ff. Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union 4145. Hering, Unionsversuche, II, 1-88. W. Gass, George Calixt und der Synkretismus, pp. 34rr. Henke, George Calixtus und seine Zeit, II, 71-110. 37 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 294, 57. Also p. 250, 8. 38 Cf. Mirbt in R. E. Ill, 745, iff. 65 pation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and a cause of condemnation." (After these words, in the following paragraphs, 63-65, a description of the oral or sacra- mental eating is given). When it came to the question of the Real Presence and the receiving of Christ's Body by believers and unbelievers alike, the Lutherans stood in the affirmative and the Reformed in the negative. But both parties agreed that the difference does not af- fect man's salvation, especially because it was claimed that in both churches the Sacrament was used after Christ's institution, nothing essential being added or omitted. 39 Regarding the breaking of bread the Luth- erans conceded to the Reformed that such practice was not objectionable, if it was introduced with the consent of the congregations. And the Reformed conceded to the Lutherans that the wafers also were to be regarded as true bread. On the doctrine of predestination they agreed that man, after his fall, has no power to do good, but that his salvation is entirely the work of divine grace. Pelagi- anism and Semi-pelagianism were rejected. The Re- formed emphasized that God was not willing to commu- nicate His grace to all men and denied that the con- demned were lost because God had foreseen their evil at- titude. But again it was admitted on both sides that knowledge of such mysteries is not demanded for man's salvation. Regarding the person of Christ both sides indicated their agreement with the Christological dogma of the an- cient church as expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed (or in the second part of the Athanasian Creed). 40 Thus they avoided a discussion of the questions that separated Luther from the Swiss theologians. 41 On Baptism they agreed that infant Baptism is neces- 39 Hering II, 133. 40 See Schafr*, Creeds I, 30, 34-39. Neve, Symbolics pp. 67-69. 41 Cf. Art. VIII of the Formula of Concord. Neve, Symbolics, PP. 130-34. 66 sary. The Lutherans admitted that the customary act of exorcism might be changed into a prayer against the power of the devil. On this point Lutherans of to-day have generally abandoned a practice which was abhorred by the Reformed. Exorcism as the preparatory part of Baptism was included by Luther in his form for Baptism of 1523. 42 The practice gave ceremonial expression to the strong emphasis of Lutheranism on man's natural depravity and of Baptism as the ordinary means of re- generation. Deeply religious Lutheran theologians, such as Arndt and Paul Gerhard would rather have suffered exile than yield on exorcism. As has been stated, the Lutheran Church of to-day has abandoned the old form although it has retained in its Baptismal formulas the essential element of the abrenunciatio. But a Lutheran of to-day can appreciate the unyielding attitude of the fathers at a time when the attacks upon Lutheranism were many. He is reminded of the words of Matth. Flacius: Nihil est adiapheron in casu confessionis et scandali. But the real point of conflict between the Lutherans and Reformed on the doctrine of Baptism is the question whether this sacrament is an actual means of grace in the sense that through this act forgiveness is worked in the believing and trusting sinner (as Luther's Catechism teaches) or whether Baptism is merely a peda- gogic symbol of the need of forgiveness and for assur- ance — through the symbolical significance, not through the act of Baptism — (which is the meaning of the answer to question 73 in the Heidelberg Catechism) . This more essential difference was seemingly ignored in the colloquy. This Cassel Colloquy, different from the Wittenberg Concord and the Leipzig Colloquy, avoided too much the real points of conflict and for that reason has drawn the charge of superficiality and syncretistic tendency. 43 It was, therefore, after this colloquy that the so-called "syn- 42 See a copy of the whole form in Vilmar, Pastoraltheologie, pp. noff. 43 Once more we call attention to the most pertinent words of Rudelbach on p. 419. 67 cretistic controversies" which had been fanned by the de- velopments at Thorn were very much revived. 44 It was chiefly three matters at which the strict Luth- erans outside of Hesse (at the universities of Witten- berg, Jena, and Strasburg) took offense and on which the controversy centered: (1) It had been agreed at the colloquy that the con- troverted points should not be discussed in sermons ex- cept when an explanation was demanded by the text, and then the preacher was simply to state objectively the dif- ference without imputing doctrines to the opponents, which these disclaimed. Reformed historians and advo- cates of the union have left the impression that this ob- jectionable practice was found only on the side of the Lutherans in that day. But the Reformed did the same and had done so from the beginning, as can be seen from complaints in the Formula of Concord. Particularly when they aimed at refuting the ubiquity, the Lutherans were charged with believing things which, as a church, they certainly disclaimed. For instance, they were said to hold that Christ's Body was present in all the herbs, the leaves, in pears and apples, in beer glasses, in all the devils and in the lice. 45 The habit of discussing theo- logical problems in a very polemical way was character- istic of the seventeenth century. That the Lutherans did more of it than the Reformed is to be admitted. It resulted from their emphasis upon a sound theology. But it is also largely to be explained by the fact that un- der the protection of princes who had begun to set their heart against Lutheranism, the Reformed, in so many places, were conducting a propaganda aiming at the in- troduction of Calvanism. And it is to be explained by the other fact that the method chosen for bringing it about was, as a rule, the advocacy of the ecclesiastic for- 44 We give the following references : Tschackert in R. E. XIX, p. 250, 23ft.; p. 251, 4Qff.; p. 252, 26ff.; p. 254, 44ff. Mirbt in R. E. Ill, 745, 45ft*. ; Hering II, 147-80. 45 Wangemann I, 1., 36. Cf. the address of Dav. Paraeus in Hering I, 293. See also pp. 282f., 29if. 68 mulas of the Melanchthonian school, which were to cover the differences instead of stating them and honestly try- ing to solve the difficulty. There was something to be cleared up. The Lutheran of to-day certainly agrees that in many cases these matters should not have been taken before the congregations, but should have been discussed in conferences of theologians; or in places where special circumstances made it necessary that the congregation be educated, it should have been done in the fine art of Luther who could touch upon these things without leaving the strictly religious ground. However, fair as the proposition, agreed upon at Cassel, seemed to be, the Lutheran theologians of the above-named universi- ties were not wrong in their criticism of that agreement. It is one thing to admit that theological polemics should not be taken into the pulpit, but quite another for minis- ters of the Word to bind themselves in advance and as a principle not to speak the truth when it may be neces- sary. It was this that the Lutherans meant when they used to say that the testimony of the Holy Spirit must have free course and should not be interferred with.* 6 Among the men refusing to obey a decree of such a kind was a religious genius like Paul Gerhardt. 47 (2) Another matter that became an object of dis- cussion after the colloquy in Cassel was the question of the "Elenchus," or even "Nominalelenchus." By this was meant the practice of the seventeenth century of summarizing, in the church services, the erroneous ten- dencies and teachings of the day and condemning them (Elenchus), in some cases by naming the churches and responsible teachers (Nominalelenchus). This practice had been discredited at Cassel to the great regret of the overzealous Lutheran theologians. It was the age of George Calixtus and the Helmstedt school to which also the professors of the Rinteln university belonged, and it was not easy for the Lutheranism of the seventeenth 46 Cf. Hering II, 145, 164. 47 Wangemann I, 1., p. I47f. 69 century even in such a matter to adjust itself to a new age which was coming. Somewhat related to the arguments about the "Elen- chus" was another matter. At Cassel the Lutheran pro- fessors of the Rinteln university agreed with the Re- formed of the Marburg university that in the points where they were as yet not in harmony with each other they should tolerate and recognize each other as mem- bers of the true Church and as associates in the true faith of Jesus Christ. 48 For this the Lutherans at Wit- tenberg took the Rintelners to account 49 and a long con- troversy followed. 50 A school milder than Wittenberg which was under the lead of Abr. Calovius, had come to the front. It was the University of Jena with John Musaeus as prominent theologian. It was a school which in the field of theology admitted "open questions," prob- lems to be solved. 51 But this school also opposed a "tol- erance" of the kind agreed on at Cassel, saying that it would be equal to an admission that the points of dis- agreement are after all matters of indifference, which would be infidelity to truth when it had reference to such matters as separated the Lutheran from the Reformed Church. It was the Jena school which opposed the new creed, proposed by Abr. Calovius in 1655, the "Repeated Consensus of the truly Lutheran Faith," which Schaff characterizes as an "abortive symbol against syncret- ism." 52 The place for a more complete account of Jena and Musaeus as a modifying factor of the severe Luth- eranism of Wittenberg and Leipzig will be in the next chapter when we shall treat of George Calixtus and his opponents; here the milder tendency of this school has been touched upon merely for the purpose of suggesting confidence in its agreement with Wittenberg when it came to a judgment on the kind of tolerance that had been 48 Mirbt, in R. E. Ill, 745, 22ff. 49 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 250, 4off. 50 R. E. XIX, 243, 28. 51 See Schmid, Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten (Erlangen, 1846), 40off. 52 Creeds I, Index XI, cf. pp. 349-53. 70 agreeed upon between Rinteln and Marburg. As was said in the introductory remarks to this chapter, the Lutheran Church cannot agree to a clean cut separation between religion and theology; in its view the latter af- fects the former and cannot be treated as a matter of in- difference or as a matter of no concern when it comes to the question of recognizing a religious organization as a "true" church. 53 (3) Closely connected with what has just been dis- cussed, is the question of fundamental and non-funda- mental doctrines as it bears on the relation of the churches to each other. The reader must have noticed that in the deliberations between the faculties of Mar- burg and Rinteln it was always the question, "Is this or that doctrine fundamental for salvation?" that was to decide the legitimacy of a union. Here the influence of the Helmstedt school is obvious. There was a fallacy in that question, particularly in the way it was formulated, that went undetected or was ignored in the quarters where the union was advocated. The problem was much discussed in the controversies that followed the Cassel colloquy, 54 but for the moment we shall pass it by, be- cause it is to be dealt with quite thoroughly in connection with the theological position of George Calixtus. There will be occasion for a few remarks on the matter also in connection with the report on the colloquy which is now to be taken under review. VII. THE COLLOQUY AT BERLIN (1662) AND SOME PRE- CEEDING HISTORY. The outcome of the Cassel colloquy had its effect also upon Brandenburg, the future Prussia. 55 Here the rul- 53 Cf. Schmid, ut supra, pp. 4i2fT. Wittenberg as well as Jena recognized the Reformed as a Church, but insisted that its Con- fessions erred in essential matters. 54 R. E. XIX, 251, 2ff. 55 R. E. XIX. 252, 24ff. Hering II, 137, I48ff, 1578. Wangemann Una Sancta II, 1., 137. 71 ing house of the Hohenzollern was Reformed while the people were Lutheran. Before beginning the account the reader is invited again to make himself familiar with chapter two, VI, e (p. 38ff.) on the conversion of Elector Sigismund to the Reformed Church. 56 The character of his policy has been described in VII of the second chapter. While there was no intention of expressing what has been termed "high Calvinism" and while the leaning of the so-called "Con- fession of Sigismund" to the well-known Melanchthonian indefiniteness and elasticity of expression is quite evident, yet, considering the fact that he for himself accepted the Heidelberg Catechism, Sigismund's position was clearly that of Calvinism. The marriage relations in his family and of his successors were altogether with the princesses of the Palatinate. As regards the seemingly mediating position of the Brandenburg Confessions, the conclusion can hardly be evaded that between Calvin and Luther there is no tertium quid. That was made clear in VII of chapter two. The middle ground that seems to be ex- pressed in the Confession of Sigismund was merely a political move gradually and unawares to lead the Luth- eran subjects over to the position of the Heidelberg Cate- chism. After having publicly announced his conversion (1614) Sigismund started with much energy on a cam- paign of a "reforming" Lutheranism. It was to be cleansed of the remnants of papacy. In the baptismal service the practice of exorcism was to be removed; in the celebration of the Supper the breaking of the bread was to displace the use of the wafers. Doctrinally the offense was with regard to the Lutheran conception of the person of Christ, particularly the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum and the ubiquity, and also with regard to the Supper, particularly the emphasis upon the Real Presence in the language of Luther, including the oral receiving by believers and unbelievers alike. There- 56 For a closer study, see Lutheran Quarterly 1907, pp. 36sff. ; Kawerau on "Sigismund" in R. E. XVIII, 33iff. Neve, "Luther- anism in Germany under the Church Policy of the Hohenzollern." 72 fore, the Formula of Concord was to be eliminated as confessional obligation for ministers, and the Invariata form of the Augsburg Confession was to be replaced by the Variata. By a method of coercion which the writer has described in detail on the basis of a large literature in the discussion that was mentioned, 57 Sigismund hoped to break the Invariata and the Formula of Concord Luth- eranism and to open the way for establishing the Re- formed Church. It was a policy that had worked well in Nassau, Anhalt and Hesse-Cassel. 58 But Sigismund was disappointed. It was impossible for the Hohenzollern to force the Lutherans of Brandenburg into the Re- formed Church. The resistance showed itself with such a determination that the plan had to be abandoned en- tirely. As a consequence of this failure, the Reformed Church of Brandenburg remained limited to the church of the Dom in Berlin and to a few small congregations at the places where the elector's castles were located. His wife and daughters, one of whom became the wife of Gustavus Adolphus, remained faithful to the Lutheran Church. A time of great estrangement between the elector and his people followed, which lasted also through the reign of his successor. At the beginning of the Thirty Years' War, the people of Berlin, as an expression of their feel- ing over what they had been compelled to endure under Sigismund, refused to lend the least support to Frederick V of the Palatinate in his campaign against the forces of Romanism. After his defeat in the battle at Prague (1620) they even refused him, the relative of their own elector, an asylum, so that he was compelled to flee im- mediately for Denmark. Then came Frederick William I, commonly called the 57 "Lutheranism in Germany under the Church Policy of the Hohenzollern," a paper which was read (December 1918) before the American Society of Church History in New York and will appear in print. 58 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305!, 307, 3o8ff. Kurtz, Engl. Ed., §§144, 3; 154, 1. German ed., 14th, §152, 3, 5. R. E. XVIII, 334, 4. Cf. VI in chapter two of these discussions. 73 "Great Elector" (1640-88). He changed the program from a conversion of the Lutherans to a union of the two churches, which from now on became the traditional policy of the Hohenzollern. It was at the time when the Thirty Years* War was drawing to its close and prepara- tions for peace were being considered that again the con- fessional difference between Lutherans and Reformed was felt. In that day the confessional factor always af- fected the political situation. The Lutherans, under the lead of electoral Saxony, insisted that the Reformed had never been adherents of the Augsburg Confession and, therefore, should not be counted as such in the future. To understand the meaning of this demand, it is to be kept in mind that at the Augsburg Religious Peace Treaty of 1555 religious toleration and recognition for the Protestants was limited to the adherents of the Augs- burg Confession. More and more the Jesuits began to stir for the great religious war by spreading the news that the Lutherans had departed from the original Augs- burg Confession (1) because for a time they had used the Variata, and (2) when they did go back to a document which they called the "Invariata" they accepted a text which cannot be proved to be identical in all respects with the original copies delivered to Charles V at Augsburg, the only copy on the basis of which they had been recog- nized in 1555. Such was the significance of the proper text in that day. The individual and the Church outside of that basis had no right to exist and was threatened with the execution of the empire. The Lutherans de- fended themselves vigorously and not altogether unsuc- cessfully by pointing to the Editio Princeps as the oldest edition in existence and dating of 1530. 59 It is true that this was not conclusive, because the original documents 59 _ The chief writing on the part of the Lutherans" was the publication of the Leipzig theologians of 1628 which has been printed in numerous editions : "Notwendige Verteidigung des Heil. Roemischen Reischs Chur-Fuersten und Staende Aug- apfels nemlich der wahren, reinen ungeaenderten Augsburgischen Konfession und des auf dieselbe gerichteten Religionsfrieds," etc On the whole controversy see Zoeckler, Augsb. Confession, 68ff. 74 were not known to exist; but neither were the Roman- ists able to prove that the Lutherans were wrong. But with the Reformed it was different, because they ac- cepted the Variata of 1540 or its successors, which varied doctrinally from the Editio Princeps. 60 Brandenburg's elector was quick to see that with the prevailing of Saxony's plans the political existence of Brandenburg, the Palatinate and Hesse was threatened. He refused to beg for a special jus, he said, 61 and in spite of much opposition he finally had the satisfaction of being recognized in the treaty of Osnabrueck as an ad- herent of the Augsburg Confession. He refused to qualify the Augsburg Confession of his acceptance as the "unaltered," because this term was intended to ex- press opposition to the Reformed, but he claimed that the Reformed of his domain accepted the Editio Princeps of 1530 pointing to the statement of the Brandenburg theo- logians at the Leipzig Colloquy. 62 This friction between Brandenburg and Saxony added new fuel to the confessional controversy between the Lutherans and the Reformed. It helps to explain the irritation of the Lutherans at the conference in Thorn. The need of union was felt. It can easily be understood that the reports from the Cassel Colloquy encouraged the elector to undertake something along the same line in Brandenburg. In fact we know that the participants in that colloquy petitioned the Landgrave William VI of Hesse to secure the co-operation of Brandenburg and Brunswick in a movement for union or at least mutual recognition. 63 Frederick William was more than willing to respond; he was even determined to use his sover- eignty to make confessional peace in his dominions. His first step was the publication of a decree (June 60 Cf. Neve, Luth. Symbolics, pp. 91-100. 61 Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, p. 470. 62 See above, sub. IV. R. E. XI, 364, 18; R. E. V, 93, 4- For fur- ther reading on the whole matter of the elector's struggle for recognition we refer to Wangemann I, 1, 133-7. Tschackert, R. E. XIX, 246, 28ff. 63 Mirbt in R. E. Ill, 745, 33ff. 75 2nd, 1662) in which he forbade controversial sermons and the ridiculing of the doctrinal position of opponents by carrying them t@ their logical conclusions. This was merely a renewal of a like decree by his grandfather, Elector Sigismund. But Frederick William was deter- mined to enforce the decree. He demanded that every minister should indicate his willingness to obey this de- cree by a promise in writing, a "revers" as it was called. 64 At the same time he forbade the students of theology in his dominion to attend the university of Wlittenberg where Abraham Calovius and his associates were wield- ing their sword of an uncompromising confessionalism against union and syncretism. 65 The climax in the union movements of the "Great Elec- tor" came when under the date of August 21, 1662, he ordered the Lutheran theologians of Berlin (which in- cluded Coelln) to participate in a conference or a dispu- tation with the Reformed ministers on the following sub- ject: "Whether there was anything taught in the Re- formed Confessions (particularly the Brandenburg Con- fessions) because of which the individual who believes and teaches it must be condemned by divine judgment; or whether in the same there was anything denied or omitted, the unacquaintance with which, on the part of an individual, will make it impossible for God to save him." 66 This subject had its root in the Helmstedt the- ology that had governed the Cassel colloquy. 67 It had been adroitly worded and the plan was evident. To an unbiased mind it seemed that there could be only one an- swer to this question, and after it was once admitted that the Reformed with their faith can be saved, the conclu- sion was found to be evident to every fair individual, namely that the dissensus was unessential and that a union of the two churches on the basis of the consensus 64 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 252, 4off. Hering II, 149. 65 Hering II, 148. Wangemann II, 1, 138. 66 Wangemann II, 1, 167. 67 Here we have to copy almost verbatim a few paragraphs of our discussion of "Lutheranism under the Church Policy of the Hohenzollern." 76 was the only reasonable thing. It had escaped the ob- servation of the elector that his proposition, together with his union plan, rested squarely upon the funda- mental mistake of not distinguishing between the Chris- tian individual and the Christian Church. The individ- ual when he embraces Christ as his Redeemer and is sin- cere in what he believes can be saved in the faith in which he stands; but to the Church and her ministry which is entrusted with the care for souls it is far from being a matter of indifference which faith is held and what is the doctrina publico,. If in the conviction of ministers of the Gospel, one of two ways, one of two confessions is better — more in harmony with the Scrip- tures, religiously sounder, safer in the leading to Christ and his salvation — then that way should be followed un- der all circumstances! It is this consideration which forbids a church union established upon the consensus and ignoring the dissensus. A union of such a nature would rest, in the last analysis, upon an indifferentism with regard to very essential matters of doctrinal experi- ence in the reformation time. It was the judgment even of John Musaeus that it ignores the reformation itself. When it claims to be a type of Lutheranism it is a de- nominational neuter, that cannot propagate its kind, be- cause there is no kind to be propagated. The conference was held in seventeen sessions covering a period of one year and a half (from Sept. 8th, 1662, to May 29th, the following year) and was exceedingly un- edifying and unpleasant. Paul Gerhardt, the nightin- gale of German Protestantism, acted as secretary for the Lutherans. As such he formulated, in Latin, many and lengthy theological opinions and drafted many replies to the Reformed. 68 It is to be deplored that a religious genius like Paul Gerhardt was pressed into this work. After those debates and unedifying discussions Paul 68 The originals of these documents are preserved in the secret archives in Berlin and are all printed by Langbecker in his documentary life of Paul Gerhardt. There they cover fifty print- ed pages in the German and Latin languages. 77 Gerhardt sang no more hymns. Theological controversy is apt to clip the wings of the devotional spirit in its im- pulse to express the deep thoughts of God and of the pious heart in sacred song. It may be that this is not always the case. Luther, for instance, wrote his im- mortal catechism of simple child-like religion at a time when he was engaged in the fiercest struggle with theo- logical opponents. What was the result of that debate in seventeen ses- sions? Frederick William was disgusted with the stub- borness of the Lutherans. He saw that for the present there was no prospect of union. The feeling between the contending parties was more bitter than before. All he could do was to insist upon his prohibition to use pulpit and press for controversy. Paul Gerhardt felt in his conscience that under the circumstances he could not promise in writing to obey the decree. Under the pres- sure of many petitions from Gerhardt's congregation, the elector finally excused him from signing a document expecting that he would act in harmony with the decrees without a formal obligation; but it was this expectation of the elector that caused Paul Gerhardt to resign his pas- torate in Berlin. 69 VIII. DURAEUS, THE INDEFATIGABLE WORKER FOR A UNION. This account of the union movements of the seven- teenth century cannot be closed without a brief review of the life work of John Duraeus (Bury) who spent fully fifty years of untiring activity in the task of bring- ing about the union of Protestantism. He was a Scotch- man (born 1595, died 1680) who had studied in Oxford and became pastor of a congregation of English settlers on the peninsula of Elbing (on the Baltic Sea) which Gustavus Adolphus had taken from the Poles. Here Duraeus became interested in the union movements be- 69 Cf. Neve in Lutheran Quarterly, 1907, pp. 364, 368ff. : "Paul Gerhardt in the Church Troubles of his Time." 78 tween Lutherans and Reformed on the continent. 70 Through the English ambassador and also by the Swed- ish chancellor Oxenstierna he was encouraged to make himself an agent and a leader in these movements. 71 The favorable termination of the Leipzig Colloquy (1631) 72 created an interest in Protestant union among the moderates of the bishops, and the Anglicans sent him to Germany as their representative. Here he sought the aid of Gustavus Adolphus who received him immediately after his great victory over Tilly at Leipzig. 73 The king promised him an official recommendation to the Protest- ant princes of Germany. But he did not give it, because it was not attended to immediately and the king soon fell in the battle at Luetzen. This is the explanation of Duraeus. The reason, however, may have been that Gustavus Adolphus soon observed opposition. One of his court preachers (Fabricius) was among the oppo- nents, and the other (Matthiae) incurred much enmity because he favored the program of Dureaus. 74 Chan- cellor Oxenstierna who was the leading man after the death of the Swedish king also refused to give him the much desired official recommendation because of the op- position that could be expected from electoral Saxony. Duraeus now sent invitations for a union to many per- sons of influence and especially to the faculties of all uni- versities. Some of the faculties responded with enthu- siasm, among them Helmstedt; but the stricter Luther- ans everywhere declined. 75 Now the situation in England changed. A represen- tative of the high church party was elected archbishop. As a condition of further support Duraeus who was a Presbyterian, was compelled to accept the ordination of the Anglican Church. Soon we find him in Sweden. It was hoped that a union between the Swedish Lutheran 70 R. E. V, 92, soff. 7i Hering II, 90. n See above, sub. III. 73 Hering II, 91. 74 Hering II, 92. 75 R. E. V, 93, 25. Hering II, I02ff. 79 Church and the Anglicans could be effected and that such a result then would also have an effect upon the Protest- antism of Germany. But again the great statesman Oxenstierna refused to appear as an open advocate of Protestant union. He merely pointed to the bishops, the court-preachers and the faculty at Upsala as the proper persons with whom he should confer on the matter. All these, with the exception of court-preacher Matthai, re- jected his union project, declaring that there was only one way for the union of Protestantism, namely for the followers of Calvin to turn from their errors and to be- come Lutherans. The perseverance of Duraeus is to be admired. Growing in the favor of Oxenstierna he used the letters of this statesman for gaining admission to the dignitaries of the Swedish Church, and he had the satis- faction of being invited to appear before a synod (June 1637) for a colloquy. At that synod the Swedes told him that they feared he was too optimistic when he be- lieved that the Reformed were willing to accept the Augs- burg Confession and become Lutherans. As to the pro- posed new confession, which was to embrace all that is fundamental, they said that they would be willing to ex- amine the same as soon as he was ready to present it With much courtesy they bade him farewell, but at the same time the government was advised to remove him from Sweden so that the Swedish Church might not come under the suspicion of leaning to Calvinism/ 6 But Duraeus could not be induced to abandon his pro- ject. In a sickness which followed he vowed that never in his life would he give up working for the peace of the Church, and in his vow he included the very commend- able determination never to make his union program subservient to political ends. 77 In Denmark he was told that rejection of the Calvin- istic errors by the Reformed and even the revocation of 76 Hering II, 106-12; 117. R. E. V, 93, 45ff. 77 R. E. V, 93, 50. 80 their writings against the Lutherans was necessary if a union was to be accomplished. 78 From his journey to the North he returned to the Uni- versity of Helmstedt in Brunswick where the atmosphere was more congenial. Troubles in England called him back to his home country where, under the existing po- litical conditions, he again changed his confession and returned to the Presbyterian Church. Again he came back to the continent, now with a writing of Cromwell. But his change of confession gave offense. Even the Reformed gave him a cool reception. Dr. Crocius of Marburg, one of the participants in the Leipzig Colloquy on the Reformed side, suggested that he ought to work first for the healing of the schism between the Anglicans and the Scotch. But this time he had come with the in- tention to work among the Reformed, namely that they might agree on a definite plan, on a kind of a new con- fession that was to embrace the fundamentals and omit theology. Of such a confession he had spoken to the Swedes. In his endeavors he found that the Swedes were about right when they said that in their opinion the Reformed differed from him in their estimate of the dissensus. 79 Religion cannot be separated from the- ology, at least not in the manner of the Helmstedt School. The outcome of the Cassel Colloquy was an encourage- ment for Duraeus, but in the following colloquy at Ber- lin he was again disappointed. Having fallen in with the political movement under Cromwell he now saw himself branded as an enemy of England after the restoration under Charles II. Con- sequently he never returned to his home country. He died 1680 at the age of eighty-five years and was buried at Cassel near the resting place of the widow of the Re- formed Landgrave William VI vho had been his faithful supporter through many years. At the end of his days he lamented that his life-work had been in vain. 78 R. E. V, 93, 57. 79 Hering II, i2off. CHAPTER IV. GEORGE CALIXTUS AND HIS OPPONENTS. Literature : W. Gass, "Georg Callixt und der Synkretis- mus," Breslau, 1846. Th. Henke, "G. Calixtus und seine Zeit," 2 voll., Halle, 1853-56. Much use has been made in this chapter of H. Schmid, "Geschichte der synkretistis- chen Streitigkeiten." Erlangen, 1846. This book deals in a most thoroughgoing way with the principles of Ca- lixtus and the objections of his opponents. The author, who is also the author of the widely studied "Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church," has care- fully classified the leading views of both sides as expres- ed in the chief polemical writings produced by the syn- kretistic controversies. Considering the methods of that time — endess enumerations in ever new connections, no distinction between essential and nonessential materials and the failing to categorize the various observations — makes the work that Schmid undertook one that no writer of to-day has the patience to undertake anew. So the writer of this chapter shall content himself with follow- ing Schmid and simply refer to the writings examined by him in foot notes in order that any one may verify the statements for himself. See the article on "Georg Calixt' in Meusel, Kirchli- ches Handlexikon (1st ed.) I, 632ff. ; also Lutheran Cy- clopedia, pp. 474ff. Valuable are the contributions of Tschackert in R. E. on "Georg Callixt" (III, 644ff.), on "Synkretismus" (XIX, 239fi\), on "Synkretistische Strei- tigkeiten" (XIX, 243ff.) See also in R. E. Kunze on "Musaeus" (XIII, 572ff.), also on "Abr. Calovius" (III, 648ff.) Kurtz, Church History (Engl.) 1888, §159. 81 82 Tholuck, "Geist der luth. Theologen Wittenbergs" (1852) ; "Kirchliches Leben des siebzehnten Jahrhun- derts" (1861). Neve, "Die Galesburger Hegel" and "Die Kirchengemeinschaftsfrage und der Schriftbeweis," 1919. The works of Schaff, Stahl, Hering, Wangemann, Langbecker as quoted before. I. PREPARATORY INFLUENCES UPON CALIXTUS. George Calixtus, professor in the University of Helm- stedt for forty-two years (from 1614 to 1656), was the man who furnished the formulas for the irenic move- ments in the seventeenth century. In the colloquies at Thorn (1645), at Cassel (1661), at Berlin (1662), in all the activity of John Dury and other advocates of a union in that day, the principles that were back of the argu- ments of the friends of a union could usually be traced to the theories of George Calixtus. He was different from the Lutheran theologians at Wittenberg, Leipzig, Strasburg and Jena in the appreciation of the distin- guishing doctrines of the churches. A good deal of light falls upon Calixtus as the theologian of irenics when we acquaint ourselves with the university in which he was a student and a teacher for so many years. 1. The Helmstedt University. It is interesting to study the early history of the Helm- stedt University which no longer exists. 1 It was founded 1576 by Duke Julius of Brunswick as a strictly Lutheran university. The Duke himself was a zealous promoter of the Formula of Concord. Men like Chemnitz and Chytraeus were his advisers in drafting the constitution of the new school and in selecting the first professors. i Compare Gass, Georg Calixt und der Synkretismus, pp. iof. Schmid, Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten, pp. 1-26. Henke, G. Calixt und seine Zeit, I, pp. 1-77. A monography which the writer could not consult is Henke, Die Universitaet Helms- tedt im 16. Jahrhundert. Halle, 1833. , 83 But in the year 1579 he assumed an attitude of outright antagonism to the Formula of Concord and conservative Lutheranism* 2 Here we have, historically speaking, the explanation of the developing difference between Helm- stedt and the other universities of seventeenth century Lutheranism. Duke Julius was followed by his son Henry Julius (1589), and soon a step was taken, which in the course of a few years made Helmstedt radically different from all other universities. John Casselius, a learned humanist, was called as professor, and soon most of the chairs in the university were occupied by friends of Casselius and advocates of humanism. Among these was the brilliant Cornelius Martini of Antwerp. The humanism of Helm- stedt had its chief seat in the philosophical faculty which had a dominating influence over the other faculties. The old classics', history and philosophy were much studied, not as means to an end, namely for the establishment of Biblical doctrines, as Luther had done, but as an end in itself. It was the age of Descart when philosophy began to emancipate itself and refused to be the handmaid of theology. It has frequently been said that the humanism as culti- vated in Helmstedt created a kind of common ground with Calvinism. 3 When this is admitted it should not be 2 The real causes back of that enstrangement were not very creditable to the duke. For the purpose of holding to his house the benefice ("Bistum") of Magdeburg, to which his oldest son had been elected as a child, he had him ordained with all the papal ceremonies, and in order to secure like ecclesiastical pos- sessions for his two younger sons, he had them receive the ton- sura or the shaven crown. In consequence of these things he lost standing among the Lutheran princes and theologians. Chem- nitz reproached him in a letter. All the ministers preached against the offense on a certain Sunday. The princes of Wuertemberg, Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg and the Pala- tinate sent letters of complaint and reproach. All this criticism irritated Duke Julius. He dismissed Chemnitz and other theo- logians. From this time on his interest in the work of Concord through a united confession of Lutheranism disappeared, and he began to take an independent position, which was gradually seen in the character of the university. 3 Cf. Loescher, Historia motuum II, i87ff. Schmid 14-16. 84 taken to mean that humanism as such favors Calvinism as a dogmatic system; but this is true that Calvinism, like humanism, is averse to doctrinal definiteness and to the insistence upon dogma as it has found expression in the Formula of Concord. It was this trait of humanism which made the Helmstedt theologians Melanchthonians. When the Melanchthonians were up-rooted in electoral Saxony, (cf. chapter two, III) many of them withdrew from theology and, devoting themselves to philosophy, became humanists. As such they frequently became in- different to religion and found themselves in an attitude of opposition to the orthodoxy of their age, upon which they looked with an air of condescension. Of the Helmstedt professors in the philosophical faculty, however, it could not be said that they were hos- tile to theology, not even that they unduly exalted reason and opposed it to revelation. What they opposed was the barbarism of polemics as it was practiced in the contro- versies between the churches. They held that a different fundamental education in the classics and in ancient phi- losophy — in the humaniora — would make a more palata- ble theology. Schmid, the author of the well-known standard-book on old Lutheran dogmatics, has the fol- lowing very fitting remark: "The staleness and im- moderateness of polemics, yea, the coarseness that char- acterized the controversies of the time find their expla- nation largely in the neglect of the humaniora; for in classical antiquity there lies a spirit of moderation and fine culture, which, to their great detriment, the Luth- eran theologians had been losing more and more." 4 The humanistic character of the Helmstedt school was seen in its interest in history and particularly in the his- tory of the ancient church as it was cultivated also by Calixtus himself when he became a teacher in this uni- versity. 5 Humanism, when dissatisfied with the pres- 4 Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten, p. 17. 5 Writings in which Calixtus emphasized the study of history were his Apparatus Theologicus of 1628, and the Orationes Sel- lectae of 1659. He wrote a Fragmentum Historiae Ecclesiae Oc- cidentalis (1656) and various monographies on the history of an- cient dogmas. All his writings show the historical view-points. 85 ent, flees into antiquity. There it likes to trace the be- ginning of historical developments and to find the correc- tives for the misdevelopments of the centuries. 6 2. Calixtus as a Student. It was this Melanchthonian-humanistic atmosphere into which Calixtus came, 1603, and where he remained as a student for six years. He came from Medelbye (Schleswig), a little village visibly near the place where the writer spent his boyhood days, at that time ignorant of the fact that from that insignificant little place of sand and heath had come one of the most interesting charac- ters in the history of Protestantism. Here the father of Calixtus had been pastor for fifty years (1568-1618). He had been a pupil of Melanchthon in Wittenberg, after the death of Luther, and in opposition to the Flacianists he was an outspoken Melanchthonian, an opponent of the Formula of Concord. On this question he had settled the mind of his son before he was ready to go to the univer- sity. When the university was to be chosen there was only one that could be considered — Helmstedt. 7 Four of the six years that young Calixtus 8 spent at Helmstedt he devoted to the humaniora. As a highly ap- preciated student he soon came into close personal rela- tion with his teachers, among them Casselius and Mar- tini. When he graduated, the university had already de- cided to call him as professor at the first vacancy. In the meantime, Calixtus started on his extensive travels which form no small part of his education as a theologian. He visited German universities, and in the company of a wealthy man he saw many places in Belgium, Holland, England and France. Wherever he came, he made a close study of the churches, particularly of the various 6 Cf. Schmid, p. 234. 7 See especially Henke I, 8off. 8 The family name was Kallisoen. In Schleswig to-day that same name is usually Callisen. The young student at Helmstedt Latinized it to Calixtus and Medelbye to Medeloboa and so signed himself under the Latin poems which he published. creeds. He came into frequent controversy with the Romanists and once had a public disputation with the Jesuits. Fear of falling into their hands kept him from continuing his educational journeys into Italy. Now and then, on returning from journeys, he lectured at Helm- stedt. On December 12th, 1614, his Alma Mater called him as regular professor in recognition of the skill with which he had debated with the Romanists. In this posi- tion he taught and wrote for forty-two years. II. THE THEORIES OF CALIXTUS AND THE REPLY OF LUTH- ERANISM. 1. Calixtus on Fundamentals and Nonfundamentals. The position of Calixtus was, generally speaking, that agreement in the fundamentals as he defined them is a sufficient basis for mutual recognition and co-operation. He did not advocate organic union of the churches before these had succeeded in settling some of the nonfunda- mentals. But on the basis of agreement in the funda- mental doctrines of Christianity he made an appeal for mutual recognition and co-operation, which, he hoped, would soon lead into full and actual union. It is important to understand what was to him a fun- damental doctrine. He would answer: It is a doctrine that is necessary to be believed for salvation ; a doctrine which no one, be he layman or theologian, can ignore without endangering his salvation. He referred to the belief in an eternal life ; that body and soul are to be rais- ed up to receive this life ; that it will be a life with God, our Creator ; that it can be attained only through Christ, His Son, our Redeemer; that this life is to be communi- cated by the Holy Ghost in the holy Christian Church. 9 Following Bonaventura, he divided the material of the Church's teaching into three classes: (1) Antecedentia: 9 Schmid, referring to Calixtus, Ad Moguntinos, theses 30-40. 87 Into this class belong all religious matters which man, without the aid of revelation, can know by his own na- tural powers, — such as the immortality of the soul; also such things as knowledge of the Scriptures, familiarity with its interpretation and like matters: (2) Constitu- entia: These are the real matters of faith, the objects of revelation for the salvation of man: (3) Consequential These are the doctrines of a more or less theological char- acter that are derived from the fundamentals and incor- porated into the creeds, — such as predestination, the per- sonal union of the two natures in Christ and the doctrine of the Supper. 30 Fundamental to Calixtus were only the matters belonging to the second of these categories, the constituentia. 2. Appeal to Tradition and to the Apostles' Creed. (a) Calixtus appealed to the doctrinal tradition of the early Church, that is, to the Church of the first five centuries, or to what was then taught the catechumens (consensus quinquasaecularis) . In the catechetical teaching of the early Church he saw a kind of a norm of such truth as is fundamental for salvation. He admit- ted that the Scriptures are the sole source of truth (unum, primum et summum principium, Hauptprinzip) , but at the same time he insisted that besides the Scrip- tures the teaching of the early Church was to be taken as a real criterion of fundamental truth (as an alterum principium secundarium or subordinatum). 11 To prove his position he referred to the promise of Christ that His Spirit was to lead in all truth. He emphasized that the Church had had its purest representation in the Apostolic age and in the centuries nearest to that age. 12 Among the Lutheran theologians it was especially Abraham Ca- io Ad Moguntinos 66, 71, 44. Cf. Schmid, pp. I56ff., 187E., 267ft., 270ft. 11 Schmid, p. I48f. 12 Cf. Schmid, I3iff., 147ft., 245. 88 lovius who contradicted Calixtus in his theory on tradi- tion. He insisted that the Scriptures are the only infal- lible norm of true doctrine and that in no meaning can tradition be a secondary principle of truth. He declared that it was arbitrary to limit the application of passages like Mt. 16 :18, 1 Tim. 3 :15, and John 14 :26 to the Church of the first five centuries; all that can be proved from such passages is that in the Church divine truth will not perish. 13 (b) Later, Calixtus did not speak so much of tradi- tion because he had settled upon the Apostles' Creed as the concrete expression of what in his opinion was funda- mental in the teaching of the early Church. He argued that the ancient Church in its earliest form was certainly in possession of all truth needed for salvation, and that in the Apostles' Creed the Church had once for all expressed what is fundamental or necessary to be known for salva- tion ; to this nothing needs to be added. Calovius did not deny that the early Church had the whole truth needed for salvation. He even admitted that all true doctrinal development of succeeding ages could be in no conflict with the statements of the Apostles' Creed. But he op- posed the claim that the Apostles' Creed expresses all that is fundamental in the Scriptures ; that it contains the fundamentals with such a perfection and completion that nothing needs to be added, amplified, or defined, and that in its simple general form it is a sufficient and adequate norm of truth for all times. 14 It is to be kept in mind that the purpose of Calixtus in his appeal to antiquity was to support his claim of a virtually existing union (communio interna) between the churches. Of this we shall treat below (sub 3). Before proceeding to other topics of the controversy let us here interpose a few critical remarks on the subject under review. While it is true that in the Apostles' Creed 13 Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 10, 143. 3i2f. 14 Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 10, 143. 89 we have an admirable expression of the rudiments of re- vealed truth it is after all only a general outline upon which the structure of the Christian faith, the fides quae creditur, in its individual parts was to be erected. The erection of this structure of Christian teaching was to take place through the process of a progressive doctrinal experience, chiefly in conflict with error. In the articles of the Apostles' Creed as it developed out of the Baptis- mal Formula we have the formulation of only the first doctrinal experience of the ancient Church. To demand of the Church after the Reformation that it should limit its public confession to the statements of the Apostles' Creed would be equal to compelling the full-grown man to return again to the stage of development of the boy. 3. The Apostles' Creed and Later Creeds. Religion as . - an Opposite to Theology. (a) The position of Calixtus. Baur, the founder of the Tuebingen School, once said that Calixtus undertook to lead the Church back from theology to religion. And indeed, his attempt to put the Apostles' Creed in opposi- tion to the other creeds of Christendom was an endeavor to establish religion and theology as opposites. That this cannot be done in entire harmony with the genius of Lutheranism will be shown in a later section of this chap- ter (sub. III). As has been pointed out, Calixtus had established him- self upon a distinction between fundamentals and non- fundamentals. Fundamental, he said, is what is neces- sary to be known and to be believed for salvation. To the plain statements of the Apostles'Creed nothing of a fundamental nature can be added. The later more elabo- rate creeds contain fundamentals only where the sub- stance of that creed is repeated in a practically identical form ; wherever the later creeds offer interpretation and qualification of the Apostles' Creed and additional ma- terial, there they no longer express fundamentals. Such interpretative and supplementary matter which was ne- 90 cessitatedby the activity of the heretics has no signifi- cance for the ordinary Christian ; it is material for teach- ers only, by which these should be guided in their work. 15 Many of the Church's teachers, however, Calixtus con- tinued, have made the mistake of delving too much into mysteries, such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, original sin, the relation of God's grace to man's will in conversion and other matters. They should have con- tented themselves with simply teaching what is clearly revealed and needs to be known for salvation. So Calix- tus, as an irenic, argued in his zeal for bridging the chasm between the churches and tried to make the dif- ferences appear to be of minor consideration. He la- mented that the terms of the school had been permitted to coin the expressions of pure religion, such statements, for instance, as this : that he who repents and believes in Christ and accepts His merit has forgiveness of sins and shall have eternal life. 16 He did not deny that occasions might arise when a teacher is compelled to go beyond the clearly revealed statements of Scripture (p. 152). But this, he said, should be done only in theological discussion, with much reticence and with a consciousness that man will always be denied a full insight into the mysteries of the Christian faith (154). Then he insisted, as we have seen, that such doctrinal differences are not fundamental for salvation and, therefore, do not affect the virtual union (communio virtualis) between the churches. Regarding the later and more theological creeds, Ca- lixtus made a distinction between the creeds of the first five centuries and the creeds of the Reformation age. Upon the former he looked as confessional testimonies of the theologically fundamental period of the Church's life — theological in character, and for that reason not necessary for salvation, — but offering a basis upon which all the churches ought to be able to unite. As to the confessions of the Reformation, he would again say: 15 Cf. Schmid, pp. I48f, I5iff., 160. 16 See Schmid, 162. 91 Either they repeat the plain statements of the Apostles' Creed, and in such parts they are fundamental for salva- tion; or they interpret that creed and deduct additional doctrines from it (per consequentiam), in which cases they constitute no articles of faith, but are intended to serve only the teachers of the Church. He even went so far as to call the doctrinal differences between the churches "questiones annatae." 17 (b) Reply from the Lutherans. The opponents of Calixtus (Calovius, Huelsemann, Dannhauer and also Musaeus) had a different appreciation of the more theo- logical creeds of Christendom, and it cannot be denied that in the main they were correct in their positions. To them the Apostles' Creed was merely a general outline of the Church's faith, a first attempt to state the essentials of truth. The statements of this creed, they would say, expressed' the Christian faith seminally, with the need of development and further unfolding. The leading objections of Calovius were as follows: The Apostles' Creed was not formulated for the purpose of giving to the believers of all ages a really complete summary of the Christian faith, otherwise the Nicene and the Chalcedonian creeds would never have been drafted. The later creeds of the ancient Church, how- ever, do not make it their object to interpret or to supple- ment the Apostles' Creed; they were simply written to meet the errorists of the age, such as Arius, who denied the full divinity of Christ, the Macedonians who denied the personality and the divinity of the Spirit, the Nesto- rians and Monophysites who held fundamental errors re- garding person and nature in Christ. In meeting such errorists, the Church found itself called upon to state other features of revealed truth, which were essential and fundamental, but had so far not been generally recogniz- ed. He took the position that all revealed truth is fun- damental for salvation in one or another way, and that in 17 See Schmid, pp. 200, 209. Ci. Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexi- kon I, 634. 92 the later creeds of the first five centuries, as also of the Reformation, we have new and needed statements of Scripture truths. And these, he insisted, have their sig- nificance not merely for the teacher of the Church, but for every soul. It is for this reason that the confessions of Lutheranism contain articles of faith, that must also be counted among the fundamentals. 18 Calovius pointed to the undeniable fact that the various heresies, which had been the occasion for the development of the dogma, con- stituted temptations and dangers for the life of the Church, and that their rejection in the creeds had much to do with the faith of the Church and for this reason the creeds offer an important message for the common Chris- tian, even if it is the special duty of the teacher to inter- pret that message. 19 4. The Inner Union Claimed by Calixtus. On the basis of his theory of fundamentals and non- fundamentals in connection with his distinction between Apostles' Creed and later creeds, Calixtus declared that notwithstanding the external division there was a virtual union (communio interna) between Lutherans and Re- formed and even Rome, that needed only to be recognized. He admitted that an outward union (communio actualis et externa per sacramentum) was not possible as long as these churches were wrongfully charging each other with fundamental errors. He admitted that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper was a serious obstacle to an exter- nal union between Lutherans and Reformed, 20 but not be- cause of the doctrinal difference in itself — for it is not a fundamental doctrine — but because of the place of this sacrament in the cultus of the Church and because of the tenacity with which the churches hold to their differing opinions. 21 18 Cf. Schmid, p. 201. 19 See Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 143, 150, 153, and many other places ; also Digressio de Nova Theologia, p. 910. Cf. Schmid, ut supra, pp. i47ff-» 20off., 247-53, 29iff., 4096?. 20 Cf. Schmid, pp. 172, i87ff., 1916*., 232ff. 21 Cf. Schmid, pp. 172, 175-77, 1S7S., I9iff.» 232. 93 The Lutherans admitted that they had much in com- mon with the Reformed. Notwithstanding hard words that fell in the controversy, they did not seriously regard the Reformed like Jews and heathen, not even as sects like the Anabaptists and Socinians. They accorded them the name of a church. 22 But they denied the existence of a real union in the faith. The differences, to them, were differences in the faith. Calixtus insisted upon dis- tinguishing in every doctrine between the quid and the quomodo, that is between the substance and the manner of teaching it. But the Lutherans answered: It is not enough to know that Christ is the Saviour, but it is also necessary to know how He saves; the teaching on the way of salvation, on the means of grace and on man's attitude are by no means nonfundamental matters. It is in the conflicts on these very important doctrines, they insisted, that the differences on the commonly accepted doctrines appear. Dannhauer declared: The churches accept the words of the creed, but they disagree in the meaning of them, which shows that the assumption of an existing union is after all a deception. 23 The Lutherans refused to distinguish between funda- mentals and nonfundamentals after the theory of Calix- tus. Their arguments were as follows : The Scriptures speak of no such distinction and draw no line. Truth is an organism. In this organism there are parts of seem- ingly minor importance, but even these cannot be re- moved without injuring the whole. Dannhauer declared it to be a mistake to call only those doctrines articles of faith, which must be believed for salvation; many doc- trines of Scripture, which are not fundamental in that sense, are nevertheless articles of faith because of the help and comfort they give to the seeking sinner and to the Christian. As such he mentions the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Supper. 24 22 Schmid, pp. 211, 306. 23 Mysterium Syncretismi, p. 45. Schmid, 29off. 24 Cf. Schmid, pp. 217, 293. 94 Calixtus took the position that no church could call itself the true Church, because all churches, Rome in-, eluded, have the fundamentals of the Apostles' Creed. He regarded the Lutheran Church as the purest in theology, but in matters-necessary for salvation he could see no dif- ference/ The greater or lesser purity, he said, was touch- ing not the religion, but merely the theology of the churches. 25 It was in connection with the problem of an existing virtual union between the churches that the question was asked: Who is a heretic and what is a heresy? Here Calixtus had to express himself. In consistency with his leading views he said: We must distinguish between error and heresy. Departure from the statements of the Apostles' Creed constitutes a heresy, and a heretic, in this sense, is not in the union of faith with other Chris- tians. But departure from the teaching of the later creeds and from the doctrinal matters derived from the Apostles' Creed per consequentiam constitutes merely an error which does not affect the union of faith. 26 A here- tic, then, in the proper sense of that term, is he only, who rejects an article of faith as it is plainly expressed in the Apostles' Creed. 27 Furthermore, it is one who rejects that article of faith consciously and who intentionally makes himself the cause of a schism, not one who by providence finds himself in a schismatic communion. 28 The Lutherans objected to the distinction between Apostles' Creed and later creeds in this discussion. Ca- lovius declared that such a definition of heresy was cer- tainly opposed to the practice of the Church which de- manded subscription to the later creeds as proof of or- thodoxy. 29 He further reminded Calixtus that if adop- tion of the Apostles' Creed only is sufficient as evidence 25 Schmid, pp. 172, 221, 225. 26 Schmid, pp. I72ff., 26off. Calixtus, Desiderium et Stud., etc., §6 De Tolerantia, thesis 4. 27 Ad Moguntinos, th. 86. 28 Calixtus, Epicrisis Theol., th. 44. 29 Schmid, 262. Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 164, 167. 95 of orthodoxy then even the Arians, Socinians, Arminians and Anabaptists could not have been charged with heresy. 30 As we have seen, Calixtus did not demand an organic union of the churches as long as serious theological dif- ficulties stood in the way, but he pleaded for the recogni- tion of an existing union (communio virtulis )in the fundamentals of the Apostles' Creed. On this basis he de- manded an attitude of mutual recognition of each other as true churches being orthodox in the fundamentals of the faith. The Lutherans declared that if there were a real in- ner union in the matters pertaining to salvation then the obstacle for an external union would be removed and the full union should be consummated, but they denied the existence of an inner union and, therefore, declared that a recognition, such as Calixtus was advocating, would be infidelity to truth. Even the milder university of Jena with John Musaeus took this position. Rejecting the theory of Calixtus regarding the fundamentals, these Jena theologians declared that the Church is steward not merely over a certain number of doctrines that seem to be particularly important, but over all revealed truth that is helpful in leading souls in the way of salvation. They argued that if the Lutheran Church is serious in her par- ticular confession and is appealing to the Scriptures with good conscience she cannot recognize the opposing churches as orthodox and evangelical, but is in duty bound to testify against their errors; otherwise she would be espousing the principle that one conception of religion is as good as the other. 31 They recognized with the Formula of Concord that in the other churches there are many true Christians that are erring innocently. These, they said, can be regarded as brethren. But, it was added, there is not always a way of knowing their inner attitude and, therefore, the rule will have to be that individuals must be judged after their public confession 30 Schmid, 263. Calovius, Digressio, p. 923. 31 Report of the faculty, published in Calovius' Historia Syn- cretismi, pp. 999*1 96 in the church in which they are members. As to recog- nizing other churches as true churches the position was taken that this could not be done consistently when, these had confessionally established themselves upon positions subversive of the creed of the church of which recogni- tion is expected. 32 III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CALIXTUS AND OF THE LUTHERANS OF HIS AGE. 1. Distinction Between Church and Individual, (a) The distinction between fundamentals and non- fundamentals, when applied to the question of mutual recognition, in the hope of union, cannot be made by ask- ing : What is indispensable for the individual to know and to believe in order to be saved? Calixtus failed to dis- tinguish between Church and individual. Regarding the individual, salvation depends upon an attitude of the soul to Christ, not upon the knowledge and acceptance of a fixed number of doctrines. But it is also true, having faith in Christ the intellect is not altogether passive. The Gospel which is accepted calls for a doctrinal expression even in the mind of the common believer. But no hard and comprehensive rule can be made as to the details of such doctrinal expression. For an individual with little religious training, when it comes to the last struggle, it may be only one thought centering about Christ as the Saviour from sin, consequently much less than is con- tained in the Apostles' Creed. In another again, who grew up in a Christian environment under careful in- struction in Scripture truth a much larger insight into divine truth would be natural, so that elements of even the later creeds would be embraced in his confession. And then again, it is one thing not to know or not to have a clear conception of fundamental truth, and quite an- 32 Cf. Schmid, pp. 4i3f. 97 other to reject such truth with purpose and against con- viction. It should also not be denied that a larger reli- gious knowledge is helpful to the soul in finding the way of salvation. But in the whole discussion too much was left out of consideration that the question is an alto- gether different one when the object in view is the mutual recognition of the churches and when the aim is to prepare the way for Church union. Here the Lutherans were right when they took the position that all Scripture truth is fundamental, which aids the Church in its work of winning souls for Christ and of leading the congrega- tion of believers in all truth. 33 (b) Calixtus demanded that churches of different creeds should recognize each other as "true" churches. To support his demand he asked his Lutheran opponents : Can the members of other churches not be saved? God Himself adopts His children, and we must recognize them as brethren in the faith. 34 Such argument sounded well and was bound to make the position of Calixtus popular. But Schmid remarks very correctly that this argument was forcing the question and cutting the knot of a prob- lem which he was unable to solve theologically (p. 213). Is it not possible for a Lutheran with right views on the relation between the visible and the invisible Church to believe that there are children of God and, therefore, members of the One Holy Christian Church in other churches and in individual cases even to recognize them as such, but at the same time to say with Art. VII of the Augsburg Confession: "The Church is the congrega- tion of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly (recte) taught and the sacraments rightly (recte) administer- ed? 35 According to the Lutheran conception, Scriptural 33 See the fine discussion of Stahl in Lutherische Kirche und Union, pp. 33aff. 34 Schmid, p, 173. 35 This twice repeated recte was not in the earlier drafts of the Confession, but was added by Melanchthon before its delivery at Augsburg. Postscripts are never slips of the pen, but are seri- ously meant. This recte is again twice repeated in the Apology. Cf. Neve, Lutheran Symbolics, pp. I74ff- 98 teaching of the faith is one mark of the Church where it comes into visibility as an outward organization. 36 (c) The Lutherans of the age of Calixtus inclined to the other mistake : They made Christianity and the sal- vation of the individual too much dependent upon ortho- doxy of faith. They overlooked the fact that a sincere Christian can live in doctrinal errors and may even de- fend them. They said: When he has been sufficiently instructed then the responsibility is upon him. But con- sidering the tenacity of prejudices, the natural fidelity to the church into which an individual was born and the influence of environment, the seventeenth century Luth- erans were not right when they took the position that "sufficient instruction" is bound to convert the lover of truth. They were defective in their psychology. But in this they were right: that in the relation of church to church, recognition of an existing internal union and public fellowship in the faith must be regulated by the public profession. Note. A few remarks on the definition of heresy may here find a place. The statement of Calixtus, when he limited the application of heresy to doctrines opposed to the statements of the Apostles' Creed, cannot be accepted, because the later and more theological creeds also deal with matters essential to the faith. But on the other hand, it cannot be denied that in his desire to distinguish between outright heresy and mere error he was giving expression to a fact generally acknowledged among the Lutherans of to-day, namely that there is indeed an es- sential difference between errors such, for instance, as are held by the Socinians and those that mark the differ- ences between the Lutherans and Reformed. 36 For a complete discussion of the problems here involved the writer must refer to his interpretation of Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in "The Augsburg Confession." (Luth. Pub- lication Society, Philadelphia, 1914), PP- 92ff., and in "Introduc- tion to Lutheran Symbolics" (Lutheran Book Concern, Columbus, O., 1917), PP. 173-82. 99 2. The Teaching of Calixtus as a Reaction Against the Orthodoxism of His Age. From the standpoint of conservative Lutheranism the positions of Calixtus, as they have been viewed, cannot be accepted. This has been the practically unanimous verdict of the Lutherans of his own age (the more liberal Jena School included) , of the great Lutheran theologians who wrote in the second third of the nineteenth century, and of Lutheranism in America. 37 But an erroneous po- sition strong enough to create a school usually derives its life from the need of opposition to another extreme. It cannot be denied that in the age of Calixtus Lutheranism was in need of correctives. Orthodoxy had degenerated into orthodoxism. 38 The continuous controversies be- tween Lutheranism and Calvinism had led to an intel- lectualism and to a preaching of pure theology in the pul- pits, which yielded little bread to Gospel-hungry souls. The ubiquity was a favored subject for discussion in the sermons. The appeal to the congregations was of such a nature that the layman was hardly regarded a full Christian unless he was a theologian. And with it all went a polemics that in most cases was out of place in the pulpits. 39 The Lutherans of the seventeenth century went too far in identifying religious truth with the theo- logical and dialectical formulation of the same. In the practical life of the Church there are situations where, in the application, a distinction between religion and the- ology must be observed. In denominational problems it has not always been easy to properly distinguish between the fides qua and the fides quae creditur, that is, the sub- jective and the objective faith. In the distinction of Calixtus between the simple facts of the Apostles' Creed and the later creeds of a more theological nature, we have the reaction against the intellectualism of the seventeenth 37 We refer to the article "Georg Calixt" in Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon I, 632ft. 38 Cf. Kurtz, Church History, 1888, Sec. 159- 39 We refer to chapter III, Sect. VI, 1, p. 67. 100 century Lutheranism. But the theory of Calixtus was unacceptable. His distinction between religion and the- ology was too mechanical. It must never be left out of view that to a certain degree theology, true Scriptural theology, will always have to be the form of the objective faith, without which a healthy subjective faith cannot be cultivated in the Church. 3. The "Internal Union.'* Calixtus , assertion of a practically existing internal union (communio interna virtualis) could be made only by an almost entire abstraction from the objective faith, the fides quae creditur. Common recognition of the Apostles' Creed did not mean much, because the differ- ences appeared in the interpretation of that creed. 40 That internal union, then, had a certain degree of reality only when regard was had to the fides qua creditur, that is to the relation and attitude of the heart to God and His Son as Saviour from sin. The Pietists, especially the newly converted among them, are always unionists when it comes to denominational problems. The profound im- pression from their religious experience leads them to regard all as brethren in the faith who have had a like experience. But, if the spiritual development and growth of such a newly converted individual is normal, then the time is bound to come when he feels the need of linking his religious experience with the doctrinal experiences of the historic Church. The Church's doctrinal experience was crystalized in the creeds. So, then, purely pietistic Christians develop into confessional Christians with de- nominational interests. This can be observed, to a cer- tain extent, even in the history of Methodism. Its be- ginning was an unbounded spiritual enthusiasm, but in the course of time it became an independent church, and to-day cultivates with great zeal its peculiar denomina- tional features, There was a marked defect in Calixtus* 40 Cf. Dannhauer, Mysterium Syncretismi, p. 45. 101 claim of an internal union, particularly when we view this claim on the background of his special interest, namely of blazing the trail for a full union of the churches. For it is to be kept in mind that while Ca- lixtus, for the time being, did not demand more than mutual recognition, toleration and co-operation, his aim was a complete union. The conferences at Cassel and Berlin (see chapter III) and the development of the nine- teenth century drew the consequences from the theories of Calixtus. 4. The Question of Co-operation. The question of co-operation between churches of dif- fering creeds cannot here be discussed in all its bearings. But the problem can be made practical for discussion by two statements: (1) There can be co-operation only where such co-operation does not involve a practical de- nial of confessional principles. (2) But even in cases not necessarily involving such denial a practical interest may forbid co-operation, in cases namely where there would be reason to believe that by force of circumstances it would be productive of indifferentism and unionism with regard to essentials. 41 5. Calixtus Failed to Appreciate the Reformation. Calixtus failed to appreciate the Reformation as a cre- ative epoch in the doctrinal development of the Church. Prof. Tschackert, himself an advocate of irenics as to the relation between the Lutherans and the Reformed and strongly opposed to the seventeenth century Luth- eranism and sympathetic with Calixtus, writes at the close of his article on "Georg Calixt" in the Realencyklopaedie : "As regards his irenics, we shall acknowledge and highly appreciate his good intention. But in taking the posi- 41 Cf. Neve, "Die Galesburger Regel," and "Die Kirchengeme- inschaftsfrage und der Schriftbeweis." 102 tion that the Apostles' Creed and the consensus quinqua- saecularis is the best representation of Christianity he proved that he did not have the proper appreciation of the religious contents of the Reformation. Upon the standpoint of Calixtus the historic reformation of Luther loses its specific value. The natural consequence was in- differentism towards the confessions of the Church, which evidenced itself in the conversion of Lutheran princes and princesses to Roman Catholicism." 42 Ca- lixtus was Lutheran in name, but he ignored the historic foundation of his church. Dannhauer remarked cor- rectly that in following Calixtus, the Lutheran Church would have to cease praising Luther and his reformation and apologize for the schism that had been caused in Protestantism. Even Baur 43 felt constrained to remark, that from the standpoint of Calixtus and in consistency with his theories the Reformation needed not to have taken place. Characteristic of his position was the an- swer he gave to prince Anton Ulrich of Brunswick, who had asked him whether a Protestant princess could marry with good conscience a Roman Catholic king. He answered as follows: (1) The Roman Catholic Church does not err in the foundation of faith and in the matter of salvation. (2) Consequently the changing of one's church relationship from Protestantism to Roman Ca- tholicism is permissible. 44 6. Humanism. The humanistic trait in Calixtus had much to do with his more liberal views in dealing with denominational problems. Baur also made the remark that Calixtus fa- vored a development from the purely Christian to the generally human ("Er lenkte von der Religion zu dem allgemein Menschlichen.") Here, perhaps, was the real root of his conflict with Lutheranism. In the introduc- 42 Third edition by Hauck, III, p. 647, 30n\ 43 History of the Christian Church IV. 44 Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon I, 6341. Cf Schmid, pp. 200, 209= 103 tion to this chapter we have acknowledged that human- ism could have had a beneficial influence upon the seven- teenth century Lutherans. We had reference, however, only to form, method, temper. Humanism makes the theologian freer, more scientific, and helps him to draw lessons from history and psychology. But humanism also inclines to a criticism of the foundations. The hand of God in history is ignored. The Reformation is looked upon as a misdevelopment. Ad. Harnack, for instance, views the history of dogma as issuing in the dissolution of dogmas. The significance of the Reformation is limited to a negative attitude to Rome. The differences between the Reformers are merely theological opinions. Augsburg Confession, Consensus Tigurinus, Formula of Concord, Synod of Dort, Westminster Confession are out- side of the history of the dogma. It is not difficult to de- tect the relation between such views of modern liberal- ism and the theories of Calixtus. He was the father of modern theology, not only in the union problem, but in numerous other respects. His principles found no gen- eral following until after his time. But in these princi- ples we have the beginning of the many and various sug- gestions for a new construction of Christianity, that have been heard since the age of rationalism. IV. THE POLEMICAL ACTIVITY OF THE LUTHERANS. 1. The Ciwrge of Syncretism. Especially since the colloquy at Thorn (1645) the term "syncretism" came into frequent use as a charge against Calixtus and his followers. The term was chosen to stig- matize the endeavor of mixing into one Church the op- posing confessions of faith. The term was derived from vvyKepdwfu, to mix together. In preceding ages the term had had a different meaning. It suggested the practice of the old Cretans of whom Plutarch told in his little writing on Philadelphia that, while they were usually at war with each other, they always united against a com- 104 mon foe. It was in this sense that Zwingli, Bucer and Melanchthon had suggested a o-vyKp^rio-^ov or the forma- tion of a united front against Rome even if a full doctri- nal union could not be realized. 45 But in the seventeenth century the term received the above mentioned meaning. The polemics between Lutherans and Reformed was much revived about the time of the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648. The Reformed, through their chief rep- resentative, Frederick William I, of Brandenburg, de- manded to be put on a basis of equality with the Luth- erans by being acknowledged as adherents of the Augs- burg Confession. 46 To this, electoral Saxony was bit- terly opposed. In 1645 the Wittenberg University pub- lished two theological opinions against the "Syncretis- mus diversarum religionum," 47 referring to the following passages of Scripture: I Cor. 6:15-15; Rev. 3:15-16; Eph. 4:5-6. Dannhauer, in his "Mystery of a discovered Syncretism" (1648) wrote a kind of history of Syncre- tism. Here he described as syncretism any kind of a mixture of truth and error, tracing it in the relation be- tween Eve and the serpent, between the sons of Jehovah and the daughters of men (Gen. 6), between the Israel- ites and the Egyptians and followed it up to Melanch- thon, Grotius and Calixtus. 48 In the many writings of Abr. Calovius, finally, the term came to have exclusive reference to an objectionable approach between Luth- erans and Reformed, that is to an attempt of mixing to- gether the fundamentally different doctrines of these two churches. Paul Gerhardt wrote: "They want us to agree to a syncretism such as the Rintelers conceded to the Marburgers. So they plan gradually to dispose our 45 Zwinglii Opp. ed. Schueler, VII, 390; VIII, 577. Corp. Ref. I, 917. C. Schmidt, Melancththon, p. 655. Hering Unionsver- suche I, 64ft., 283ft. R. E. XIX, 240, 241, 16. Meusel VI, 529*- LutheranCyclopedia, 474- 46 Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, 1 book, 133-36. Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union 470. Meiern, Westphal-Friedensverhandlun- gen VI, 275. R- E. XIX, 242ft., 246, 28ff. 47 R. E. XIX, 246, 15. 48 R. E. XIX, 242, 27ft. Schmid, pp. 288-92. 105 people to embrace the Reformed religion. 49 The testi- mony of the Lutherans against such an undertaking was so strong and so persistent that the term "Syncretist" (Suendechrist) came to carry with itself a blame, of which no one wanted to be guilty, not even Calixtus him- self. 50 Paul Gerhardt wrote in his last will and testa- ment to his son : "Be earful to study the sacred theology at pure schools and in unadulterated universities, and beware of syncretists, for they seek the things of this world and are neither true to God or man." 51 2. Jena Versus Wittenberg. It has been emphasized again and again that Luther- anism cannot agree to a clear cut separation between re- ligion and theology, especially not after the suggestions of Calixtus. But it has also been indicated that the seventeenth century Lutherans had lost themselves in an intellectualism which ignored entirely the necessary distinction between confessional substance and matters that are purely theologumena. Here Wittenberg had been leading. The real defect in the position of the Wit- tenberg University came into light in an abortive con- fession, composed and proposed by Abr. Calovius. It was his "Consensus Repetitus," etc., of 1664. 52 This new symbol against syncretism went far beyond the Formula of Concord in rendering decisions on theological prob- lems. Following the order of the Augsburg Confession, we have in eighty-eight sections always first the true doc- trine, introduced by a profitemur; then follows with a rejicimus the rejected error; finally there was a proof quotation from the writings of the Helmstedters (Calix- tus, Hornejus, Latermann, Dreier). Among the things rejected as downright heresies are the following: that 49 Langbecker, Paul Gerhardt, 23ff. 50 Cf. R. E. XIX, 242, soff., 246, 15. 51 Langbecker, p. 229; cf. Lutheran Quarterly, 1007, p. 376. 52 As to full title and related matters see Schmid, p. 367. Meu- sel, II, 20. R. E. XIX, 248, 53ff-; 254, Siff. Schaff, Creeds I, 351. 106 the article of the Trinity is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, and that the believers of the Old Testa- ment should not have known this doctrine ; that the Angel of Jehovah is not Christ; that the Old Testament believ- ers did not know and believe the doctrine of Christ's per- son and office ; that even outside of the sacrament Christ is not bodily present with all believers ; that Creatianism is not a heresy; that the existence of God needs not be proved by theology; that newly born children have no real faith ; that John 6 speaks of the Lord's Supper ; that Romanists and Calvinists can belong to the true Church ; that they can have a hope of salvation and are not to be condemned to eternal death. Consent to these matters was required for church fellowship. It was the inten- tion to place the Helmstedters outside of the Lutheran Church. Calovius published one work after the other to prepare the Church for an adoption of his symbol. But Wittenberg did no longer truly represent the Lu- theran Church. John Musaeus with the faculty of the Jena University stepped in as a regulating factor and did a valuable service to Lutheranism. He criticised the Wittenberg theologians that in their controversy against Calixtus they had not sufficiently distinguished between necessary articles of faith and matters in which salve fide et caritate there may be disagreement. He de- manded the recognition of "open questions." A charac- teristic passage may here be quoted: "In the detailed and thorough discussion of necessary articles of faith, in the interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, in the dealing with philosophical questions relative to their bearing upon necessary articles of faith, in the method of polemics and in like matters even orthodox and doc- trinally pure theologians cannot always be expected to agree. This is especially true of the men at high schools, for they have not been called to lecture before their au- diences without further thought of what they have learned of their teachers or read of other theologians; but they are to consider carefully special difficulties and should aim as much as possible to elucidate and to inter- 107 pret. If this be done, then it cannot be otherwise but that sometimes there will be dissensions in the manner of teaching, in formulating and defending the doctrines of faith," etc. Estimating the theological situation, at- tention was called to the fact that in matters of knowl- edge convictions mature gradually and that frequently many have to render their contribution before the full truth is seen. For such ventilation of thought it was said, there must be toleration in the Church. Progress should not be barred by too much insistence upon con- formity in detail. The Jena theologians were far from agreeing with Calixtus in his manner of distinguishing between fundamentals and non-fundamentals. Here they were in entire harmony with Wittenberg. To the honor even of seventeenth century Lutherans it can be reported that the Consensus Repetitus was never adopted. The large work of Calovius, his Historia Syncretistica, was also practically confiscated by the government of Luth- eran Saxony. 53 3. The Severity of Polemics. The severity of polemics has done much to discredit the cause of the Lutherans against Calixtus. The Re- formed and the Calixtianians were by no means innocent in this respect. 54 Yet history shows it to be a fact that the polemics of the Lutherans was very severe. It had been so in the controversies in the closing decades of the sixteenth century. We need only to recall a figure like Hesshusius. A like spirit can be seen at the University of Wittenberg and among the Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century in general. 53 R. E. XIX, 261, 5ff. For literature on the whole subject see Schmid, 377ft. Gass, Georg Calixtus, 112. Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 248, 46ff. "Der Jenischen Theologen ausfuehrlice Erklae- rung, (1677), printed in Calovius, Historia Syncretistica 1685, pp. ioooff. Kunze on Musaeus in R. E. XIII, 576ff. 54 Hering II, 138, 71. R. E. XIX, 260, 5ff. Kawerau; Moeller's Kirchengeschichte III, 311; at numerous places in Wangemann, Una Sancta. To be fair it should be remembered that the Re- formed had less occasion for bitter polemics than had the Luth- erans, because they invaded their territory and, as a rule, had the princes on their side, who protected their interests. 108 The chief explanation is to be sought in the Lutheran Church's valuation of doctrine. To Luther and his co- laborers pure doctrine was the foundation and the source of the Christian life. And it was their conviction that a little leaven of error leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore they watched jealously over the purity of doc- trine. This is the attitude of historical Lutheranism of to-day. But in judging the responsibility of the indi- viduals as members of other churches the Lutherans of to-day do not speak as did the sixteenth and seventeenth century Lutherans. Having studied the history of dogma with a careful regard to cause and effect in the dealing of the human mind with Scripture truth, present- day Lutheran theologians have no difficulty in under- standing that at the time of the Reformation there should have been exponents of a spiritualism which had its rep- resentatives all through the history of the Christian Church. 55 The old Lutherans could see in the departure of Zwingli and Calvin and in the adherence to their views by their followers nothing but a willful rejection of plain truth. Their psychology was defective as we have tried to point out (see above in this chapter, III, 1, c) . The seventeenth century Lutherans looked upon Cal- vinism as their real foe. This may have its explanation to some extent in the aggressive policy of the Reformed against the Lutherans (cf. pp. 25-28; 36-40; especially 51-52), and in the methods of their propaganda, but the chief explanation lies in the fact that they looked upon Calvinism as the embodiment of exceptionally dangerous errors, particularly regarding the means of grace. Hoe von Hoenegg, court preacher at Dresden, advised his elec- tor to make common cause with the Roman Catholic em- peror before .giving assistance to the Reformed prince of the Palatinate. Polykarp Leyser declared in a special publication that the Lutherans would sooner co-operate 55 As Luther chose to follow the Scriptural realism and mys- ticism of an Irenaeus and related theologians, so Zwingli, Bul- linger, Bucer and Calvin followed the spiritualism of Origen and Berengar with its emphasis upon what appears rational. 109 with the Romanists than with the Reformed. 56 Great absurdities were natural in that age. For instance, a man like Hoenegg could publish a book under the title: "Evident Proof that in Ninety-nine Points the Calvin- ists Are in Agreement with the Arians and Turks." One would think that such voices could be nothing but erup- tions of utterly dried up theologians, but then we read that men of deepest personal piety, such as Ph. Nicolai, the singer of "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme," E. Neu- meister, author of "Jesus nimmt die Suender an" and even Paul Gerhardt, the nightingale of German Protes- tantism, expressed themselves in hardest terms against the Reformed, even questioning their chances for salva- tion. 57 After the works of Tholuck 58 it came to be the general opinion that Calovius, Dannhauer, Huelsemann et al. had been questionable characters, utterly devoid of spiritual life. But now we find that the 3rd edition of the R. E. presents an altogether different appreciation of these men. J. Kunze, in his article on Abr. Calovius, remarks : "Tholuck's judgment betrays the narrow position of the pietistic-unionistic school." 59 Those men were men of their age, of course. The spirit of their polemics cannot be commended and would be impossible to-day. It bears the stamp of the demoralization characteristic to an age that was passing through the Thirty Year's War. But the remark of Tschackert is correct when he says of those theologians: "In the rough hull of their ortho- doxy they preserved the religious contents of the Refor- mation and handed it to posterity." 60 56 Hering, Unionsversuche I, 265. 57 See Kahnis, Der Innere Gang des deutschen Protestantis- mus I, 83. Hering II, 350ft". Langbecker, Paul Gerhardt. 58 "Geist der luth. Theologen Wittenbergs," 1852; "Das kirchl. Leben des Siebzehnten Jahrhunderts," 186 1 ; his articles in the sec- ond edition of the Realencyklopaedie. 59 R. E. Ill, 653, 24. Cf. Meusel. 60 R. E. Ill, 647, 28. Cf. Kirn on Melanchthon in R. E. XII, 537, iff. 110 CHAPTER V. THE PRUSSIAN CHURCH UNION. Literature: Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum undf Union, pp. 608ff. Stahl, Lutherische Kirche und Union, pp. 468ff. Wangemann, Sieben Buecher Preussischer Kirchengeschichte, 1859. Again Wangemann, Una Sancta, 1884. (Kirchliche Kabinettspolitik, vol. II, book 3; Drei Preussische Dragonaden, II, book 2; Die Preus- sische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Una Sancta, vol. I, book 6). Brandes, Geschichte der kirchlichen Politik des Hauses Brandenburg I, 382ff. Scheibel, Aktenmaessige Geschichte der neuesten Unternehmung einer Union, 1834. Jul. Mueller, Die Evangelische Union, 1845. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Evange- lischen Union, 1853. W. Hoffmann, Deutschland Einst und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes, 1868. Rieker, Die Rechtliche Stellung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Kurtz, Church History (Engl. 1888), §193, 3. (German ed. 1906, §180, 1). /. Gensichen, Denkschrift zum 50jaehr. Jubilaeum der Lutherischen Vereine, 1899. Denkschrift des Evangelischen Ober- kichenrats (at its fiftieth anniversary), 1900. Ameri- can Lutheran Survey, June 5, 1918. Beyschlag, Deutsch- Evangelische Blaetter, 1900. The following articles in Hauck, Realencyklopaedie (R. E.) have been used: "Cor- pus Evangelicorum ,, by Friedberg (IV, 298ff.) ; "Synkre- tistische Streitigkeiten" by Tschackert (XIX, 243ff) ; "Pfaff" by Preuschen (XV, 234ff.) ; "Union" by Hauck (XX, 253ff.) ; "Separierte Lutheraner" by Froboess (XXI, Iff.) ; "Scheibel" by Froeboess (XVII, 547ff.) ; "W. Hoffmann" by Koegel (VIII, 227f.) ; "Katechismen" by Chors (X, 130ff.) Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon Ill on "Union" (VII, 4ff.) ; "Wangemann" (VII, 170) ; "Lu- therischer Verein" (VII, 379ff.). "Lutheran Cyclope- dia" (Jacobs and Haas) on "Prussian Union" by Mohl- denke (pp. 525f.) ; on "Grabau" (p. 203). In chapters I, III, and IV, we have made ourselves witnesses of many and persisting efforts to bring about a union between Lutherans and Reformed. Not a stone was left unturned in these endeavors. As a brief review we refer to Bucer with his inexhaustible optimism and di- plomacy (p. 7ff.) ; to Luther as he for a number of years literally forced himself into an attitude of persevering ironies in order to remove the schism (p. 12ff.) ; to Me- lanchthon with his mediating formulas (p. 40ff.) ; to the various proposals for a union by the Reformed (p. 55ff.) ; to the literary activity of George Calixtus (chapter IV) ; to the life work of John Dury (p. 77ff.) ; to the Leipzig Conference of 1631 (p. 56ff.) But all these efforts did not bring the Union. It became evident the longer the more that the historically developed division could not be overcome. The two churches, each established upon dif- ferent principles, had created their own theology and their own life. (See our remarks on page 61f.) * What had been found to be impossible in the time of these movements seemed to become a reality in the nine- teenth century when in 1817 the Prussian Church Union was proclaimed. The historical development of this Union, however, revealed the fact that even in this move- ment a real union of the two churches of Protestantism had not been found ; that it was only a mechanical union, or a confederation of a Lutheran and a Reformed Church under a state church government. Related movements in other dominions of Germany show more of an ap- proach to the absorptive union, but that was because there the historical Lutheran Church had already been pressed out of existence in a preceding age as was re- lated, p. 36ff. *The quotation of these pages has reference to the separate publication of this series of articles, which will appear after a seventh chapter has been printed. 112 I. PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PRUSSIAN CHURCH UNION. Broadly speaking we may say that the Prussian Church Union was chiefly the result of three factors: (1) the change of thought that came with the age of rationalism ; (2) the passing sentiment of a revived pietism; and (3) the state church policy of the Hohenzollerns, which was the organizing factor. Elector Sigismund, after his conversion to the Re- formed Church (1613), had tried to make his Lutheran subjects mildly Reformed. In this he had failed (p. 38ff. ; cf. 70ff.) But his successors followed the policy of equalizing the confessional and practical differences of the two churches through all kinds of union measures. We refer especially to Elector Frederick William I and his conflict with Paul Gerhardt (p. 71ff.) The first kings of Prussia were active in the same direction. 1 ' Prussia was aspiring to the protectorate and leadership of German Protestantism and to take the place which Saxony had held in the Corpus Evangelicorum. 2 In 1701 the son of Elector Frederick William I was crowned at Koenigsberg as Frederick I, the first king of Prussia. The Hohenzollerns were fast approaching the time when their aspiration to the national and political leadership in Germany was no longer a dream. A united Protest- antism was an important factor in welding the many States of Germany into a united empire. Propositions for a Protestant Union were part of the policy of Prus- sia's first king. 3 The view of the Hohenzollerns was upon a union of German Protestantism in and outside of Prussia. Even as early as the years following 1717, the second centennial of the Reformation, the second king of 1 Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, p. 472. 2 See Friedberg in R. E. IV, 209, 23, 38. Cf. Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 246, 28-45. American Lutheran Survey, June 5, 1918, p. 202. 3 Cf. F. Brandes, Geschichte der kirchlichen Politik des HauSes Brandenburg I, 383!?. See also the very interesting remarks of Hauck in R. E. XX, 256, 43-46. Cf. Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 249, 35ff- 113 Prussia, Frederick William I (father of Frederick the Great) would have liked to consummate the union of the two churches. His helping hand was Count Metternich, who drew up fifteen points as a basis for the union. 4 He was supported by C.M.Pfaff at the Tuebingen University, whose appeal for a union in 1720 ("Friedfertige An- rede," etc.), attracted considerable attention. 5 Even the Corpus Evangelicorum with its seat in Regensburg, the highest authority in church matters touching the inter- ests of all the Protestant states, was in favor of it. Leib- niz had given out the word that Luther and Calvin both were right; Luther's Real Presence, he said, has its re- ality in the spiritual power proceding from the Body of Christ at the right hand of God. According to this in- terpretation Calvin had the correct definition. But noth- ing came of the endeavors at this time. The Lutheran clergy were generally opposed to the union. 6 The book of E. S. Cyprian, "Abgedrungener Untericht von kirch- licher Vereinigung," etc., 1722, is of special interest here. His warning reminds us of the protest of Claus Harms little less than a century later. 7 Cyprian wrote under the protection of Prince Frederick II of Weimar-Meinin- gen, who befriended him. The king of Prussia de- manded that his voice be silenced. Frederick William III, under whom finally (1817) the Union was pro- claimed, began to work for that end at an early time of his reign. In the outgoing decade of the eighteenth cen- tury, at the appeal of his court preacher Dr. Sack (in his "Promemoria" of 1798), he appointed a commission for the creation of a common liturgy. The French revolu- tion and the Napoleonic wars then absorbed the interest so that nothing was done for a number of years. The Hohenzolleras were favored in their union policy by the spirit of the age, which changed fundamentally when the storm of rationalism made tabula rasa with the 4 R. E. IV, 366, 31. 5 See Preuschen in R. E. XV, 236, 34ft. 6 Hauck in R. E. XX, 25s, 16. 7 See R. E. IV, 366, 20, soff. 114 faith of the Church. True, the supernaturalists emerged. But most of these could not sufficiently rid themselves of rationalistic influences. To this class belonged also Dr. Sack as can be seen from his "Promemoria." 8 Provost Teller, of Berlin, a member of the king's commission, was an outright rationalist. He declared publicly: "Because of their faith in God, virtue and immortality, the Jews ought to be regarded as genuine Christians." 9 The gen- eral literature was pervaded by a spirit of Hellenism and heathenism, as can be seen from the writings of Goethe, Schiller and others of the German classics. Kant was a great thinker, but with all his emphasis upon conscience and moralism he ignored the essentials of religion. In such a time appreciation of the Church's confessions could not be expected. Schleiermacher, in his writing of 1804, 10 regarded the confessional division of Protestant- ism as a result of the stubbornness of the Reformers and as an outright misdevelopment of history. Certainly, the union of these "sister churches" at least seemed nat- ural in an age when the thought of the cultured was upon a world-religion based upon the belief in God, vir- tue and immortality. 11 We are told that the Christians, the pietists of that day, were the supporters of the union idea. This is true. But their influence, at first, was not strong, and there- fore they did not originate the movement. They existed as "die Stillen im Lande." They represented the faith of individuals, which under the devastations of rational- ism had sought refuge in the heart. 12 This faith of in- dividuals — such as Gerhard Tersteegen, for instance — had lost sight of congregation and Church. They were souls like Mary whose interest was centered solely upon 8 Printed by Wangemann in his "Sieben Buecher preussischer Kirchengeschichte" I, pp. 1-8. 9 Kurtz, Church History, Engl, ed., 1888, §171, 4- 10 "Zwei unvorgreifliche Gutachten in Sachen des protestanti- schen Kirchenwesens, zunaechst in Beziehung auf den preussis- chen Staat." 11 Cf. Hauck, R. E. XX, p. 254, 5off. 12 Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union, p. 615: *T>er Glaube fluechtete sich in die Herzen der einzelnen Befceaaer." 115 "the one thing that is needful." 13 True, after the tribu- lation of the Napoleonic wars many of the cultured also found their way back to a positive faith in a living per- sonal God and in Christ as the mediator for man's Sal- vation. This growing revival was at first in no wise confessional in character, but purely Biblical. The Christians of all churches, including the Roman Catholic, joined hands as if they were one communion of believers. But the mistake of those that advocated the Union on the basis of this religious enthusiasm consisted in this, that they regarded a merely passing sentiment for union as something permanent. Very soon the time came when these Biblicists or new pietists felt the need of linking up their religious experiences with the confessional experi- ence of the historic Church. 14 Then it was found that confessional convictions after all have their rightful place in the life of the Church. For an interesting parallel in history we refer to the period of the so-called "American Lutheranism" in our own country. It was pietistic and it distrusted the historic development of the Church with its confessions. Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth re- marks: "It mistook a tendency half developed for a final result." 15 Both the rationalistic and the pietistic factor combined to aid the king in his gradually developing plan to consummate the Union at the coming three-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. Preparatory in nature was also a step that was taken in 1808 when the king dissolved the upper-consistory to- gether with the provincial consistory (both creations of Frederick the Great in 1750) and the government of the Church was taken over by a department of the State (Kultusministerium). So the king who was the head of this department became the highest bishop of the church (summus episcoptcs) . This was the final legalization of a condition of caesareopapism under which Lutheranism 13 Cf. Stahl, p. 473. 14 Hauck, R. E. XX, p. 256, 10 ; p. 255, iff. 15 Spaeth, Charles Porterfield Krauth II, p. 85. Cf. Neve, Brief History of the Luth. Church in America, 2nd ed., p. 128. 116 has suffered unspeakably. The pope in Rome had never more power over his church than was now vested in the hands of the Reformed king of Prussia as bishop of the Lutheran Church in his domain. King Frederick William III was a man of personal piety, with a personal interest in the Church, and it should not be left unstated that in the Union which he proclaimed in 1817 he meant to promote the spiritual welfare of his people. But that the political motive was not a secondary consideration can easily be seen in the historical perspective. The Vienna Congress in 1815 had been engaged in a reconstruction of Europe leaving a strong Prussia with Westphalia, the Rhine Province, the Province of Saxony, Posen and the Island of Ruegen as new accessions while all the thirty-eight German States had united into a German federation. Now the de- sire for a union of German Protestantism was stronger than ever before. Hauck in his article on the "Union" in R. E. has a very characteristic remark when he says that in cultivating the Union idea it was one of the ob- jects of the State "to gather up the strength of Protest- antism in the empire." 16 German Protestantism was to be used for political purposes. II. THE PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION AND THE FIRST STAGE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. In that historical proclamation of the Union at the third anniversary of the Reformation in 1817 the king declared in his famous decree (Kabinettsordre) that the Reformed Church was not to become Lutheran, nor the Lutheran to become Reformed, but that both were to con- 16 R. E. XX, p. 256, 45: "Der Wunsch, die religioese Spaltung ihrer Untertanen zu beseitigen, die Kraft der Evangelischen im Reiche zusammenzufassen ,machte die Hohenzollern zu Traegern und Foerderern der Idee der Union. Cf. Hoffmann, the most influ- ential man in the Evang. Oberkirchenrat from 1852 to 1873, in his book "Deutschland Einst und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes." P- 494- 117 stitute "a renewed Evangelical Christian Church." The confessional basis of this church was to be "the principal points in Christianity, wherein both churches agree" (consensus) ; the doctrines of disagreement, on the other hand (dissensus) were to be considered as "non-essen- tial" and to be left to the private conviction and liberty of the individual ; in other words, they were to be eliminated from the Church as such. 17 We see, it was a real absorp- tive union that the king was planning. The object of his creation was to be an "Evangelical Christian Church" on the basis of a distinction between fundamentals and non-fundamentals, or between faith and theology, much after the suggestion of George Calixtus as reviewed in chapter IV. The following measures constituted the program for the introduction of the Union as it was first contemplated by the king: (1) Both the Lutherans and the Reformed were placed under one and the same church government. This, however, had been done already in the year of 1808, as has been reported. (2) The common order of service (Agenda), adapted to Lutherans and Reformed alike, the main work of which had been done by the king himself, was forced upon all congregations. In this or- der of service, it is true, large concessions had been made to the Lutheran liturgies of the sixteenth century, but in the doctrine of the sacraments the Lutheran teaching was not expressed and open communion was expected. (3) By the decree of 1823 the subscription to the Unal- tered Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord was nullified and ministers were called upon to subscribe only to the "confessional writings of the United Evan- gelical Church in so far as they agree with each other." Later, subscription was made to "the Confessions of our 17 See the full text of the decree in Wangemann, "Kirchliche Kabinets-Politik" in Una Sancta II, 2nd book, pp. 249ff. Stahl, p. 475; Rudelbach, p. 619. Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, p. 6 Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 526. Hauck in R. E. XX, 256, 56. 118 Evangelical Church." Still later, in response to demands of the Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 was mentioned when ordination took place in a Lutheran con- gregation. This latter arrangement, however, marks the change from an absorptive to a confederative union, of which we shall treat in the next section. (4) In the year 1822 it was declared that those candidates for the ministry who should subscribe to the so-called "Unions- revers" (a written promise, at their examination, to sub- mit to the Union arrangements), were to receive ap- pointment with Lutheran as well as Reformed congrega- tions. Later, 1830, without considering such a written "Revers," it was determined that pastorates of the State Church should be supplied with Lutheran and Reformed pastors indiscriminately, provided that the congregations would not raise objection. (5) In the city of Bonn a theological faculty was constituted on the Union princi- ple. (6) The organization of "mixed congregations which would constitute themselves on the consensus of the confessions of both churches" was everywhere en- couraged. (7) The "General-Superintendents" and the "Superintendents" received instructions to see to it that the congregations would give up their distinguishing names, "Lutherans" and "Reformed," and simply call themselves "Evangelisch." (8) The breaking of the bread at the communion was made the outward sign of having adopted the Union. 18 At first, it seemed that there was general approval, or r at least, no opposition to the Union. The indefiniteness and abstract character of the king's decree appealed to the spirit of the age. The ministers of Berlin. Lutheran and Reformed, responded by assembling in a Lutheran church to receive the Lord's Supper under the symbol of breaking the bread and by using the words : "Christ, our 18 Cf. Stahl pp. 478f. Meusel VII, p. 6. 119 Lord, said: Take and eat," etc. 19 The theological faculty of the university met in a Reformed church and received the communion in the same manner. In both cases the congregations had not been invited. Schleiermacher, as president of the Berlin Synod, published an official ex- planation in which he stated that the celebration of the Lord's Supper had been intended as an expression of a church-fellowship without a doctrinal union, and he pre- dicted that the higher life in this new relation would manifest itself in a stronger emphasis upon the distin- guishing doctrines. 20 This was certainly a strange ex- pectation as coming from an advocate of the Union such as Schleiermacher. It did come true, however, later un- der a strong Lutheran reaction of which we shall hear in the following section. But then it was to be crushed by the Union authorities. One reason, perhaps, why there was no noticeable opposition at this time was that with the proclamation in 1817 the assurance was given that no congregation should be forced to join the Union. At first, the congregations remained unmolested. Even the common service book (Agenda) was at first only recom- mended. Trouble came as soon as this order of service, the symbol of the Union, was made obligatory for all con- gregations. A number of other principalities and several cities fol- lowed Prussia in introducing the Union. They were the Palatinate on the Rhine, Grand Duchy of Hesse, Anhalt, Waldeck, Baden, Hanau, Fulda, Bernburg, Dessau, Koe- then. In each case the preparatory work had been done by the princes with the aid of Melanchthonian formulas and as a rule with the Variata (cf. p. 42f.) 19 This merely reciting form of distribution, which was to sug- gest to the communicant the liberty of interpreting Christ's words as he pleases, was recommended by Prof. Marheinecke in a little writing: "Das Brot im heiligen Abendmahl." It became the shib- boleth of the Union, to which the Lutherans later opposed, as a public profession, the words : "This is the true Body," etc. The English Lutheran Church of America, with a history different from that of the Lutheran Church in Germany has not followed that practice, but uses the words : "This is the Body of Christ," etc. 20 Cf. Rudelbach, pp. 622L 120 III. THE REACTION. Generally speaking, there was no confessional consci- ousness when the Union was announced. Yet a few voices were heard from outside of Prussia. At Leipzig, Prof. J. A. Tittmann replied to Schleiermacher (1818) predicting that nothing good would come out of the Union. 21 A very strong testimony came from Pastor Claus Harms in Kiel in his famous "Ninety-five Theses" which he published for the third anniversary of the Re- formation. In the seventy-fifth of these he declared pro- phetically: "Through a marriage the poor maid, the Lutheran Church, is to be made rich. Do not perform this ceremony over the bones of Luther. They will be- come alive, and then woe unto you !" This prophesy soon saw its fulfillment. The tercentenary anniversary of the delivery of Augs- burg Confession (25th of June, 1830) was approaching. King Frederick William III was planning to make this an- niversary the occasion for a large forward step in the in- troduction of the Union. 22 The obligatory use of the Agenda had already been ordered. In a special decree of April 30, 1830, the king demanded that the church au- thorities should see to it that as a symbolic expression of joining the Union the rite of breaking the bread in the communion be introduced and that the designation of the two churches as "Lutheran" or "Reformed" be aban- doned. 23 On the basis of this decree the General Super- intendent in Breslau (capital of Silesia) recommended to the clergy of his district that on the anniversary of the delivery of the Augsburg Confession the communion be received in accordance with the decree of the king. 24 Scheibel, professor at the University of Breslau, and pas- 21 See Rudelbach, p. 624. 22 See Froboess in R. E. XII, p. 2, soff. 23 See the text of the decree in Wangemann, "Preussische Kabinets-Politik," in Una Sancta II, book 2, p. 311, cf. p. 313. 24 Froboess, R. E. XII, p. 2, 53ff. 121 tor at the Elizabeth Church in that city, 25 who had al- ready written against the Union, 26 protested for himself and a part of his congregation and even appealed to the king. But his petition was refused, and he, together with another minister, was temporarily suspended from office. This was the beginning of a separatistic Luth- eran movement which in the end resulted in an independ- ent Lutheran Church in Prussia. Several hundred mem- bers of the congregation rallied about Scheibel, among them Prof. Steffens, the rector of the university, and Huschke, a professor of jurisprudence who was at home in the problems of theology as he was in the science of law. 27 Petition after petition was sent to Berlin. By the end of August, the followers of Scheibel had increased to over one thousand. They refused the king's Agenda which, to them, was in a special sense the symbol of the Union. The demand was for an independent Lutheran Church in which ministers and congregations could live and testify according to the confessions of this church. 28 But all petitions were in vain. Meanwhile the movement spread into the neighboring provinces, Missionaries of a revived Lutheranism visited the congregations in Silesia, Saxony, Brandenburg, Pommerania and Posen, and en- lightened the congregations through speech and writings regarding the difference between the Lutheran Church and the Union. Many were prosecuted and suffered im- prisonment and fine, but such martyrdom brought fresh fuel to the awakened Lutheran consciousness. 29 Schei- bel, removed from his offices in the church and in the uni- versity and forbidden to preach and to write, soon (1832) retired from Breslau and took his abode in Dresden, the 25 For a characterization of Scheibel see R. E. XVII, p. 551, 2off. 26 R. E. XVII, p. 349,.ioff. 2.7 Prof. Julius Stahl in Berlin, whose great work "Die Luther- ische Kirche und die Union" we have frequently quoted, was an- other man who combined the study of theology with his profes- sion of teaching on law. 28 Froboess, R. E. XII, p. 3! 29 See J. Gensichen, Denkschrift zum 50 jaehrigen Jubilaeuin der lutherischen Vereine. 1899. 122 capital of Saxony. 30 Now Huschke became the special leader of the movement. The king published the decree (Kabinetts-Ordre) of February 28, 1834, giving to the Union the character of a confederation. It was hoped that this would put a stop to the restlessness of the Bres- lauers and their sympathizers. But these were deter- mined to be satisfied with nothing less than a Lutheran government for the Lutheran Church. So, under date of April 4th, 1834, a number of ministers and candidates of theology and thirty-four congregational representa- tives appealed to the king to recognize them as an inde- pendent Lutheran church. The petition was flatly re- fused. To make further resistance impossible, a num- ber of laws were made: (1) against private religious meetings; (2) against the performing of ministerial acts by persons not ordained; (3) against parents refusing to send their children to the religious instruction of the state schools; (4) against ministers not using the king's Agenda. This was the program of the State for crush- ing the movement. The pastors, Berger, Biehler and Kellner were deposed from the ministry, because they insisted on using the Lutheran formulas for ministerial acts and they rejected the king's Agenda which was to them the symbol of the Union. On the basis of the afore- mentioned decrees a comprehensive system of police per- secutions was now inaugurated. Much has been written on both sides on the case at Hoenigern (Silesia) where a congregation of thousands resisted the introduction of the Agenda and was forced to yield to a strong military force. 31 We shall have occasion for a special discussion of this case later. After the event at Hoenigern, a con- siderable number of ministers with their congregations joined the opponents of the State. Among them was 30 Here he wrote his two volumes "Aktenmaessige Geschichte der neuesten Unternehmung einer Union" (1834), which is recog- nized as the best source-book on the history of the Union up to the time of its publication. The writer had the use of this work through the kindness of the Union Theological Seminary li- brarian, but has preferred to give the references after Wange- mann who takes us up to 1884. 31 See the detailed report in R. E. XII, p. 6, 8-30. 123 Guericke, professor of church history in Halle. All were deposed from the ministry. But they persisted in serv- ing their congregations. In the spring of 1835 they or- ganized themselves into a synod and made careful provi- sion for serving their scattered churches. Four candi- dates were ordained. Chased by the police, the ministers were hurrying from place to place, preaching and admin- istering the sacraments, mostly at night. When appre- hended they were imprisoned. When members of the congregations refused to disclose the names of ministers who had officiated they were punished with three months' imprisonment on water and bread. Many laymen in those days lost all their possessions through fines. The oppression was so persistent and reached such a degree of severity that in some congregations hope for a better day was given up and plans were matured for emigrat- ing. Some went to Australia, others came to America. 32 The crown prince, later King Frederick William IV, was convinced of the wrongfulness of his father's policy and sought to intervene. 33 In 1840 King Frederick William III died. One of the first acts of his successor was to liberate the interned Lutheran ministers. In the follow- ing year, they organized themselves publicly as the "Oberkirchenkollegium," free from the State, with Pro- fessor Huschke as first president, and they were recog- nized by the State in 1845. 34 In 1913 this first Evangeli- cal Lutheran Free Church in Prussia comprised 59,817 members, 86 pastors, 156 churches, 22 chapels and houses of prayer. After Wangemann's publication of the "Una Sancta" the advocates of the Union have criticized this Lutheran movement. It is said that it was nothing but plain re- bellion against the measures of a just king without a le- gitimate confessional motive. Wangemann contends 32 R. E. XII, 6, 55ff. Meusel I, 104. With Wangemann's rep- resentation in Una Sancta I, book 3, p. in on "Grabau" compare the article by Grabau's son in the Lutheran Encyclopedia, p. 203. 33 Cf. R. E. XII, p. 3off. ; p. 7, 6-27. 34 R. E. XII, p. 7, 2 3 ff. 124 that the Lutheran character of the congregation at Hoe- nigern was in no wise threatened, because in the king's Agenda provision was made for Lutheran congregations preferring Lutheran forms of expression in the adminis- tration of the sacraments. In addition to that he charges the leaders of the movement, Scheibel, Huschke and their followers, with un-Lutheran and peculiar theories con- cerning the relation of Church and State, and he insists that it was for these theories that minister and congrega- tion stood in that conflict at Hoenigern. What is to be answered ? Wangemann in his "Una Sancta" 35 has a distinct merit for having published many documents bearing on the his- tory of the Union policy of the Hohenzollems, and many of his reflections in the Una Sancta are of a very instruc- tive nature. But Wangemann must be read with criti- cism. 36 He had removed to Berlin as president of a for- eign mission institute which depended upon the good will of the government and also upon the support of many circles that had settled down under the Union arrange- ment. 37 As a guide for reading Wan°-emann on the Hoenigern case we call attention to the following: (1) Pastor Kell- ner, of the Hoenigern Church, was denosed from his charge because he and the congregation with him refused the king's Agenda. This was the real point of conten- 35 This work of two volumes is not to be confounded with his "Sieben Buecher preussischer Kirchengeschichte." These books he wrote as an opponent of the Prussian Union. But later, he changed his position and became an advocate of the Union in its confederative form, defending the position of the Lutherans who wanted to remain in the state church against those that sepa- rated themselves. As an expression of this position and at the same time to correct various matters that he had written in the former work, he published the Una Sancta. 36 See the article on "Wangemann" in Meusel VII, p. 170. 37 See Una Sancta I, book 5, p. 403. As the Leipzig Foreign Mission Institute had become the rallving point of the separated Lutherans (R. E. XII, p. 8. 6ff.) so Wangemann's institution be- came the centre of the missionary activities of those Lutherans of Prussia, who remained in the Union, the "Lutheran Associa- tions." Cf. Meusel IV, p. 379. 125 turn. 3 * The State declaTed : Adoption of the Agenda does not mean the adoption of the Union. 39 But the Luther- ans could not help but see in the Agenda, not only the symbol of the Union, but even the instrument for its in- troduction. Prof. Hauck says : "The forms for prepara- tory service and communion were un-Lutheran, particu- larly the form of distribution failed to give satisfaction. While it did not contradict the Lutheran conception, neither did it give expression to it. And so the form seemed to be intended for the silent removal of the Lu- theran interpretation." 40 A special permission to cer- tain individual congregations to substitute more Luth- eran expressions could give no satisfaction to those that fought for the rights of the whole Lutheran Church in the country. It was at this time that the State was pressing the, Union in every possible way (introduction of the Reformed rite of breaking the bread, abandon- ment of the name "Lutheran," "Unionsrevers" at the or- dination of ministers, etc.) Decoration with the "red order of the eagle" was much used to invite yielding to the Union. And it must be said that in spite of all the assurances that adoption of the Agenda did not mean joining the Union the State itself did look upon the Agenda as a symbol and instrument of the Union. 41 Hauck says that the king could not command the adop- tion of the Union (namely that Lutherans and Reformed should blend into one congregation, that Lutheran and Reformed congregations should establish themselves upon the consensus position), but as summits episcopus he could command the adoption of forms for worship and ministerial acts. To this Hauck adds the remark: "So it can easily be seen what significance the Agenda was bound to have for the introduction of the Union." We may say, the Agenda was the instrument for clinching 8? See Wangemann, "Drei Preussische Dragonaden," Una Sancta II, book 2, pp. 13, 64. Cf. R. E. XII, p. 6, 8. 39 R. E. XII, p. 2, 45- 40 R. E. XX, p. 258, 26ft. 41 Read Hauck in R. E. XXI, p. 257, 50; 258, 13-15. 126 the Union. 4 - As matters had developed, yielding' on the Agenda would have been the same as in Melanchthon's time the yielding to the interims. For a Ltfiheran con- science, the adoption of the Agenda was no adiapheron. Wangemann in his discussion has completely beclouded the issue. 43 (2) Again Wangemann has failed to repre- sent the situation correctly when he says that the pro- testing and appealing ministers stood merely for the pe- culiar theories of Scheibel and Huschke regarding the re- lation of Church and State. 44 Surely, the varying theo- ries of these men were not the practical point of dispute for the opponents of the Union. What they wanted was a guarantee for an unmolested existence of Lutheranism not only in the local congregation, but in the country. And while they stood in the fight the conviction was growing with them that the Church must be free from the State altogether. 45 To us in the Free Church of America the correctness of this position is so clear that it needs not to be argued. To illustrate only, we ask: Could the Presbyterian Church exist, grow, develop and fulfill its peculiar mission under a mixed government, dominated by influences bent upon its equalization with other forms of Protestantism? (3) Even that cannot alter our conviction of the rightfulness in geneial of the position of those Lutherans if it can be shown that their contention was at times connected with an unjustifiable enthusiasm and even fanaticism. Church history shows us that in times of persecution good movements can lose their balance for a season. Among the Christians of the 42 Cf. R. E. XVII, p. 550, n. 43 At another place in his Una Sancta (i, 3, §70) he has stated it correctly. 44 See Una Sancta II, book 3, p. 141. Cf. vol. I, book 3, §§66-68. Compare further on "Scheibel," R. E. XVII, p. 594, 20-42; p. 550, 8; p. 551, 36ff. Compare on "Huschke," R. E. VIII, p. 469, 25ff ; p. 470, 27S. 45 See R. E. XII, p. 7, 10-21. Wangemann ignores too much the significance of a Lutheran government for the Lutheran Church. But his position is artificial. He does not and cannot speak his own soul. There can be no stronger refutation of his attitude to the demand of those Lutherans than what he himself writes in book 5 of the Una Sancta I, pp. 378-87- 127 first centuries some went so far as even to seek martyr- dom. A good and a great man like Tertullian was a rep- resentative of such a mistaken view. History will con- tinue to speak with respect of the case of the old Prussian Lutherans in their conflict with the Union policy of the Hohenzollerns. In spite of Wangemann's elaborate publi- cations we find that such a standard work as the "Pro- testantische Realencyclopaedie" of twenty-four volumes relates the Hoenigern case and the persecution of those Lutherans in essential harmony with original reports. 46 Hengstenberg's "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," in 1859, looked back over more than thirty years after the intro- duction of the Union and wrote : "What has been accom- plished? Twenty to thirty thousand Lutherans have been driven across the Atlantic, forty to fifty thousand into independent Lutheran organizations, and within the Church nothing but conflict and troubled conscience wherever the word 'Union' is pronounced." 47 IV. THE PLAN OF AN ABSORPTIVE UNION CHANGED INTO A CONFEDERATION. It was in consequence of that constantly growing op- position which led to the establishment of a free Luth- eran Church in Prussia that Frederick William III de- cided to give to the Union a more confederative charac- ter. In the year 1834 he issued a historically significant decree which, in one section, read as follows: "The Union does not aim at nor does it mean a giving up of the existing confessions of faith; neither is the authority annulled, which these confessions have hitherto had. The adoption of the Union means only an expression of the spirit of moderation and toleration, which does not any- more make the difference in some points of doctrine, to which the other party holds, a cause for refusing the out- 46 See R. E. XII, p. 6ff. 47 Cf. American Lutheran Survey, June 5th, 1918, p. 203; also Lutheran Church Work and Observer, July 4, 1918, and Fritschel, Lutherisch oder Uniert, p. 21. Wartburg Publ. House, Chicago. 128 ward church-fellowship. The adoption of the Union is a matter of free choice, and it is therefore a mistaken idea that the introduction of the renewed order of service in- volves the adoption of the Union or is thereby indirectly effected." 48 It cannot be denied that in this decree a course differ- ent from the original plan is observable. In the procla- mation of 1817 the aim was at the establishment of "a renewed Evangelical Christian Church," based upon the consensus, or "the principal points in Christianity, wherein both churches agree." The dissensus was de- clared to be "nonessential." Now, the existing Confes- sions were not to be given up, their former authority was not to be annulled. Yet, three union factors were to re- main in force: (1) the non-confessional state church gov- ernment; (2) the Agenda, (3) the outward church-fel- lowship at the altar and in other matters. 49 The Union, also in this second stage of its development, remained a dualism. That was the reason why the separated Luth- erans felt that they could not compromise. This new order of the king, therefore, did not bring peace to the Church of Prussia. Two factions now stood opposed to each other: the friends of the Union who were striving to bring to recognition its original absorptive character, and the Lutherans who strove for the confessional char- acter of the Lutheran Church in the Union so that they might not be driven, in their conscience, to follow the Lutherans that separated themselves from the state church. The Union party was represented by the so-calle*d Union theologians, also known in the theological develop- ments of that age as the "mediating theologians," the 48 Wangemann, Die kirchliche Kabinets-Politik Friedr. Wilh. Ill (Una Sancta II), pp. 327*. Cf. Hauck in R. E. XX, p. 257, 40. Meusel VII, p. 6. Stahl, p.481. 49 To this church-fellowship belonged such matters as sub- scription at ordination to "the confessions of our Evangelical Church," freedom for pastors to serve either church, as long as the congregations did not object. See Meusel VII, p. 6, 2nd col- umn; Stahl, p. 483. 129 most influential of whom were Julius Mueller, Dorner, C. I. Nitzsch, Luecke, Ullmann, Schenkel, J. P. Lange, Bey- schlag and others. The position of these men on the Union was best expressed in the writing of Mueller, "Die Evangelische Union" (1845), and in that of Nitzsch, "Urkundenbuch der Evangelischen Union" (1853) . 50 The aim was at a common confession for the Union, drafted by Nitzsch, 61 and presented by his party at a gen- eral synod in Berlin, held in 1846. This confession, in the shape of a formula for ordination 52 eliminated even parts of the Apostles' Creed as too much out of harmony with the present state of theological science, and it pre- sented, in the language of Scripture passages, what was regarded as fundamental in the Lutheran and Reformed confessions, thereby silently relegating the differences between the two churches to the category of nonfunda- mentals. The Union theologians, especially Jul. Mueller (professor in Halle), had developed a theory as a scien- tific foundation for the distinction between fundamentals and non-fundamentals. It was the distinction between intuition and discursive thought. The objectively divine in Scripture and in the historic confessions of the churches constitutes the fundamentals as opposed to the human conception in Scripture and confession, which is non-fundamental. 53 But there was so much opposition to this "Nicenum of the nineteenth century," to the "Nitz- schenum" as it was called, that the government could not '50 On these two standard works, see Wangemann, "Die Preus- sische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Una Sancta" (I, book 6, pp. 350-54)- Nitzsch published in his book the following Union docu- ments as an expression of the true Union : the Marburg Articles, the Wittenberg Concord, the Consensus of Sendomir, the Bran- denburg Confessions, the Union proclamation of 1817, (the decree of 1834 was omitted), a proposed creed for the Union by Nitzsch himself, of which we shall now speak. 51 R. E. XIV, p. 133, 23. 52 See it quoted by Nitzsch, p. 127, and by Wangemann, ut supra, p. 206. Cf. Kurtz, Church History (Engl.) §193, 3. R. E. IV, 803, 5, 18; XIII, 533, ioff ; XIV, 132, 60. 53 See the most interesting discussion of this matter in Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, pp. 367-97 : "Die Union im Sinne der Ver- mittlungstheologie." Cf. Meusel, "Begruendung der Union durch die Unionstheologie," in Handlexikon VII, p. 8. 130 for a moment consider its adoption. This negative at- titude of the government to the propositions of this gen- eral synod of Berlin in 1846 marked the final failing of an absorptive Union in Prussia. The party of confessional Lutherans in the Union had received its stimulation through the Breslau movement of which we have reported. In the period of persecution through the State the missionaries of the persecuted came into the congregations in Silesia, Pommerania, Posen, Brandenburg, Province of Saxony and awakened the Lu- theran consciousness of the people. This took effect es- pecially with the earnest believers in the congregations. With the scruples over the Union they came to their pas- tors, and these, in order to be able to answer the ques- tions of their parishioners, were forced to study the long forgotten confessions of the Church. So Lutheran con- sciousness was revived among the ministers who soon be- gan to send petitions to Berlin for safeguarding the Lu- theran Church. Lutheran organizations sprang into ex- istence in all the eastern provinces of Prussia. 54 Pom- merania was especially leading in this movement. The year of revolution, 1848, came. King Frederick William IV was at the point of abandoning the government of the Church. 55 The Lutheran Association in Pommeria had already taken steps for an independent organization of the Lutheran Church. But the waves of the revolution soon receded and restoration of the old order in church matters followed. At this time, Sept. 10th, 1849, all the separate Lutheran organizations assembled in Witten- berg and organized themselves into a central society. They established themselves upon five theses which are known in history as the "Wittenberger Saetze," and form the program of the organization. These read as follows : First. "We stand on the confessions of the Evangeli- cal Lutheran Church." 54 See article "Lutherischer Verein" in Meusel IV, p. 379ff. 55 Wangemann, Die Preussische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Una Sancta I, book 6, p. 309. 131 Second, "We are convinced that our congregations have never rightly ceased to be Lutheran congregations, and that we are in duty bound to defend their confes- sional rights with all our might." Third. "The confessional rights of the Lutheran con- gregations demand for their safeguard a confessional constitution. Accordingly, we ask for recognition and a carrying through of the Lutheran Confessions in cultus, congregational constitutions and government." Fourth. "As the first aim of our endeavor we mention the liberation of the altar service from all ambiguity and a full expression of our confessions in the entire divine service. Further, we demand a guarantee of our con- fessional independence in the administration of the church government and preservation of Lutheran princi- ples in our congregational constitutions." Fifth. "These ends we do not wish to accomplish by a leaving of the State Church, because we feel bound in conscience to carry through this fight for the good rights of our Lutheran Church upon her own territory within the State Church." This was a time in the history of the Prussian Church Union when it was not regarded wise to ignore the de- mands of the Lutherans. The State was interested in keeping them from joining the separated Lutherans. So it came that the king (Frederick William IV), in a de- cree of 1852, made to them a concession that affected even the church government. In that order the follow- ing stipulation was made : "The Evangelische Oberkirch- enrat consists of members belonging to both churches, and if there is a matter that can be decided only by fol- lowing the confessions of one of the two churches then the preparatory decision (Vorfrage) is to be reached by a vote of the members belonging to that side, and their decision is then made the basis for the vote of the entire body. Therefore in matters pertaining to the Lutheran Church only those members of the Oberkirchenrat who 132 belong to that confession shall decide." 56 At first this so-called itio in partes decree was much appreciated by the Lutherans, because it showed that the king seriously wanted to safeguard the Lutheran Church and that the confederative character of the Union, as announced in 1834 (in place of the absorptive of 1817), was to be the policy of the State. As to the real value and practica- bility of this decree, however, there followed a consider- able discussion. 57 The statement has been made that never in the history of the Oberkirchenrat has a decision been made after the procedure suggested in the decree. 68 The fact is that close upon the heel of this itio in partes order there followed another decree (July 12, 1853) that was to take care of the interests of the Union. 59 Here the Lutherans were censured for their con- fessional policies ("konfessionelle Sonderbestrebun- gen"). The two decrees of 1852 and 1853 taken together reflect in an interesting way the policy which the Prussian State Church was persuing. The adherents to the Lutheran and the Reformed confessions were to have free religious exercise in their local territories, but a public advocacy of the principles of either of the two churches was to be discouraged. Propaganda was per- mitted only for the Union, not for the Confession. The Lutherans especially were to be kept from asserting themselves. Wangemann says (p. 358) that since 1854 no confessional Lutheran was called into the higher church offices. The friends of the Union organized them- selves into a strong association (Positive Union). Stahl asked to be dismissed from the Oberkirchenrat, and his resignation was gladly accepted (1857) . It was the time when Hoffmann and Dorner were the most influential men in the government of the Prussian Church Union. 69 56 See the text of this Kabinets-Ordre in Wangemann, Die Preussische Union, Una Sancta I, 6, pp. 332ff. 57 See Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 338ff. 58 Stahl, p. 488. 59 Printed in Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 342L 60 See the characterization of these two men as promoters of the Union by Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 377-8o. On Hoffmann's conception of the Union cf. R. E. VII, p. 228, 36ff. W. Hoffmann especially, a talented executive, whom the king had called from the South as his court-preacher, and as General Superintendent for Brandenburg, 61 was the man who labored to consolidate the Prussian Church Union into what it was in the closing days of the old German empire. During the time of his office (1852- 73) the final organization of the Union with regard to congregation, liturgical acts, synod and general synod was wrought out in all details. 62 Especially from 1860 to 1873 the work upon this complicated piece of church organization had been continuous. 63 Hoffman expressed his personal ideal of a union as follows : "I am a mem- ber of the Evangelical Lutheran Confession in so far as I was educated, confirmed and ordained in the Lutheran Church. But to this I add that my theological convic- tion leads me to the union of the two Confessions as it has in reality always existed in the Augsburg Confes- sion. 64 That the Lutheran dogma by itself and without regard to the Reformed no more expresses to me the the- ological form of my faith than does the Reformed dogma, unsupplemented by the Lutheran; that I, therefore, re- gard a real inner union of the two Confessions as an un- deniable demand of each of them, and can acknowledge only one Evangelical Protestant Church in two confes- sional types — not two kinds of evangelical churches." 65 And yet, Hoffman admitted that an absorptive Union as suggested by Nitzsch and Mueller in 1846 (see above) 6i He had been president of the Basle Foreign Mission insti- tute which is established upon the principle of an absorptive Union. 62 For tracing the development after 1873 we refer to Rieker, "Die rechtliche Stellung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland ;" also "Jubilaeumsdemkschrift des Evangelischen Oberkirchen- rates" (1900). Cf. Beyschlag, "Deutsch-Evanglische Blaetter," 1900 pp. 497ff- 63 Wangemann, as quoted, pp. 359ff; cf. 404. 64 Hoffmann meant the Augsburg Confession of 1530, inter- preted by the Variata editions after 1540. The German Reformed have always tried to harmonize the Augsburg Confession thus qualified, with the Heidelberg Catechism. This explains why the advocates of historical Ltuheranism have insisted upon subscrip- tion to the unaltered Augsburg Confession. See pp. 42-43 and 721. of our discussions. Also Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 9iff; 98f ; 207ff. 65 R. Koegel in R. E. VIII, p. 228, 36-45. 134 was not practicable and advisable for Prussia. The con- federative character of the Union was recognized in the organization that became law in 1873. Not e : When we speak of the Prussian Church Union it must be remembered that the accessions to Prussia in 1866, chief of which were the Lutheran provinces of Han- over and Schleswig-Holstein, kept their own church government and, consequently, did not join the Union. Hoffmann and Dorner strongly advocated the joining of the church of these provinces to the Union. But so frankly did he reveal the ultimate plans of the Prussian Union, namely the creation of one Evangelical National Church for all Germany, that the extra-Prussian Luther- ans everywhere were scared into the general watchword : "Nur nicht unter den Evangelischen Oberkirchenrat." (Wangemann, 398.) It was at this time (1868) when Hoffmann wrote his book, "Deutschland Einst und Jetzt im Licht des Reiches Gottes." Here he said, p. 494 : "It is the mission of the Prussian Church to lead in the Union, and it is to comprise the whole German Protes- tantism into one church. The Church will be a German church only when the territorial principle has yielded to the national principle. He, therefore, who re- sists the development and expansion of the Union, ne- gates the results of the German Reformation and miscon- ceives thoroughly the mission of Germany with regard to the Church." It was in consequence of such utterances of the leading men of the Union 66 that the Allgemeine Evangelisch Lutherische Konferenz, by the calling of a convention in the city of Hanover (1868), came into ex- istence. 67 The Prussian Church Union which in these times of reconstruction may soon have to give way to some kind of free church organization, is very complicated and not easily defined. In order to arrive at an adequate de^ scription of its character a few questions may be formu- lated, which we shall try to answer : 66 Dorner also spoke of a "universal German Evangelical Church." Wangemann, p. 308. 67 Wangemann, p. 400. 135 First : Was it correct to speak of a Lutheran Church and a Reformed Church in the old provinces of Prussia? Up to the treaty of Versailles these provinces were Bran- denburg, East and West Prussia, the Province of Saxony, Posen, Silesia, Westfalia, and the Rhine Province. Prof. Kawerau said in a letter to the writer a number of years ago: We can speak only of a State Church in Prussia, in which the congregations are either Lutheran or Re- formed, or (in very small number) consensus congrega- tions and that the government of this State Church had the obligation to protect these — Lutheran or Reformed — congregations upon their historical confessional basis. Stahl says: "The State Church of Prussia is not a Union church. It has not a common confessional basis upon which, as a church, it stands, but its basis is throughout the distinguishing confessions of the Luth- eran and the Reformed Churches." 68 Second : How was the agitation regarding the Agenda settled in that final organization? (See above). There the concession was made that in the administration of the communion the Lutheran form of distribution may be used, but it was conditioned in such a way that it was difficult for the ministers to avail themselves of the privi- lege. In 1895, finally, a new Agenda was issued with parallel forms for the administration of the sacraments. There was a Lutheran form for the Lutherans, a Re- formed form for the Reformed congregations, and also a Union form for the congregations that had actually joined the Union. Third: How was the confessional obligation at the ordination of ministers settled? Here the instruction reads as follows: The minister is to preach no other doctrine "but the one which is founded on God's pure and clear Word, written in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, our only norm of faith, and as it is tes- tified to in the three chief church symbols, the Apostolic, the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed and in the confes- sions of our church." To this is added the remark: 68 Stahl, ut supra, p. 4gof. 136 "Here, according to custom (wie herkoemmlich) , the symbolical writings are named." In the Lutheran pro- vinces it is the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Fourth: What is the situation with regard to the catechisms? A convenient guide for answering this question is offered by Chors' comprehensive article on catechisms in Vol. X of the Realencyclopaedie. Here it is interesting to observe that Union catechisms are in use not in Prussia, but in the places outside of Prussia where the Union was introduced, namely in Anhalt, Hesse, Nas- sau, Waldeck, Hanau, Baden, the Palatinate on the Rhine. 69 In the old provinces of Prussia, in entire con- sistency with the confederative character of the Union, either the Lutheran or the Heidelberg Catechism is in use. All eastern provinces are Lutheran with perhaps only one Reformed congregation in the larger cities for Reformed people who by vocational interests have to live in such cities. Parts of East Friesland (a section of Hanover), but especially the Rhine provinces are over- whelmingly Reformed, and here the Heidelberg Cate- chism or a catechism confessionally identical with the Heidelberg is in use. 70 With regard to confessional statistics it has frequently been a question how to classify the inhabitants of Prus- sia as it was before the peace treaty of Versailles in 1919. This question should be answered as follows: (1) Han- over (excepting parts of East Friesland), Schleswig-Hol- stein, and about 500,000 inhabitants of Hesse-Nassau 71 are Lutheran in the sense that they are not even under the Union. (2) Regarding the 18,105,098 inhabitants of the older provinces (see above), the Lutheran Church would be entitled to all who have been confirmed on Lu- ther's catechism provided that in the interpretative parts that catechism has not been modified by unionistic ma- terials. Dr. M. Reu, a specialist on catechisms, said in an article in the "American Lutheran Survey" (May 7, 69 R. E. X, See pp. 144*- 70 R. E. X, p. 153, 20-52 ; cf. p. 147, 2off. 71 These provinces form the accessions since 1866. 137 1919), "There are in the established Church of Prussia still at least eleven millions, who have been instructed in Luther's Small Catechism." And yet, our description would be incomplete if in clos- ing we would not at the same time call attention to the various Union features that obtained everywhere in the Prussian State Church. We refer to the co-operation in Inner Missions, in Foreign Missions, in Christian publi- cation work, to the pulpit fellowship everywhere and the altar fellowship at many places, and particularly to the theological faculties in the university. Much of this also obtained in the Lutheran dominions of Germany, outside of Prussia. Dr. Kawerau, in the letter to which we re- ferred, tells how, as a gradual effect of the Union, the confessional division with regard to several of the theo- logical branches in the university and in the field of theo- logical literature has ceased to exist. This, he says, has reference especially to exegesis and church history. The commentaries of the Reformed exegete Godet, in German translation, are printed and sold by a Lutheran publisher in Hanover. Prof. Schlatter, Reformed, was called from the Swiss university at Bern to fill the chair of New Tes- tament Exegesis at the Lutheran University in Tuebin- gen. Oettli, another Swiss theologian, was put into the chair of Old Testament Exegesis in the Greifswald Uni- versity, the most Lutheran in the schools of the Prussian Union. A number of years ago there were two Reformed professors teaching Old Testament and Church History at Breslau, the university of the Lutheran province of Silesia. When it comes to Dogmatics, Kawerau adds, and especially in the field of Practical Theology, the confes- sional division exists. The developments that have been reviewed in this chapter offer much material for reflection. But this can be given with more profit after the next chapter has been presented, which is to discuss the union of the "German Evangelical Synod of America." 138 CHAPTER VI. THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA. Literature: Sckory, Geschichte der Deutschen Evange- lischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1889). Muecke, Geschichte der Deutschen Evangelischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1915). Bruening, The Evangelical Church, and Kokritz, The Evangelical Church in Amer- ica (the same under the title "Memorial Diamond Jubi- lee"). Both of these discourses are published together with a description of the Church- Year by J. H. Horst- mann, as "Evangelical Fundamentals, Part One" (Eden Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1916). Graeper, The German Evangelical Synod of Nord Amerika (1912). Denkschrift zur 50jaehr. Jubelfeier der Deutschen Evan- gelischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1890). Koch, Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten? (published by the author, Rev. W. Koch, Grand Haven, Mich.) Niefer, Evangelisch und Lutherisch (Die Hauptunterschiede zwischen unserer evangelischen Kirche und den ortho- dox-lutherischen Synoden) , published by the author, Rev. H. Niefer, 550 Russel Ave., Milwaukee, Wis. Mayer, Die Zukunft der Deutschen Evangelischen Synode von Nord- Amerika (1913). Bauer, Der Freiheitskampf der Re- formation im Lichte der Gegenwart (1917). Ruber, Joseph Rieger (a print from Jahresberichte der Gesell- schaft fuer die Erforschung der Geschichte der Deut- schen in Maryland). Irion, Der Evangelische Katechis- mus (a book of 453 pp., published by the Eden Pub- lishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1897) . "Evangelical Fun- 139 damentals, Part Two" (Eden Publishing House). Evan- gelical Catechism, also in German (the hand-book for catechetical instruction), Eden Publishing House, revised edition of 1896. Evangelical Book of Worship (pub- lished by the synod, 1916). Prof. Dr. W. Becker, Evan- gelische Glaubenslehre (Eden Publishing House, 1913). Braendele, Deutsche Evangelische Synode, in R. E. XIV, p. 178 ff. Minutes of district synods. Magazin fuer Evangelische Theologie und Kirche (Eden Publishing House). Neve, 1st zwischen der Unierten Amerikas und der Landeskirche Preussens wirklich kein Unterschied? (Lutheran Literary Board, Burlington, la., 1903). The same in English in Lutheran Quarterly (Gettysburg, Pa.), 1903, p. 67 ff. As further references the following works have been used: Stahl, Wangemann, Hering, Koestlin-Kawerau, Rudelbach, Kurtz (as cited before), Hodge (Systematic Theology III, 611 ff.), Reu (Die Gua- denmittellehre, 1917), Neve, (History of Lutheran Church in America and Introduction to Lutheran Sym- bolics) . Among the documentary literature we mention Zwingli's Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, Cal- vin's Institutions, book IV, chapters 14, 15, 17; cf. Eng- lish translation by J. Allen, sixth edition, the Confessions of the Reformed Church (Niemeyer), the Book of Con- cord (Jacobs' People's Edition.) Note further the arti- cles in the R. E. (on "Orthodoxie" by Burger, XIV, 496; on "Homiletik" by Caspari, VIII, 303 ; on "Protestantis- mus" by Kattenbusch, XVI, 135 ff . ; on "S. S. Schmucker" by Spaeth, XVII, 665,) ; also in Lutheran Quarterly (the previous articles of our series), and in the Lutheran Church Review, (articles by J. A. W. Haas on "The Genius of Lutheranism," January 1919, and L. F. Gruber on "The Lutheran Church and Christian Union," April 1918). 140 I. HISTORICAL ORIENTATION. After the Union had been established in Germany, it was natural that, among the many German immigrants to America during the second third of the nineteenth cen- tury, there should also be sympathizers with the Union idea. Some of these were instrumental in calling mis- sionaries from the Union circles of the Fatherland. The first to respond to these invitations was the Foreign Mis- sion Institute at Basle (1835). The Rhenish Foreign Mission Institute at Barmen also sent candidates for the ministry. In 1837 the "Evangelical Association for Pro- testant Germans in North America" at Barmen (the so- called "Langenberg Association") was organized. The Bremen "Evangelical Association for German Protes- tants in America" followed in 1839. In 1852 a "Society for German Evangelical Missions in America" was called into existence in Berlin. Later the "Johannes Stift" at Berlin, a branch institution of Wichern's "Rauhe Haus," near Hamburg, created a department, the so-called "Sternenhaus," for the education of ministers in Ameri- ca. All these societies and institutions have given their chief support to the German Evangelical Synod of North America. 1 In 1840 the men from Basle and Barmen organized themselves as the "German Evangelical Church Associa- i Schory, Geschichte der Deutshen Evangelischen Synode von Nord-Amerika, pp. 16 ff. Muecke Gesch. d. Deutsch. Ev. Syn. in N. A., pp. 63 ff. Kokritz in "Fundamentals, Part One," pp. 27 f. Braen- dele in R. E. XIV, pp 178, 36 ff. Krause in "Magazin," Sept. 1919, pp. 232 ff. The Langenberg and the Berlin Societies for a time, also contributed to Lutheran Mission work in America. In fact, it was by the missionaries from these associations that the Luth- eran Synod of Wisconsin, now a part of the Synodical Conference, was organized (1848) and supplied for nearly twenty years, until this body felt that it had to decide against the Union. See O. Engel in Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in Amer- ica (second edition), pp. 320-324. 141 was at St. Louis, Mo. Another "Evangelical" associa- tion, small in numbers, was founded in Ohio (1850), which affiliated itself with the association of the West in 1858. A like association had come into existence in the East (1854), and it also joined the body in the West (1860) . Then there was a "United Evangelical Synod of the Northwest," numbering forty-eight ministers and covering Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin; also an Eastern offshoot of this body, which numbered twenty-five ministers. 2 In 1872 these also joined the larger body around St. Louis. Now the name was chosen, by which the synod is known to-day, the "German Evangelical Synod of North America." A new name is under consideration at the present time: "The Evangelical Church in America." 3 At the celebration of its seventy-fifth anniversary in 1915 the synod numbered 1074 ministers, who were serv- ing 1381 congregations, of which 978 were formally af- filiated with the synod, the rest being independent. Its educational institutions are the theological seminary at St. Louis, Mo., and the college at Elmhurst, 111. The chief publications are the "Friedensbote," with more than 24.000 subscribers, the "Evangelical Herald" (both week- ly papers for the home), and, for ministers, the "Magazin fuer Evangelische Theologie und Kirche" — all published by the synodical "Eden Publishing House," St. Louis, Mo. II. SOME FACTORS EXPLANATORY OF THE GROWTH OF THE BODY. 1. The support from the Union circles in the Father- hind has been pointed out. It has been, indeed, a most telling factor especially in the way of supplying the tion of the West" (deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenver- ein des Westens) . The centre of this new church body 2 Because of rationalism, these two organizations, originally- one body, had become separated. See Muecke, as cited, pp. 187 ff. 3 On the developments which have here been related see Schory, pp. 13 f., 33 ff. ; Muecke, pp. 96 ff ., 154 ff., 187 ff. ; Kokritz in "Fundamentals I," p. 33; the same author in "Diamond Jubilee," p. 11; Graeper, Evangelical Church, p. 33; Braendele in R. E. XIV, pp. 178-80. 142 young and struggling synod with ministers at a time when the immigration from Germany was at its height. From the Basle Foreign Mission Institute alone about one hundred fifty men have been sent. 4 2. Reaction against confessional Lutheranism in America has also contributed to the growth of this churck body. To make plain what we have in mind we have to go back into the doctrinal history of Lutheranism. Lutheranism in America, at the time of its establish- ment, had to pass through a period of controversies. The differing tendencies of Lutheranism in Germany, which were produced by the post-Reformation age, had been pretty well settled with the establishment of territorial churches. In America, under the free church conditions, these differing tendencies had much to do with the confes- sional basis of a synod, and, therefore, the old conflicts came up again. Was the basis for the Lutheran Church in America to be the Augsburg Confession only (in the sense of including Melanchthon's later development as expressed in the Variata of 1540 and its successors, so that the doors of the Lutheran Church would be kept open for the influences from Calvinism and the denomina- tions) ; or was it to be the Augsburg Confession, in har- mony with the Smalcald Articles and the doctrinal de- velopment as expressed in the Formula of Concord ? Im other words, was Lutheranism in America to be estab- lished upon Melanchthonianism or upon the historic po- sition of Luther? What was to be the attitude toward the surrounding denominations? W T as the Lutheran Church of America to represent "a Lutheranism, modi- fled by the Puritan element," or was it to be established upon its own historic genius as first expressed in the cate- chisms of Luther, in the Schwabach Articles and in the Augsburg Confession of 1530 ? 5 These were by no means 4 Cf. Krause, in "Magazin" (Sept. 1919) P- 333- Many were the candidates sent from Barmen, Berlin, and the St. Chrischona In- stitute near Basle. . . 5 All these questions are discussed more in detail in Neve, In- troduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 79 *•> 91-100; 207 ff. Com- pare also his Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, 2nd ed., 1916, pp. 113 8; 430- 143 idle questions, but they affected the very life of the Lu- theran Church in this country, its genius, its future and its existence among the denominations. It may be ad- mitted that much of the controversy was unnecessarily sharp, and that the distinguishing line between essentials and non-essentials was not always observed; but con- sidering the whole situation — the transition into English, with which a large part of the Lutheran Church in Amer- ica was confronted at an early time, the influences from the revival movements in the first half of the nineteenth century, the problem of finding a safe middle ground be- tween an ultra-conservative and a confessedly lax ten- dency — the conflict was unavoidable. It is practically settled now, and, taken as a whole, it has yielded a rich harvest of experience and insight, on the basis of which a great literature of sound theology is springing up. 6 The fruit of these controversies is further seen in the reunion of great Lutheran bodies which for a long time stood op- posed to each other. In 1918, the General Synod, the General Council and the United Synod of the South form- ed the United Lutheran Church in America. A year be- fore a like union took place among the Norwegian Luth- erans (the Norwegian Lutheran Synod, the United Nor- wegian Church and the Hauge Synod affiliating in the United Norwegian Lutheran Church), and the Joint Synod of Ohio, the German Iowa Synod and the Buffalo Synod have drawn together in a common understanding. And almost all of these bodies, together with the Swedish Augustana Synod, are federated in the National Luth- eran Council. Controversy is not an evil when a true union is the goal ! The heat of the conflict among the various Lutheran synods was at its height in the decades after 1840 when the German Evangelical Synod was in its formative period. Having sprung from the Union movements in 6 We refer to works such as the "Conservative Reformation" by Charles Porterfield Krauth. If there is anything that has le- gitimized the confessional interests of American Lutheranism it is the rich literature that has been sent out by the publication bouses of the Lutheran Synods. 144 Germany it can readily be seen that the controversies of Lutheranism in that time would give stimulus to the growth of a synod that had established itself upon the Union principle. Doctrinal controversy on the matters that separated the Lutherans and Reformed was detested as a quarrel over non-fundamentals. Under American conditions the appeal was to the congregations. On this subject it is always easy to gain the ear of laymen who as a rule are not students of church history and who can- not always appreciate the principles involved in the con- flict between the Confession and the Union. The laymen only too often prefer confessional peace where a contend- ing for the faith is the need of the hour. But by appeal- ing to the layman's aversion to doctrinal controversy the German Evangelical Synod was bound to win many fol- lowers. 3. Another factor to be counted in explaining the growth of the German Evangelical Synod in congrega- tions (affiliated and independent) is to be sought in its liberal attitude in matters of doctrine and practice, which naturally follows from the Union principle. There are especially three considerations that we have in mind : (a). From the beginning of its organization the synod was invited to do missionary work among a class of Germans that "had outgrown all need of religion and its restraints." These German immigrants were men of means and intelligence, who had settled in the Missouri Valley ("Latin settlement"), where they organized as a "German Society" (1834). We agree with the writer of the "Memorial Diamond Jubilee" when he says: "The Evangelical Church had a duty to perform to Germans of both classes in these Western communities: to those who wanted the Gospel and to those who did not want it, but needed it nevertheless." 7 There was no permanency to the rationalistic congregations that were created in this 7 See Kokritz, Diamond Jubilee, p. 4; also "Fundamentals I," p. 26. Cf. Huber, "Pastor Joseph Rieger," separate print from "Jahresberichte der Gesellschaft fuer die Erforschung der Ges- chichte der Deutschen in Maryland," p. 26; also Muecke, Geschi- chte, pp. 51 f. 145 "Latin settlement"; by and by all were absorbed by the German Evangelical Synod. This same experience was repeated over and over in other localities of this country where the German rationalists founded their independ- ent congregations. The ministers of the German Evan- gelical Synod, men of the true, deep piety as it had been cultivated in the Foreign and Inner Mission schools of the Fatherland, preached the simple Gospel, used the rich German hymnology of Evangelical Protestantism, taught the young in parochial schools, and in this way it succeed- ed in attracting many congregations that had originally been organized by rationalists. Special mention should be made of the many congregations of the "Forty Eight- ers." The revolution of 1848 in Germany brought to our country a considerable immigration of cultured Germans who were dissatisfied with the political settlement after that revolution. They were opposed to Evangelical Christianity, because in the country from where they had come they had found that orthodox Protestantism was a reactionary factor, the "altars supporting the thrones," and so they established in many of our cities — Cincin- nati, Ohio, being a centre — liberalistic churches on the basis of Unitarianism (Eisenloher's Catechism), sup- plied them with rationalistic preachers from Germany, who organized themselves as the "Predigerbund." 8 But no church organization can have permanency on the basis of the negations of Unitarianism. Many of the congre- gations soon began to dwindle and to disintegrate, and most have been taken over or are being taken over by the German Evangelical Synod. Rationalism always had an instinctive aversion against confessional positions on the basis of distinction between Lutherans and Reformed. So the Union principle of the German Evangelical Synod with the flexibility of its confessional paragraph (see below, sub III, 5), inviting diversity of theological views, 8 The Predigerbund is in no sense a synod. At the meetings there are no delegates from congregations- No mission work is done, except a little along humanitarian lines (orphans). Of late a theological department has been conducted in connection with a seminary in Meadeville, Pa. 146 appealed more to these congregations than did either the Lutheran or the Reformed Church. Neither would it have been possible for the confessionally more liberal English Lutherans of the old General Synod to influence these independent churches, because offense was taken at their prohibitory practice regarding the Christian life (prohibition movement, Sabbath observance) . The Ger- man Evangelical Synod was sufficiently Germanic and could appeal to these independents by finding points of contact for an exercise of reformatory influences along ethical as well as doctrinal lines. While in individual cases there may have been accom- modation to and toleration of liberalistic views, yet as a body the German Evangelical Synod has stood opposed to rationalism, which can be seen from many of its utter- ances and actions in the earlier years. In 1865 it sent to Germany a unanimous protest against Schenkel's "Char- akterbild Jesu." In 1870 a strong condemnatory resolu- tion was passed against the rationalistic "Protestanten- verein" abroad and on this side of the Atlantic. Not even a moderately negative theology was tolerated in the syn- odical seminary, of which proof was given about 1880 when a very talented and much appreciated teacher in the seminary of the synod, Prof. E. Otto, was forced to va- cate his chair because of insistence upon liberalistic views. 9 (b). The attitude toward lodges has also aided the synod in its growth. The field of the synod was among the Germans and the German Lutherans, not especially among the German Reformed, except incidentally. All the stronger German Lutheran bodies started out with an attitude of decided opposition to the lodge, i. e., to those of the secret societies with a more or less richly developed religious ritual. They saw in these societies, particularly in the naturalistic and universalistic character of their religious views a negation of the positive Christian reli- gion and an influence to undermine the religion of the cross and the preaching of sin and grace. This opposi- 9 See Muecke, Geschichte, pp. 158 f. ; 208; 200 f. 147 tion found its expression in refusing church membership, communion, Christian burial, or in declining on the part of pastors to officiate with lodge chaplains at the same service. The German Evangelical Synod, while not al- lowing ministers to be lodge members, has from the be- ginning opened wide the gates to members of secret so- cieties, and its pastors haye freely officiated at their fu- nerals, even together with lodge chaplains. This prac- tice, at a time when the leading Lutheran synods refused to let down the bars, was bound to make the German Evangelical Synod popular in lodge circles and to bring many members into its fold. 10 The practice of the Ger- man Evangelical Synod on the lodge question is another symptom of its broad-churchism or the policy of willingly accommodating itself to the world "for the purpose of winning the world.' ' This may seem, on the surface, a Pauline principle, but the danger is in the application of it. (It is a danger which confronts all the churches and synods with a yielding policy touching this problem) . io The practice among the Lutherans of to-day on this prob- lem of pastoral theology is not uniform. The stricter synods, such as the Synodical Conference, Joint Synod of Ohio, German Iowa Synod have given their testimony against lodge religion in the pulpit, and also in synodical deliverances. In the synods forming the United Lutheran Church there is nowhere and there never was any attempt to keep lodge members out of the Church. A good many of its synods, however prohibit their ministers from mem- bership in the lodge, and the aim of their ministers generally is to neutralize the influence of the humanism and moralism of lodge religion by a clear preaching of the Gospel after the order of sal- vation as taught in the confessions of their church. But the pro- hibitory practice of the stricter bodies with regard to the laymen are not followed because they cannot bear to see so many Luth- erans abandoned by their own church. Our reference here is to work among the Germans. It has often been pointed out with regard to lodge membership, that there is a characteristic differ- ence between native Americans and the Germans. The former are less inclined to let their lodge membership interfere with their attachment to the Church; but many Germans, in their in- stinctive thoroughness, and need for consistency, give themselves with heart and soul to the humanistic and universalistic spirit of the institution, with the result that the secret society takes the place of the Church or at least comes first in their attachment, and that it leads them to liberalism in which the religion of reve- lation is looked upon as an expression of superstition. By this we do not mean to say that this is the case with all Germans, nor that lodge membership cannot have the same effect upon the American born. 148 (c). Broad-churchism, as an explanation of the growth of this body, can also be seen in its open door to the more worldly elements and to those under church dis- cipline in Lutheran congregations. There is also broad-churchism in the Lutheran Church. English Lutheran synods and congregations in particular, even under conservative inflences, give large liberties to individual members. The cases for church discipline are not so many as in the German synods and congregations of the stricter Lutheran bodies. Private differences be- tween church members especially are not usually consid- ered by congregation and synod. Such matters are left to the pulpit and to the pastor's personal influence. Dis- cipline, therefore, is limited to cases of unbelief and flagrant moral transgression. From this position it easily follows that excommunication from a German con- gregation of the stricter Lutheran group (except in case of grave sin) is not looked upon as a hindrance for ad- mission, especially not when a transfer of membership by letter is not the mutually accepted practice. Hence it can easily be seen what the German Lutheran Synods might expect of an opponent like the German Evangelical Synod. Here, position was taken upon the Union principle. This means that in cases of applica- tion for admission from Lutheran quarters doctrinal questions naturally were of no consideration. In mat- ters touching the Christian life there was the funda- mental difference of practice, of which we are reminded by the above reference to English Lutheranism. But in addition it must be said that in many localities worldly elements in Lutheran congregations have felt themselves drawn to the German Evangelical Synod and have been freely admitted. Here we have one explanation of the growth of the body. III. THE UNION FEATURES OF THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD. We have now arrived at the subject which must claim the chief interest in this chapter. Our series of discus- 149 sions is a study of the Union principle as it has operated in the history of Protestantism, especially between Luth- erans and Reformed. We have accordingly summarized the matters of interest under five separate theses: (1) Objective truth and subjective conception; (2) Scripture opposed to the Creed; (3) An underestimation of the dif- ferences between Lutherans and Reformed; (4) The pub- lic teaching of the German Evangelical Synod; (5) Its confessional paragraph. 1. Objective Truth Opposed to Its Subjective Conception. The fundamental thought at the basis of practically all argumentation in favor of the various Union features of the German Evangelical Synod is the distinction which it makes between truth as such and the conception of it on the part of individuals and churches. Schory writes : "But between the views of men, which they have of truth, and truth itself, there is a great difference. There can be various conceptions of truth of which each in its kind is justified, because each of them has been gained from a different point of view. For truth is not one-sided, but many-sided." 11 The argument is that in their confessional differences neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed can claim to have the truth. Sometimes it is suggested in the Union circles that while both have the truth, the differ- ence is in view-points; that the contradictions are not real, but only seeming; that one view supplements the other. Then again it is admitted that there are real con- tradictions, real differences, but in the manner of Calix- tus, 12 it is insisted that these are not of a religious nature, and, therefore, not fundamental. While Calixtus admit- ted that actual church union is impossible as long as there is disagreement only in non-fundamentals among which he counted the Lord's Supper, 13 now the position is ii Translated from Geschichte der deutschen Evanglischen Synode, p. 7. Cf. Bruenning, Fundamentals I, p. 2. Denkschrift zum 50 jaehrigen Jubilaeum, p. 10. 12 See chapter IV, pp. 86 ff. Cf. Lutheran Quarterly, July 1919, pp. 369 ff- 13 See chapter IV, p. 95. Cf. Luth. Quarterly, /uly 1919, p. 375. 150 taken that these can be ignored even in an organic union so long as there is agreement in the fundamentals. Note 1 : Hehe again, then, there is before us the ques- tion : What is fundamental in religion, and as such suffi- cient for Church union? To the solution of this problem theologians and churchmen of many ages have given much thought, usually, however, with the result of find- ing that their conclusions yielded little practical result as a basis for union. 14 It was the problem of George Ca- lixtus. Frederick William III desired his Union to be es- tablished upon "the principal points in Christianity." 15 The Evangelical Alliance, organized in 1846 and founded upon nine fundamental articles, 16 was another attempt to establish the fundamentals. We may also refer to the far-reaching union plans of Dr. S. S. Schmucker, 17 and to the endeavors of the Union theologians of Germany in the middle of the last century (Mueller, Dorner, Nitzsch), who demanded that the Prussian Church Union should be established upon what is religiously fundamental. 18 None of these attempts brought any permanent result. Note 2: It was particularly the distinction between religion and theology among the theologians who fol- lowed Scheiermacher that furnished the basis upon which the Union was argued. This distinction was first de- veloped by George Calixtus, 19 but the pupils of Schleier- macher renewed it with much energy and in a peculiar way. The substance of truth only, so we were told, is re- ligion proper, and this is received by "intuition." The presentation in discursive thought, ("diskursivem Den- ken") is theology which is subject to error, and can never adaquately express divine truth. In our discus- sion of "Jena versus Wittenberg" 20 our attention was 14 Cf. pp. 70, 75, 76, 86, 90, 93, 95, 98. Lutheran Quarterly, April, 1919, pp. 219, 224, 225 ; July, 1919, 369, 371, 374, 367, 379- 15 Cf. chapter V, p. 119, Lutheran Quarterly, October, 1919, P- 534- 16 See Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon I, 89. R. E., I, 377 f. 17 Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, 2nd ed., p. 114. 18 Cf. p. 131 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, October 1919, p. 546. 19 See pp. 86 f., 91 ff., Lutheran Quarterly, July, 369 f., 372 ff. 20 See pp. 107 ff., Lutheran Quarterly, July, 1919, pp. 388 ff. 151 called to the legitimate element in this distinction be- tween religion and theology. Certainly, theological de- duction can be carried into such finenesses that it can no more be identified with fundamental religion. We have an illustration of it in the "Consensus Repetitus" of Abraham Calovius (p. 107), and even in the larger Con- fessions of both Lutherans and Reformed there may be matters that cannot claim to be more than theologumena. But on the other hand, very much of what forms the con- tents of our Creeds and which undeniably is not purely religious "intuition/' but pre-eminently "discursive thought", is, after all, inseparable from religion. We cannot have religion as pure intuition ; the expression of it has to be in discursive thought. Theological concep- tions, so long as they are not hair-splitting subtleties, are the necessary expression of religious intuition. Even the thoughts of God as delivered in the Holy Scriptures are not without something of the discursive element. 21 The statements in the Confessions which express the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches may be theological in character, but they stand in the closest relation to religion. They give individuali- ty, precision and aim to the religious idea. "The very form grips or coins the thought in a peculiar way ; it ex- presses the thought once for all. The form limits the confessional thought and determines its direction. It keeps the thought (Idee) from associating heteroge- neous elements, and so to run into seed." 22 Julius Stahl says of these discursive elements in the Creeds: "Sie gehoeren der Religion an, sie tragen den Glaubensgehalt. Sie sind notwendig, sowohl um die Anschauungen zu verdeutlichen, uns zum ganzen Bewusstsein zu bringen, als noch mehr, um sie gegen Ausgleitung und Verirrung zu wahren und un das gegenseitige gemeinsame Ver- 21 The fact is that the Union theologians in Germany, in em- ploying that distinction between intuition and discursive thought, dismissed essential parts of the Scriptures from obligation at the ordination of ministers. See Wangemann, Una Sancta I, Book 6, pp. 294 ff. ; Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, pp. 383-87. 22 Dr. Stier in "Allgemeine Ev. Luth. Kirchenzeltung," quoted in Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, p. 28. 152 staendnis unter den Menschen herauszustellen, Sie sind deshalb gerade das Wesen und die Aufgabe des kirchli- chen Bekenntnisses." 23 It was necessary to interpose these two notes in order to throw some sidelights upon the suggestion of Schory as quoted above. We admit that divine truth cannot be expressed with adequacy inhuman speech, as we read I Cor. 13:12: "For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face. Now I know in part ; but then shall I know even as also I am known." But inadequate conceptions need not be identical with error ! While not adequate in every respect they may rest upon Scripture, be divinely true as far as they go, and sufficient for the need of the Church. In principle, the Creed cannot claim infallibi- lity ; but the convinced member, especially the teacher of the Church, as long as he confesses the Creed conscienti- ously, believes that it expresses the truth of Scripture — not necessarily the full truth as it exists in the mind of God, yet truth as revealed by Scripture and as experi- enced in the life of His Church. But can we not say that the differences between the churches consist only in view-points, so that both sides have the truth from a different point of view? It is true, for instance, that many churches accept with the Lutherans the doctrine of justification by faith. But some regard it from a peculiar view-point, the sov- ereignty of God. This does not do away with the Gospel, yet the Gospel of free grace becomes clouded (legalism). Under Calvinistic preaching, God appears to us more as a stern Lord than as a loving Father. We are more His obedient servants than His confiding children. A wrong view-point can seriously affect the teaching of the Gos- pel. But the difference is not always just in view-points. This can be seen when we take, for instance, the Lord's Supper and the means of grace in general. Here the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed group 23 Lutherische Kirche und Union, p. 345. 153 of churches is exclusive as we shall try to show in an- other discussion (Sub. III. 3). Many differences be- tween the churches are of such a nature that in the light of the Scriptures either the one or the other side must be wrong in its conception of Scripture truth 2. Scripture versus Confession. The German Evangelical Synod is not opposed to con- fessional standards. Officially it does not desire to stand upon the platform of the Campbellites. The Augs- burg Confession, Luther's Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism are accepted in the points "where they agree." 24 "In these books we have the Bible doctrine as free from error, misunderstanding or imperfection as man can make it. Therefore we hold to them, placing them next to, but below the Bible in point of importance, in the matter of the regulation of our faith. And as proof of our allegiance to the Bible, we claim the privi- lege of going back to the precious Word itself in those points in which these books do not perfectly agree." 25 But this refusal to make a doctrinal profession on the matters where the Lutherans and Reformed Confessions disagree, and the insistence here to use simply the ex- pressions of Scripture without interpreting them con- fessionally, have brought into the literature and the preaching of the synod the peculiar Union feature of op- posing Scripture to the Confessions. "Be it said again, the Word of God is our standard of faith. This is evi- denced by our name, the Evangelical, the Gospel Church. Others may call themselves Lutheran after a man; Re- formed because of some incident in history ; Episcopal or Presbyterian because of a form of government, or Bap- tist after one of the Sacraments, we know nothing su- perior to the Bible." 26 Neither do the Lutherans and the 24 The confessional paragraph is quoted sub III, 5 at the be- ginning of the discussion. 25 Bruening in Fundamentals I, pp. 21 f. 26 Fundamentals I, p. 21; cf. p. 3. 154 Reformed know anything "superior to the Bible," but as a church they interpret the Word of God, and for the guidance of the souls under their care they express this interpretation confessionally. This position of the German Evangelical Synod, in- viting as it may seem on the surface, leads to the re- jection of the Creed in principle. If by appealing to uninterpreted Scripture, the differences between Luther- ans and Reformed are to be treated as open questions, why should it be otherwise with the matters of agreement with regard to the doctrinal differences which were settled in the adoption of the Nicene Creed? In other words, why should the matters of agreement in the Lu- theran and the Reformed Confessions have symbolical significance? As soon as the principle of the German Evangelical Synod is admitted, it would seem that the position of the Campbellites is the unavoidable conse- quence. That out of the above statements our questions suggest themselves can be seen from a large and very ably written literature, in articles and tracts, that has sprung up in the German Evangelical Synod. The tenure of this literature is about this : From Luther and Calvin we must come back to the Scriptures. These, with freedom of interpretation according to the dictates of conscience, constitute a sufficient basis for church union. 27 That literature in the German Evangelical Synod is not official in nature; it does not bear the im- primatur of the synodical publication house, and, there- fore, should not be taken as expressing the synod's offi- cial doctrinal position. But it shows the conclusions that are drawn from the synod's confessional paragraph by thinking members of the body. We have here special reference to two very ably written booklets, one by W. Koch, "Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten," the other by H. Niefer, "Evangelisch und Lutherisch ?" 27 It is true there must be freedom of conscience for every in- dividual. But is it of no interest to a Lutheran or Reformed con- gregation or synod when an individual, repudiating his ordination vow, should make such use of his freedom that his work would re- sult in confusing his flock and disrupting their union in the faith? 155 Koch sees the weakness of his synod's confessional basis in this that it adopts the above-mentioned doctrinal stand- ards in the points of their agreement. He calls it a con- tradiction to the "manly and evangelical" appeal to the Word of God alone and a concession to confessionalism (pp. 14.15). The evil "fruits of confessionalism" (error in the Roman Church, controversy and schism among Protestants) are, in his view, "the natural consequences of the fact that nowhere one was satisfied with the Holy Scriptures alone ; that not the Scriptures themselves, but the subjective conception of a man or a number of men was made the object of confession, the norm of faith, of doctrine and life." (p. 16). "The Word of God only, not what men have drawn from the Word of God and have formulated and interpreted and individualized in human fashion, can be the object of evangelical faith" (p. 18). Niefer likewise censures the Lutherans who "read and interpret the Bible strictly after the traditions of the symbols" which "settle the teaching (of the Bible) once for all (endgiltig)" (p. 13). 28 After having rejected the Confessions as symbols of Scripture truth (pp. 13, 14), he appeals to the right of the individual to investi- gate the Scriptures for himself, as Luther and the Re- formers did (pp. 15. 16). Here the author is perfectly right. It is a right which Lutherans also claim, even with their quia subscription, as we shall see a little later. But the question that can not be left out of consideration 28 The author of this book is too anxious to put his readers under the impression that the Lutherans accept the confessions slavishly, with no distinction between creative principles on the one hand and theological deductions and elaborations on the other, and that they look upon the Creed as settling a doctrine in such a way that further development and enrichment is excluded. He, like a good many other writers in the German Evangelical Synod, makes the mistake of judging too much the Lutheran Church of to-day by the seventeenth century type of Lutheran- ism. While this type may have its representatives to-day, it ought not to be overlooked that the Lutheranism of men like Philippi, Vilmar, Loehe, Kliefoth, Rohnert, Krauth, Lutheradt, Kahnis, Zet- schwitz, Bard, Ihmels — all opponents of the Union — is in view- points essentially different from the Lutheranism that was repre- sented by Abraham Calvovius and the Wittenberg theologians of the seventeenth century. 156 is whether the Church, not the individual, — but the Church as a "congregation of believers" can fulfill its mission without a common Creed, a recognized symbol of unity, according to the demand : "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism." The mistake here made is to look upon the Confession too much as an interest of the individual and not as a concern of the Church. Advice is given to the soul to rid itself of all confessional traditionalism and to seek truth simply by reading the Bible. 29 But when confessional obligation is under discussion we must have regard to the needs of the Church, which is charged with the duty of leading many souls in the way of salvation: by ministerial education, by publishing church literature, by sending forth missionaries. Here a doctrinal foundation or a confessional basis is needed for decision and direction. To be sure, the Church as well as the individual must stand for the Scriptures first of all. The Scriptures are the Church's real foundation. A Church stands on the Creed only in so far (quatenus) as that Creed actually expresses the truth of Scripture. But a church, if it wants to claim the Scriptures as its real foundation, cannot do it by leaving the Scriptures uninterpreted. On church-dividing questions such as exist between the Lutherans and the Reformed the Scriptures must be confessionally interpreted. Appeal to the Scriptures while at the same time refusing con- fessional interpretation is purely negative. The posi- tion upon the Scriptures, in such case, would be a posi- tion taken merely in abstracto and not in concreta. Men of the Union like to look upon the Creeds as mere guides in the search of truth, which make no claim of 29 See Niefer, pp. 16-18. Cf. Koch, pp. 19-20. It is true that Lutheran Christians (of which there are many in the German Evangelical Synod) incline to read their Bible through the inter- pretation of their catechism and through the conceptions ex- pressed in the devotional literature of their church (hymn-books, prayer-books), while the Christians of most of the other churches — particularly the churches who make little or no use of cate- chization— go to the Bible direct and search independently of creedal traditions. But on which side is the real advantage? Where are the Scriptures most interpreted according to the "analogy of faith," or the "proportion of faith," as Paul demands (Rom. 12:6?) 157 being standards to be subscribed to with confessional ob- ligation. They are guides ("witnesses," so even in the Formula of Concord), and as such they have served many thoughtful Christians, especially the teachers of the Church. But they are at the same time more than guides. As witnesses and testimonies of times in the history of the Church when, usually after severe and trying conflicts, God gave much light, they are also sym- bols of the unity of faith between those who have united in one church communion. We believe that this is also the conception of the conservative members of the Ger- man Evangelical Synod when they profess to accept the Augsburg Confession, Luther's and the Heidelberg Catechism in the matters of their agreement; but we also believe that in the refusal to take a confessional at- titude on the historical differences between the Luther- ans and the Reformed, the synod has created suspicion of creeds in general, since their consistent thinkers put the Confession in opposition to the Scriptures. There are two related questions that call for a brief discussion in this connection; these we shall dispose of in two appended notes. Note 1 : The quatenus and the quia subscription. On this subject many writers of the German Evangelical Synod have offered reflections in which they have not done justice to confessional Lutheranism. The question asked is whether the Creed should be accepted and sub- scribed because (quia), as a matter of fact, it agrees with the Scriptures, or only in so far as (quatenus) the subscriber finds that it does agree with the Word of God. Our answer is that the quia and the quatenus go to- gether. The Scriptures are norma normans. They are the only regulating factor in all matters of religion. A creed can claim authority only in so far as it expresses Scripture truth. But, on the other hand, as has been said already, in cases of conflict between confessions, especially on matters pertaining to salvation, Scripture cannot be left uninterpreted. An attitude has to be tak- en. A church, entrusted with the spiritual care of many souls, needs to take a definite position in order to guide 158 in Scriptural teaching and to offer a bond of union for her members. In an accepted Creed the Church establishes itself upon, articles of faith, of which she is convinced that in their confessional substance they have been formulated in harmony with Scripture testimony. She can take this position with assurance because she has experienced the Scripturalness of that Creed during a long history of preaching and teaching and caring for souls in many congregations. And now, a church, so established upon a Creed, has certainly the right and the duty to expect of her candidates for the ministry at their ordination something more than a mere quatenus de- claration (with which one could subscribe even the de- crees of the council of Trent) . At the time of their en- tering the ministry, after the completion of their semin- ary course, they must be able to express a judgment on the Creed which they have studied and be ready to say whether they can or whether they cannot accept its con- tents. So the candidate for the ministry, in the Lutheren Church, declares that he accepts the Church's Confession because (quia) of its agreement with Scripture. Two objections to this practice may here be answered by quoting from our discussion of the "authority of sym- bols" in the "Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics," p. 25 f. : (1) Can we expect a candidate for the ministry, as a rule a young man who has just come from the seminary, to be sufficiently matured for a quia subscription? He Certainly ought to be familiar with the leading principles of comparative symbolics. Further, let us remember that Lutheranism as expressed in its Confessions is a system that rests upon some fundamental articles of faith. 30 If the candidate for ordination is in harmony with Lutheranism in such fundamentals — along the line of anthropology (Augb'g Conf., II, XVIII), soteriology (III, IV, VI,), ecclesiology (VII, VIII, XIV), the means of grace (V, IX, XIII) , etc.— then he can subscribe with a quia. The doctrines more remote from the centre 30 Romanism, Calvinism, and Socinianism also show their lead- ing features in a number of characteristic principles. 159 have been formulated in entire agreement with the fun- damental doctrines of the Confession. (2) Another ob- jection is that the quia subscription enslaves the indi- vidual minister, robs him of his God-given right to ex- amine the Scriptures for himself and practically does away with the freedom of conscience. But this objection confuses the situation and by so doing leads to wrong conclusions. For him who has taken his ordination vow with a quia, the duty to regard the Scriptures as su- preme judge in all matters of faith never ceases. If ever his conviction should undergo a change, leading him to feel that he must change his public teaching accordingly, then his quia obligation ceases. No mortal has any au- thority to interfere with the right of private judgment and with the freedom of conscience. But in such a case, denominational honesty, or, better expressed, his con- science, should move him to withdraw and to join the church which expresses his new faith. Luther's protest to Rome cannot be invoked to justify an opposite prac- tice. Luther occupied the correct position that not he, but Rome had departed from the Apostolic and truly Catholic faith. Moreover, if by "right of private judg- ment" and "freedom of conscience" he should have meant what our liberalists of to-day make it to mean, namely, unrestricted liberty to teach doctrines subver- sive of the faith of the Church, would he have interfered with the teaching of the Antinomians? Would he have forced Agricola to that public disputation in Wittenberg and to the retraction of his views? In a given church and communion an individual cannot claim the right to tear down what the Church teaches on the basis of her Confessions. In his defence of the right of private judg- ment and the freedom of conscience Luther meant that no one should lose life and liberty when unable to agree with the teaching of the Church. Of the practice of Rome he complained: "Mit dem Tode loesen sie alle Ar- gument." And again: "Heresy can never be restrained with force. It must be grasped in another way. This is not the sort of batle that can be settled with the sword. 160 The weapon here to be used is God's Word. If that does not decide, the decision will not be effected by worldly force, though it should drench the whole earth with blood. Heresy is a thing of the soul ; no steel can cut it out, no waters can drown it. God's Word alone can de- stroy it." 31 Note 2: Lutheranism is said to believe in "unalter- able Confessions."* 2 The basis for this charge evident- ly is in the fact that in the history of Lutheranism there has been considerable discussion of the "unaltered" Augsburg Confession as contrasted with the "Variata." We shall not here go into the details of this much-venti- lated question. 33 All we need to say is that the Lutheran Church objected to the altered edition of 1540 and its successors, because of the introduction of two very far- reaching principles, the Bucero-Calvinistic in Article X (on the Lord's Supper) and the synergistic in Art. XVIII (on Free- Will), both of which, if they had been adopted, would have changed the doctrinal character of the Lutheran Church. Melanchthon's Variata proved to be an instrument for the introduction of Calvinism into Germany (Cf. Chapter II). If it had not been for those two anti-Lutheran principles, Melanchthon's altered edi- tions would have been welcomed because of their richer Scripture ground. Our present Nicene Creed also is an entirely different document from the original Nicene Creed. 34 Luther himself changed the text of the Smal- cald Articles. 35 Because of the serious recognition of the Scriptures as normans, Creeds are in principle not "unalterable" in the Lutheran Church. Neither are they 31 Luthers Werke, by Buchwald et al., VII, p. 258. On the whole question of the quia and quatenus subscription see the article on "Orthodoxie" in R. E. XVI, p. 496, 38; also on "Homi- letik" VIII, p. 303, 20. 32 Niefer, as cited, p. 13. 33 For an extensive discussion see Zoeckler, Die Augsburgische Konfession, pp. 35-74; Kolde's preface to Mueller's Symbolische Buecher, pp. 25-32; Neve, Introduction Luth. Symbolics, pp. 91- 100; also his monography: "Are we Justified in the Distinction between an Altered and an Unaltered Augsburg Confession?" 34 See Harnack in R. E. XI, pp. 12 ff. 35 Neve, Symbolics, pp. 347 f. 161 meant to stand in the way of a further development of Christian doctrine. It is felt, however, that such devel- opment will be sane only when it takes place on the basis of the fundamental principles of the oecumenical and the Reformation Creeds. Lutheranism sees in its histor- ical Confessions an embodiment of the doctrinal experi- ence of the Church of Christ; they are not arbitrary or artificial inventions. Liberalism has always wanted to erect a fundamentally new faith upon the ruins of the historic Creeds. As compared with the Reformed Church it may be admitted that Lutheranism is conser- vative with regard to adopted Creeds. Her Confessions — she prefers the term "Symbols" — are the same in all countries; the Reformed "Confessions" are more or less national in character (in the various countries the fol- lowers of Calvin and Zwingli confess for themselves). The Reformed churches have been more subjective in their tendencies, which can also be seen in the history of their Confessions. Particularly in America they have been fruitful in altering their Confessions and in producing new creedal standards. 36 But this subjectivism and indi- vidualism is no advantage for the Church as a whole. Dr. L. F. Gruber, in an excellent article in the "Luther- an Church Review" (April 1918, p. 145), remarks: "Re- formed Protestantism over-exalts individualism, and therefore tends to rationalism and revolutionary radi- calism Her very history is the history of sectarian- ism. And it seems that in order to survive she must di- vide more and more into sects and sectlets by throwing off branches, even as a protozoan throws off joints in or- der to continue its existence in continual segementation and division." Is there one sect in the history of Pro- testantism, of which it can be said that it sprung from a special principle of Lutheranism? The Schwenkfeldians, the Moravians, the Swedenborgians originated on Lu- theran territory, but can they be called legitimate daughters of Lutheranism? The last mentioned sect is 36 See the very instructive article on "Protestantismus" by Kattenbusch, in R. E. XVI, pp. 173, 5 ff., and 165, 51. 162 certainly excluded. The Schwenkfeldians belonged to the "Sacramentarians" of the Reformed period. The Mora- vians represent a kind of a union between Lutherans and Reformed. It is interesting to observe that dis- tinguishing trait between Lutherans and Reformed. It seems that Lutheranism completely expressed its own genius in Symbols, and found no cause for changing them, and it is a fact that it produced no more symbols after the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580. Yet we must insist that in principle these symbols are neither "unalterable" nor are they — in principle — the last word of Lutheranism as to further creedal expres- sion. 3. An Under -Estimation of the Differences Between Lutherans and Reformed. In perusing the literature of the German Evangelical Synod one receives the impression that the differences between the Lutherans and the Reformed, doctrinal and practical, are not sufficiently appreciated. (A) The difference on the Lord*s Supper is spoken of as the only one, and it is in no sense considered as a hindrance to union. Schory says: "The Reformed Church as well as the Lutheran teaches that the Holy Supper is not merely a memorial, but a gift of grace. The Confessions of the Reformed prove sufficiently that in the holy Supper more is received than just bread and wine, namely, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, of course as a spiritual food and a spiritual drink, for the strengthening of the faith and for the confirming of the soul in following the Lord. If now the views of the two churches differ on the question of 'how* this spiritual gift is mediated — and this is admitted— so it is to be remarked that here we are confronted with a di- vine mystery which neither the Lutherans nor the Re- formed have explained nor can explain. Regarding this 'how' — and here we have the only difficulty — the Evan- gelical Church insists upon freedom of conscience for 163 the individual. In her confessional paragraph she says : "With respect to that how you may hold to the Lutheran and to the Reformed conception, according as, in your own judgment, the one or the other view approaches best the Holy Scriptures ; only do not make your view the shibboleth of a division, but grant the other man who holds the opposing view, the same liberty, which you claim for yourself." (Geschichte, p. 8). But these words show an under-estimation of the difference on this subject, not to speak of the fundamental difference in doctrine and life, of which this one difference is only a symptom. Let us state as briefly as possible what the Church of the Augsburg Confession teaches. Proceeding from a realistic conception of the words of Christ when he in- stituted the Supper, 37 she teaches that in, with and under the Jbread and wine, as vehicles and means, the "truly present" Body and Blood of the Saviour are re- ceived cum ore by all who eat and drink — for the for- giveness of sins and the nourishing of the spiritual life of the believer; for judgment to the unbeliever and un- worthy. The Church of the Heidelberg Catechism and the whole family of Reformed churches, chiefly on the basis of a spiritualistic interpretation of the words of institution, but also by declaring that earthly, created, finite things cannot be used for the communication of things heavenly, spiritual and infinite, reject this Lu- theran teaching from beginning to end. In describing the teaching of the Reformed Church on the Lord's Supper we cannot content ourselves with a definition. Calvin constructed his symbolical doctrine of the Eucharist upon the basis of a number of analogies be- tween the Supper (its elements and the use of it) and the spiritual features that suggest themselves. 38 We shall 37 Matthew, Mark and Luke, in their reports, have the identi- cal words "this is my body," and Paul's phraseology, while differ- ing slightly, reports essentially the same. 38 The difference between Zwingli and Calvin may be briefly stated as follows : Zwingli took bread and wine to be the symbols of Christ's Body and Blood; Calvin saw in the eating and drink- ing of bread and wine a symbol of a spiritual receiving of Christ's Body. 164 mention a few of those analogies: (1) As our bodies are nourished by bread and wine, so our souls are nour- ished by the spiritual influences received from the body of Christ. (2) As with our mouth we eat and drink bread and wine, so we receive by faith the fruits of Christ's suffering. (3) As surely as in the Supper we receive the visible elements, so surely indeed was Christ's Body given for our redemption on the cross and is again given to the believers as a seal for the forgive- ness of sins in connection with (cum) the sacramental rite. 39 The signifying features in the rite (as for in- stance also the breaking of bread) are emphasized everywhere by Calvin and by the Reformed theolo- gians, 40 and it is in the system of these analogies that the fundamental doctrine and the design of the Lord's Supper is seen. 41 It is not out of place to make use of such analogies in preaching, when the aim is to bring out the devotional and the liturgically significant features by which the participants in the holy Supper may be spiritually helped as long as the fundamental conception is in harmony with Scripture and with the doctrinal ex- perience of the Church. This has always been done by the conservative teachers of the Church, by church- fathers such as Irenaeus, 42 and also by the Lutheran dog- maticians. 43 The Lutherans also believe in the memorial and in the seal, but they cannot agree when such a sys- tem of analogies is used as the basis for a spiritualistic interpretation of the words of institution. This method of arriving at a doctrine of the Lord's Supper left Cal- vin essentially in harmony with Zwingli, whose concep- tion of the Eucharist as a memorial he merely supple- 39 What Calvin meant when he spoke of a receiving of Christ's Body we shall see a little later. 40 Calvini Institutiones IV, 17. See also Chas. Hodge, Syste- matic Theology III, pp. 611-650. 41 An old Reformed writer, Amandus Polanus, in "Partitiones Theologicae" (1600), lib. 1, p. 225, expressed the teaching of his church correctly when he stated: "Sacramenti forma interna ac essentialis est pulcherrima ilia analogia et similitudo signi et sig- nificati. 42 See W. Rohnert, Die Lehre von den Gnadenmitteln, pp. 151 ff- 43 Cf. Joh. Gerhard, Loci Theologici, XXII, V, 20. 165 merited by adding the conception of the seal or pledge of the thing signified. Here may be the place for a few words on the ques- tion what Calvin meant when he said that in the Supper the believers, that is, the elect, receive the Body and Blood of Christ. 44 He even spoke of the substance of Christ (materiam out substantiam) , 45 But all such ex- pressions are not to be taken in the sense of Art. X of the Augsburg Confession and the rest of the Lutheran Sym- bols. The spiritual food, to Calvin, is really not the Body of Christ as His glorified humanity, but merely some- thing that Christ, by giving His Body and Blood, did and suffered for us. 46 Again he says: "From the hidden fountain of divinity, life is, in a wonderful manner, in- fused into the flesh of Christ, and thence flows out to us." 47 Hodge (111,628) calls Calvin's conception "a dynamic presence." Others have called it a "virtual presence." But it is a presence fundamentally different from the real presence of Christ's glorified humanity in the Supper, which Luther taught. 48 Hodge remarks that the "almost universal answer of the Reformed Confes- sions" is that the communicant receives and appropri- ates "the sacrificial virtue or effects of the death of Christ on the Cross." 49 Calvin contended with great de- termination for two statements as being fundamental: "(1) that believers receive elsewhere by faith all they receive at the Lord's table; and (2) that we Christians receive nothing above or beyond that which was received by the saints under the Old Testament, before the glori- 44 Consensus Tigurinus, Art. XVIII, Inst. IV, 17, 9. 45 Institutiones, book IV, chapt. 14, sec. 16; cf. IV, 17, n, 24. 46 Inst. IV, 17, 1, 5, 9, and at many other places. 47 Calvin's Confessionis Capitum Expositio, in Niemeyer's col- lection of Reformed Confessions, pp. 213 f. ; cf. Inst. IX, 17, 9. 48 Cf. Calvin's Secunda Defensio against Westphal, p. 896: "I say that Christ's Body is effectively exhibited in the Supper, non naturaliter, sed secundum virtutem, non secundum substantiam." Christ's Body is regarded as confined to the Right Hand of God in heaven. This is the general conception of the Reformed Confes- sions. Cf. Consensus Tigurinus 21, 196; Confessio Scotica 21, 353; Confessio Helvetica 21, 522. 49 Systematic Theology III, 645 f. 166 fied Christ had any existence." 50 He accepted the language of the words of institution, particularly the terms "Body" and "eating", but he reinterpreted these, on the basis of his analogies, so as to stand for and to mean Christ's life and suffering which we appropriate through faith for our salvation. 51 In other words, Cal- vin saw in the Sacrament merely the promise or the Gospel certified. 52 The Sacraments were to him "a peda- gogy of signs for a weak faith." In the conception of Calvin they work merely through the psychological im- pression of a symbolical act. There is more than in the conception of Zwingli, because of the emphasis upon the sacramental action as the pledge and the seal, but both agree in the symbolical conception. The teaching of the Lutheran Church is fundamen- tally different. We have expressed it above and may ex- press it once more in slightly different phraseology: In- dependent of man's spiritual condition — strong faith, weak faith, conscious or unconscious faith, indifference or even frivolous unbelief — purely because of the divine institution, bread and wine, in the sacramental action, are the actual vehicles for the communication of Christ's glorified Body to all who eat and drink in the Supper: for the nourishment of the spiritual life of all the spiri- tually hungry, but for the condemnation of the unre- penting and unbelieving. In the view of the Lutheran Church, the mystery does not lie in the doctrinal differ- ence between Luther and Calvin, i. e., in the question whether the realistic or the spiritualistic interpretation of the words of institution renders the correct concep- tion; no, the mystery is to be sought in the unio sacra- mentalis itself, i. e., in the question how bread and wine in the Supper can be vehicles for the heavenly gift so 50 Hodge, as cited, III, 647. 51 Cf. Institutiones IV, 17, 5. 52 Institutiones IV, 17, 14; cf. English translation by J. Allen, H> P- 538: Iterum repeto quum coena nihil aliud sit quam conspi- cua testificatio, quae Jo. 6 habetur, nempe Christum esse paneni vitae, qui e coelo descendit, panem visibilem intercedere oportet, quo spiritualis ille figuretur. See also Stahl p. 86. 167 that "in, with and under" these earthly means (materia terrestris) Christ's glorified humanity (materia coeles- tis) can be communicated. Before this mystery the Lutheran Confessions simply say that God can do what He promises. They believe that in the Sacrament a special gift is received, namely, a spiritual food which, in God's will and power, is substantialized in Christ's glorified humanity and communicated as such. The Sac- raments work different from the Word. The Word works by an appeal to the faculties of mind and soul, by convincing the hearer of sin and judgment and by ac- quainting him with the grace of God in Christ. In the preparatory service, as in the liturgy expressing the sacramental action, there is much of this same work of the Word, which is to aid us to become worthy communi- cants so that we may receive the blessing. But the spe- cific work of the Sacrament as such is different from that of the Word. It communicates the special gift in an im- mediate way, not through the actions of our soul, but rather in the way the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the disciples when they were in a state of waiting, after the preparation of the heart had taken place through the preaching of the Word. The work of the Word is in- separable from the Sacrament, but not identical with it, the same as that outpouring of the Spirit was not identi- cal with the preaching of Peter that had preceeded. The gift of Christ's glorified humanity in the Sacrament is to the worthy communicant a seal upon the forgiveness of sins. It nourishes the divine life, it works a longing after God, a stronger faith, the gift of perseverance, an illumination of his understanding. The new man is strengthened and more and more fashioned after the divine image. This is not the ex opere operato teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome says that the Sacrament brings the blessing merely by the administra- tion (provided a mortal sin does not stand in the way) ; the Lutheran Church teaches that the condition for re- ceiving the blessing is repentance and faith worked through the Word. As long as this is regarded as the 168 condition , and the Word as a means for working re- pentance and faith is held to be inseparable from the Sacrament, the charge of a magical working is without foundation. The teachings of the Lutheran and of the Reformed Church on the Lord's Supper are exclusive of each other. It is true, Luther never wrote against Calvin. But that was because during the lifetime of Luther Calvin's posi- tion on the Supper was not clearly known. 53 But Luther, after all, practically fought Calvinism when he took his uncompromising attitude against the mediating teaching of Bucer, to which Melanchthon had begun to incline. 5 * When this mediating interpretation of the Real Presence was openly expressed in the articles of faith drawn by Bucer and Melanchthon for the introduction of the Re- formation into the city of Cologne, Luther realizing that the end of his life was drawing near, felt it to be his duty to let the world know that he had never departed from the position of a Real Presence, and, therefore, published (1544) his last Confession of the Supper. 55 Calvin also knew that his difference from Luther was exclusive and fundamental for the life of the Church. He knew that he was essentially in harmony with Zwingli and Oeco- lampadius. 50 The attitude of Calvin toward the Luther- an conception of the Supper can be seen in the fact that though usually moderate in controversy, he indulged in the most severe expressions when he came to discuss the Lutheran teaching of a Real Presence. This doctrine was to him utterly absurd, a papistic invention, and one 53 Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 577; Hering Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionsversuche I, 196; Our discussions, p. 22, Lutheran Quarterly, Oct., 1918, p. 557. 54 Cf. De Wette, Briefe Luthers IV, 557 f., Koestlin-Kawerau, as cited, II, 329, 335. See the text of the Wittenberg Concord on the Lord's Supper in Corpus Reformatorum III, pp. 375 ff. ; English in Jacobs' Book of Concord, II, 235. 55 Kurtz Bekenntnis D. Martin Luther's vom Heiligen Sakra- ment. Erl. Ed. of Luther's Works XXXII, pp. 379 ff. Cf. Our dis- cussions pp. 13 ff. Luth. Quarterly, Jan'y 1918, p. in. 56 See the Consensus Tigurinus and his letter to the Swiss churches prefixed to his Consensionis Capitum Expositio, in Nie- meyer's Collectio Confessionum, Leipzig 1840, 3 201. 169 of the grossest among all errors, explainable to his mind only by the influence of Satan. 57 (B) Baptism. We cannot agree with so many writ- ers of the German Evangelical Synod when they treat the difference on the Lord's Supper as unessential. Neither are they correct when they treat it as practi- cally the only hindrance in the way of union. The diff- erence on the Lord's Supper is merely the symptom of a general fundamental difference. 58 There is the same fundamental difference with regard to Baptism and the means of grace in general. Baptism is to the Reformed Confessions a ceremony for the initiation into the Church, 59 a testimony of the believer's confession before men, 60 a symbol of cleansing from sin and as such, that is as a symbol, an assurance of forgiveness of sins for the elect. 61 Graul, paraphrasing the Heidelberg Cate- chism on this subject, writes: "Baptism is merely a figure, that like as the filthiness of the body is washed away with water, so also our sins are washed away by the blood and Spirit of Christ (which are really the ac- tive causes), but it is also a seal of the thing signified, that, as certainly as the one is done, the other takes place; it (Baptism) does not, therefore, effect regenera- tion, but is a mere figure and seal of it." 62 Here again the doctrine rests upon the analogies between the con- stituent parts of the rite and its spiritual suggestions. It is spiritualistic in character, and as an ordinance and in its spiritual significance, the Sacrament of Baptism is on a level with circumcision in the Old Testament. John's Baptism is regarded as being essentially the 57 Calvin's Institutiones IV, 17, 19: "Horribile fascino satan de- mentavit eorum mentes. Cf. English edition by J. Allen, p. 543; cf. 542, 551. See also Wangemann, Una Sancta I, book 5, pp. 167 ff. 58 Compare what we wrote p. 30, Luth. Quarterly, Oct., 1918, P- 564. 59 Second Helvetic Confession 20, 517. Cf. Calvini Institutiones IV, is, 1. 60 Institutiones IV, 14, 13. 61 Institutiones IV, 15, 1-6. Catechismus Palatinus. 62 See English translation by Martens, after Seeberg's prepa- ration of Graul's book for the twelfth edition; cf. Calvini Insti- tutiones IV, 15, 14. 170 same as the Baptism instituted by Christ. 63 Baptism, then, works merely by the 'pedagogy of the rite. The forgiveness of sins is in no wise received through the sacramental act, that is, through the water in connection with the Word, as the Lutheran Church teaches ; for the application of water is only a symbol through which a certain assurance of forgiveness is illustrated and re- ceived, provided the recipient has turned in repentance and faith to God or is doing so, under the act of Bap- tism, or will do it later, and so receives the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. To Calvin, the efficient factor is not Baptism, but the Word which works, not through Bap- tism, but, at best, in connection with it. Baptism is, therefore, not "necessary for salvation" as the Augsburg Confession (Art IX) holds. It is not a real means of grace, and offers no real assurance of grace. Here again, as in the Lord's Supper, the difference is fundamental and exclusive. Martensen says: "Calvin's doctrine (of the means of grace) rests upon a dualism distinguishing between the kingdom of grace and that of nature, between heaven and earth, Spirit and body. 64 The finite is regarded as incapable of the infinite. The divine is not allowed to combine vitally with the human. It is insisted that sal- vation comes from God direct, not by any mediation of divinely appointed acts of the Church. The Sacraments are, therefore, empty signs, empty ceremonies which re- ceive a content only in so far as the faith of the predes- tinated or eternal election is positing into them for him as an individual. In fundamental opposition to this view the Lutheran Church is established upon the rela- tion of a res in re (one element in the other as opposed to a side by side relation) between the heavenly and the earthly, in order to communicate to man the grace of God. Lutheranism does not want to overlook the fact that man as an object of God's saving grace is a being of spirit and of body. The influences of his spiritual life are conducted through the channels of his senses. For 63 Institutiones IV, 14, 23; 15, 9. 64 Christian Dogmatics, Sec. 263. 171 this reason God has chosen the audible Word, particular- ly the preaching of the Gospel (Augsb'g. Conf. V) as a means of communicating the Spirit and His saving in- fluences, and also the Sacraments in which the gift of His grace is communicated to man through the elements of His creation. 65 (C) The Word has been mentioned as a means of grace, and many writers of our symbolical literature in- sist that even here the difference between Lutherans and Reformed may be observed. Graul-Seeberg 06 says : "The difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Con- fessions begins already in the doctrine concerning the Word. The Reformed Confession makes it a guide to eternal life ; but the Lutheran Confession, in accordance with Scripture, makes it a real means of grace, which not only shows where to find the treasure, but also im- parts it, for it is a power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), a seed of regeneration (1 Peter 1:23), full of Spirit and life (John 6:63). The Spirit does not hover over the Word, but comes to us in and with the Word." To the Lutheran Church, the Word of God as an embodiment of the eternal Word is a living vital truth carrying the di- vine power within itself, because it is always in a union with the Spirit. In the conception of the Reformed, who view the Word of God largely as a book of laws, contain- ing certain truths and observances that are imposed upon man by God, the Holy Spirit is separated from it, The Holy Spirit may or may not accompany the Word. 67 That peculiar distinction between the external and the inner Word appeared as an objection to the Lutheran conception of the means of grace right from the be- 65 We refer to the instructive sketch of M. Reu, Die Gnaden- mittellehre (Chicago, 111., Wartburg Publishing House, 1917), par- ticularly pp. 64-67; cf. p. 5. 66 Distinctive Doctrines, p. 152. 67 For a scientific review of the matter see J. A. W. Haas in an article in the Lutheran Church Review, Jan'y, 1919, p. 5 f. ; also H. Schmidt, Handbuch der Symbolik, pp. 367 ff. 172 ginning in the writings of Zwingli and Oecolampad. 68 It may be objected that this difference on the Word does not appear so much in present-day discussions, and no doubt many preachers and writers of the Reformed churches are not conscious of such difference. Yet the real character of a church appears in the periods of its doctrinal conflicts; in times of confessional indifference the true nature of the Church is always beclouded. 69 Calvin's doctrine of predestination is inseparably linked up with this distinction between the external and the inner Word. God "inclines the hearts of those whom he has predestinated to everlasting life to faith, through His Word and Spirit; whilst He calls all others only ex- teiinally through the Word, but does not accompany it with His Spirit to make it effective in their hearts." 70 The Lutheran Church cannot agree to such a distinction between the external and the inner Word. It destroys the universality of grace and makes salvation through Christ uncertain. If that distinction is to be accepted, then the efficient promise of the Gospel is not the foun- dation of hope for the individual Christian, but that foundation is a secret election (Calvinism), or it is the subjective experience of a revival (Armianism). It needs to be seen that the differences which we have reviewed all point to a fundamental difference which permeates the whole conception of the means of grace. Luther stated the fact when he said to Zwingli : "Ye have another spirit than we." The investigations of Prof. 68 Zwinglii Commentarius de Vera et Falsa Religione, Opera ed. Schuler et Schulthess VII, pp. 131 seq. 138. Cf. Luther's Works (Walch), Schwaebisches Syngramma, XX, p. 691, Oecolampad's answer ibidem XX, pp. 769, 770. Cf. Luther's Grosses Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl XX, 1304. While Calvin expresses himself with some caution upon this subject, he is in harmony with the earlier leaders of the Reformed Church. Cf. Institutiones IV, 16, 19. Hel- vetica Posterior, p. 468. 69 See the fine observations on this matter by Rudelbach, Re- formation, Luthertum und Union, pp. 185 f. 70 Distinctive Doctrines, p. 151, with references to the Canons of Dort, chapt. I, Art. VII. Westminster Confession, chapt. X. The Consensus Genevensis on the "Eternal Election of God." Rep- resentative Reformed writers accept this doctrine (cf. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology III, x p. 483). 173 von Schubert 71 have shown us that it is a mistake to take these words of Luther as an expression of unkind- ness to his opponent. His refusal of the hand of fellow- ship and to commune where they had failed to arrive at a confessional agreement was to him a matter of con- science. We know, from letters to his wife and to others, that Luther was in a peaceful attitude of mind when he said those much-quoted words. At the close of that colloquy he was very hopeful of a union. And yet, in his refusal, he spoke as a prophet. He felt that a fundamen- tally different "spirit" stood in the way. History has proved that he was right. The negotiations with Bucer, the confessional development of Calvin, the Union move- ments of the seventeenth century, the history of Protes- tantism up to this day have all shown that there is a difference of spirit that cannot be overcome. Each side has developed its own theology, its own confessional and practical traditions, and an altogether different church life. One cannot see how two churches constructed upon principles so opposed to each other can enter into an organic union. 4. Public Teaching of the German Evangelical Synod. A church body establishing itself upon the Union principle is confronted with a peculiar task when it comes to the creation of an official church literature. The conflicts in the Prussian Church Union were for many years about the Agenda, i. e., the liturgical forms for church worship and for ministerial acts. This Agenda aimed to adapt itself to Lutherans and Reform- ed alike. 72 While the form of distribution in the Lord's Supper did not contradict the Lutheran conception neither did it give expression to it. 73 In 1895 the matter was finally settled by publishing a new Agenda with parallel forms for the administration of the Sacraments. There was a Lutheran form for the Lutherans, a Re- formed form for the Reformed congregations and also 71 Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte, Gotha, 1908, p. 354. 72 Chapter V, p. 119. Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 534. 73 Cf. p. 127. Lutheran Quarterly, as cited, p. 542. 174 a Union form for the congregations that had actually joined the Union. 74 With regard to the catechism, the matter is simple in a purely conf ederative union. In the Prussian Church Union, which in the central provinces and in the East is overwhelmingly Lutheran, the cate- chism of Luther is used, and the Reformed use the Heidelberg. In the Rhine Provinces, where the Reformed Church is strong, either the Heidelberg or a Union cate- chism is in use, and Union catechisms are found in An- halt, Hesse, Nassau, Waldeck, Hanau, Baden and in the Palatinate on the Rhine. 75 The difficulty comes in the case of an absorptive Union where Lutherans and Re- formed are to be united into one confessional Union. Here the question arises whether the teaching is to rest upon the consensus of the Lutheran and the Reformd Confessions. Much has been written on the consensus and the dis- sensus. 76 A consensus of the Lutheran and the Reform- ed Confessions on the doctrine of the means of grace is non-existing, and the dissensus in this very important sphere of Christian teaching extends to many other doc- trines (the person of Christ, election, Church, Church government, Church service, absolution, etc.) There is less writing on these matters to-day as compared with the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries and the first half of the nineteenth century, simply because the prob- lem has been thoroughly and exhaustively ventilated and the lesson has been learned that a doctrinal union be- tween Lutheranism and Calvinism cannot be looked for. The Union movements of the seventeenth and the nine- teenth centuries have impressed their historical lessons indelibly upon the historically intelligent theologians of the leading churches. In the middle of the nineteenth century the problem of a doctrinal union was still on trial, and the great theologians of the mediating school 74 See p. 137, Luth. Quarterly, p. 552. 75 See p. 138 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 553. 76 See the very instructive chapter on this subject by Stahl, Lutherische Kirche und Union, pp. 50-80. 175 in Germany — the so-called consensus theologians — were hopeful of its realization. Prof. J. Mueller at Halle and Prof. I. C. Nitzsch at Bonn and later at Berlin labored for a crystallization of the consensus and for an incor- poration of the same into a public confession upon which the Union might establish itself. In that draft for an ordination formula, which was presented by Nitzsch to the General Synod in Berlin (1846), we have the tangi- ble result of that movement. 77 But this "Nicenum of the nineteenth century", or "Nitzschenum," as it was called, 78 failed of adoption. It is exceedingly interesting to observe that all this took place at a time when creed- making on the basis of the "fundamentals" as contrasted with the "non-fundamentals" was in the air. It was in 1845, in a convention at Liverpool, in England, where the nine points constituting the doctrinal basis for the Evangelical Alliance had been drafted. General Super- intendent W. Hoffman (Berlin) and Tholuck (Halle) were present. And it was in those years when in the old General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America the men of "American Lutheranism," under the special lead of Dr. S. S. Schmucker (together with Drs. Kurtz and Sprecher), were at work to create a symbol for a "Lu- theranism modified by the Puritan element," which, finally, 1853, appeared in the "Definite Synodical Plat- form." 79 But this undertaking also failed. The failing of the consensus at that convention in Berlin (1846) marks the change in the Prussian Church Union from an absorptive to a confederative Union. 80 And it was the failure of the Definite Platform theology in the old General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, which established the English Lutheran synods in America upon the historic Lutheranism of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. 77 See p. 131 and the foot notes. 78 Kurtz, Church History (English, 1888), Sec. 193, 3. 79 Cf. Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America (second ed-, pp. 122-28; also A. Spaeth in R. E. XVII, 665; XIV, 165. 80 Cf. p. 132, Luth. Quarterly, Oct., 1919, p. 547. 176 After this discussion, in which it has been our inten- tion to bring together for easy review some lessons of history, we shall examine the official teaching of the Ger- man Evangelical Synod. Our task is to be undertaken on the basis of the fol- lowing literature: The Evangelical Catechism, revised edition of 1896 (the same in German on parallel pages). Next comes the interpretation of this catechism by D. Irion: "Der Evangelische Katechismus, aus der Schrift und Biblischen Geschichte erklaert" (a book of 453 pages). Herausgegeben von der Evangelischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1897). The author of this inter- pretation of the catechism has his heart in the Lutheran dogma, and aims to express it to the limit of consistency with the official position of his synod. This can be seen especially in the discussion of the Sacraments in gen- eral and of Baptism in particular. On the Lord's Sup- per the position is not quite so clear (cf. p. 356), and in the appreciation of the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed conception there is the Union feature (p. 364). This catechism, however, while published by the synod, 81 seems not to be regarded as the official or the recognized teaching of the synod, for in the preface by the Literary Committee we see that the individual diff- erence of this exposition of the catechism from its pre- decessor (written by Andreas Irion, father of the pre- sent author) is justified on the basis that "such differ- ence within the agreement on the fundamentals is legiti- mate in the Evangelical Church." This has reference not only to the form, but also to the doctrinal conception. The aim of the synod is always to avoid a confessional expression on the matters of disagreement between Lu- therans and Reformed, and to appeal to Scripture with- out commitment to a definite interpretation. See our discussion in this chapter, sub III, 2: "Scripture versus Confession." Another important source for learning 8i On the title page we read: "Herausgegeben von der Evange- lischen Synode von N. A." 177 the public teaching of this body is the "Evangelical Fundamentals (part two), Evangelical Belief and Doc- trine, or the Evangelical Catechism Explained for use in Catechetical Instruction, the Sunday School and the Home" (1916). This little book of 153 pages, prefaces itself as "a somewhat abridged translation" (by J. H. H.) of pr. D. Irion's "Erklaerung des Evangelischen Katechismus." In some characteristic omissions and ad- ditions the tendency of this book appears to be to tone down the more Lutheran position of Dr. Irion (cf. pp. 141-143). There is, however, nothing to indicate the official character of this compend on "Evangelical Belief and Doctrine" beyond the fact of its being in the main an abridged translation of Dr. Irion's work. 82 Another source for ascertaining the synod's doctrinal position is the "Evangelical Book of Worship, published by the Ger- man "Evangelical Synod of North America (1916)." This work of 299 pages comprises the liturgical formulas and the forms for ministerial acts. Here we are in a special sense upon official ground, because the book was authorized by the "General Conference of the German Evangelical Synod of N. A. at Louisville, Ky., Sept. 1913." Let us now see how, in this literature, the synod has dealt with the matters of doctrinal conflict between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church. (A) The arrangement of the Catechism. Like Luther's Catechism, and different from the Heidelberg, the cate- chism of the German Evangelical Synod begins with the Ten Commandments, but in following the Old Testament text, after the manner of the Heidelberg Catechism, a second commandment is inserted which forbids the wor- shipping of God in any image. Thus it is the third com- mandment that deals with the name of God, the fourth with the Sabbath, and so on up to the Lutheran eighth commandment which now becomes the ninth. Then the Lutheran ninth and tenth commandments are taken 82 On the history of the official catechism in the German Evan- gelical Synod see Braendele in R. E. XIV, 179, 33; 180, 3 ff.; 180, 3 ff.; Muecke, p. 117; Schory, p. 105 ff. 178 together into one as the tenth commandment. Luther's interpretation of each commandment is displaced by other words. Part II of the catechism on "The Christian Faith" interprets on the basis of the Apostles' Creed, and makes use of Luther's words as a summing up of the interpretation. Part III on "Prayer" uses the peti- tions of Luther's Catechism. Parts IV and V, on Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper, do not employ the words of Luther. (B) Doctrinal Features. (a) On the Christian Sunday. Interpreting the fourth commandment, the "Fundamentals" (p. 11) offer the following: "The Christian Sunday, however, is a different institution governed by a different spirit. There is no command in the New Testament to keep the first day in the week or any other day of the week Christians are to observe the day not because the law of God or man requires them to do so, but because they feel the need of withdrawing from worldly employments to worship God and nurture their spiritual life. Therefore real Christians will not need special Sunday laws or or- dinances, nor will they need to care whether the last or the first day of the week is observed." Generally speak- ing, this agrees with Lutheran teaching. (b) On Christ's descent to hell we read in the brief catechism of the synod, p. 34: "Christ descended into hell to triumph over the dominion of darkness and there to reveal Himself as the Redeemer of mankind." Irion (p. 195) and his translator in the "Fundamentals" (p. 67), accepting this definition, step into the discussion by saying: "The descending into hell, i. e., into the place of the dead, marks the beginning of Christ's exaltation", etc. This differs from the Reformed teaching in the Heidelberg Catechism, question 44. (c) On the person of Christ. In question 83 of the synod's brief catechism not only but also by Irion (pp. 204f.) and by the "Fundamentals", (p. 71) the doctrine 179 of the communicatio idiomatum on the basis of the per- sonal union of the two natures in Christ is evaded. Also in the outline on Dogmatics ("Evangelische Glaubens- lehre") by Prof. W. Becker, D.D., of the Eden Theolo- gical Seminary, no teaching on this subject is offered (cf. p, 56) ; only a historical review of the history of dogma is given (p. 61 ff.), and the matter is dismissed with the remark: "The whole orthodox construction of the doctrine of the person of Christ dissolved itself in the time of rationalism" (p. 63). Here we remark: While it is true that the details of Lutheran Christology on the relation of the two natures in Christ are of a later date (Art. VIII in the Formula of Concord), yet it should not be overlooked that Art. Ill of the Augsb'g Confession takes special pains to reject Nestorianism, 83 and thus to draw the consequences from the perichoresis or the mutual permeation of the natures in Christ as confessed in the Chalcedonian Creed. The religious in- terest of Luther in the unio personalis and the communi- catio idiomatum was not merely the defence of the Real Presence, but the full value of the atonement through Christ. 84 In the conflict between the Lutherans and Re- formed on this subject there was a religious interest which cannot now be ignored. Also Prof. Becker feels that something essential is involved when he remarks with regard to the ancient dogma of the mutual permea- tion of the natures nr Christ: "Eine Weiterbildung dieser Theorie, die von wesentlicher Bedeutung gewesen waere, erfolgte im Mittelalter nicht." 85 But that development was offered by the Reformation age. While the deliver- ances of the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions may bear the marks of theological thought as contrasted with religion, yet we cannot evade the fact that in con- 83 Note the words : "There are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably conjoined in one person, one Christ, true God and true man He also (namely, this one Christ) descended into hell rose ascended that He might sit and forever reign, and have dominion and sanctify," etc. 84 See Plitt, Einleitung in die Augustana II, 79-102, p. 95. Cf. Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 130-34. 85 Glaubenslehre, p. 62. 180 fessional expression there cannot always be a clear-cut separation between theology and religion: the one is needed to express the other. (d) The treatment of Baptism in the catechism as interpreted by Irion and also by the "Fundamentals" is Lutheran. A Sacrament is denned as "a holy ordinance instituted by Christ Himself, in which by visible signs and means He imparts and maintains the new life." 86 In the "Fundamentals" we read on the Sacraments in general: "But these visible signs are more than signs, they are also means. In the Sacraments we have not only outward signs showing what Christ intends to do inwardly, not only a seal or pledge that he is actually present in a spiritual way ; these outward things are also the means through which He imparts the spiritual gifts of His grace, they are the vehicles of His spiritual bless- ings" (p. 119. Irion, p. 324). Again: "As long as we dwell in the body, the body is the natural and only chan- nel through which the spiritual life is reached, just as we can only receive the Word of God by means of the bodily senses and their organs. Through the Sacra- ments God seeks to act upon the body for the sake of in- fluencing the spiritual life." 87 On Baptism then is said: "Holy Baptism is the Sacrament by which the triune God imparts the new life to man", etc. Offense should not be taken at the word "imparts;" it is even stronger than the term used in Art. IX of the Augsburg Confes- sion: "Through Baptism is offered the grace of God." The Latin is offeratur. As a translation of this term the German edition of the Evangelical Catechism seems to have chosen the word dargereicht. (Die Taufe ist das- jenige Sacrament, durch welches dem Menschen das neue Leben dargereicht wird.) It is to be remembered, 86 Small Catechism, p. 58. Irion, p. 324 ff. Fundamentals p. 118 ff. 87 Fundamentals p. 119. Irion p. 352. These few words express a fundamentally Lutheran principle, and if adhered to consistently, not only with regard to Baptism, but also in conception of the Lord's Supper, would themselves bring the German Evangelical Synod and the Lutheran Church together in a true union. 181 however, that Art IX of the Augsburg Confession does not aim at formulating a complete doctrine of Baptism. In Art. II of the Confession salvation is made depend- ent upon being "bom again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost." Art. IX takes care of the specifically Lu- theran conception by the phrase "received into His grace" (recipiantur in gratiam Dei) : Baptism is an ob- jective act of God where man is passive. Melanchthon says in the Apology: "Baptism is a work, not that we offer to God, but in which Gad baptizes us."( 18). And so Luther, referring to Titus 3 :5, calls it a "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." But all this is brought out in unambiguous teaching in the "Erklaerung" of Dr. Irion and also in the "Fundamen- tals." We read: "Holy Baptism is more than a mere symbol of the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit. The Baptism of John was such a symbol, but the Sacrament of Holy Baptism was needed to impart the Holy Spirit and with it the new life, Acts 19:1-7." Again "Holy Baptism imparts what we could not otherwise obtain, the new life." 88 On question 127 there is an evident de- viation of the "Fundamentals" from the decidedly Lu- theran teaching of Dr. Irion. He had formulated the subject for discussion as follows: "The divine gift of grace is comprehended in and connected with the water," etc. His intention is to discuss the sacramental union between the materia terrestris and the materia coelestis. He calls the visible element (connected with the Word) not only a "sign", but also a "means" and "vehicle" (Mittel und Traeger) for communicating the 88 Fundamentals, p. 122. Irion, pp. 329, 333. This is different from the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism in questions 69, 72, 73. See our quotation from Graul, sub III, 3- In our judgment, the thought in Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung" (pp. 330, 338) and in the "Fundamentals" (pp. 122, 123, 127, 129) that is Baptism only the "seed-germ" of regeneration is planted has been stressed a little too much. It is not correct to say that under all circumstances "baptized persons must be converted before they can become really regenerated." We know, of course, that in the relation of regeneration to conversion and on regeneration to Baptism there are various modes of expression. Cf. the article "Wiedergeburt" in Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, pp. 2140 ff. 182 spiritual gift, i. e., the new life and the forgiveness of sins. He quotes Augustine's definition: "The Word is added to the element and so the Sacrament comes into ex- istence" and also adds the words in Luther's Catechism: "It is not the water, indeed, that produces these effects, but the Word of God, which accompanies and is connect- ed with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water," etc. The "Fun- damentals", aiming to conform to the material of the synod's brief catechism under the question "what is the visible sign in Baptism?" omits (p. 125) the references to Augustine and Luther. The water is called "only a visible sign for the gift of God," a "symbol of the be- ginning of the new life," and the terms "means" and "vehicle" (Traeger), which are employed by Irion have here been altogether eliminated. Yet on pp. 118 and 119, in dealing with the Sacraments in general, we see that the "Fundamentals" also speak of "means through which He (Christ) imparts the spiritual gifts of grace," these means being called "the vehicles of His spiritual blessings," and of Baptism in particular it is said that "God gives in and with the water the gift of spiritual life." Is it merely to avoid repetition and because of the narrower scope of the question (127) that these devia- tions were decided on? It is the appreciation of Infant Baptism in the mean- ing of the Lutheran Church, together with the practice of confirmation preceeded by a thorough religious in- struction, which lifts the German Evangelical Synod out of the class of the denominations of our country and places it in an undeniable relation to the Lutheran Church — in spite of the fact that in a number of prin- ciples touching the Union (cf. Ill, 1-2; 5), also in the appreciation of the Sacrament of the Altar, as we shall see, this body has established itself upon positions which Lutheranism can never recognize with- out denying itself. (e) The forms for preparatory service and absolu- 183 Hon* 9 are also Lutheran. Here also the Lutheran ten- dency of the body can be noticed. (f ) The treatment of the Lord's Supper in the Evan- gelical Catechism is not satisfactory from a Lutheran view-point. As on the subject of Baptism so also in part five on the holy Supper the words of Luther are not used in the catechism proper; the interpretation is in other language. To the first question in the edition for the catechumens (English) : "What is the Lord's Supper?" the answer is given: "The Lord's Supper is that Sacrament by which we receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as the nourishment of our new life," etc., the German catechism says: "durch welches der neue Mensch den Leib und das Blut. . .emp- faengt." In Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung," published 1897 (pp. 354 f.), the same expression (der neue Mensch) is used and interpreted. Also in the "Fundamentals" we read (p. 136) : "The Lord's Supper is that Sacrament by which the new man receives the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as the nourishment of his new life." But in the latest edition of the catechism for catechu- mens this phrase "the new man" has been omitted. This would indicate that the teaching of Calvinism that the believer only receives the heavenly gift is not to be given as the recognized doctrine of the synod. Dr. Irion is generally on the Lutheran side. He writes: "How is it with the unworthy? What does he receive and what does he not receive? It is evident that man through his faith or unbelief cannot alter the Sacrament. Not man makes the Sacrament, but the almighty power of God. When, therefore, the signs and the means are there and the Word of God is added, then they are consecrated and they are offered as the Body and Blood of Christ to those who eat whether these are worthy or unworthy. Both, then, receive the same. The difference is in the effect, which is either blessing or judgment according to the difference between faith and unbelief." This is certain- ly Lutheran language ! The "Fundamentals" are less 89 Cf. Evangelical Book of Worship, p. 158 ff. 184 outspoken, yet on this question virtually the same is ex- pressed (p. 138). There is, however, a consideration that cannot be passed by in this discussion. When the catechism says that "we receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, ,, we have to ask: What is here meant by these terms? We learned (sub. Ill, 3) that Calvin and several of the Calvinistic Confessions also speak of Christ's Body being received in connection with the Sup- per, but meaning by that merely something spiritual, namely, the "sacrificial virtue or effects of the death of Christ on the cross." 90 What is the meaning when the men of the German Evangelical Synod speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Supper? Dr. Irion, whose heart is in the Lutheran teaching, as we have seen again and again, reviews the teachings of Luther, Zwingli and Cal- vin (pp. 363 f.) and then says of Luther's Real Pres- ence: "This is also accepted by the Evangelical Church." (Dazu bekennt sich auch die Evangelische Kirche). But for a Lutheran accepting the position of the Union it is impossible to avoid inconsistencies. After Dr. Irion has admitted that to Zwingli the Lord's Supper is a "mere memorial" and that according to Calvin "bread and wine are after all only empty signs and that the holy Supper gives us nothing that could not be re- ceived outside of the same, namely, through real prayer and meditation of the Word of God," he says: "The Evangelical Church also recognizes (laesst zu Recht bestehen) the Reformed doctrine, although she accepts Luther's teaching as the profoundest" (p. 364). The above quoted sentence of Dr. Irion ("This is also accept- ed by the Evangelical Church") is omitted by the "Fun- damentals" (see p. 141), which then make the following statement: "The Evangelical Church does not undertake to decide for or against any one of these (Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinian) teachings, since both Christ and 90 Cf. Hodge, Systematic Theology III, 645 f. We quote once more these words of Calvin : "From the hidden fountain of di- vinity, life is in a wonderful manner infused into the flesh of Christ and thence flows out to us" 185 the Apostles, while stating the fact, are silent as to the manner in which the believers receive the Body and Blood of Christ" (p. 142). Before proceeding in our review, we feel constrained to remark that the Lutheran Church can never admit that the Scriptures say nothing on the manner in which Body and Blood of Christ are received in the holy Supper. Ac- cording to the words of institution, reported four times in the New Testament with almost identical terms, it is by eating and by drinking. The mystery in the Lord's Supper is in the sacramental union between the earthly and the heavenly elements; not in the question whether the communication of Christ's glorified humanity takes place in, with and under bread and wine through eating and drinking, or, as taught by Calvin, that the life from the Body of Christ (ex carne et sanguine Christi) is poured out upon the believer in connection with (cum) an eating and drinking of merely bread and wine. 91 But the question which has not yet been answered is : What does the catechism of the German Evangelical Synod (and the Book of Worship) understand by the terms "Body and Blood of Christ"? Luther's catechism says: "It is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." Art. X of the Augsburg Confession says that "Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those that eat." Dr. Irion keeps his "Erklaerung" throughout in conformity with this teaching of the Lutheran Confes- sions (cf. pp. 356 f., 362 f., 368). Is his view the teaching of the synod? While the book is published by the synod, yet we saw that in the introduction by the lit- erary committee certain teachings are regarded as indi- vidual positions of the author and characterized as ex- pression of theological liberty. On page 356, writing on the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper, Irion says : "Therefore Christ has made provision that we can feed upon His Body and Blood in the Supper, this means that we shall receive Jesus in His essence (wesenhaft) into ourselves, and by so doing His redemption, His sin-con- 91 On this matter Dr. Irion speaks very correctly on pp. 362 and 363. 186 quering power If we now feed upon (geniessen) the Body and Blood of Jesus we receive Himself and by that our own redemption." After having observed the persistency with which Dr. Irion expresses the Real Pres- ence on the basis of the sacramental union, we cannot be- lieve that with these words he intended an approach to Calvinism. Calvin rejected the Real Presence; yet, as we have seen, he speaks of a receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper. But by that he meant that by faith the elect receive something spiritual from the Body of Christ, which in reality is absent. "From the hidden fountain of divinity, life is, in a wonderful manner, infused into the flesh of Christ, and thence flows out to us." 92 This "dynamic" or "virtual" presence, as Hodge and others have called it, seems to be favored by the author of the "Fundamentals." In his abridged translation of the above quoted passage by Dr. Irion it has been put as follows : "His Body and Blood which He has given for us for the remission of sins stand for the sin-conquering power (italics by the author) of His atonement and redemption. By receiving it we receive Himself and His work of redemption and strengthen the inner man and the new life" (p. 137). Are these words intended to express the conception of Calvin, or are they to represent a middle ground between Calvin and Luther ? We reiterate a previous statement: 93 "There is no mid- dle doctrine between Luther and Calvin." Yet on page 140 of the "Fundamentals" we read that "the bread and wine are vehicles of the Body and the Blood of Christ," and on page 119 : "In the Lord's Supper He gives in and with the bread and wine His Body and His Blood as the nourishment of the new life." Can this be maintained with consistency now when Christ's Body and Blood are not really present, but merely "stand for the sin-conquer- ing power of His atonement and redemption?" If it is this that we mean by Christ's Body and Blood, then there is no need for outward signs as vehicles, but the receiv- ing takes place through the faith which responds to the 92 See the references above, sub III, 3. 93 Cf. p. 41 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1918, p. 576. 187 influences of the Holy Spirit. Such a conception would also be out of harmony with what was written on page 119 on the Sacraments in general: "These outward things are also the means through which He imparts the spiritual gifts of His grace ; they are the vehicles of His spiritual blessings." Lutheranism and Calvinism each represent a historically developed system, and it is im- possible to create a consistent tertium quid by patching the two together in an artificial way. But is this spirii?- ualistic conception of the Body and Blood of Christ in the "Fundamentals" the really accepted teaching of the Ger- man Evangelical Synod? This would be misunderstand- ing the general position of this body. It simply gives freedom to teach Lutheran or Reformed on this subject. "Such difference within the agreement on the funda- mentals is legitimate in the Evangelical Church." 94 A confessional expression is avoided. The official position of the synod with regard to teach- ing on the Lord's Supper is expressed in the "Evangel- ical Book of Worship" (1916). Let us review for a mo- ment the liturgical formulas there presented. Their aim is to satisfy both types of teaching. The first liturgical formula (p. 162 f.) is offered to those of Lutheran con- viction. In doctrinal thought it is Lutheran, but it bears the marks of the Union in two points: (1) Before recit- ing the words of institution the minister is to say: "Let us hear with reverent hearts the words of Christ, insti- tuting this holy Supper." This introductory remark be- fore the act of consecration reminds us of the formula with which the Prussian Church Union came into exist- ence. 98 The suggestion to the communicant is: Such were the words of Christ; now interpret them as they may appeal to you. (2) For the distribution of the wine two forms are offered. The first is: "Take and drink, this is the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins ; thk do 94 Cf. the preface to Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung" by the Literary Committee of the synod. 95 Compare here what we wrote on page 120 (separate print) in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 535 f. See foot-note 19. 188 in remembrance of Him." And then this alternate is of- fered : "Take and drink ye all of it ; this is the Cup of the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ, which was shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins." (So also the second form) . This is entirely Scriptural and in har- mony with the words used in giving the bread. The Lu- theran Church also uses them in connection with the con- secration of the elements, but not as a form of distribu- tion, because here she wants to profess the Real Pres- ence. Besides the element of accommodation to the Re- formed there is in this outward conformity to the Scrip- ture words the suggestion of treating the doctrinal differ- ence as an open question. The second liturgical formula is obviously designed to be used by those of more Re- formed persuasion. Here the "Exhortation" (p. 166) reads as follows : "Dearly Beloved : Our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, instituted the Sacrament of the holy com- munion that it might be the abiding memorial of His atoning death; the seal of His perpetual presence in the Church through the Holy Spirit; the mystical represen- tation of the sacrifice of Himself on the cross ; the pledge of His undying love to His people; and the bond of His loving union and fellowship with them to the end of time." And then we read : "We have to do here, not with outward signs merely, but with heavenly realities which these signs represent." What are these "heavenly re- alities"? Here is room for all those shades of interpre- tation that associate themselves with Calvin's concep- tion of that "spiritual substance" from the life of Christ, which at the Supper is flowing out to the believing com- municant. After this excursion into the "Evangelical Book of Worship," we return again to the catechism as inter- preted by the "Fundamentals," believing that our review of the liturgical formulas has confirmed what this little book, in the now following quotations, offers as a charac- terization of the confessional position of the German Evangelical Synod. On page 142 we read: "The Evan- gelical Church does not undertake to decide for or against any one of these teachings The Evangelical Church 189 believes in unity rather than in uniformity of doctrine, and in conformity with its acknowledged principle in points of disagreement always employs the exact words of Scripture in the administration of the Sacrament. ,> Our arguments against this position has been expressed in this chapter, sub III, 2. The following oaragraph, in- corporated in the "Fundamentals," (p. 142 f.) character- izes the position of the synod by offering the following: "Two knights of old, who, coming from opposite direc- tions, one day met before the statue of a great warrior. After greeting one another they fell to admiring the work of the artist, praising the various details of feature, position, etc. 'Look at the great silver shield/ said the one, 'how naturally he holds it aloft/ 'Silver shield, say- est thou/ said the other, 'the shield is of gold/ 'Gold/ replied the other, 'do I not see with my own eyes that it is silver? How can it be gold?' 'And I say it is gold!' hotly retorted the other. 'To say it is of silver is false/ 'No man accuses me of falsehood unpunished/ cried the other in rage, as he rushed at his opponent with drawn sword. The mortal combat was soon over, and as the victor, himself mortally wounded, gazed at the shield above him, his dying look was dazzled by the glittering gold. One side of the shield was of silver, the other of gold!" This story is told to show "the value and beauty of the Evangelical way of treating the different points of view on this or any other subject." The Lutheran Church does not deny that the Lord's Supper is also a memorial. She also makes use of the analogies of Calvin in her li- turgical formulas. But in the doctrinal conception not only the Zwinglian, but also the view of Calvin stands opposed to the Real Presence of Luther. The two posi- tions are exclusive the one of the other. Yes and No can not dwell together in one conviction. If it were so simple to harmonize the entire difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church, then it would be difficult, in- deed, to understand how the Reformers in their time and the centuries of great theologians after them, up to the present day, could have labored on the solution of the 190 problem in vain. We cannot so ignore the History of Dogma. 5. The Confessional Paragraph of the German Evan- gelical Synod. It reads as follows : "The German Evangelical Synod of North America, as a part of the Evangelical Church, defines the term 'Evangelical Church* as denoting that branch of the Christian Church which acknowledges the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God, the sole and infallible guide of faith and life, and accepts the interpretation of the Holy Scripture as given in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran and Re- formed Churches, the most important being the Augs- burg Confession, Luther's and the Heidelberg Cate- chisms, in so far as they agree, but where they disagree, the German Evangelical Synod of North America adheres strictly to the passages of Holy Scripture bearing on the subject, and avails itself of the liberty of conscience pre- vailing in the Evangelical Church." 98 We shall try to dis- cuss the practical questions suggesting themselves from the examination of this doctrinal basis. This confessional paragraph, on which the synod, agreed at an early time of its history, 97 may be called the dynamic of its church literature and of its public teach- ing. It is this confessional paragraph that sanctions all the Union features which we have reviewed in the pre- ceding discussions, or, rather, is the source of them. It may be of interest here to quote the confessional obliga- tion taken by a candidate for the ministry at his ordina- tion. Affirmation is to be made to the following ques- tion: "Do you promise to preach the Word of God in purity and sincerity as it is contained in the Old and New 96 Schory, p. 7. Kokritz, in "Fundamentals I," p. 31. 97 It was in 1848- But already in 1841 the "Deutscher Evange- lischer Kirchenverein des Westens" had adopted a confessional basis in which it accepted "that interpretation of the Holy Scrip- tures, which is deposited in the symbolical books of the Evan- gelical Lutheran and the Evangelical Reformed Church of Ger- many, in so far as these agree." This form was then superceded by the above-quoted paragraph. See Muecke, as cited, p. 118. 191 Testament and promulgated in the articles of faith adopted by our Evangelical Church?" 98 These articles of faith must mean the Lutheran and the Reformed Con- fessions "in so far as they agree" ; a specifically Lutheran or Calvinistic teaching in all the points of disagreement, then, would lie beyond the confessional obligation, and, therefore, cannot claim more weight than private opinion. It is evident that the synod in organizing itself upon this basis was hopeful of being able to unite Lutherans and Reformed in one organization. Not much of this hope has been realized. Rev. J. H. Horstmann, editor of the "Evangelical Herald," writes: "The Evangelical Synod was founded with the purpose of promoting the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace, and of bringing about organic union between Lutheran and Reformed Churches wherever possible." But in the same article he admits that "there is no longer a reasonable possibility of real- izing the aim with which the Evangelical Synod was founded" (p. 260). While it is true that the synod has held open the doors for Lutherans and Reformed alike yet its constituency is made up chiefly of people brought up in the Lutheran Church of Germany and their de- scendants. In the seventy-five years of its history it has not attracted any existing organization or group of Luth- erans or Reformed here in America to its platform. The reason lies in the dualism of the confessional basis which permeates the entire official and private literature of the synod as we have seen. Certainly Lutheranism cannot settle upon the Union principle, and from all that we know of its genius, it never will. It has been said that there was a time when a union could have been effected with the old General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. But this is an utter misjudgment of the historical situation. The old General Synod, while very liberal with regard to confes- sional matters and willing to fraternize with non-Luth- 98 Evangelical Book of Worship, p. 225. 09 Magazin fuer Evangelische Theologie und Kirche, July 1919, P. 259- 192 erans, nevertheless watched jealously over the identity of Lutheranism in America, and always opposed, not only organic union, but also institutional co-operation with the Reformed. 100 Never in the history of the General Synod was there a prospect for a union on the basis of anything like the confessional paragraph of the German Evangelical Synod. There might have been a union on the basis of the Augsburg Confession with much latitude of interpretation, but that would not have kept such a Melanchthonian-Lutheran body from developing in the direction of the doctrinal basis as formulated by the United Lutheran Church in America. Lutheranism is doctrinal in its genius. Facts such as these that the Me- lanchthon Synod and the Franckean Synod (district bodies of the old General Synod), organized on the basis of Melanchthonianism, could not maintain themselves, and that in the present United Norwegian Synod the more pietistic Hauge Synod was absorbed by the confessional elements — all such facts carry with them their own les- sons. At times and in certain places, Melanchthonianism has been a ferment in Lutheran theology, but, when or- ganized upon its own principles, it has never been con- structive in establishing churches with the element of permanency. 101 Next to the Lutherans the nearest to the German Evan- gelical Synod are the German Reformed, because here, through the Bucero-Melanchthonian bridges and through the bond of German pietism, there are certain points of contact and avenues of approach. 102 But even though the Heidelberg Catechism is mentioned in the German Evan- gelical confessional basis, the German Reformed Church of America has never seriously considered a union. The dualism between Lutheranism and Calvinism naturally stands in the way. Doctrinally the Reformed Church is ioo See Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in Amer- ica, 2nd ed-, p. 99 f. 101 See the very interesting remarks on this subject by Kahnis in "Der Innere Gang des Deutschen Protestantismus," I, p. 106. 102 Dr. Geo. W. Richard of the Reformed Seminary at Lan- caster, Pa., characterizes the Heidelberg Catechism as "Calvinism modified by the German genius." See his "Heidelberg Catechism," p. 96, cf. 103. 193 more pliable than the Lutheran, yet it cannot dispense with theological consistency in the confessional basis; it cannot ignore its history and the History of Dogma. The reason for failing to realize the original aim of a union between Lutherans and Reformed is given by a member of the synod with this remark: "We have not accomplished a real union between Calvinism and Luth- eranism in our own church." 103 The fact is, the time for a real doctrinal union has passed. 104 And another contributor to the "Magazin," after having asked whether the German Evangelical Synod can hope to become the United Evangelical Church of America, answers: "A view upon all that we call historical development contra- dicts such (dream). Let us not play with big thoughts nor intoxicate ourselves with far-reaching plans." 105 Between the teachings of the two churches of the Re- formation the German Evangelical Synod is more Luth- eran than Reformed in its doctrinal tendency. In the evasiveness of expression on the states of Christ and in the Lord's Supper, even in reference to the Heidelberg Catchism in the confessional paragraph, also in the for- mal departure from the words of Luther's catechism, the synod does not speak its real heart ; all these elements be- tray the marks of mere accommodation to the union prin- 103 R. Niebuhr in Magazin fuer Ev. Theologie und Kirche, March 1919, p. 127. Rev. J. H. Horstmann, in an article of some fine observations under the title "A Study of the Relationship in Lutheranism and Calvinism" in the same periodical (July 1919, p, 259 f.), says, after referring to some recently accomplished family unions : "The new alignments now taking place are only making more clear the two antagonistic elements that need to be in- wardly reconciled before anything like outward and organic union can be expected. In the last analysis Lutheranism and Calvinism, which divided European Protestantism into two hostile camps in the sixteenth century, still remain the divisive factors in the twentieth. In the light of present conditions their relationship, we believe, constitutes a vital problem of Protestantism in Amer- ica." Yes, here is the real difficulty. 104 May we again call attention to our thoughts on pp. 36 and 62 (special print) and in Lutheran Quarterly, 1918, p. 570 and 1919, p. 211. 105 J. Krause, in Magazin, Sept., 1919, p. 340: "Spielen wir doch nicht mit grossen Gedanken, berauschen wir uns nicht an weit- auschanenden Plaenen." 194 ciple. Its Lutheran spirit comes to expression in the doctrine of Baptism (in connection with a strong appre- ciation of confirmation), in the observation of the church year, in the composition of the church hymnal, in the contents and the temper of its preaching, in its devotional literature, and in its Inner Mission work. 106 The non- Lutheran features of the synod are seen chiefly in its Me- lanchthonian (humanistic) aversion to the Lutheran Church's doctrinal definiteness, 107 in its concessions to the Reformed in the confessional paragraph, in the cate- chism and in the ministerial acts, particularly regarding the Lord's Supper. 108 Yet with all this there is in the synod an outspoken antipathy to what we have called "high Calvinism"; 109 especially against the legalism of the Calvinistic churches and their mixing of Church and State. 110 This feeling has been intensified through ob- servations during the world war. 111 106 This judgment may seem to be out of harmony with what we wrote sixteen years ago in our publication "1st zwischen den Unierten Amerikas und der Landeskirche Preussens kein Unter- schied?" (cf. 18). But when the remark was made there that in the German Evangelical Synod the Reformed element prevails, we had in mind chiefly the conception of the Lord's Supper, and matters related to this doctrine, taking the position of Julius Stahl that in a real union between Lutherans and Reformed it is always the Lutheran side that has to make the concession. This is our position to-day, but that does not mean that in its general character, doctrinal and practical, the synod is more Reformed than Lutheran. 107 Cf. p. 42 (separate print), Luth. Quarterly, 1918, p. 577; also separate print p. 194 f., Luth. Quarterly, 1919, p. 385^ f. 108 The attitude on the Lord's Supper is especially regretable from the Lutheran point of view. Luther and the consistent theo- logians of the Lutheran Church have always regarded an unam- biguous attitude to the Real Presence as one of the chief tests of Lutheranism. (Cf. reprint p. 30, also p. 14 f.; in Lutheran Quarterly. Oct. 1918, p. 564 f. ; also Lutheran Quarterly, Jan'y 1918, p. 112 f.) And it may also be said that the Union principle as such, namely, the principle of accommodation in doctrinal matters, begets a practice different from the practice that characterizes the Luth- eran Church. 109 Cf. our discourses p. 40 ff. ; Luth. Quarterly, 1918, p. 574 ff. no See Horstmann in "Magazin," November 1919, p. 430 ff- in See minutes of Kansas District, 1919, p. 6; of Nebraska District, 1919, pp. 14, 20, 21 ; cf. Michigan District, p. 28. See also the excellent address of Prof. K. Bauer at Elmhurst, 111., (pub- lished 1917) "Der Freiheitskampf der Reformation in Lichte der Gegenwart." 195 In closing our discussion we cannot help feeling con- vinced that the organization of the German Evangelical Synod upon the confessional paragraph here under con- sideration has proved itself a misfit to church conditions as they have later developed. The work of the synod has been chiefly among the Lutherans ; comparatively few Reformed have sought membership, perhaps not more than have found their way into the various synods of the United Lutheran Church. When at the time of the Chi- cago World's Fair (1893) Dr. A. Stoecker, former court- preacher in Berlin, visited in America and co-operated especially with the ministers of the German Evangelical Synod, it took this keen and practical churchman only a short time to see that mistake. He said that the synod should have established itself simply upon the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechism. 112 If this had been done, if the Heidelberg Catechism had been omitted from the confessional basis, then the synod would have been in German what for a long time the old General Synod was in English, the "broad church" of Lutheranism. Then the way would have been open at any time for a consis- tent and natural historic development towards a more confessional position. As it is now, the approach even to the mildest bodies of Lutheranism is made difficult be- cause of a confessional basis which no Lutheran Synod can recognize without denying its faith; not to speak of the misdevelopment which the membership of the body has suffered under the influence of the dualism expressed in that basis. The fathers of the German Evangelical Synod evidently had in mind to transplant the Church Union of Germany to American soil. 113 But then was a time altogether dif- ferent from to-day, a time of strong German immigra- 112 Cf. Koch, Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten?, p. 14 f. 113 Sixteen years ago Dr. Kawerau, then professor in Berlin and member of the Evangelische Oberkirchenrat, said in a criti- cal review of the writer's pamphlet on the Union: The Church Union of Germany is a structure (Kirchengebilde) which cannot be transplanted to a country where the historical conditions have not been the same. 196 tion when it seemed that there would never be an end to German church work in America. Seventy-five years ago there was little thought of a time when the national development towards the English would seriously affect the churches of foreign extraction. Neither was there any thought of a time when the denominational problem would be altogether changed. The problem to-day for the German Evangelical Synod is no longer whether Ger- man Protestantism, that is, the followers of the Augs- burg Confession and those of the Heidelberg Catechism, can be united in one organization; but the question now is, in the linguistically transitional development of the body : Can the milder type of German Protestantism, doc- trinally Bucero-Melanchthonian, but religiously Luthero- mystical in character, enter into a wedlock with "high Calvinism" in the form of Scotch Presbyterianism, or with the churches of the type of American Methodism? It is this problem with which the German Evangelical Synod of to-day sees itself confronted. In the face of this question some of the younger men advise going to Geneva, others insist on going to Wittenberg, and the majority, because of the danger in such movements, urges continuance as an independent organization. 114 The Lutheran Church is justified in having a special interest in the final outcome of the development of this body, because by far the most of its old members were Lutherans. Because of its entire isolation from the Lutheran Church of America, resulting from literary conflict and practical friction, it is quite natural that in the German Evangelical Synod, especially among its younger ministry, the leaning to the Reformed side of American Protestantism has been growing. Another generation may land the synod in the Calvinistic camp. Is there no way of bringing about a touch between the 114 See in Magazin, Mar. 1919, p. 125 &., the article by Niebuhr, "Where Shall We Go?" also Minutes of Nebraska District, 1919, p. 14 (6, c.) In Magazin of May, 1919, p. 194, see the article of Henninger, "Why Go At All?" Cf. Koch, Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten? p. 7 ff. 197 German Evangelical Synod and American Lutheranism? The development in the Evangelical Synod has been of such a nature that at the present time union would be an impossibility. But if the synod could see its way clear to establish itself upon the Augsburg Confession only, then there might develope a communion of church inter- ests which could be strengthened by free conferences that might lead us more and more to a common under- standing in confessional matters. Some further lessons suggested by this chapter, as well as preceding ones, will be given in a closing article. CHAPTER VII. Reflections Regarding Present-Day Union Movements in America. Literature: The Christian Union Quarterly, edited by Dr. Peter Ainslie, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md. We call attention to all the issues of 1919, especially to that of January. See also the January and April issues of 1920. The references in this chapter are chiefly to the preceding chapters of our series. I. The Problem of Church Union in America is not the same as in Germany. In our examination of the union movements among the Germans we had a practical end in view. We wanted to furnish a historical material from which lessons might be drawn for an attitude to movements in America, in which the Lutheran Church is counted upon to enter into union with the Reformed group of American Protestant- ism. We shall open these concluding reflections with a consideration of the Union problems as we have it in America, In Germany it was the aim of the friends of Church Union to unite only the Lutherans and the German-Re- formed. In the second chapter of our series of investi- gations we have made clear what we understand by the "German-Reformed." It is a type of German Protest- antism, which originated through the early influences of Zwingli upon some of the Southern parts of Germany. This influence was especially strong in the so-called Cities of Upper Germany with Bucer at Strasburg as their leading factor. It was a movement which later was controlled by Calvin and spread to the Palatinate, to Bremen, Nassau, Anhalt, Hesse-Cassel, Lippe, Branden- burg, to parts of East Friesland and to the Rhine Pro- vinces where it was found when the Hohenzollerns came 198 199 to rule. 1 The confessional bond of union was the Heid- elberg Catechism. They held to Calvin's teaching on the means of grace but as a rule did not follow him in his doctrine of predestination. In the German-Reformed we have a Calvinism "modified by the German genius" (Richards). In some of the above mentioned dominions (in Anhalt, for instance) the prevailing type was nearer to Melanchthonianism than to what we would call genu- inely Reformed. It must be understood that union in Germany — and the same is true of the German Evan- gelical Synod of North America — means a union of the Lutherans with a type of the Reformed in which there is, as a rule, an absence of "high Calvinism, 2 When in America the Lutheran Church is invited to become a partner in union movements, a far more com- prehensive program is planned. In the movement known as "The Call for a World Conference on Faith and Order by the Protestant Episcopal Church" (1910), as also in the "Association for the Promotion of Christ- ian Unity" of the Disciples (1910), invitations are ex- tended even to the Greek Catholic and the Roman Catho- lic churches. 3 And all Protestant churches "who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" are included, of course. In the "Call for a Conference on Organic Union of the Evangelical Protestant Bodies in America by the Pres- byterian Church" (Dec. 1918) 4 the invitation was to all the Protestant churches in so far as they are "evangel- ical" or "orthodox." The following churches partici- pated actively in the first conference held at Phila- delphia 1919: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United i We refer to Dr. James I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Church in Germany; also his History of the Reformed Church in Germany; also his Heidelberg Catechism in its Newest Light. 2 Cf. chapter two, sec. vii. 3 See Peter Ainslie, "Towards Christian Unity," p. 48; also If Not a United Church — What? Also in Christian Union Quarterly Oct. 1920, pp. 135, 119 f. Regarding Rome, see in the minutes of the last General Synod (1917), pp. 123 ff., Dean Dr. Bauslin's criti- cism of the letter of Cardinal Gaspari on behalf of Pope Benedict, written as an answer to overtures of one of the conferences on "Faith and Order." 4 See The Christian Union Quarterly, all issues of 1919. 200 Presbyterians, Reformed, German Evangelical Synod, Congregationalists, Methodists, United Brethren, Mora- vians, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Society of Friends. A reading of these names reminds us at once of the con- flicting confessional positions to be reconciled in such an "organic union." If the Lutherans should join such a movement the problem would be forbiddingly difficult. The Lutheran confessional positions as expressed in the Augsburg Confession of 1531 would have to be recon- ciled not only with the spiritualistic conception of the means of grace, as was the case in Germany, but also with the predestinarianism of high Calvinism or with the Arminianism of the opposite wing of Reformed Protest- antism and with the standpoints which emphasize such matters as church organization, mode of baptism, etc. There are difficulties in the way of a full Protestant Union in America, especially when the Lutheran Church is included, that were absent in the union endeavors on the other side of the Atlantic. Among these we should also count the teaching and practice of churches which may be called daughters of the Reformed Church : Metho- dists, the Baptists of many kinds, and the Quaekers, Menonites etc. The Lutheran Church, as long as it has not sacrificed its own genius, is fundamentally opposed to confessional indifferentism on all teaching of the Scriptures pertain- ing to the "Gospel." Our reference is to the use of this term in Art. VII of the Augsburg Confession. To show how impossible it is for the Lutheran Church to fall into line with sentiments expressed at such union conferences we shall quote from a few of the papers that were read at the above mentioned conference in Philadel- phia, called by the Presbyterians. 5 The representative of the Congregational Churches said: "There has been a general surrender of the idea that a church must have an elaborate creedal basis The historic creeds need not be repudiated. They are honored 5 Published in the Christian Union Quarterly, April 1919. 201 monuments of the faith of our fathers and witnesses to the apprehension of Christianity of those in spiritual succession to whom we gladly stand. But most Protest- ants are satisfied, as a present practical test of com- munion, with a creed which embraces only the central affirmations of the Christian faith. We are thus deliv- ered from the necessity of demanding that our brother accept all our philosophy of the universe." 6 He who is familiar with customary deliverances on this subject in pulpit and church press knows that there is very much unexpressed thought back of such a deliverance. The Lutheran Church could not subscribe to these thoughts, without committing outright suicide. In the same ad- dress we read :"The sacraments instituted by Christ will be administered by each local church in the mode of its selection, but with full agreement that the mode of each sister church shall have complete recognition and that all disciples of Christ shall be equally welcome to their privileges. ,, This is to satisfy the immersionists on their "mode" of Baptism; but how about the far more im- portant doctrine of Baptism ? There seems to be wide agreement that the doctrine of the Sacraments is entirely a matter of indifference. The reader for the Protestant Episcopalian Church, at that convention, quoted the positions of the "Conference on Faith and Order" and insisted upon the recognition of at least "the fact of episcopacy, and not any theory as to its character." On matters of doctrine this church is willing to regard as a basis for union "the Nicene Creed as a sufficient state- ment of the Christian faith." This excludes a great sphere of doctrinal interest, the conflict between Au- gustinianism and Pelagianism and the conflict between semi-Pelagianism and the doctrine of grace as taught by the Reformers. All this is to be treated as if on the great theme of the Reformation the Church of Christ has had no special experience and needs no guide for its teaching. The speaker for the Disciples of Christ quoted as his church's position: "The Bible and the Bible alone is the 6 Christian Union Quarterly, April, 1919, p. 46. 202 religion of the Protestants." This could only mean : the Bible without confessional interpretation of its teaching by the Church. The united Church, then, would be asked to make no profession of what the Bible teaches. The speaker appealed to "the right of private interpreta- tion." 7 He continued: "The various communions have their systems of theology, based upon interpretations of the Word of God, and which they adopt as standards of their respective churches." "Since all agree that the Scriptures contain the Word of God, why could not the Scriptures alone be sufficient ? They appear to have been so in the early church. Why should they not be for the Church now ?" Note: We have answered these questions in chapter VI, 8: "Scripture versus Confession." Yet we feel tempted to reply to these remarks here by saying: (1) The Church is forced to a distinct authoritative or symbolical interpretation of the Scriptures because in- dividuals and communions with misleading teachings also claim the Bible. Adoption by a church of the Scrip- tures and at the same time refusing to interpret them conf essionally as a bond of union is a negative or neutral and not a positive adoption. (2) The early church, in its conflicts with error (Ebionitism, Gnosticism, the pneumatics in general and an endless number of sects), was also forced to give an authoritative interpretation of the canon. We have the result of such creed-making in the "Rules of Faith," which gradually issued into the Apostles and the Nicene Creeds. (3) A grown man cannot be forced back to the state of the development of the boy. The Church of to-day has been led by the Holy Spirit into a rich doctrinal experience of the fundamen- tal truths of Scripture. We cannot ask the Church to ignore all this in order to return, in a kind of Christian 7 In chapter VI we discussed the question how this thoroughly Lutheran principle is to be harmonized with the recognition of a common Creed for the Church. See Luth. Quarterly, Oct. 1920, pp. 428 ff. (Reprint, pp. 157 ff.) 203 agnosticism, to the primitive knowledge of the Christian- ity of the post-apostolic fathers. Surely, as far as the Lutheran Church is concerned, there will never be a union of Protestantism if such in- sistence is continued upon indifferentism regarding the matters pertaining to the "Gospel." The Augsburg Con- fession (Art. VII) defines the Church as "the congrega- tion of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered." And it will be found that the matters pertaining to the Gospel do also include the conception of the means of grace, on which the great historical churches of the Reformation, the Lutheran and the Reformed of various names, have gone apart. It is in the field of soteriology with special regard to the means of grace where we need an understanding. Such things as modes of Baptism 8 and ordination are no essentials/ The question of church government presents a problem of practical difficulty, of course Here the democratic conception ought to receive large emphasis. But the fundamental problem of organic union is a doc- trinal problem. It is the old question of how to overcome the doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and Cal- vinism. We repeat that previously quoted remark of Rev. J. H. Horstmann of the German Evangelical Synod (chapter VI, foot note 103 ) : "The new alignments now taking place (reference is to the family unions) are only making more clear the two antagonistic elements that need to be inwardly reconciled before anything like outward and organic union can be expected. In the last analysis Lutheranism and Calvinism, which divided European Protestantism into two hostile camps in the sixteenth century, still remain the divisive factors in twentieth." We know that modern-liberalistic theology with the Ritschlian "experience" theory and the "value judgments" as the formal principle laughs at the sug- 8 A friend who read the manuscript remarked as follows: "The mode of Baptism is in abstracto indifferent, but not so now in concrete The moment Baptists insist on immersion they are in error, and the mode ceases to be a minor point." This is correct. 204 gestion of returning to a discussion of the old differences between Lutherans and Reformed. But it is the only way for trying whether it is possible so late in histoiy to bring about the union of the Lutheran and the Re- formed wings of Protestantism. 9 If we try to analyze the situation without undue op- timism, then we must say that a union of American Pro- testantism does not seem to be in sight. The constantly growing liberalism in the Reformed churches and their daughters is an added obstacle. At present there is only one kind of union that seems to be within reach. That is the family union. The reading of a number of the ad- dresses at the above mentioned conference in Philadel- phia on organic union has confirmed us in this question. Dr. W. M. Roberts of the Presbyterian Church spoke of a "consolidation among the churches of the Reformed Faith, which are most nearly akin in doctrine and or- ganization," (p. 32). Dr. Wm. M. Anderson, in speaking for the United Presbyterians, said: "Our denomination stands committed to a federated agreement uniting all of the Reformed churches in America holding the Presby- terian system" (p. 39). There is already an "Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian Sys- tem," we read in the address of Dr. R. W. Miller for the Reformed Church (p. 58), and he says that his church "is ready for an organic union of the Presbyterian-Re- formed family of churches" and adds: "These ten or more bodies, by reason of history, polity and doctrine, are practically one and should be organically united to- gether" (p. 59). And Dr. J. W. Hamilton of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church said at that same convention: "There is one very important reason why you should not insist upon our going into this union with you just now. We are in the business of organic union among our- selves " (p. 55 f. ) . The same is to be said of the 9 It is late in history, because the opposing views of the two sides have crystalized into dogmas on the foundation of which a large theological literature has sprung up and a different church life has developed. Cf. chap. Ill, close of sec. IV. 205 Lutheran Church in America. The aim is to unite the Lutheran synods of the United States and Canada and to draw the Lutherans of the world into a common under- standing. Considerable progress has already been made. In 1917 three Norwegian synods united into one large body. Three years later the pre-eminently English speaking Lutheran bodies (General Synod, General Council, United Synod South) consolidated themselves into the United Lutheran Church in America. And at present the synods of more German constituencies are also trying to arrive at agreements. All such movements for "family union" are to be commended for two reasons : 1) They are proof of a feeling in the Church that small and petty matters must not stand in the way of union. But 2) they also show that the historic churches of Pro- testantism, so far as they are not too much honeycombed with rationalism, will not dismiss with indifference the matters which in the light of Scripture testimony and of historic development are of fundamental importance; these differences must be faced and settled before there can be union. 10 II. Some Motives for Union Examined. Much light is shed upon the merits of present-day union movements by an examination of their motives. Some of these motives are right and some are question- able and even wrong. We shall first mention three truly Christian motives and discuss their applicability: (1) Chief among these is the exhortation that comes from the Holy Scriptures. Christ prayed that His followers "all may be one" (John 17:21) ; Paul expressed it as the goal for the Church as the "body of Christ" that "we all come in the unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:13) ; and He recognizes only "one Lord, one faith one Baptism, one Lord and Father of all" (Eph. 4:5, 6). Followers of Jesus and believers in the testimony of His apostle cannot be opposed to a io See the editorial in The American Lutheran Survey, April 14, 1920, on "Basic Lines for Christian Union." 208 true Christian union. But it must be a Christian union, a union in the "faith" (Eph. 4:13). It is the objective faith that is here meant, the fides quae creditur, the con- fession of faith ; not faith as the expression of spiritual life (fides qua creditur), which on this side of eternity never could be made a condition of outward Church union. The correctness of our contention that in Eph. 4 Paul speaks of the objective faith is proved by verse 15 : "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine'' etc. ; "but speaking the truth in love " Many zealous advo- cates of the cause of Christian union, in quoting the above passages, overlook entirely that it is the union in the truth of God's Word that is meant. The first duty of the Church is to be faithful to the truth "once delivered unto the saints." "If ye continue in my Word, then ye are my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 9:31, 32). Those that cry for union at any price forget entirely the emphasis which in the Scriptures is placed upon divine truth (aXrjBeva.) as the first fundamental requisite for spiritual work. Read Psalm 86 :11 ; Isaias 8 :20 ; James 1 :18 ; John 17:17; 8:31, 32; Eph. 6:14; 2 John 4; Eph. 4:14. And in connection with these passages see Matth. 7:15 ff; 24 :24 and 1 John 4:1. By a false union we would make error to co-exist with truth in the Church of Christ. The suggestion to find a union by "agreeing to disagree," when this is to cover matters pertaining to salvation, is unworthy of the Church. The Church is not a social or a literary club for the exchange of religious and ethical views, but it is a divine institution "in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly adminis- tered" (Augsb'g Conf., Art. VII). In the appreciation of the Word there is between the Lutheran Church on the one hand and the Reformed churches on the other that difference which we discussed in chapter VI, 3, C. But in this present day this confes- sional difference is augmented by a difference which has come in through modern theology: To the Lutheran 207 Church the Scriptures are the source of truth, and the Word as such is a power unto salvation and the seed of regeneration, the Holy Spirit always accompanying the Word. Modern theology — our reference is to Ritschlian- ism — has arrived at an altogether different conception of the Scriptures. The Ritschlians see the value of the Bible for the Christian chiefly in this that it reflects for our inspiration and warning the whole variety of human individuality, of human virtues and failings, of human life and endeavor. The Bible is not any more authorita- tive, but is, at best, only helpful for the understanding of our own inner life. It is a kind of a commentary on the personal religious life of the Christian. The objective faith is not a matter of interest anymore. This must be the explanation for the fact that in quoting the exhorta- tions for union in the Scriptures so many overlook alto- gether the demand that it must be a union in the truth. The Lutheran Church has so far refused to abandon the "formal principle" of the Reformation, while in the Re- formed churches there have been large concessions to the new theology. No wonder, therefore, that for the Luth- eran Church the real obstacles in the way of union are today harder to be overcome than at the time of the Leip- zig Colloquy in the seventeenth century (cf. chapt. Ill, sect. IV) . To establish our position against misunderstanding on the point here under discussion we say again: The de- mand of Christian union is Scriptural. No Christian can be in principle opposed to the union of the Christian churches. But it must be a union in the truth. It is because the modern movements have ignored this demand that the Lutheran Church has been unable to co- operate. (2) The children of God through the ages and in the various churches have been and are longing for a union in the faith ("one faith," "one Baptism."). To satisfy this longing and to contribute to the realization of this hope is also a true motive for union endeavors. The thought that many true Christians are praying for union 208 should lead the Church, especially its leaders, to repu- diate any division which is based on small and petty mat- ters, such as organization, mode of Baptism, etc., or on teachings which in the light of the analogy of the faith (Rom. 12:6) cannot establish articles of faith. (3) Among the motives for Church union there is one which we shall here describe and try to review with criti- cism. It is said that the various churches, in their separ- ate existence, have developed certain charisms and graces which after a union would become the common posses- sion of the whole Church. The Danish bishop Martensen 11 devotes a special chap- ter to the ethical peculiarities of the Lutheran and the Reformed churches. The Lutheran Church, he says, has brought out in the Christian life of its members the evangelical freedom of the Christian man ; the Reformed, as followers of Calvin, have been strong in organization. Lutheranism, again, in cultivating the type of Mary sit- ting at the feet of Jesus, has shown a special gift for the development of the inner Christian life, and in conse- quence has shown its strength in contemplation, mysti- cism, in religious song (chorals), in the forms of worship and church art ; the Reformed, with a preference for the type of Martha, have shown a gift for the development of outward activity which has expressed itself in great missionary undertakings, in Christian propaganda, in Bible and tract societies. Martensen himself suggests that the characteristics which he is discussing can hard- ly, at least not directly, be traced back to the doctrinal differences of the two churches. This is correct. Ele- ments of practical life, that can be traced as flowing out of erroneous doctrinal positions, such as a legalistic con- founding of Law and Gospel, or a misconceiving of the relation between Church and state, can never be counted among the charisms and graces, no matter how great they may appear to the superficial observer ; on the other hand, the church which is established upon the Scrip- ii Christian Ethics, German edition, vol. I, p. 54 f. 209 tures will produce all the charisms. This is funda- mental. However — and here is the element of truth in the thoughts of Martensen — , besides the endowments of a church, which have their root in a special comprehen- sion of Scripture truth, there are in the various churches also the elements that must be traced to the peculiarities of the founders, even to the nationality from which they sprang. Luther was a German mystic and as such a veritable embodiment of that untranslateable German "Gemuet" which accounts for so much of that wonderful religious depth in the German chorals and in the devo- tional literature of the Lutheran Church; Calvin unre- lenting in his logic, was stern and practical, with a genius for organization, in all of which he had a powerful appeal to the Anglo-Saxon mind. Lutheranism is mystical, Cal- vinism is practical, Methodism is aggressive, and so on. This it is what many advocates of union have in mind when they say that the Una Sancta, as a united Church, would be able to present itself to the Lord as its head and to the world as adorned with all the gifts and graces. To many this consideration is a plausible motive for union. But we confess that we cannot endorse it so un- reservedly as it is usually done, simply because of the kind of union usually aimed at. We are convinced that in an artificial union, that is in a union which does not grow out of an inner agreement in matters of faith, the Lutheran Church would lose her historical charism of guarding the truth. And as a natural consequence she would strip herself of other characteristics that have stood as bulwarks of sound religion through the ages and ought never to be sacrificed. An artificial organic union with the expectation of making the gifts and graces of the various churches a common possession of a merger body would defeat the end in view. Such gifts have their roots in the historical organizations that have produced them. These roots would suffer especially in a union which ignores the history of the churches in question, and the graces would be lost instead of pre- served! Those who urge union on this ground mean 210 well, but they fail to see that here questions are involved, that have not been thought out to the end. Next we shall discuss a number of motives of a more or less questionable character. (4) The economic motive is much advanced. We shall state both the suggestion and its criticism in the following words of President Dr. Haas of Muhlenberg College: "In this age of material considerations and of big financial undertakings men are prone to judge not only commercial concerns but all interests of life from the point of view of economic advantage or disadvantage. It seems a great waste of money and effort to perpetuate a number of minor organizations when a large major or- ganization could be formed with a great budget and a strong appeal because it saves so much in overlapping op- erations. It cannot be doubted that this economic motive which looks to a great central religious trust in moving many men to place a minor emphasis upon conscientious convictions which churches have long held sacred. The dream of a great organization, if it be effected without the clearest agreement in the truth, is a violation of the obligation which God has put upon the Church to keep His truth pure, undefiled and spiritually effective. A union formed through mere pressure of lay interests from a fundamentally economic emphasis is a destruction of the spiritual strength of the Church. 12 (5) Many are clammoring for the union of Protest- antism because of the impression which a large organiza- tion would make upon the world. Prof. Th. Graebner, recently, characterized this as "kephalomania." If it is admitted that agreement in the truth of God's Word is the supreme condition of church union then this motive needs no special discussion, except to refer to Zechariah 4 :6 where we read : "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." We also appreciate the strength that comes from union, but it must not be bought at the price of infidelity to a sacred trust. 12 Lutheran Church Review, Jan'y 1919, p. 2. 211 (6) Speaking of the motives for Church union there is one to which we have referred many times in previous chapters of our general discussion. State governments, considering the Church a convenient instrument for nationalization and the accomplishment of political pur- poses, have followed the policy of forcing the Lutherans into a union with the Reformed. Here the Hohenzol- lerns, especially Elector Sigismund of Brandenburg, Elector Frederick William I (the "Great Elector") and later King Frederick William III of Prussia, have sinned much against the Lutheran Church, as we have shown. On the part of church members there must be patriotism and loyalty to the government, but the Church as such should never be manipulated for political purposes. This is a needed exhortation also for us in America. We have been told that a position upon the principles of historic Lutheranfsm is "out of harmony with true American- ism." Our reply is that according to the constitution of the United States of America, religion as well as race presents no hindrance to good American citizenship. A consistent Lutheran can be just as good an American as a convinced Romanist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Bap- tist. (7) "From theology we ought to return to pure reli- gion" — this sentiment is to very many a motive for union. We have had occasion to touch upon this subject so much that we can dispose of most of what here should be said by referring to previous chapters. See our treat- ment of the thoughts of Calixtus on this question in the Lutheran Quarterly, July 1919, pp. 372ff., cf. pp. 379 ff ; in our special print pp. 89, cf. 96. On his suggestion to establish the union on the basis of the Apostles Creed, see Luth. Quarterly pp. 370 ff. (our special print 87 ff.) Compare also our review of the Consensus Repetitus by Abr. Calovius in the same issue of the Quarterly, pp. 388 ff. (reprint 105 ff.). We further refer to the thoughts of the "union theologians" of the middle of the last century, especially J. Mueller and C. I. Nitzsch (Quarterly 1919, p. 546; special print p. 129) and to the position of the German Evangelical Synod as discussed 212 in chapter VI, sec. Ill, 1, note 2. In abstracto, and with proper care of expression also in concreto, it is legiti- mate to distinguish between pure religion and theology. Yet in the manner in which this distinction is used by many advocates of church union there is something mis- leading. They overlook that after all theology is indis- pensible to indicate, to express, and to communicate re- ligion to the minds of men, and that it depends upon the contents of this theology whether the religion which is communicated is pure or adulterated, true or false, Scriptural or un-Scriptural. It is interesting to note the practical identity of the sentiment here under discussion in other suggestions which operate as motives for union. We are admonished : "From Luther and Calvin we must come back to Christ." It is about the same as when we hear: "From the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions we appeal to the Scriptures." 13 The "Disciples" (Christian Church) admonish the denominations to "return to the beliefs and practices of the Church in the New Testa- ment times. 14 To find out what this is we have to turn to the New Testament itself. But what is the teaching of the New Testament? Is it not on the New Testament teaching that the churches disagree ? From the New Testament times up to our day the Church has studied the Scrip- tures, to discover their message for the individual unto his salvation and for the Church as entrusted with the spiritual feeding of souls. This has naturally yielded to the Church of to-day a doctrinal experience. This experi- ence which we can trace through the history of dogma has not been the same in all churches, because in some cases misleading principles were permitted to furnish viewpoints which made it impossible to do justice to the whole body of Scripture truth. The Lutheran Church claims neither infallibility nor perfection, Her teaching is true only in so far (quatenus) as her Creed actually agrees with the Scriptures. But the individual Luther- 13 Cf. chapter VI, sec. Ill, 2. 14 P. Ainslie, "Towards Christian Unity," p. II. 213 an, especially as a teacher in his church, is a Lutheran, because (quia) he believes that his Confession is Scrip- tural. 15 Members of the churches differing from the Lutheran Church ought to take the same position. We know that many do — such men, for instance, as the late Dr. B. Warfield of Princeton. But we know also that there is a strong sentiment of indifferentism in the Re- formed churches : Creeds are discredited, instead of con- fessional conviction there is only religious opinion, sub- ject to change with the theological schools of the age. We are speaking here from the standpoint of the men of religious conviction, who are convinced that the teach- ing of their Confession is Scriptural. Such men feel that we need to have confidence in the doctrinal experi- ence of the Church as it has embodied itself in the Con- fessions of history. And any new truth must be built on the old basis. Now the advocates of union tell us: "From theology you must go back to religion," "from the Confessions back to the Scriptures," "from Luther and Calvin back to Christ." What do these suggestions mean ? Considering their source, they can mean only that we must disown the doctrinal experience of the Church and return to the beginnings of its history with a nescimus. The full-grown man, equipped with the doc- trinal experience of a rich history is to return to the state of development of the child whose mind on definite beliefs is yet a blank. And what then ? Is the develop- ment to be started over again? No, we are simply to establish ourselves upon the "Scriptures" (refusing to interpret them conf essionally) , upon "Christ," upon "pure religion," and then the dream of an all-inclusive union will be a glorious reality! But can a church, by stepping into organic union with other churches, on the basis of Confessional agnosticism, forget what it does know? The Church certainly did learn something from the writings of the Reformers. Some of their books are immortal. Supposing that in the spirit of indifferentism 15 Cf. chapter VI, sec. Ill, 3, note 1. 214 we enter into such an organic union, can we forget the historical Creeds? Will the conflicting principles of the Lutheran and the Reformed Creeds and the great theolo- gies that have been built upon them cease to function and continue to be dead ? We do not know what may be possible among the Re- formed churches Their genius is different from that of the Lutheran Church. Their attitude to Creeds is not the same. The Lutherans are established upon "Symbols" which are the same the world over; the Reformed have "Confessions" which are different in the different countries. And it may also be said that the differences between the Reformed churches are of a less essential nature than those existing between them and the Luther- ans So the Reformed churches may succeed in a union on the basis of indifferentism to the doctrines that have divided them. But from what we know of the history of the Lutheran Church and of the functioning of Luther- anism in a free country we cannot believe that the time will ever come when the Lutheran Church will step into a church union that is not established upon a careful agreement in matters of faith. The Lutheran Church of the future, we believe, cannot and will not refuse to par- ticipate in conferences for union, provided there is the assurance that the matters of faith and doctrine shall have fundamental consideration. But in such doctrinal conferences it must not be expected that the differences can be settled by mutual concessions. Recently we saw Dr. Burrell quoted to have said: "On truth you cannot split the difference." III. The Persistency of the Difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism. We are speaking of a union in which the Lutheran Church is expected to participate. As soon as the Lu- theran Church is to be included there are difficulties in the way of a union, which are absent when the Reformed churches alone are considered. There was no malice in the words of Luther when he said to Zwingli : "Ye have 215 another spirit than we" ; he simply stated an actual situ- ation. The Lutheran and the Reformed Church differed from the beginning on the relation of the divine to the human in the Word, in Baptism and Lord's Supper, in the person of Christ, in the conception of the Church and in much pertaining to the way of salvation. Let us look at the tenacity of this difference from two standpoints : first, by a brief review of the union movements ; and, sec- ond, by calling to our attention the sensitiveness of Lutheranism when exposed to modifying influences cal- culated to lead to a union with the Reformed church family. 1. Union movements that have failed. We shall con- tent ourselves with a very brief review and refer to the chapters which contain the more extended discussion. (a) Martin Bucer, the great union theologian of the Reformation age, succeeded in drawing Luther into a union movement. The "Wittenberg Concord," in which the two sides had agreed, was mildly Lutheran and was for that reason not accepted by the Swiss. Calvin re- moulded the followers of Zwingli. Luther published his Last Confession on the Lord's Supper, and the Witten- berg Concord ceased to function. 16 (b) Melanchthon who felt himself drawn to Calvin was desirous of a union between the followers of Luther and those of Zwingli. To this purpose he changed two significant expressions in Art. X of the Augsburg Confes- sion — in the edition of 1540 (Variata), — which was to make it easier for the Zwinglians to identify themselves with the Lutherans. But after the death of Luther the Variata was discredited. And the Lutheran Church, in adopting the Book of Concord, established herself upon the first edition of the Augsburg Confession which, to- gether with the Formula of Concord, was to preserve an uncompromising position upon the teaching of Luther as opposed to the modifications proposed by Melanchthon. (c) After the final split of Protestantism into a Luth- 16 See our chapter I, especially the closing observations. 216 eran and a Reformed Church effort after effort was made to heal this schism. In chapters III and IV we have studied the following union movements: (1) the Consensus of Sendomir (1580); (2) the Montbeliard Colloquy (1586) ; (3) the Palatinate Irenieum (1606); (4) the advance of Paraeus (1614) ; (5) the Colloquy at Leipzig (1632) ; (6) the convention at Thorn (1645) ; (7) the Colloquy at Cassel (1661) ; (8) the Colloquy at Berlin (1662) ; (9) the life work of John Dury ; (10) the principles of George Calixtus. All these movements failed. The best contribution to a real understanding was made by the Leipzig Colloquy because here the doc- trinal differences were discussed with thoroughness and frankness. For a characterization of these movements as a whole we must refer to the introduction of chapter III. (d) The union movements of the nineteenth century in Germany brought only a partial success (cf. chapter V). The aim of the Prussian king was "a renewed Evangeli- cal Christian Church" ; but the outcome was a mere con- federation of two churches which both continued to main- tain their identity. But even this had to be forced by the state authorities. Such a union was possible in Germany because in most of the dominions one of the churches was overwhelmingly in the majority. So to that church could be given almost exclusive recognition. Such an arrangement would not in any way be transferable to American conditions. Here a mere confederation, in an organic union, is bound to issue into an absorptive church union in which the Lutheran Church would be sure to lose her identity and with that her heritage and her mission. If the Prussian Church Union had suc- ceeded in finding the consensus of the two churches then there would have been the positive contribution to a basis for union, upon which the Protestant churches of America, the Lutherans incuded, might find themselves together. But the consensus theory of the old "union theologians" (Mueller, Nitzsch, Dorner, Rothe, Ullmann) 217 was a phantom which they kept chasing until in 1846 it vanished definitely out of sight (cf. p. 130). (e) The German Evangelical Synod of North America which we have studied in chapter VI, represents an at- tempt to unite Lutherans and German Reformed in one body. The Lutherans in this body are by far in the majority. Under our American conditions the adherents of both Confessions are expected to live in one congrega- tion, instead of separately under a common general gov- ernment. So the German Evangelical Synod had to find a confessional platform that would be agreeable to both sides. Profiting from the experiences of Germany, the search for a consensus of doctrine between Lutherans and Reformed was abandoned. In its place a confessional basis was arrived at, which may be said to present a kind of a selection ("Chrestomathie") of what seemed best adapted to meet the needs of the constituent parts of the Synod. From all that we know of Lutheranism when it functions in freedom from the state, the Lutherans of America will never be ready to join in such a plan of union. Therefore, when the consideration is a union of American Protestantism, in which the Lutheran Church is to participate, we have to record also the attempt of the German Evangelical Synod among the failures. We must ask to read again what we wrote in the closing sec- tion (5) of chapter VI. 2. Can Lutheranism be expected to change ? As has been said already, there are obstacles in the way of union when the Lutheran Church is considered as a participant, which are absent when a union of the rest of the churches of Protestantism is under consideration. The latter belong to one family while the Lutheran Church is in a differ- ent class. It is this observation that suggests our ques- tion which we shall now express in this form: Can we look for a change in the Lutheran Church of America, especially with regard to her appreciation of the doc- trinal element, that will lead to a union such as is de- manded by most of the advocates of organic union in our day ? In attempting to answer this question we can 218 speak with profit only by again consulting history. Our references must be first to Germany and then to America, (a) We are told that in the land of Luther the differ- ences between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches have dropped into the background and are disappearing more and more in this age of reconstruction. But there are a number of things, that must be taken into account, which will guard us against drawing hasty conclusions. (1) Liberalism with its large following in Germany (in and outside of the Union) naturally has no appreciation of confessional differences such as existed oetween the Reformers of the sixteenth century. One like Albr. Ritschl, late professor at Goettingen, (the university of a Lutheran province), who, in the succession of Schleier- macher, made man's subjective experience the criterion of what is to be accepted as Scripture truth naturally could see no objection to a union between Lutherans and Reformed. And there are no difficulties in the way of union for the men of the school of comparative religion which at present holds the field of liberalistic theology in Germany. As mere products of evolution certainly one church is as good as the other. The Scriptures have no proving value. (2) Then the training of ministers in the university, instead of in real church schools, is another factor to explain much of the confessional indifferentism in Germany. All confessional and theological Rich- tungen have equal right, and in most branches of theolo- gy the confessional character of teaching is entirely absent. There is no applicability of German conditions to the denominational situation in America. (3) And yet, confessional Lutheranism is far from being dead in Germany. Even under the adverse state church condi- tions it has shown a wonderful vitality. After its break- down in the age of rationalism, the second third of the last century brought a revival of Lutheran theology which received its impulses from the struggle against both rationalism and the Union. We refer to names such as Sartorius, Rudelbach, Guericke, Harless, Thomasius, Philippi, Th. Harnack, Caspari, Kurtz, 219 Kliefoth, Vilmar, von Zezschwitz, Oehler, Hofmann, De- litzsch, Kahnis, Keil, Luthardt, Zoeckler. And in the Modern Positive School of to-day, which has followed the Erlangen School, there is a very large representation of Lutheranism. Including the names of some that have passed away in recent years and aiming neither at com- pleteness nor at systematic grouping, we mention writ- ers such as the following: 17 Ihmels, Zahn, Kaftan, Wal- ther, Hilbert, Noesgen, Roemer, von Bezzel, Kloster- mann, Wohlenberg, Dunkmann, Bachmann, Althaus, Boehmer, Preuss, Leipolt, Schaeder, Uhlhorn, Zaenker, Laible, Bestmann, Kropatscheck, Stange, Kunze, Schultze; and churchmen such as Bard, Haack, Veit, Bracker, Paul, Oepke, Haccius, Glage, Matthes, Wetzel and so many more that it is simply impossible to men- tion them. These names certainly represent an influ- ence ! But we want to emphasize that back of such out- standing leaders there are in the congregations of Ger- many very many ministers of the Gospel who are all established upon the principles of the Augsburg Confes- sion and after the experiences of the last century are dis- trustful of a confessional union. (4) We admit that in the church reconstruction of Germany, at this present time, there is much inconsistency ("Gleichberechtigung der Richtungen"). But this has chief reference to liber- alism. The church in Germany faces the double problem of the extreme poverty of the country and the general hostility of Socialism to the Church. Under these cir- cumstances the leaders of the Church seem to feel that separate organization along the lines of distinguishing principles, at the present time, would make all church organization impossible. Our conclusion then, is that, considering the whole situation, the lessons from Germany do not point to the coming of a fundamental modification of historic Luther- 17 In giving these names we have not overlooked that many- men of this school, as a result of the German university condi- tions, go too far in their emphasis upon the human factor of the Holy Scriptures. Yet the Bible is to them normative for Chris- tian doctrine, and they are opposed to the union principle. 220 anism by erasing the confessional difference between Lutherans and Reformed in the practical church life. The fact is that the union features of Germany have no applicability to conditions in America. In Germany even the Union in so very many of its evangelical representa- tives is so overwhelmingly Lutheran that the union fea- tures there do not mean what they would mean here. Co-operation and confederation in Germany can be prac- ticed without the effects they would have in America. (b) Can we look for a change of the Lutheran Church in America conf essionally ? The rapidly proceeding de- velopment into the English and the process of American- ization are bound to influence the Church. Will these things induce the Lutheran Church of this country to lessen her emphasis upon doctrinal truth and to approach the churches of the Reformed group? Young as we are in experiences as a church on this continent we have al- ready had our own history on this subject. During a number of decades in the history of the old General Synod the attempt was made to establish for the English Lutheran Church of America a "Lutheranism modified by the Puritan element," an "American Lutheranism," as it was called. 18 The appeal was to Melanchthon and to the principles of the Variata edition of the Augsburg Confession and to the Pietistic School in Germany. The movement was characterized by participation in the re- vivals of the denominations and much practice of pulpit and altar fellowship with the other churches. It even led to the drafting of a confessional document, the "De- finite Sy nodical Platform," — a new Variata of the Augs- burg Confession, — which was proposed as a basis for an "American Lutheranism." The distinguishing features of the Lutheran Church, such as Baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, were removed. The most influential men of the General Synod stood back of the movement : Dr. S. S. Schmucker, President of the Gettysburg Seminary (prominent in the organiza- 18 Cf. Neve, Brief History of the Luth. Church in America, second edition, 1916, pp. 103-176. 221 tion of the Evangelical Alliance in London), Dr. S. Sprecher, President of Wittenberg College, and Dr. B. Kurtz, for over thirty years editor of the Lutheran Ob- server. Synods under names such as "Frankean Synod," "Melanchthon Synod" were called into existence. The movement was remarkable for the energy with which it set itself to work to accomplish its purpose. The whole literature on the history of the Reformation was searched for material in favor of Melanchthonianism and against the principles of historic Lutheranism as ex- pressed in the "unaltered" Augsburg Confession and in the Formula of Concord. 19 We refer to the many articles on this conflict in the "Lutheran Observer," the ^Lu- theran World," the "Lutheran Evangelist" and in the "Lutheran Quarterly." 20 But all these efforts could not keep the Lutheran Church in America (the part of it that had developed into the English) from asserting her own genius. The time came after much struggle when the General Synod established itself upon the "un- altered" Augsburg Confession and recognized "the Apol- ogy, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism of Lu- ther, the Large Catechism of Luther and the Formula of Concord as expositions of Lutheran Doctrine of great historical and interpretative value." 21 After this position had been taken by the old General Synod the way was open for a union of all the English speaking bodies of the Lutheran Church in this country. Will the Lutheran Church in America change? Can we expect in her future development an approach to the positions of the Reformed church family? Certainly, 19 Cf. Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, p. 98 f. : "Why- does the Lutheran Church of to-day insist upon a subscription to the unaltered Augsburg Confession?" A more extensive discus- sion of this subject is given in the same author's publication: "Are we justified in distinguishing between an altered and an unaltered Augsburg Confession?" (Lutheran Literary Board, Burlington, Iowa). 20 The "Confessional History of the Lutheran Church" by Prof. Dr. J .W. Richard, championed the Melanchthonian and "The Confessional Principle" by Drs. Schmauk and Benze the Lutheran side of the question. 21 See Neve, History, as cited, pp. 176-84. 222 the history of Lutheranism in America gives no such en- couragement. The development which we have de- scribed was the history of the English Lutherans in this country. And they arrived at their present position after a long period of visiting with the Puritans and the Methodists. Dr. S. Sprecher, one of the chief promoters of the "American Lutheranism," wrote in old age ^1890) : "No church can give up its creed. I thought at one time that a Lutheranism modified by the Puritan ele- ment would be desirable, but I have given up its desir- ableness, and I am convinced of its hopelessness." 22 To-day the English Lutherans in America in their recog- nized church literature, are thoroughly established upon the historic positions of the Lutheran Church. Special evidence of this can be seen in their order of service, in their hymnbook, in their forms for ministerial acts, in their Catechism. At present they are even engaged in the creation of an independent system for Sunday School teaching, arranged after the church year as ob- served in the Lutheran Church. When the conflict over the "American Lutheranism" was at its height Dr. E. J. Wolf, professor in the Gettys- burg Seminary, published in the "Lutheran Evangelist" (1910), then edited by Dr. S. A. Ort, a series of articles on "Melanchthonian Lutheranism," which were so per- tinent to our discussion that we cannot resist the tempt- ation to quote at least a few paragraphs : "The whole history of Melanchthonian Lutheranism shows it to be lacking in the element of permanency. It has no staying quality With all the advantages of cir- cumstances and leadership, with the popularity which is generally claimed for liberal views over against rigid orthodoxy, it has proved incapable of holding its own, incapable of self -propagation, which is the first essential of all true life. It comes forth with much promise, it contains some very specious features, it seems to com- mend itself especially to Americans, but it is ephemeral. 22 Quoted by Dr. E. J. Wolf in the "Lutheran Evangelist," April io, 1891. 223 The spirit, the tendency, the school has no future, it has never succeeded in embodying itself in a permanent form. It has never become a distinct branch of the Church. It either rebounds to pure, historic Lutheran- ism, or it bounds off to Presbyterianism, Methodism or some other ecclesiastical species. It soon develops to a point where it is found necessary to be one thing or the other, where one must be either for or against the intact Lutheran system, where one must either come out as a Lutheran or decide to be something else. 23 A middle ground between historic Lutheranism and the position of the other churches, a firm rock between two opposing Protestant systems, in which one can shout the "Hier stehe ich," has never been reached. "Such are the facts. Their explanation is as easy as the collection of the facts. The Lutheran faith is a body of truth so Scriptural, so logical, so rounded, so organic and symmetrical in its development, that the rejection of any part of it mars and mutilates the whole, and renders it utterly unsatisfactory. Possibly not every stone in a gothic cathedral is essential to it, but if you remove a block here, a buttress there, and a pillar yonder, if you substitute in places brick, stucco or wood for the original marble, the glory of the building is gone, its strength is undermined, its stability endangered. "Lutheranism is a system. So is Calvinism Each has a vitality that has withstood the storm of the ages. The two have much in common, and at many points they coincide, but when you attempt to alter either system or both so as to combine the two, you destroy both, without being able to form a new structure from the ruins. The result is disorganization. Building theo- 23 While this may have been the experience of history in gen- eral yet we think there have been seeming exceptions : The Prus- sian Church Union, the Moravian Church, the German Evangeli- cal Synod in America. It may be replied, however, that in Prus- sia the Union failed to become a real absorptive Union; that the Moravians and the men of the German Evangelical Synod were the most insisting upon the organic union proposed in the move- ment discussed in sec. I of this chapter, in which they would soon have lost their identity. And compare our observation in chapter VI, sec. Ill, 5, close. 224 logical systems is not a matter of arbitrary mechanical exploit. Truth, like every other life-force, is organic and organizing, and when once the normal basis is laid lown, the structure grows by virtue of inherent laws. That Melanchthonianism is irreconcileable with Lutheranism was decisively shown in the preparation of the Form of Concord. Chemnitz and Selnecker were the ablest re- presentatives that school ever had, but before the docu- ment was completed, which settled the distracting con- troversies of the Church, every trace of the Melanch- thonian tendency disappeared. It is as impractible in theology as it is in nature to cross the species. The hybrid does not propogate itself. The mongrel has no successors." 24 The tenacity of the confessional difference between the churches of Luther and Calvin certainly gives food for thought. The "other spirit" of which Luther spoke at Marburg is not something imaginary, but is a reality. At the foundation of it there is a different conception of Scripture truth. From this as the centre, the difference has worked itself out into the cultus, the piety and the polity of the two churches. 25 Think of the efforts of almost four centuries that have been spent in overcoming this difference ! It is the barrier of Union to-day as it was between Luther and Zwingli, between Calvin and the Lutherans of his day. It is no wonder that many have given up hope for a doc- trinal Union. Large is the number of those that call for a Union in spite of the existing difference. They want a confederation of churches. They say: Let each church keep its doctrinal and practical peculiarities, but let them federate like the states of our ILFnion in one com- mon government. This, then, would be an organic form 24 Lutheran Evangelist, April 10, 1891. 25 All Protestant churches outside of the Lutheran, irrespec- tive of their attitude to predestination, belong to the Calvinistic camp in so far as they all reject the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace. It is in this field fundamentally where they can- not agree with Lutheranism. 225 of church federation. It takes us back to the Plan of Organic Union of Christian Churches, which was started by the Presbyterians and to which we referred. The suggestion of organic union in spite of doctrinal differences has, as a rule, the strong support of liber- alism. The liberalists in the Presbyterian Church were the special promotors of this movement for organic union of the churches. But soon there was decided pro- test in that body. Most of the presbyteries voted against the "Plan", and so it failed in the Presbyterian Church. The Baptists also voted it down. The Methodists have their interest in the "family union." The move- ment is bound to end in failure. At a recent convention of this movement for organic union in Philadelphia (Febr. 1920), Dr. Geo. W. Richards, Professor in the Reformed Seminary in Lan- caster, Pa., an ardent advocate of the "Plan," made a very interesting statement. He said : "The genius of a church is manifested through its doc- trine, cultus, polity and piety. Points of agreement and difference between the churches would relate to these four aspects of organization and life. The plan of union leaves intact the doctrine, the cultus and the piety of the church, but it requires the modification of the polity, and in due time such modification in polity will affect also the piety, the cultus and doctrine. Yet such effect will be almost imperceptible, and will be wrought in course of a long time. "In adopting this plan a church will begin to cease to be what it was and will begin to become what it was not. This is the surest proof that the plan calls for more than federal and nothing less than eventual organic union." 28 How would such a gradual, "almost imperceptible" development affect the Lutheran Church if she should make herself a part of the organization? She would be unable to resist the stream of mediating and equalizing influences, she would very soon cease to be what she was 36 See The Christian Union Quarterly, April 1920, p. 10. 226 and thus lose her heritage and her trust. But it is need- less to ask the question. As we know the mind of the Lutheran Church of America, in the German, the Scan- dinavian, the English quarters, we feel convinced that the time will never come when the Lutheran Church will go into organic union with the Reformed group of churches or with any church and leave the matter of doctrine and practice to a development of the future. It is outside of our plan to discuss forms of church federation, that do not call for organic union. For this reason we have resisted the temptation of discussing the "Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America," which comprises most of the Protestant churches in America, but in which the Lutherans are not represented. Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: April 2006 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724) 779-21 1 1 igies VATION I