Defending Faith: Lutheran Responses to Andreas Osiander's Doctrine of Justification, 1551-1559 (Spatmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation / Studies in the La) 9783161517983, 9783161586033, 3161517989

Citation preview

Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation Studies in the Late Middle Ages, Humanism and the Reformation herausgegeben von Volker Leppin (Tübingen) in Verbindung mit Amy Nelson Burnett (Lincoln, NE), Berndt Hamm (Erlangen) Johannes Helmrath (Berlin), Matthias Pohlig (Münster) Eva Schlotheuber (Düsseldorf)

65

Timothy J. Wengert

Defending Faith Lutheran Responses to Andreas Osiander’s Doctrine of Justification, 1551–​1559

Mohr Siebeck

Timothy J. Wengert, born 1950; studied at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), Luther Seminary (St. Paul, MN), Duke University; 1984 received Ph. D. in Religion; since 1989 professor of Church History at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

ISBN 978-3-16-151798-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-158603-3 unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISSN 1865-2840 (Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2012 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed by GuldeDruck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements Thanks is due especially to Bernd Hamm for accepting this manuscript into the series, “Spätmittelalter, Humanismus und Reformation.” A special debt of gratitude is also owed to Robert Kolb, my dear friend and colleague, whose advice and corrections to the manuscript have made every aspect of it better and also to my doctoral student and Flacius expert, Luka Ilic, for help in tracking down every last publication by Matthias Flacius. A special thanks is due to Alexa Epstein, for her work on the book’s indexes. To the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, Germany, the author is especially grateful for four months of study from 2005 – ​2007, and especially to the librarians Dr. Gillian Bepler and Ulrich Kopp. To the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, where I have now taught for twenty-two years, and their generous sabbatical program, which allowed me three six-month sabbaticals from 2004 to 2011 to begin, write and complete this book. To my wife, Ingrid Fath Wengert, and to my children, David Wengert and Emily Wengert Dikan, I am forever thankful for their love and support through thick and thin. I dedicate this book to all my students, who preach the blessed gospel. Riverton, New Jersey, USA Eve of the Commemoration of St. Olaf, King of Norway, 2011

Timothy J. Wengert

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1: Why Some Pastors Should Not Become Professors: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Mr. Osiander Goes to Königsberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Silence in the Heavens for One-Quarter Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Blaming the Messenger: Mörlin Becomes Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. A Few Voices in Protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Osiander’s Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



10 15 16 21 22

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552): How Lutherans Fight in Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A. Before Osiander’s Confession of 1551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552 I. Official and Semi-Official Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Church and Printers in Wittenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Church in Ernestine Saxony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Church of Pomerania-Wolgast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Church of Electoral Brandenburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Church of Brandenburg-Küstrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Theologians of Magdeburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. “Privately” Published Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Erasmus Alber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Johannes Brettschneider (Placotomus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Anonymous Tracts (Caspar Aquila) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Anton Otto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Alexander Alesius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Stephan Bülau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. The Silence of Württemberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Osiander Strikes Back: Responses Breed Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Looking Back: Lutherans at War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



28 33 33 33 39 41 43 46 49 51 51 53 54 55 55 58 61 62 65

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine: “Justification by Grace, through Faith, on Account of Christ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 A. The Contours of the Theological Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Defining “Justification by Grace through Faith” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Christ’s Divine Indwelling versus Divine Imputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Essence versus Relation in Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Cheap Grace versus Repentance and Sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Justification, Consolation and the Role of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Robbing Comfort from the Afflicted Conscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Confessing the Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Propter Christum: Justification and the Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Justification on account of the One Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The communicatio idiomatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Osiander, the Nestorian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Debating Biblical Texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. “To Obtain Such Faith”: Philosophical versus Scriptural Method in Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



70 72 72 74 76 79 79 82



83 83 88 89 91 93

94

Chapter 4: True Lutherans, All: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus against the “Prussian Gods” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Epistolae Quaedam (1551) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht B. Defensores fidei: The “Official” Response of Flacius and Gallus . . . . . . . . . C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –​1553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. De Iesu nomine Christi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeusisten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Wider die Götter in Preussen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier . VI. Kurtze und klare erzelung der argument Osiandri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. Proba des geists Osiandri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX. Ermanung an alle Stende der Christlichen Kirchen in Preußen . . . . . X. Beweisung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI. Explicatio loci Sancti Pauli Rom. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Setting the Record Straight: Mörlin’s Historia of 1554 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103 103 104 113 118 120 122 123 127 129 130 132 136 140 143 144 146

Table of Contents

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –​1559 . . I. Das Osiandri Jrthumb mit keiner vorgessenheit zustillen, oder hinzulegen sey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Fighting Duke Albrecht, Comforting the Persecuted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Fighting Duke Albert and His Supporters in Others’ Words . . . . . . . IV. Fighting Johannes Funck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Fighting Matthias Vogel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. A Concluding Word from Nicholas Gallus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Epilogue: Morlinus Triumphans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. The Heart of the Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX 153 154 156 165 170 173 185 186 189

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander: Differentiated Consensus in the Sixteenth Century? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 A. Melanchthon and Brenz’s Early Opinions in the Osiandrian Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The First Memorandum from Württemberg (5 December 1551) . . . . II. A Second Memorandum from Württemberg (1 June 1552) . . . . . . . . III. Reactions to Brenz’s Second Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Brenz’s Declaratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Approval of Brenz by Matthias Flacius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Literary Controversy: Pro and Con . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The Nuremberg Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Memorandum of 27 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Tract of 10 November 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. The “Statement” of 28 September 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Jakob Runge’s Sermon of 29 September 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Melanchthon’s Exhortation of 2 October 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. A Nuremberger Takes Brenz to Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 197 198 201 205 208 209 212 220 221 226 228 229 230 232 235 238

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Antilogia of Osiander’s Opponents: First Shot in the War over Luther or a Return of Fire? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Osiander’s Pre-Emptive Strike: The Bericht und Trostschrift . . . . . . . . III. Osiander’s Antidotum to the Antilogia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Osiander’s Gezeugnis der heiligen Schrifft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

243 243 244 246 251

X

Table of Contents

B. First Responders, 1551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Nuremberg’s Michael Roting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. A Voice from Leipzig: Bernhard Ziegler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. An Anonymous Tract and Its Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Raven (or: Rabbi) Osiander versus the Honorable, Highly Educated Mr. Doctor Martin Luther of Blessed Memory . . . . . . . . 2. Osiander Attacks His “Fly by Night” Opponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Matthias Flacius Is Joined to the Dialogue between Luther and Osiander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Flacius Himself Responds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Wolfgang Waldner, Osiander’s Long-Earred Owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Osiander’s Reply to the “Uhu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. The “Uhu” Hoots Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Luther as Church Father: Johann Pollicarius and an Early Luther Word from Wittenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Osiander’s Reply to Pollicarius in His Schmeckbier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Anton Otto’s “Wider die Ursachen Osianders” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Longer Texts Join the Chorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Smalcald Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Three Sermons of “Martin Luther” (aka Georg Buchholzer) . . . . . . . F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Osiander Refutes the Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Melanchthon’s Last (Luther) Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. A Final Word: Andreas Musculus on Luther’s Christology . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Joachim Mörlin’s Postscript of 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

252 252 254 256 256 259 262 268 269 269 271 273 277 284 287 291 291 294 297 297 302 310 311 315

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 A. First Things First: Defining Iustitia Dei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The In-Between Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Melanchthon’s Antwort of January 1552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Melanchthon’s Preface to the Lectures on Romans by Alexander Alesius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Melanchthon’s Oration against Osiander’s Calumnies . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Argumentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Introducing Romans 3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Excursus: Explicit Agreement with Osiander in the Enarratio . . . . . .

318 322 322 326 328 330 333 336 336

Table of Contents

XI

IV. The Heart of the Disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 V. What Does This Mean? The Debate over Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 VI. Disagreement over the Comfort of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander: A Bibliographic Essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 A. 1549 –​1550: In the Beginning …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. January – May 1551: A Moment of Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Summer 1551: Three Still, Small Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Fall, 1551: Breezing-Up before the Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. January Thaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. February Shadows; March Madness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. April Showers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. May Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. The Long, Hot Summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. The Fall of Osiander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. A Lull in the Action: 1554 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. The End of the Line: 1555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –​1559 (1567) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

355 356 357 362 366 366 374 377 381 392 395 400 409 414 421

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 Index of Bible Verses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

Abbreviations Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. 56 vols. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1875 –​ 1912. BC The Book of Concord. Edited by Robert Kolb & Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Bds. Philip Melanchthon. Philippi Melanchthonis epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae quae in corpore reformatorum desiderantur. Edited by Heinrich Bindseil. Halle: Gustav Schwetschke, 1874. BSLK Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. 10th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. CA The Augsburg Confession CR Philip Melanchthon. Corpus Reformatorum: Philippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil. 28 vols. Halle: A. Schwetschke & Sons, 1834 –1​ 860. GA Andreas Osiander. Gesamtausgabe. 10 Vols. Edited by Gerhard Müller & Gottfried Seebaß. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975 –​1997. HAB Herzog August Bibliothek Kaufmann, Bibliographie  Thomas Kaufmann. Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs „Herrgotts Kanzlei“ (1548 –​1551/2). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Appendix 1: „Bibliographie der zwischen 1548 und 1552 in Magdeburg erschienenen Drucke.“ Pp. 493 – ​554. Koehn Horst Koehn, „Philip Melanchthons Reden: Verzeichnis der im 16. Jahrhundert erschienenen Drucke.“ Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 25 (1984): 1277 –1​ 495. MBW Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Regesten. Edited by Heinz Scheible. 12+ vols. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–. MSA Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe]. Edited by Robert Stupperich. 7 vols. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1951–​1975. PG Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graece. Edited by Jacques Paul Migne. 161 vols. in 166. Paris, 1857 –​1866. PL Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. Edited by Jacques Paul Migne. 221 vols. Paris, 1844 –​1890. Seebaß Gottfried Seebaß, ed. Bibliographia Osiandrica: Bibliographie der gedruckten Schriften Andreas Osianders d. Ä. (1496 –​1552). Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1971. Texte Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Texte, Edited by Heinz Scheible, et al. 11+ vols. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991–. TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Gerhard Krause & Gerhard Müller. 39 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977 – ​2000. ADB

XIV VD 16 WA WA DB WA Br WA TR WBIS

Abbreviations

Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. 24 vols. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1969 – ​2000. Martin Luther. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Schriften]. 65 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883 –​1993. Martin Luther. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Bibel. 12 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1906 – ​61. Martin Luther. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930 –1​ 985. Martin Luther. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden. 6 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1912 – ​21. World Biographical Information System, http://db.saur.de/WBIS/biographic​Mi​ cro​ficheDocument.jsf. K. G. Saur Verlag.

Introduction “Iustificatio articulus stantis et cadentis Ecclesiae est.” Justification is the article on which the church stands or falls. Although Martin Luther never quite said it that way,1 this phrase well summarizes the attitude of sixteenth-century Lutherans as they attempted to clarify and defend what Luther had confessed as the central message of the Bible. After all, in the preface to his 1535 commentary on Galatians, Luther did write about the infinite and horrible profanation and abomination that has always raged in the Church of God and today does not cease to rage against this unique and solid rock, which we ourselves call the topic of justification. That is, how not through ourselves (and surely not through our works, which are less than ourselves) but through the assistance of another, through the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, we are redeemed from sin, death and the devil and given eternal life.2

No wonder, then, that when an important Lutheran theologian, Andreas Osiander, expressed this doctrine using altogether different language and concepts than Lutherans were accustomed to hearing, a pitched battle arose over this article only five years after Luther’s death. The published record of that dispute is the subject of this monograph. In 1972, Jörg Rainer Fligge published a typescript copy of his doctoral dissertation, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus.3 It has remained, until now, the only full-length study of the reactions to Andreas Osiander’s proposals for understanding the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith. As its title implies, however, Fligge’s approach focuses far more on the political intrigue at the Prussian court than simply on the reactions of Osiander’s opponents in Königsberg and the Empire. It overlooks much of the more complicated aspects of the theological debate. Moreover, Fligge’s remarkably thorough study took place before publication of some very important research tools, including VD 16, the edition of Osiander’s works (GA) and the ongoing work on Melanchthon’s correspondence (MBW). It also came before the flood of scholarly discussion on confessionalization and also lacked a clear analysis of the specific role the print1 See, however, the statement in the Smalcald Articles, II.i.5: “von diesem Artikel kann man nichts weichen oder nachgeben, es falle Himmel und Erden oder was nicht bleiben will.” 2 WA 40/1: 33, 14 – ​20. 3 Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972).

2

Introduction

ing press played in forming theological public opinion on this issue. Thus, forty years later, it is time to examine once again how Lutherans of the mid-sixteenth century fought over this “unique rock,” justification. This study focuses on the flurry of published attacks on Andreas Osiander and his supporters, which saw the light of day between 1551 and 1559. Its interest revolves around the theological debates over the meaning of justification, redemption, faith and Christology and the ways in which theologians chose to promulgate and defend their positions to the theological public emerging among Evangelicals during this time.4 This monograph began as a footnote to a larger work on Philip Melanchthon – an attempt to understand Melanchthon’s repeated mention of Osiander in his correspondence with Albrecht Hardenberg during the early 1550s. Discovering more and more responses to Osiander, it seemed that within the bounds of this one dispute scholars would have a perfect window into the way Evangelical theologians built a remarkable consensus among themselves on this all-important doctrine. Although one may also identify political and social motivations among the individual writers, the sheer number and variety of responses and their surprising respect for one another pointed to the oft-neglected theological side of confessionalization. How did Evangelical theologians from various principalities within and outside the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation come to agree with each other in the absence of direct, unified political control? How important were their arguments for each other? This study also arose from a second, in this case, theological motivation. In the last twenty-five years, a so-called “new” school of Luther research arose, centered in Finland involving Tuomo Mannermaa and his students, which, in combination with the “new” Pauline studies,5 has attempted to revise or even attack standard Lutheran understandings of justification.6 In conversations with the Finnish Orthodox Church, which like Eastern Orthodoxy in general has no specific doctrine of justification, Mannermaa proposed that a point of contact existed between Luther and the Orthodox on the question of theosis (divinization) and that Luther’s position on justification could best be understood in 4 Throughout this study, we will favor using the word “evangelical” (capitalized) to designate what one otherwise might (anachronistically) call Lutherans. 5 For a trenchant analysis of the “new” Pauline school, see Erik Heen, “A Lutheran Response to the New Perspective on Paul,” Lutheran Quarterly 24 (2010): 263 – ​91. Most of their arguments echo similar positions articulated by St. Jerome and Erasmus of Rotterdam (and criticized by Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon). 6 In English, see Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). A fine criticism in English comes from Carl Trueman, “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 231– ​44. In relation to Melanchthon, see Anna Briskina, “An Orthodox View of Finnish Luther Research,” Lutheran Quarterly 22 (2008): 16 – ​39.

Introduction

3

these terms. Alongside this argument ran a sharp criticism of nineteenth‑ and twentieth-century German Lutheran theology with its rejection of essentialism and its purported reliance on what came to be existentialism to interpret Luther – a reliance, it was claimed, that blinded many scholars to the ontological underpinnings of Luther’s thought. Although critics have pointed out certain parallels between the Finnish position and Osiander’s insistence upon the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature as the source of Christian righteousness, no one has fully examined Osiander’s opponents to explore how their criticisms of him might shed light on the current debate. Indeed, there is reason to suspect that Karl Holl’s thesis on Luther’s doctrine of justification (that Luther discovered a sanative doctrine only to have it usurped by Philip Melanchthon’s forensic doctrine)7 not only influenced the Finnish approach but has also continued to make it nearly impossible to explain the overwhelming rejection of Osiander in favor of forensic justification by not just Melanchthon and his closest disciples but nearly all Evangelical theologians of the 1550s. Indeed, Holl’s hypothesis played a central role in the description of Andreas Osiander’s theology by one of Holl’s most famous students, Emanuel Hirsch.8 Remnants of Hirsch’s conclusions continue to influence later work, especially Martin Stupperich’s Osiander in Preussen, despite his best efforts to distance himself from them.9 By insisting on the centrality of the equivalent of theosis in Luther’s thought, the Finnish school has constructed a curious historical conundrum. How can one properly construe Luther’s influence in the sixteenth century, given the rejection of Osiander’s reading of Luther by an overwhelming majority of his contemporaries in favor of a forensic understanding of justification? How can one argue that Luther was such a brilliant teacher if nearly all of his closest students completely misunderstood his teaching on justification by faith and if the only person to understand his position never sat in his classroom and was universally vilified by the very students who did? Moreover, the construction of an imagined nineteenth‑ and twentieth-century German cabal of philosophers and theologians misreading Luther also fails under careful scrutiny – especially when many of the current arguments over Luther’s view of justification go back not simply to the nineteenth century but to the sixteenth. The point of this current study, then, is not so much to criticize specifics of the Finnish school as it is to demonstrate that when it came to justification by faith, all of the important Evangelical theologians of the 1550s rejected Osiander’s position in favor of forensic justification in one 7 Karl

Holl, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewißheit,” in: Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1: Luther (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1932), 111– ​54. 8 Emanuel Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919). 9 Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​1552 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 3 –​12.

4

Introduction

form or another. If Luther employed theosis in his theology (itself a questionable thesis), then at least it was not in relation to the doctrine of justification as nearly all of his theological heirs understood it. The present work focuses in large part on published reactions to Osiander’s claims regarding justification. It concentrates on the public event caused by the printing press. Thus, this study will not examine Osiander’s theology per se, in part because Hirsch and Stupperich, among others, have already accomplished that task. Indeed, despite certain weaknesses in both works, one can glean from them a fairly consistent picture of Osiander’s theology. In this work, only chapter 1, which introduces the dispute, and chapter 6, which compares Osiander’s use of Luther to his opponents’, will examine Osiander’s texts in detail. Even in those chapters, however, the purpose of investigating Osiander is simply to elucidate his opponents’ points of view. The Osiandrian controversy is unique in several ways. First, participants debated what they universally regarded as the central doctrine of the church. Thus, neither side ever claimed that the debate was superfluous, as had happened in the struggle over adiaphora, where Philip Melanchthon and his allies consistently claimed that their opponents’ attacks were over unimportant matters. Second, the other debates that broke out in the decade after Luther’s death did not involve such a wide variety of theologians from so many different traditions within the Evangelical camp – all lining up on the same side. Third, bitter enemies in other controversies nevertheless defended one another and united in their rejection of Osiander and his followers. Thus, we discover that Matthias Flacius and Philip Melanchthon, bitter enemies in the debate over adiaphora, stood on the same side in this dispute. Indeed, the traditional (and sometimes questionable) categories of gnesio-Lutheran (genuine Lutherans) and Philippist (followers of Melanchthon) do not obtain in this dispute. On one side, we find Andreas Osiander and a handful of epigones; on the other, nearly all Evangelical theologians, who not only disagreed with Osiander but also wrote about it in no uncertain terms. Even the one slight exception to this united front, Johannes Brenz of Württemberg, who tried in vain to mediate the dispute and called it a war of words, made it clear that he did not agree with Osiander’s language or with his interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. The very breadth of the theological consensus over against Osiander allows the intellectual historian opportunity to examine the process of confessionalization from a rigorously theological point of view while at the same time developing an approach to the topic that honors the very specificity of the theological debate and thus may be applicable to other disputes of the period as well.10 Historians 10 One historian who has pioneered such an approach is Thomas Kaufmann, especially most recently in his Konfession und Kultur: Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) but also his Universität und

Introduction

5

can easily reduce the process of confessionalization to sweeping movements across history’s stage: the consolidation of princely power; the development of imperial pretensions; the rationalization of church life; the (over‑)systematization of theology. In one way, however, these global theories may obscure individual events upon which such historical developments were built.11 As important as the grander social and political aspects of confessionalization are, theological agreement in particulars still represented the conditio sine qua non for all participants in the process. If doctrine had played little or no role in building a confessional church, then it would be better for historians not to employ the term “confession” at all, even when such words as Konfession or Konfessionalizierung simply could be translated as “denomination” and “denominalization.”12 Whatever modern sensibilities may dictate regarding theology, it mattered in sixteenth-century central Europe in very concrete ways. And however much an intellectual elite shaped that theology, what they taught to other theologians they also preached from their pulpits, summarized in their catechisms and corpora doctrinae, and, finally, subscribed to in their confessions. Thus, from the very beginning a public side to Evangelical theology developed that involved all manner of folks. Consensus then formed through the common discussion of theology and acknowledgment of agreement and not simply through political compulsion (these theologians came from different territorial churches controlled by different, independent princes). l­utherische Konfessionalisierung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997), which concentrates on the University of Rostock. See also the collection of essays, edited by Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg, Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006). 11 See Heinz Schilling, Konfessionskonflikt und Staatsbildung: Eine Fallstudie über das Verhältnis von religiösem und sozialem Wandel in der Frühneuzeit am Beispiel der Grafschaft Lippe (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981), especially 15 – ​23. See also Robert Kolb, Luther’s Heirs Define His Legacy: Studies on Lutheran Confessionalization (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), ix, where he quotes Schilling’s definition of confessionalization in Heinz Schilling, “Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich, Religiöser und gesellschaflicher Wandel in Deutschland zwischen 1555 und 1620,” Historische Zeitschrift 246 (1988): 1– ​45, especially 6 and 30: “a fundamental process in society, which ploughed up the public and private life of Europe in thoroughgoing fashion.” Kolb goes on to explain that this process involved not only ecclesial and theological aspects but also “a myriad of political, social, economic, and cultural factors.” Bodo Nischan, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994), 2, acknowledges the work of Schilling and Ernst Walter Zeeden and combines their words in this definition of Konfessionsbildung: “the mental and organizational consolidation of the diverging Christian confessions after the breakdown of religious unity into more or less stable denominations with their own doctrines, constitutions, and lifestyles,” thus designating “the fragmentation of the unitary Christendom (Christianitas Latina) of the Middle Ages into at least three confessional churches – Lutheran, Calvinistic or ‘Reformed’, and post-Tridentine Roman Catholic.” 12 Because German has two words for “confession” (Bekenntnis and Konfession), it may be easier for German-speaking researchers to remove the confessing moment from Konfession.

6

Introduction

First and foremost, there need be no search for heroes and villains in this story. It is tempting (as some have done) to reduce the controversy to a battle between Philip Melanchthon and Osiander or Joachim Mörlin (his main opponent in Prussia) and Osiander or, perhaps, Matthias Flacius and Osiander. Yet such a narrow focus would eliminate many important contributors to this debate, including theologians from Saxony, Brandenburg, Pomerania and Nuremberg, to name just a few, all of whom wrote their own refutations of Osiander’s work from their own points of view. This is not to say that Melanchthon, Brenz, Flacius and Mörlin were not crucial participants and opinion shapers in this dispute, as if their contemporaries did not listen carefully to their arguments and borrow from them for their own work. Unless the full scope of Evangelical reactions to Osiander comes under balanced scrutiny, however, analysis of theological consensus building becomes lopsided. In this study, the eighth chapter’s bibliographic essay provides a crucial chronological rundown of all published attacks against Osiander, and chapter 3 outlines the basic theological points made by these authors.13 Chapters one and two examine the very earliest reactions from what were often lesser-known authors. Equally important, however, the dispute with Osiander quickly became a struggle over authority  – the authority of Scripture, of Luther, of the Wittenberg doctorate and of the judgments of individual churches. Thus, there was, in particular, one “hero,” Martin Luther, whose authority became a major point of debate throughout the controversy. As will become clear in chapter 6, the struggle over Luther’s role in this conflict allowed participants to formulate and debate a proper hermeneutic for reading his works.14 Concern for theological authority, far from being a given consistently trumped by political authority, marks another important theological facet of confessionalization. At the same time, two titans of mid-century Evangelical church life, Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, clashed both over the nature of the conflict (Brenz insisted that it was more a war of words than of substance) and over the best way of handling the potential rupture in Evangelical ranks (with Brenz looking for compromise and Melanchthon insisting upon convergence). Yet their published responses reveal few differences in approach and only modest attempts to address each other’s divergent views, as we will see in chapter 5. Thus, their delicate attempts to spare one another and avoid direct confrontation, what I 13 In his much earlier work on German imperial cities, Bernd Moeller pleaded for more careful examination of the way the Reformation developed in concreto rather than simply in the mind of Luther. See his Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays, ed. and trans. By H. C. Erik Midelfort and Mark U. Edwards, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1982), especially 3 –​16. 14 See Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520 –​1620 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), especially 103 – ​20, in relation to later disputes over the Lord’s Supper.

Introduction

7

have anachronistically labeled differentiated consensus, form an important aspect of building lasting agreement in the service of confessionalization. The specific chronological contours of the published record in this dispute (see especially chapters one, two and eight) reveal that the publication event was a public event. Some of the opinions of churches in this affair were first delivered to Duke Albrecht of Prussia in line with his request for the churches’ judgments on Osiander’s understanding of justification, especially as expressed in his Confession of 1551. Some writers, like Melanchthon, only spoke indirectly to the Confession and tried to maintain some distance in their critique. Others, like Justus Menius and Nicholas von Amsdorf, wrote both official judgments and published their own attacks. Still others, like Mörlin, had trouble publishing anything at all, so that a document finished in December 1551 was not published until May of the following year. Some churches only published their responses when it became clear that Osiander refused to stop attacking his opponents. The mediating position of one church, Württemberg, found its way into print only at the hands of others (Melanchthon, Flacius and Duke Albrecht’s chief advisor Andreas Aurifaber). Matthias Flacius, by contrast, not only published his “official” refutation of Osiander’s work immediately, but he also kept up a continuous barrage of attacks – first on Osiander and then, after the latter’s sudden death, on his followers.15 Three theologians produced far more publications in this debate than the others: Matthias Flacius, Joachim Mörlin, and Philip Melanchthon. Philip Melanchthon’s contributions took the form of speeches (three), open letters (two) and biblical commentary among other genres. Because the recently published work of Anna Briskina comparing Osiander and Melanchthon completely omitted the initial speech of 1551 (on the meaning of iustitia in Clement of Alexandria) and the final commentary (on Romans, published in 1556), separate space is devoted here to exploring Melanchthon’s unique contribution to this dispute (chapter 7) and especially his outspoken, decisive attack on the Osiandrists in Nuremberg (chapter 5, in contrast to Brenz). By analyzing Melanchthon’s contributions, we discover another theological aspect of confessionalization: the ways in which university and church life – as reflected here in speeches, commentary, letters and official hearings – shaped the formation of an ecclesial identity and theological consciousness. In Mörlin’s case, the bulk of publications came after he had been expelled from Prussia in 1553 and targeted not only Osiander, who died in 1552, but also Duke Albrecht’s advisors and Mörlin’s direct successor in office in Königsberg, Matthias Vogel. Flacius, however, published more responses to Osiander and 15 This was in contrast to a theologian like Justus Jonas, a signer of the Censurae, to be sure, but whose attack on Osiander was first published in the nineteenth century. See Gustav Kawerau, ed., Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, 2 vols. (Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 2: 309 –​19.

8

Introduction

his followers than any other single theologian. The fact that Flacius worked for Magdeburg’s printers explains in part why he produced so many tracts, each one aimed at a particular exegetical or theological or, after Osiander’s death, ecclesial issue.16 One even defended Melanchthon against Osiander’s attack. All told, Mörlin and Flacius, along with Nicholas Gallus, comprised the Osiandrists’ most determined and prolific attackers. Yet their output also defined what might be called a particularly confessional response to the controversy (see chapter 4). That is, going public through publication marked one way to continue to confess the faith against all odds.17 This “confessional” side to the dispute meant that going public also had a theological moment to it. Luther’s connection between the Augsburg Confession of 1530 and the act of confessing the faith – demonstrated both in his early use of Psalm 119:46 to describe what happened there (a verse that later came to grace Latin versions of the text) and in his sermon at Elector John’s funeral in 1532 (where he contrasted John’s real death confessing in Augsburg to his Kindersterben two years later) – became for these genuine Lutherans a constant modus operandi.18 In the face of Osiander’s new heresy, one was once again required to confess the true faith. Thus, at least for these theologians (and doubtless for countless others), confessionalization entailed the act of confessing the faith in continuity with earlier confessors. Thus, especially for Mörlin, Flacius and Gallus, publications against Osiander denoted going public with the gospel itself and refuting dangerous errors – “I will also speak of your decrees before kings, and shall not be put to shame” (Psalm 119:46). This longing to confess the faith, which clearly involved not only these three gnesio-Lutherans but also many of the other participants in this theological drama, lies at the heart of confessionalization and its intimate connection to publication. Indeed, whatever the role of the printing press in spreading Martin Luther’s thought, this study demonstrates that without the printing press any process of confessionalization is unimaginable. The need to “go public” with one’s theological arguments was not a superfluous part of a political or ecclesial process or an example of Lutheran theologians behaving badly. Instead, it stood at the very heart of the matter. The lively public debate that ensued around Andreas Osiander and his followers marked clearly how confessional consensus, so necessary for developing united churches, came about. Here readers of these tracts could recognize, in the very act of reading, comrades in the faith and thereby 16 See Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548 –​ 1551/2) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 17 See Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), 63 – ​98. 18 WA Br 5: 442, 14 –​18 (letter to Conrad Cordatus, dated 6 July 1530); WA 30/2: 398, 15 f. & 31 f. and 399, 1 f. & 15 f. (open letter to Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz), dated 6 July 1530. For the sermon, see WA 36: 246, 8 –​10 & 28 – ​31; 247, 1 & 11 f.

Introduction

9

develop common approaches to Biblical texts, to Martin Luther’s authority, and to scholarly training. Yet the public, published nature of the theological side to confessionalization involved, especially for Lutherans, only one aspect of the process, namely definition of and agreement in right doctrine. With the exception of Osiander and his supporters, Lutherans in this dispute (and in others like it) also always asked what the effect of such doctrine would be.19 As Philip Melanchthon himself often pointed out in his commentaries on Romans, after Paul defined justification in chapters three and four of Romans, he then immediately turned to the question of its effect in Romans 5:1 (“Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God”). Not only Melanchthon and his immediate students but also many others in this dispute insisted that the correctness of a doctrine had to be measured not simply by its faithfulness to Scripture but by its ability to provide comfort to distraught, terrified consciences. This vital tie between meaning and effect (i.e., justification and consolation) delineated an important aspect in almost all of the attacks on Osiander  – an approach that Osiander himself did not use in this dispute. But it also revealed another motivation for publishing their refutations. When theologians, especially people like Joachim Mörlin, the banished pastor of Königsberg, wrote against Osiander, they always included in their line of argument how comforting the forensic understanding of justification really was. At the same time, they were providing that very comfort, so they thought, in their writings to people robbed of it by Osiander’s teaching. To be pronounced righteous by another on behalf of God is itself a public event, an act of saying aloud to the sinner the divine judgment of forgiveness. When this very public act comes under attack, the only viable defense is to go public – early and often – against any view bent on silencing the very gospel (and ipso facto its comfort) that stood at the center of all Evangelical church life and theology.

19 The same issue arose over the doctrine of predestination and the Lord’s Supper, as the Formula of Concord made clear.

Chapter 1

Why Some Pastors Should Not Become Professors: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy This study focuses not so much on the thought of Andreas Osiander as on the reactions to and condemnations of it. For the better part of the 1550s, Evangelical theologians of all sorts throughout the Holy Roman Empire refuted and condemned Osiander and his followers. Despite Osiander’s claims to the contrary, this response was not the carefully orchestrated plot of a single theologian (Philip Melanchthon) or the mindless following by epigones of that same Praeceptor Germaniae. Instead, all kinds of theologians, some of whom otherwise were busy writing tracts against one another, arose en masse to denounce Osiander and his handful of followers, so that by 1560 (or certainly by 1567) there were few if any supporters left anywhere in the Evangelical pulpits or lecture halls of central Europe. We will deal with these massive outpourings against Osiander throughout this book. This chapter, however, investigates how exactly the publishing war began and how it was Osiander who brought this outpouring of resentment and censure upon himself by his own eagerness to defeat his enemies (in Königsberg, Wittenberg and Nuremberg) in print. This eagerness fanned the flames of his opponents’ antipathy toward him and led step by step to the conflagration that followed. Thus, it was not simply what Osiander taught and wrote but how (and how often) he taught, wrote and published it that brought things to the boiling point. Add to that Duke Albrecht of Prussia’s request to the Empire’s Evangelical princes for their theologians to respond to Osiander’s Confession from October 1551 and the duke’s inability to get Osiander to refrain from attacking his enemies, and the conditions were ripe for a massive literary explosion.

A. Mr. Osiander Goes to Königsberg On 24 October 1550, Andreas Osiander, the “primarius” professor of theology (as he often referred to himself) at the recently founded University of Königsberg, presented and defended before a packed house eighty-one theses on justification by faith. Justification, he argued, must be viewed as a making alive by divine indwelling and not as a forensic declaration of forgiveness. It consisted of two parts,

A. Mr. Osiander Goes to Königsberg

11

forgiveness and reconciliation. Skipping over forgiveness (which Christ had won on the cross 1500 years earlier), Osiander concentrated on reconciliation, which meant for him union with Christ’s righteous, divine nature. Without such a view of justification, he argued, Zwingli’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper was unavoidable. Forgiveness alone did not adequately describe justification, which had to include the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature. Only this divine righteousness, understood as effecting righteousness in us, could properly define justification.1 Osiander was now a year into his position as university professor in Königsberg after having been driven out of his pastorate in Nuremberg because of the Evangelical defeat in the Smalcald War and the resultant harsh measures passed at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1547 –​1548. In part, he intended these theses as a sharp correction of the theology of Philip Melanchthon and his pupils – and for several good reasons. Osiander was completely surrounded by theologians trained in Wittenberg. Not only had Joachim Mörlin and Peter Hegemon, pastors in Königsberg, received doctorates of theology under Luther’s presidency there, but many other professors, including Georg Sabinus (Melanchthon’s sonin-law), Michael Isindor (who had received his Wittenberg degree in theology on 8 November 1548 by defending theses),2 Friedrich Staphylus (M. A., 1541), Matthias Lauterwald (who as late as 19 February 1549 was involved in Wittenberg’s academic exercises)3 and Martin Chemnitz, also studied there. Georg von Venediger, another opponent of Osiander, received his doctorate in theology in Wittenberg on 2 October 1550.4 Already when Osiander held his earlier, inaugural disputation on law and gospel in 1549, some of these Wittenbergers had raised objections. Osiander had another motivation for setting his sights on Wittenberg theologians. As had Melanchthon, von Amsdorf and a host of others, in 1548 Osiander joined the chorus of attacks against the Augsburg Interim, that decree of the Imperial Diet agreed to by the Brandenburg theologian Johann Agricola which 1 See GA 9: 422 – ​47 and especially the useful summary on pp. 422 – ​23. For Osiander’s position, see, among others, Emanuel Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919), 172 – ​203; Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 86 –​109; Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​ 1552 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), 110 – ​223; Claus Bachmann, Die Selbstherrlichkeit Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des Nürnberger Reformators Andreas Osiander (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 153 – ​209; Anna Briskina, Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/ Main: Lang, 2006), 80 –​109, 145 – ​91, 214 – ​42; Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 95 –​117. 2 See CR 12: 548 – ​54 and CR 11: 783 – ​88 (the oration; Koehn, no. 148), dated 12 November 1548. 3 See CR 10: 785 – ​90. 4 For Osiander’s relation to Wittenberg, see Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 95 –​105 & 183 – ​86.

12

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

permitted the Evangelicals little more than married priests and communion in both kinds until a general council could meet.5 A year later, however, in a memorandum to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, Osiander also attacked, without naming names, the writings of two students of Melanchthon: Georg Major and Johannes Pfeffinger.6 Although never published in the sixteenth century, this memorandum demonstrates Osiander’s rejection of Wittenberg’s attempts at coming to terms with the hated Augsburg Interim through compromise on matters of adiaphora (what in the course of that intra-Lutheran controversy became known incorrectly as the Leipzig Interim).7 Thus, attacks concerning adiaphora against Melanchthon and Wittenberg by others may have emboldened Osiander to criticize what he viewed as Wittenberg’s weak understanding of justification. Then there was the matter of Bernhard Ziegler. Ziegler was an unassuming professor of Hebrew at the University of Leipzig who occasionally functioned as Melanchthon’s mouthpiece in the struggles with Matthias Flacius and others over adiaphora and the so-called Leipzig Interim.8 At the end of some theses concerning John 14:23, debated in Leipzig on 6 June 1549 under Ziegler’s presidency, Ziegler had added comments about Psalm 68:6 and the word ‫“( בערבות‬in a dry land”). Osiander (apparently mistakenly) thought that these comments were directed at him and at the University of Königsberg’s dismissal of Matthias Lauterwald (another Wittenberg student). As a result he wrote a scathing attack on Ziegler, which was published on 20 October 1549.9 Negotiations with the 5 See Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgott Kanzlei” 1548 –​ 1551/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), “Bibliography,” 494 – ​503 (1548) for those authors whose works appeared in Magdeburg in 1548: Adler, a–b; Aepinus, a–b [see also 1549, a–e]; Alberus, a; von Amsdorf; Bauerschmidt, a–b [see also 1549]; Bericht [of the theologians assembled in Meissen], a–b; Christlichen [Magdeburg clerics?]; Flacius, a–f; Interim, a–b; Magdeburg, a–c; Mansfeld-Hinterort [Count Albrecht VII], a–b; Melanchthon, b–g; Osiander, a–b [GA 9: 140 – ​59]; Pasquillus [Anon.]; Prediger [Preachers to John Frederick’s sons; see also 1549, a–b]; Schönes … Lyed [Anon.], a–b. Osiander’s attack came in the summer of 1548. For an even more complete listing, see http://www.litdb.evtheol.uni-mainz.de/datenbank/index front.php. 6 GA 9: 369 – ​401, with an attached letter (no. 419, dated 12 August 1550), 9: 402 – ​06. GA 9: 370 states that these writings could not be found. However, for Johannes Pfeffinger, it is most likely his Von den Traditionibus, ceremoniis oder Mitteldingen christlicher wahrer Bericht ([Frankfurt/Oder: Wolrab, 1550) and for Georg Major perhaps his Auslegung des Glaubens (Wittenberg: Rhau Erben, 1550), which includes attacks on Flacius. See Timothy J. Wengert, “Georg Major (1502 –​1574): Defender of Wittenberg’s Faith and Melanchthonian Exegete,” in: Heinz Scheible, ed., Melanchthon in seinen Schülern (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 129 – ​56, especially 136 f. 7 See the introduction by Irene Dingel in: Irene Dingel, ed., Reaktionen auf das Augsburger Interim: Der Interimistische Streit (1548 –​1549), vol. 1 of Controversia et Confessio: Theologische Kontroversen 1548 –​1577/80, kritische Auswahledition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 14 –​16. 8 See especially, Koehn, no. 155. 9 Andreae Osiandri epistola, in qua confutantur nova quaedam et fanatica deliramenta. See GA 9:221– ​41. Ziegler’s theses (Z 02 [1549]) in the HAB (925.17 Theol. [18] and K 291.8o Helmst. [18]) are titled De dicto quod extat in capite XIII. Iohannis, si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit etc. Capita ad disputandum proposita a Bernardo Ziglero D. Theologiae. Ad diem Iunij

A. Mr. Osiander Goes to Königsberg

13

Prussian court were inconclusive and ended with a letter by Ziegler, dated 25 June 1550, maintaining his innocence in the affair.10 In 1549, however, Ziegler had also been busy with other matters. On 15 February he presided at a disputation in Leipzig over justification, the theses of which were published both at the time and also later in the year with an undated second set of theses on good works.11 Both bore Melanchthon’s imprint. Indeed, Melanchthon wrote the first set, as his correspondence demonstrates.12 Each printing also included other Hebrew “Problemata,” where the ones at the end of the articles on justification examined the translation of Isaiah 26:2 – ​3 and the ones at the end of the articles on good works discussed the meaning of Shiloh in Genesis 49:10.13 Thus, Osiander, certainly aware of Ziegler’s work, would have known the latest “Electoral Saxon” position on justification – not just from the standard sources but also from Ziegler’s (that is, Melanchthon’s) pithy theses for debate. Indeed, it would seem that Osiander took dead aim at these theses in his own, as if to show that Wittenberg’s theology had changed – contrary to Melanchthon’s own opinion that Ziegler’s theses “show that we have not changed our kind of teaching.”14 That is, coming at the very time Osiander was expressing criticism of Ziegler and of the so-called Leipzig Interim, his theses on law and gospel and the ones on justification a year later staked out his own position over against the Saxons. What had Melanchthon’s (Ziegler’s) theses said? Thesis 2 argued that three things were included when one speaks of Iustificatio: “remission of sins, imputation of righteousness and the gift of the Holy Spirit who makes hearts alive sextum (Leipzig: Bapst, 1549). There may have indeed been some connection between Ziegler and Lauterwald through Wittenberg, where Lauterwald published two tracts against Osiander in 1552. A student at Wittenberg in 1540, Lauterwald left for Königsberg in 1549 to fill a position in mathematics but was quickly caught up in theological disputes with Osiander. He returned to Wittenberg in 1550 or so. See MBW 5743. He would later fall into disfavor with Wittenberg’s theologians as well. See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 36 – ​79. 10 It is unclear how widely this letter or its contents may have been circulated. 11 Z 01 (1549): Disputationes duae prima de iusticia fidei, secunda de bonis operibus … habitae Bernardo Ziglero (Leipzig: Bapst, 1549), in HAB: K 291.8o Helmst. (12). The first set had already been published earlier in the year as De hac sententia, fide iustificari homines coram deo absque merito operum, capita ad disputandum proposita … ad diem XV. Februar. (Leipzig: [V. Bapst, 1549]), now in K 291.8o Helmst. (19). All three sets of theses in the HAB were gifts of Nicholas Gallus to Matthias Flacius. These two disputations are printed (without the Problemata) in CR 12: 664 – ​77. 12 MBW 5446 (CR 7: 334 f.), Melanchthon to Michael Meienburg in Nordhausen, dated from Leipzig 13 February [1549], which indicates that the theses were already printed by 13 February, and MBW 5451 (CR 7: 336 f.), Melanchthon to Franz Burchard [in Weimar], dated [from Wittenberg] 17 February [1549]. See also MBW, Regesten, 10: 597. For other similar theses composed by Melanchthon at the same time, see CR 12: 543 – ​66. 13 On A 7r – A 8v, Ziegler provided the renderings of the Hebrew by Jerome, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Pagninus, Münster, and the Zurich Latin Bible before coming to his own conclusion. 14 MBW 5451 (CR 7: 336), a letter to Franz Burchard.

14

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

by faith (that is, by trust in the Mediator).”15 Theses 3 – ​8 insisted that sins were forgiven not on account of our doing well [benefacta] but on account of Christ, gratis through faith. After providing proof texts in Romans 3 and Acts 10, the theses went on to distinguish between law and gospel. Having fallen into sin, Adam and Eve knew that, given the immutable righteousness of God, they were damned. By this logic of the law, then, no one would be saved were it not for the Son who, moved by mercy for the human race, satisfied God’s righteousness, becoming a sacrifice for us, as was already revealed in Genesis 3:15.16 Theses 9 –​17 spelled out the importance of the exclusive term, gratis, which preserved God’s honor and brought consolation to the conscience. It was not as if the will did nothing, since gratis did not exclude “concurrent movement” in us of contrition, faith and new life. Indeed, excluding such things would remove God as the source of these good things and would make the promise uncertain, giving rise to carnal security or doubt.17 Theses 18 – ​26 attacked the [Roman] opponents. To be justified “gratis” did not mean that one had to doubt the promised forgiveness or that “gratis” one received new [infused] qualities [in the soul] for doing the good, as if faith were simply knowledge of Christ’s work.18 Against this philosophica speculatio, where philosophers distinguished heroic from common virtues, the theses insisted that the terrified conscience needed to be taught not how well it was doing before God but rather that the ministry of the gospel revealed God’s will toward us: reception into God’s mercy through faith – a faith that was not mere knowledge but believing “that all my sins are forgiven on account of the Mediator.”19 Having dealt with gratis and objections to it, theses 27 – ​30 dealt with fides. Here, too, the theses addressed the adversaries’ notion of doubt. The imputation of righteousness was nothing, according to them, so that a person had instead to become righteous by his [or her] own fulfilling of the law. “Although the promise is universal, nevertheless when doubt is commanded, then this consolation is taken away, since the mind in doubt thinks in a pagan mode: ‘Perhaps the promise does not pertain to me.’ ”20 Faith, by contrast, occurred when someone applied the promise to himself [or herself], as thesis 30 proved with reference to Romans 4 (faith, not doubt, was necessary), John 5 (otherwise the promise was given in vain), Romans 5:1 (the conscience had peace with God), and Romans 5:2 (otherwise the Mediator was useless).21 The concluding two theses (31– ​32) contended that only those who had experienced faith realized the truth of these 15 CR 12:

664. 664 – ​65. 17 CR 12: 665 – ​66. 18 CR 12: 666. Here Melanchthon had especially Trent in mind. 19 CR 12: 666. 20 CR 12: 667. 21 CR 12: 667 – ​68. 16 CR 12:

B. Silence in the Heavens for One-Quarter Hour

15

matters, while those who denied such things and insisted on doubt simply revealed themselves to be pagans, no better than the godless king described in the Aeneid.22 The doubts of believers were overcome precisely through the divine promise itself.23

B. Silence in the Heavens for One-Quarter Hour From these immediate causes (the Wittenberg students, the Saxon view of adiaphora, and the peculiar role of Ziegler) issued Osiander’s explosive reaction and (eventually) an equally explosive counter-reaction. But Osiander’s first moves developed slowly. His opening address to the university (theses on law and gospel) came on 5 April 1549, less than two months after Ziegler’s first set of theses on justification. Osiander’s written response to Ziegler appeared in October, 1549, some four months after Ziegler’s supposed attack. By mid-1550 this small tempest had died down. Then, after writing the (unpublished) memorandum against the “adiaphorists” in August 1550, Osiander defended his own position on justification in October, presumably against these same adiaphorists. Then there was next to nothing. Despite the weak objections of Michael Isinder, Peter Hegemon, and the court librarian Martin Chemnitz, Osiander may well have deemed the theses on justification a success.24 Only with the return of Friedrich Staphylus to Königsberg shortly after the disputation (who informed Philip Melanchthon straightway of the situation there) did objections to Osiander’s particular understanding of justification begin to take shape. Viewed from the printing presses of Königsberg, Magdeburg, Wittenberg or Nuremberg, where the bulk of the later tracts would appear, however, there was no response to Osiander’s teaching until the summer of 1551. Indeed, all of the earliest struggles over this teaching took place, as one would expect, in Königsberg’s university and the Prussian court. However, it was Osiander himself who took this dispute out of academia and into the public realm. Here Nuremberg played a significant role. Osiander learned from his son-in-law Jerome Besold, in a letter dated 24 December 1550, that many in Nuremberg (where Osiander had been a pastor until driven out by the Augsburg Interim and where Besold still lived and worked as a preacher) suspected him of teaching incorrectly about the doctrine of justification. Osiander responded with his publication of Bericht vnd Trostschrifft: an alle die: so durch das falsch/ Heimlich schreiben/ schreien vnd affterreden/ etlicher meiner feinde/ als solt ich von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ nicht recht halten vnd leren/ geergert/ oder betrübet 22 Vergil, The Aeneid, 4.22: “Nos munera templis, Quippe tuis ferimus, famamque fovemus inanem” (We certainly bring offerings to your temples and caress an empty fame). 23 CR 12: 668. 24 See Stupperich, Osiander, 112 –​13, and GA 9: 423 – ​24.

16

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

worden sein.25 As we will see in chapter 6, in this tract Osiander made one major focus of the dispute Luther himself, stating that “Luther’s teaching on justification is mine, and my teaching is Luther’s.” He also complained that Melanchthon’s students (he was surrounded by them) simply answered his objections to Wittenberg’s theology by referring to Melanchthon’s Loci communes theologici. This statement about Luther, in turn, led Osiander’s Königsberg opponents to present to Duke Albrecht in writing not a defense of their position (as the duke had ordered them to do) but a comparison of Luther’s statements with Osiander’s, the so-called Antilogia. Osiander, in turn, replied with his Antidotum, where he produced passages of Luther that agreed with his point of view. The most significant difference between the two writings is this: while the Antilogia of Mörlin, Hegemon, and Venediger remained unpublished until 1554, Osiander immediately went public with both a Latin and German version of the Antidotum.26 With this, the game was afoot, although the first published responses still did not appear until mid-year and then not from Königsberg (where Osiander’s opponents had difficulty gaining access to the printers) but from Nuremberg and Wittenberg.

C. Blaming the Messenger: Mörlin Becomes Involved It could well be that Joachim Mörlin, a staunch follower of Luther if ever there was one,27 was not pleased with Osiander’s position on law and gospel or on justification. However, until early 1551 he had maintained a discreet distance 25 Königsberg:

Johannes Lufft, 1551. [English: Report and Writing of Consolation to All of Those Who through the False and Secret Writings, Screaming and Slander of Some of My Enemies – As If I Did Not Rightly Hold and Teacher about Justification of Faith – Have Been Irritated or Saddened.] Now published in GA 9: 519 – ​30. GA 9: 520 notes that Mörlin had a copy by 6 February 1551. Melanchthon had received a copy from Peter Hegemon at around the time it was printed. See MBW 5923 (Bds. 314 f.), which MBW, Regesten, 6: 102, following Bds., p. 315, n. 2, dates to the middle of October 1550, identifying Osiander’s writing as the theses on justification. As Hegemon (p. 315) made clear, however, he had included a libellus (not a disputatio) in which Osiander tried to prove that “nos et tuos discipulos” did not teach correctly about justification (cf. GA 9: 525, 5 – ​22) and that Osiander was defending Luther’s teaching (cf. GA 9: 523, 24 – ​33) – topics that did not even come up directly in the Disputatio of 24 October. The autograph bears the date 1550, however, and thus indicates that the Bericht und Trostschrift, appeared in late 1550, between 25 December and 1 January (when people often dated things with the new year), and not 1551 as stated in GA 9: 520. Thus, MBW 5923 should be dated late December 1550. This also means that GA 9: 516 –​18 (no. 433), a letter from Osiander to Besold, dated by GA to the middle of January (cf. GA 9: 516, n. 1) was probably sent before or around the new year, despite the lack of season’s greetings, simply because the comments about Luther and Melanchthon (GA 9: 517, 6 – ​7) match the Bericht und Trostschrift so closely. 26 See chapter 6 for the details. 27 See Jürgen Diestelmann, Joachim Mörlin: Luthers Kaplan – “Papst der Lutheraner”: Ein Zeit‑ und Lebensbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert (Neuendettelsau: Freimund, 2002), 119 – ​53.

C. Blaming the Messenger: Mörlin Becomes Involved

17

from the fray and, as the foremost pastor in Königsberg, was brought in by Duke Albrecht to act as mediator in the controversy. In little or no time, however, Mörlin became Osiander’s chief opponent and was forced to answer for his position to Duke Albrecht. The most remarkable thing about the first response by Mörlin and his comrades-in-arms, Georg von Venediger and Peter Hegemon (the Antilogia) was, of course, that it was no defense of their position but rather a defense of Luther and a single-minded insistence that Osiander had betrayed Luther’s theology (not Melanchthon’s). Osiander’s Antidotum, which refuted their charges, along with his Gezeugnis der heiligen Schrifft had only one thing in mind, to prove that Königsberg’s top theologian was truly following Luther’s (and St. Paul’s) theology. Of course, with his skepticism about creaturely righteousness and his unique reading of Luther, Osiander hardly helped his case. In 1551, however, one set of documents – a series of letters between Mörlin and Osiander28 – was published (probably around September), presumably by Mörlin or a supporter.29 Mörlin’s later complaint about their publication calls into question whether this publication really goes back to him or not. In early April, the Duke had demanded that Mörlin try to work out his objections to Osiander’s theology personally by listening to his lectures and sermons and writing to him. Whatever Duke Albrecht may have hoped for, the result was an unmitigated disaster, ending in Osiander’s breaking off any further contact with Mörlin and with Mörlin holding steadfastly to his critique of Osiander’s position. The tract went to press sometime after the reception of the final letter from 27 April and before a reference to it in a letter from Osiander to Albrecht dated 5 November 1551. The publication of these letters can only be described as a stroke of political savvy (although Mörlin may not have realized it or even wanted it).30 Subsequently referred to in tracts by other opponents,31 these letters demonstrated in stark fashion Osiander’s intransigence and, in the judgment of his opponents, arrogance. They also showed Osiander making some unconsidered 01 (1551): Joachim Mörlin, Epistolae quaedam Ioachimi Morlin Doctoris Theologiae, ad D. Andream Osiandrum. Et Responsiones. [Konigsberg], 1551. Published between 24 April and 5 November 1551. See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 120 – ​65. 29 See Mör 02 (1554), his Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1 April 1554), H 4v, where he argues they were published maliciously [“aber böswillig”], perhaps implying that he did not have a hand in publishing them at all! 30 See GA 9: 618, n. 3 (“Der Druck erschien vermutlich im September oder Oktober 1551”), where reference is made to a letter from Osiander to Herzog Albrecht from 5 November 1551 (no. 497; GA 10: 355 – ​61, here: 359, 14 –​17), in which Osiander does not know “wo oder durch wen, getruckt kommen Sein drey pogen.” 31 See M/A 01 (1552): Justus Menius, et al., Censurae: Das ist Erkendtnis aus Gottes Wort und heiliger Schrifft: uber die Bekendtnis Andreae Osiandri, Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, und von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens (Erfurt: Sthürmer, 1552), A 3v; and idem, Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri (Erfurt: Gervasius Stürmer, 1552), M 4v. 28 Mör

18

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

remarks about his disregard for the authority of the Augsburg Confession and about his own understanding of justification and Christology. The question of publishing one’s position in a theological debate was a complex one in the sixteenth century. There were certain unwritten, intricate rules that church leaders were expected to follow. For one thing, sometimes the one who challenged a theologian’s position could find that the burden of proof fell on his shoulders, not on the one being attacked. This, for example, had been the case in Philip Melanchthon’s brief skirmish with Johann Agricola in 1527 over the cause of poenitentia.32 Another rule had to do with the actual publication of materials. Many times, city councils and princes, consistories and superintendents, or university faculties could seek to prevent publication of tracts that would only pour oil on a raging theological fire.33 Such was the case with Duke Albrecht’s early attempts to reconcile Mörlin to Osiander’s position and to prevent or delay publication of the later response to Osiander’s work. In light of these and other rules of engagement, writers in the dispute occasionally defended their own publication of responses to Osiander’s theology by blaming Osiander for having published his Confession of 1551 first. Had Osiander and the Duke sent this confession to these theologians prior to publication, they would have been glad to keep their opinions out of the press. The publication of his novel ideas, they argued, left them little choice but to go public. Moreover, if Osiander (as was his wont) attacked a particular theologian in print, all bets were off, and the offended party often responded with equal verve and venom. Mörlin’s collection of letters, whoever published them, skirted several of these issues under the pretense of fairness and openness. Having encountered such recalcitrance on Osiander’s part (as demonstrated in these letters), Mörlin silently argued that his own refusal to agree made perfect sense. Because Mörlin was under attack and eventually lost his position as pastor in Kneiphof (a section of Königsberg), he used this same approach a second time, publishing a defense of his behavior from his new home in Braunschweig in 1554 in which he provided the reader with another, even more detailed series of letters and documents from this battle.34 In 1551, however, Mörlin’s position was far more uncertain, as was demonstrated by the appearance of this collection with a very brief preface, with no place of publication and with no printer’s name. The timing of this publication, however, could not have been more favorable for Mörlin’s case in the wider field of public opinion. Coming out at nearly the 32 See Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 116 –1​ 7. 33 See, for example, in the case of the Majoristic controversy Melanchthon’s successful attempt to prevent Georg Major’s publication of his thorough defense of his position in Wittenberg. Major’s response was to publish the material in Leipzig instead. Wengert, “Georg Major,” 140 – ​41. 34 After Osiander’s death in late 1552, the Prussian court also published many of the documents in this dispute in an attempt to end it.

C. Blaming the Messenger: Mörlin Becomes Involved

19

same time as Osiander’s confession of faith, Von dem einigen Mittler … und Rechtfertigung des Glaubens Bekenntnis, Mörlin provided at least some counterarguments to Osiander’s positions and thereby alerted readers, many of whom had been asked by their princes and governments to provide responses to Osiander’s confession, to some of the major issues in the case. Moreover, Osiander’s unguarded comments in some of the letters doubtless helped some respondents read those very ideas into his Confession.35 The text consists of nine letters exchanged in April 1551, at which time it became clear that any reconciliation between the two theologians was impossible.36 At several points Mörlin also reported having visited Osiander’s lectures and having heard reports of his preaching. Several of Osiander’s most surprising comments came in connection with the problem of authority. In letter 454 Mörlin made reference to the Augsburg Confession on justification, a document already cited in the Antilogia.37 In response (no. 455), Osiander reminded Mörlin that “all mortals are liars” (Psalm 116:11; Romans 3:4), including Master Philip [Melanchthon]. Moreover, he insisted, Wittenberg had forgotten Christ.38 When in the next letter (no. 456) Mörlin took umbrage at this characterization of his teacher and school,39 Osiander answered (no. 460) with what later opponents could only have read as unchecked hubris. When you are exceedingly pained that the Augsburg Confession is called into question and equate it – nay, rather, prefer it – to the Apostles’ Creed (for no one has judged anything by the words received in the Apostles’ Creed the way you all [vos] judge [the words] in the Augsburg Confession), I want to know whether you acknowledge or receive the same confession for canonical Scripture, the authority of which is inviolate. Now, if you do, I want further to know whether you also would include some other people and some books of Philip [Melanchthon] or [Martin] Luther for equal veneration, so that you would reckon it to be sacrilege for a Christian person to dissent from them. For it is necessary for me to know which testimonies I may use with you that are so sacrosanct that you dare not oppose them.40 35 Although many recent works refer to this work by the first four words in the title (Von dem einigen Mittler English: “On the Single Mediator”), Osiander’s opponents called it by its more proper name, Bekenntnis [Confession]. After all, in the face of challenges from opponents and demands by his prince, this really was Osiander’s Confession on Christology, atonement and justification. 36 They are GA 9: 618 – ​22 (#454; Mörlin to Osiander on 18 April 1551); 623 – ​24 (#455; Osiander to Mörlin on 19 April); 625 – ​26 (#456; Mörlin to Osiander on 19 April); 639 – ​40 (#459; Mörlin to Osiander on 21 April); 641– ​44 (#460; Osiander to Mörlin on 23 April); 647 – ​52 (#462; Mörlin to Osiander on 25 April); 653 – ​54 (#463; Osiander to Mörlin on 25 April); 655 – ​58 (#464; Mörlin to Osiander on 27 April); 659 – ​61 (#465; Osiander to Mörlin on 27 April). Mörlin’s preface is on GA 9: 619, n. ‘a’; intervening comments are in GA 9: 626, n. ‘e’ and 641, n. ‘a.’ His afterword is on GA 9: 661, n. ‘s’. See the bibliography, Mör 01 (1551). 37 GA 9: 619, 12. 38 GA 9: 624, 12. 39 GA 9: 626, 3 –​10. 40 GA 9: 643, 26 – ​34. “Cum vehementer doleas Confessionem Augustanam in dubium revocari, eamque Symbolo Apostolorum exaeques, imo et praeferas – nemo enim unquam conceptis

20

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

Mörlin could scarcely believe that his opponent had so quickly questioned the value of non-Scriptural authorities of the church to help resolve the dispute. Both Melanchthon and Luther, after all, had written defenses for using the church fathers. Augustine was, as before the Reformation, a standard part of the theological curriculum. The Augsburg Confession was the defining moment for Evangelical churches of the Empire, over which (to some degree) the Smalcald War had been fought. Moreover, on the basis of that confession’s rebuttal by the Augsburg Interim of 1548, Osiander had found himself a new home in Königsberg, far from the Nuremberg crowd and the emperor’s reach. Osiander had even been involved in the original negotiations that brought the Augustana into existence (as he would later boast) and had subscribed it in 1537 along with many other theologians of the Empire – a point that Johannes Aurifaber and Johannes Stoltz would make in their preface to a new edition of the Smalcald Articles. The issue was – and for Lutherans still is – an important one.41 What kind of authority does one give to confessions of faith and to other extra-biblical witnesses to that faith? The problem with Osiander’s letter, however, was not raising the question of authority – one with which Lutherans would continue to wrestle into The Book of Concord and beyond. Instead, it was the curious way in which he posed the problem. As with many of his other comments, he left Mörlin (and, once the letters were published, other readers) with no choice. It was either all or nothing. Either the Augsburg Confession had ultimate, canonical authority, or it had none. Perhaps even more serious, in an age when many of Luther’s followers had proclaimed him prophet of Germany, what was to be Luther’s authority?42 Of course, as we will see in chapter 6, Osiander himself was more than willing to wrap himself in some of Luther’s authority. Moreover, on the question of the Augsburg verbis iuravit in Symbolum Apostolorum, sicut vos iuratis in Confessionem Augustanam  –, cupio scire, an eandem confessionem pro scriptura canonica, cuius inviolata sit autoritas, agnoscas ac recipias. Quod si facis, cupio amplius scire, num alios etiam aliquot et quosnam Philippi aut Lutheri libros pari veneratione complectaris, ut homini christiano ab eis dissentire nefas esse ducas. Necessarium enim mihi est, ut sciam, quibus testimonis uti possim apud te tam sacrosanctis, ut eis refragari non audeas.” 41 See Gunther Wenz, Theologie der Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 2 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996 –​1998), 1: 27 – ​44. 42 See Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520 –​1620 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 59 – ​74, and chapter 6 below. The current Finnish scholarship about Luther’s doctrine of justification wrestles with a similar question of authority. Although these scholars generally argue that they have much of Luther on their side, they often denigrate the role of Melanchthon and, like Karl Holl before them, even hint that Melanchthon’s forensic understanding of justification spelled an end to Luther’s true insights and that Melanchthon’s students systematically edited and translated Luther’s theological genius out of his works. Of course, the authority of the ancient Greek fathers is the linchpin of their arguments. See, most recently Vainio, Justification and Participation, 69 – ​81, who argues that Melanchthon later abandoned the position on justification he outlined in the CA. Yet the Finnish concern to interpret Luther in their favor shows his continuing authority among Lutherans, even if they do not agree on how to approach the subject.

D. A Few Voices in Protest

21

Confession, he would argue that it was ambiguous on the question of justification. He also insisted that had his suggestions on justification been followed in Augsburg – they were not because of Melanchthon’s anxiety – the Evangelical message in that confession would have been far clearer and more effective.43 At this early point in the dispute, however, Mörlin simply responded (no. 462) by reiterating his support for Wittenberg’s teaching and by saying that on Christology Osiander imagined that things were either creatures or divine and that Christ’s divine nature constituted the believer’s righteousness.44 In letter 464, Mörlin retorted that “Christ is our righteousness: neither divinity nor humanity but God and human being in one person is our righteousness, as the catechism teaches from the Word of God.”45 Otherwise, he added, one would be guilty of Nestorianism. Moreover, his way of arguing (from a non-mediated division of the two natures: “divisio immediata” [657, 1]) was dangerously close to Eutyches, who did not want to ascribe human attributes to the divine. Osiander’s response, that he knew better how to interpret the communicatio idiomatum than Mörlin, ended their correspondence.46

D. A Few Voices in Protest When Mörlin’s correspondence with Osiander saw the light of day in September or October 1551, there were only a few weak voices of dissent against his teaching rolling off the presses.47 To be sure, Johannes Aepinus, one of the first Wittenberg doctors and the superintendent from Hamburg, published a lengthy tract on the subject.48 But even its place of publication (Frankfurt am Main) pointed away from Osiander and toward the Council of Trent. By August 1551, however, Melanchthon contrasted Aepinus’s work to Osiander’s nova sophistica.49 The very timing of Melanchthon’s comments point to one of a pair of early responses, to which Osiander never reacted, namely, Melanchthon’s speech Oratio de definitione iusticiae [Oration on the definition of righteousness].50 Here Me43 See

GA 10: 434 – ​38. 648, 12 – ​20 & 648, 28 – ​649, 5. 45 GA 9: 656, 30 – ​657, 1: “Christus est iusticia nostra, non divinitas nec humanitas, sed Deus et homo in una persona est iusticia nostra, sicut docet catechismus ex verbo Dei.” As in later disputes (for example with Jakob Andreae’s use of the catechisms to resolve the debates in 1568 and 1573), the catechism served as an analogia fidei, a secondary authority that all could consult. (The author is grateful to Robert Kolb for pointing out this connection.) 46 GA 9: 661, 6. 47 For the specifics, see chapter 8 below. 48 Aep 01 (1551). See chapter 2. 49 MBW 6169 (CR 7: 822 f.), dated 20 August [1551]. 50 Mel 01 (1551): Oratio de definitione iusticiae, quae extat apud Clementem Alexandrinum, recitata a Mag. Luca Hetzer, Decano, an. 1551 (Wittenberg: [Kreutzer], 1551), delivered on 11 August 1551 (Koehn, no. 177; CR 11: 993 – ​99). See below, chapter 7. 44 GA 9:

22

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

lanchthon took Clement of Alexandria’s definition to task and showed how it did not truly match the Pauline usage. He returned to the same question in his Romans commentary of 1556, where he made the connection to Osiander far more explicit. In any case, no one seemed to have noticed Melanchthon’s piece. A few months earlier, however, in June 1551, a shot from one of Osiander’s former colleagues in Nuremberg echoed on the Baltic Sea. Michael Roting published a tract that already in its title could be seen as an invitation to a theological duel: Testimonium optimi ac doctissimi viri D. Michaelis Rotingi unius e populo ecclesiastico contra falsam Andreae Osiandri de iustificatione sententiam, quam in Prussia libellis ac propositionibus spargit.51 Probably printed in late June 1551, the title alone, with which Roting had nothing to do, landed both the printer and the editor in jail for one week on bread and water, so that one could say that the Nuremberg city council was as eager to silence Osiander’s critics as Osiander was to answer them. Osiander responded to Roting a year later, in June 1552.

E. Osiander’s Confession Except then for these two tentative forays into questions surrounding either the dispute in Königsberg or the definition of justification, opponents outside Königsberg published nothing against Osiander. The two who did either hid their real target (Melanchthon’s oration) or got arrested for not hiding it (Heller and Daubmann, the editor and printer for Roting’s propositions). There was, of course, a battle royal swirling around the University of Königsberg and the city’s chief churches, about which every Evangelical theologian in the Empire possessed some information. Yet it was the publication of Osiander’s own Confession in September/October 1551 that finally caused other theologians to react publicly and led to a remarkably unified yet diverse public outcry against him and his followers such as no other controversy among Lutherans had before or since. That is to say, while other controversies involved two sides, often divided between “Philippists” and “gnesio-Lutherans,” groups that survived at least until the publication of The Book of Concord (and beyond),52 this one gave all sides an opportunity to express themselves on the central issue of the Reformation, justification by faith alone, and systematically to refute a fairly well-defined set of contrary ideas. Moreover, unlike all other intra-Lutheran controversies, this tract war took no prisoners. In the years to come, Melanchthon and other theo51 English: Testimony of the Best and Most Learned Man, one D. Michael Roting, from the Eccle-

siastical Public against Andreas Osiander’s False Understanding of Justification That He Spreads through Tracts and Theses in Prussia. Rot 01 (1551), printed in Nuremberg by Hans Daubmann and edited by Joachim Heller. See chapter 8 for information about its date of publication. 52 Irene Dingel, Concordia controversa: Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), 15 – ​32.

E. Osiander’s Confession

23

logians would sweep Nuremberg clean of “Osiandrists,” and in 1567 the banished Joachim Mörlin would return to Königsberg in triumph, invited back by the (now broken) prince who had earlier shown him the door. To be sure, a few of the survivors took refuge in Württemberg, where they found work but (nota bene) no platform for further polemics against their fellow Lutherans. Indeed, despite recent attempts to argue for a uniquely Swabian doctrine of justification, there is very little to no indication that Osiander’s ideas had any influence in negotiations leading up to the Formula of Concord.53 A forensic understanding of justification dominated the Formula and left no room for ontological speculation. One can identify a bevy of reasons for this unity in diversity: the political climate in the Empire, the personality of Osiander, the better (or worse) theology of one side or the other. And although all of these things played a role, they pale in comparison with the one central event: the publication of over ninety tracts, pamphlets, sermons and theses from a surprising variety of theologians from a variety of territories and backgrounds. Here, in the writings themselves, a kind of unity unfolded and was carried to pastors of “every Middlesex, village and town” or at least to the central, opinion-making universities, courts and cities. Because this particular explosion of tracts focused on the central doctrine of the Evangelicals, one can use this printing event to help define more precisely the theological contours of confessionalization (or, better put: the construction of a confessional church, Konfessionsbildung) on the Lutheran side. So, into the relative quiet pool of Evangelical churches and theologians (regarding the doctrine of justification), Osiander hurled his Confession and created a tidal wave of opposition. Why did he write and publish it? Aside from a host of psychological or moral explanations (hubris; need for attention; desire to be the primarius Theologus over the discredited Melanchthon, to name a few), it would seem that the most obvious reason was that his prince demanded it of him, and he in turn besought the prince for an opportunity to show his opponents the error of their ways publicly. Moreover, there is no doubt that the prince and his primary theologian thought that the best way to overcome opposition was by going to press and building their own wave of public opinion against Mörlin and his supporters and, perhaps, against Melanchthon and his followers. Finally, Osiander had every reason to think that Johannes Brenz in particular would support him in his position, even if others did not. These things may all explain why the Confession was written and distributed to Evangelical courts throughout the Empire for their opinion, but it does not clarify why Osiander immediately published it in Latin and in German or, when 53 This is the opinion of Vainio, Justification and Participation, 57 – ​61 and 163 – ​73. Not only does he not fully understand the terms of the debate over Osiander’s doctrine, but he also only wants to find an ontological approach to justification more at home with Aristotle and Plato (and the Tridentine position) than with Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz or any other Lutheran theologian of the sixteenth century outside of Osiander. See below, chapter 6.

24

Chapter 1: The Origins of the Osiandrian Controversy

at least one territory (by threatening to publish their response) demanded that he be placed under a publication ban, he continued to run to the presses with new attempts to defend himself. It may be chalked up to pure miscalculation on his part, but it may also be that, at some level, Osiander understood the power of the printing press and sought to use it to his advantage. Moreover, as was surely the case with his supporters (Johannes Funck, Matthias Vogel and Otmar Epplin), once the attacks began, Osiander and his supporters had to respond or cede the field to their attackers. There may even have been a certain inner logic to their rebuttals: having (very quickly) lost the fight in the battle over public opinion in the Empire, they could still imagine that they had justly answered every opponent and, in their own eyes (and God’s and the duke’s), won the war. There is no doubt that Duke Albrecht wanted to bring the theological fighting to an end, and that he and his advisors thought that the best way to do this was for Osiander to write a defense of his position.54 When Osiander insisted that all involved should present their confessions,55 the others presented their confessions to the Duke by 10 June 1551.56 Osiander delayed his response long enough (he handed it over to the court on 9 July)57 for the prince and his advisors to come up with another plan: to allow other Evangelical churches the opportunity to respond to Osiander’s confession on justification. With Osiander’s opponents refusing to read his handwritten confession, Osiander set about writing a dedication to Duke Albrecht in anticipation of its publication.58 On 8 September 1551, 1,000 copies of Confession concerning the Only Mediator, Jesus Christ, and Justification by Faith were put up for sale.59 In the epistle dedicatory, Osiander gave this reason for his original disputation of October 1550: “As I now noticed that Satan had begun to tie all of these enemies around my neck at the same time, I was forced to summarize my teaching on justification in some articles and to present and defend them in a public disputation.”60 However, the more he went public, the more Satan became angry. Faced with an opposition that refused to contradict Wittenberg or to read his confession61 and in obedience to the duke who demanded it,62 Osiander (with the duke’s permission) published the work.63 He hoped that the huge, monstrous lies, which have been poured out against me for some time through nearly all of Christendom, should in this way be wiped out and my enemies should be 54 GA 9:

677, 18 – ​678, 16 (Duke Albrecht to the University, dated 8 May 1551). 682, 32 – ​683, 6 (Osiander to Duke Albrecht, dated 11 May 1551). 56 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 152 – ​53. 57 GA 10: 50, citing Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 195. 58 GA 10: 51, citing Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 205 – ​06. 59 With the Latin, which appeared on 24 October 1551, see GA 10: 78 – ​300. 60 GA 10: 84, 4 – ​7 61 GA 10: 86, 8 –​10 & 90, 3 – ​6. 62 GA 10: 88, 7 – ​8. 63 GA 10: 94, 20 – ​22. 55 GA 9:

E. Osiander’s Confession

25

put to shame, and, moreover, that all pious, sadden consciences, which until now have been distressed and misled, should be comforted thereby and again set upright, that many uninformed and ignorant people may be instructed, and that many learned, God-fearing men may be awakened to stand by me and defend the recognized truth ….64

Not only did this not happen, but what resulted was a massive outpouring of opposition from all corners. Far from defeating his enemies, the publication strengthened their resolve and caused a flood of publications, which, while only designed to refute his position, actually contributed greatly to the unification of Evangelical churches throughout the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. That response is the subject of the rest of this book.

64 GA 10:

96, 3 – ​9.

Chapter 2

Protesting Osiander (1551–1552): How Lutherans Fight in Public When the controversy around Andreas Osiander’s doctrine of justification broke in 1551, Lutherans took to the presses to make their case against him. But why? How is it that these theologians immediately assumed that the way to combat what they viewed as false teaching was through the printing press? In the first place, there were plenty of important models for just this kind of dispute, beginning with Luther’s own protest against current understandings of the sacrament of Penance and indulgences in 1517 and following.1 The intra-Protestant battle over the Lord’s Supper from 1524 through 1528 also provided an important paradigm for holding theological debates in German, as Karlstadt, Luther, Zwingli, Brenz, Bugenhagen, Oecolampadius and Bucer, among others, entered the publishing lists with attack and counterattack.2 Shortly after Luther’s death in 1546, the massive outpouring of printed material from Magdeburg attacking the so-called Leipzig Interim of the now suspect Wittenberg “adiaphorists” filled the bookstalls of German-speaking lands.3 Indeed, many of the protagonists in the Osiandrian controversy had whet their polemical swords on the earlier controversies. A second, obvious reason for these publications came from the controversy itself and the eagerness with which Osiander himself took to the presses to vindicate his cause, as we saw in the conclusion to chapter 1. There were no published responses after the initial publication of his disputation on the subject in October 1550. Even after Osiander ran into opposition from other theologians and pastors in Königsberg and responded to them via the printing press, only a few half-hearted attempts at response materialized in 1551. However, once Osiander issued his lengthy defense in late 1551, the Confession, and his prince 1 See Scott Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) and, for the Roman response, David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518 –​1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 183 – ​264. 2 Still unsurpassed is the work of Walter Koehler, Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen, 2 vols. (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924, 1953) But see, more recently, Amy Nelson Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas (New York: Oxford, 2011), especially 115 – ​21 and the appendix. 3 Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548 –​ 1551/2) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

27

solicited responses from other Lutheran churches, the floodgates burst open and theologians of every kind felt compelled to respond – this despite the fact that Osiander’s prince had asked for written, not published, responses. Alongside these two stimuli for the publication frenzy, however, lurks a third reason for such literary debate: the commitment of all of these theologians to the written, public word as the actual means for maintaining unity and extirpating error from Evangelical churches. Although in later stages of the controversy, when most Osiandrists were on the defensive, had been forced to recant or had been removed from their Evangelical pulpits, other forms of writing began to appear, in which the controversy became an important historical warning against heresy, not unlike descriptions of the Christological controversies of the ancient church, nevertheless, in the early stages the authors themselves recognized the power of the press and its connection to the proclamation of the gospel. These authors responded precisely because they felt themselves duty bound to confess the faith in the face of error.4 At the same time, a (largely unanticipated) consequence for such publications in the struggle with Osiander arose: the development of a united front against such teaching. Thus, this amazing variety of attackers from all quarters of the Evangelical movement  – something that seemed to have taken Osiander and his prince by surprise – provided for the first time a basis for unity among these diverse churches. Suddenly Osiander’s perceived heterodoxy gave Evangelical theologians from throughout the Holy Roman Empire and beyond  – despite being divided by governance, liturgical practice, dialect and, in the case of the adiaphoristic controversy, the practical application of Lutheran theological principles in the face of persecution – a chance to demonstrate their fidelity to and unity in what for them was the doctrine on which the church stands or falls: justification by faith alone. To the standard Roman “enemy” of the doctrine justification was added a threat far closer to home: Andreas Osiander. To be sure, as will become clear in chapters three through five, there were interesting variations among the principle authors. Nevertheless, these differences did not cause the dispute to fragment into more attacks inside the Lutheran camp, even in cases where these same parties disagreed about and had fought over other substantive theological issues in the recent past.5 Thus, unlike other controversies that threatened to split the nascent Evangelical movement after Luther’s death, this conflict with Osiander served to unite it regarding the one doctrine that all participants 4 Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), traces the role of gnesio-Lutheran confessions of faith, but these were only one form of proclamation, as we will see below. 5 The adiaphoristic controversy took a different path, branching out quickly into debates over the necessity of good works and the functions of the law. See Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg, eds., Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), especially the articles on the Adiaphoristic Controversy (pp. 179 – ​227) and the Majoristic and Synergistic Controversies (pp. 231– ​77).

28

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

insisted was at the very heart of the gospel. No wonder so many theologians engaged in this battle and provided, directly or indirectly, the theological rationale for their involvement in it.

A. Before Osiander’s Confession of 1551 As we have already seen in chapter 1, the earliest documents reacting to Osiander’s position did not yet grasp just how much of a challenge the former Nuremberg pastor’s position would end up becoming. Indeed, the very first document, written by Johannes Aepinus, was exclusively aimed at the Tridentine decrees on justification.6 The notion that the Evangelicals themselves disagreed on this most central matter was the furthest thing from his mind, as the title of the book demonstrated. Aepinus described two such opposing arguments, taken directly from the Tridentine decrees: that the final cause of justification is sanctification or renewal and that the notion of reward is part of justification.7 As much as Aepinus’s writing had nothing to do with Osiander directly, by the middle of 1551 Melanchthon praised it in a letter to Hartmann Beyer of Frankfurt/Main, the author of its preface, as an especially effective antidote to Osiander’s “new sophistry.”8 Here several of the important themes regarding the later direct attacks on Osiander already come to expression. Aepinus, who was hardly Melanchthon’s best friend, had written an important document that, in contrast to Osiander, brought the correct kind of erudition to this most central Evangelical doctrine. Thus, already Melanchthon recognized a kind of bond with Aepinus and Beyer that united them despite their differences (over the descent into Hell and over adiaphora).

6 Aep 01 (1550): Liber de iustificatione hominis operibus legis. Fidei iustitia & origine. Fidei discrimine & virtute. Notis signis iustificantis fidei et hominum iustificatorum. Imbecillitate et peccatis sanctorum. Discrimine peccatorum. Praemijs fidei et bonorum operarum. His addita est confutatio argumentorum, quae adversarijs opponi solent iustificatione fidei (Frankfurt/Main: Brubach, 1551). English: A Book concerning the Justification of the Human Being by Works of the Law, the Righteousness of Faith and [Its] Origin, the Distinction between Faith and Virtue, the Characteristic Signs of Justifying Faith and the People Justified, Weakness and Sins of the Saints, the Distinction among Sins, the Rewards of Faith and of Good Service; To These Is Added a Confutation of the Arguments, Which the Adversaries Usually Oppose to Justification by Faith. In the Formula of Concord, III, the authors interwove objections to Osiander with objections to Trent. 7 Aepinus, Liber de iustificatione, 99v. 8 MBW 6169 (CR 7: 822 f.), dated 20 August [1551], here 823: “Habeo etiam gratiam, quod edidisti τὸ σύγγραμμα περὶ δικαιοσύνας, scriptum a viro docto et gravi d. Aepino. Osiander recte [CR ed.: certe] eruditas res nova sophistica conturbat.” In 1557, Johannes Wigand published a new edition of Aepinus’s work and included in the new preface a direct attack on Osiander. See Aep 01.1 (1557) and Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 128.

A. Before Osiander’s Confession of 1551

29

The other three documents published before Osiander’s famous Confession all clearly had Osiander’s “new sophistry” in their sights, but the way their authors engaged the Königsberg professor varied greatly. One, written by Michael Roting in June, could not have named the opponent more directly in its title (supplied not by Roting but by his editor and publisher, who as a result were briefly imprisoned in September 1551 by the Nuremberg city council).9 Again, Melanchthon sent a copy (of either the printed book or a manuscript) to Johann Brettschneider of Danzig, on 7 July 1551.10 In August 1551, Melanchthon wrote a declamation on the meaning of the word iustitia, which so indirectly attacked Osiander, that its role in this debate was only discovered in the present research.11 Finally, someone (perhaps Joachim Mörlin himself) published an exchange of letters between Joachim Mörlin (who had in 1551 moved from being the unbiased judge of the affair to Osiander’s chief opponent) and Osiander that showed how un-Lutheran the “primary professor” at Königsberg really was. All three were in agreement on their categorical rejection of Osiander’s position on justification and in their assumption of unity among Evangelicals on this central doctrine of the church. What led these three to publish such different documents (disputation theses, a polished oration and correspondence) against a common enemy? The most remarkable thing about these responses and the others produced in 1551 and beyond lies not so much in comparing them to Osiander’s position  – almost all were agreed that his theology was heretical (a few even called it anti-Christian) – but in measuring them against one another. Here a remarkable variety in Lutheran theological formulations emerges. These theologians were hardly marching lockstep into an emerging orthodoxy that broached no variation (despite Osiander’s charges that Wittenberg-trained professors all took their cues from Melanchthon’s Loci communes theologici).12 Instead, they used a variety of emphases and approaches – even though many indeed were trained in and employed the very humanist methods taught by the Praeceptor Germaniae. Osi  9 Rot 01 (1551): Michael Roting, Testimonium optimi ac doctissimi viri D. Michaelis Rotingi unius e populo ecclesiastico contra falsam Andreae Osiandri de iustificatione sententiam, quam in Prussia libellis ac propositionibus spargit ([Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann, 1551]). English: The Testimony of the Most Learned and Excellent Man, Mr. Michael Roting, One from among the Ecclesiastical Community, against the False Position of Andreas Osiander concerning Justification, a Position that He Has Spread throughout Prussia in Books and Propositions. For the question of dating, see chapter 8. 10 MBW 6121 (CR 7: 804 – ​05), the letter to Brettschneider dated 7 July [1551], here 805: “Mitto tibi Rottingi scriptum de vicini vestri paradoxis. Doleo moestas Ecclesias novis dissidiis turbari: Sed spero Deum his vulneribus etiam medicaturum esse.” 11 See chapter 7. 12 Indeed, the Loci played an important role for all Protestant theologians of the time (and not just those trained in Wittenberg). Tilemann Heshus and Martin Chemnitz lectured on the text in Wittenberg. Many used it both for its content and, perhaps even more importantly, for its method. Later, with its publication in the Corpus doctrinae of 1560, it took its place as a secondary authority, a regula fidei, along with other documents, including the Augsburg Confession and Apology.

30

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

ander’s challenge to nascent Lutheranism, far from splintering the movement into irreconcilable camps, actually helped it to reach concord in diversity, one that came to fullest expression, perhaps, in 1580 with the publication of The Book of Concord.13 The diversity of theological responses, however, did not in any way denote the kind of theological individualism that so often plagues modern theology. Instead, the thinkers under examination here also clearly borrowed from one another’s arguments as the dispute persisted in 1552. The contours of this complicated interdependence will only appear by reading these tracts in chronological order and by closely noting their printing history and the personal comments of their authors (the focus of chapter 8). Some parallels were, of course, inevitable, because these writers were drinking chiefly from the same two fonts of wisdom: Luther and Melanchthon’s theology and their interpretations of both Scripture and theological tradition. However, these common sources did not in any way restrict the diversity of response or the sharing of new insights to combat a common enemy, as the following analysis of these first three responses makes clear.14 Roting’s booklet began by calling to mind the very “heretics” against whom Luther had earlier written, contrasting the views of Anabaptists, Zwinglians and papists to the true understanding of justification, which of necessity must be kept pure. In that light, Roting then identified just where Osiander had sullied Evangelical teaching. He began with Luther and his authority, arguing that were Luther still alive, Osiander would never have dared to distort Luther’s writings and teachings on justification in such a manner. As we will see in chapter 6, Roting, like others after him, provided a sophisticated, historically contextualized reading of Luther. For example, Roting made the point that in Luther’s early tract on the three-fold righteousness the reformer was using the language of “essence” to combat the monks, not to define iustitia in ontological terms.15 He 13 This, despite the fact that one-third of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches refused to sign it. This is the first theological controversy that involved three of the authors of The Book of Concord: Martin Chemnitz, then librarian in Prussia, Jakob Andreae, one of the signers of the opinion of the Württemberg theologians and Andreas Musculus, professor at the University of Frankfurt/Oder. See Irene Dingel, Concordia controversa: Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), 25 – ​35. In the aftermath of the publication of the Book of Concord, Dingel records next to no objections to the section on justification. 14 Because of the special position that Philip Melanchthon himself played in the theological debates of this time and because of the diverse ways in which he himself responded, his writings in this affair will be the subject of chapter 7. 15 See Roting, Testimonium, C 1v: “Nam Lutherus eam tum iustitiam essentialem [in De iustitia triplex] esse statuit, in qua scilicet sola salus & remissio peccatorum Ecclesiae continetur, contra figmenta uaria de iusticia in obseruationibus traditionum & bonorum operum.” Osiander realized how important a challenge this was and answered Roting in his Schmeckbier (GA 10: 770, 27 – ​32) by referring to Luther’s Latin commentary on Galatians for further proof and concluding that those who refused to believe the Scripture would also not believe Luther.

A. Before Osiander’s Confession of 1551

31

concluded this first section this way. “Therefore this ‘essential righteousness’ of Luther is against the monastic teaching about righteousness in traditions, which essential righteousness he defined later through an explanation of the Apostles’ Creed concerning the forgiveness of sins, when he says, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ ”16 Opening a second front against Osiander, Roting linked justification to its effect, that is, to the comfort of the gospel (referring to Romans 5:1). He argued that tying justification simply to the indwelling of Christ led to the very kind of uncertainty that the devil fomented, as opposed to the sure consolation found in the announcement of the forgiveness of sins. Roting also dismissed Osiander’s association of those who taught forensic justification with Zwingli and his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Third, Roting took aim at Osiander’s Christology, attacking both Osiander’s understanding of the image of God in Genesis 1 and his construal of the incarnation itself. Christ did not become incarnate for the sake of his essential righteousness but to defeat sin. By decoupling the atonement from justification, Osiander undermined both Christ’s coming in the flesh and faith since, in Roting’s opinion, Osiander defined the latter as “to sense that God dwells in us” – again a sure recipe for uncertainty and the undermining of God’s word of promised forgiveness, that is, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The second early entry, Melanchthon’s speech, will be examined more fully in chapter 7. Suffice it to say that in examining Clement of Alexandria’s standard definition of righteousness, Melanchthon refocused Christian righteousness on the declaration of forgiveness and reduced Clement’s definition to righteousness (or: justice) in this world. When he composed his definitive refutation of Osiander for his Romans commentary of 1556, Melanchthon returned to this definition and the arguments made in this oration. For purposes of this chapter, it is important simply to note two things: first, that Melanchthon focused especially on the definition of terms, using the church fathers as a springboard from which to investigate the biblical meaning of righteousness; and, second, that he began the oration with a prayer to God to maintain the light of pure teaching in the church, now that it had been recovered. A second prayer linked this teaching to the consolation of those who are “heavy ladened” (Matthew 11).17 With the publication of Mörlin’s exchange with Osiander we find, not surprisingly, the most pointed understanding of the purpose of publishing this material. The public dispute over Osiander’s understanding of justification by faith stretched back to at least 24 October 1550, when the newly arrived Profes16 Roting, Testimonium, C 2r: “Essentialis igitur iusticia Lutheri contra Monachorum doctrinam de iusticia in traditionibus haec est, quam postea per explicationem definiuit, ex symbolo Apostolico de remissione peccatorum., cum Ecclesia dicit: Credo remissionem peccatorum.” 17 For Melanchthon’s use of the Fathers, see Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: Droz, 1961).

32

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

sor primarius defended theses on justification at the University of Königsberg.18 Osiander had Duke Albrecht’s ear and, as a result, also nearly unrestricted access to the printing press. Moreover, Königsberg’s chief printer was Osiander’s supporter and relative. Thus, Osiander’s works dominated Königsberg’s presses throughout the debate. His opponents, especially Joachim Mörlin, found little favor for their positions at the court and, hence, in the press. The one exception remains this curious collection of letters exchanged between Mörlin and Osiander that show the development of the dispute during April 1551. The Duke had demanded that Mörlin try to work out his objections to Osiander’s theology personally, by listening to his lectures and sermons and by writing to him. Whatever Duke Albrecht may have hoped for, the result was unmitigated disaster, ending in Osiander’s breaking off any further contact with Mörlin and in Mörlin’s holding steadfastly to his critique of Osiander’s position. It is from Mörlin’s Historia of 1554 that we learn how important Osiander’s early publications were to the development of this dispute.19 Mörlin recounted how, despite a general publication ban from the prince, Osiander managed to get tracts published in late January 1551 and again in April. Despite this, Mörlin (who during this time had moved from being mediator in the dispute to Osiander’s chief opponent) and his compatriots were unable to publish anything. Mörlin mentioned that the letters were printed, “aber böslich,”20 which either means that their publication occurred out of spite or that they were poorly printed. Whatever the case, they bear a brief preface by Mörlin so that in 1554 Mörlin could still point to them as proof positive of Osiander’s poor theology and disrespect (Bescheidenheit: diffidence) toward him. These diverse responses to Osiander in 1551 defined the contours of later attacks. First, as Melanchthon’s speech indicated, questions of definition loomed large over the entire affair. What is justification? Second, at least two authors touched upon the Christological ramifications of Osiander’s position. Third, problems with authority (of Luther, Melanchthon and the Augsburg Confession) also came to the fore. Fourth, there was a common conviction that what Osiander was proposing was in fact either a theological novum (a charge that implied a suspicion of heresy to virtually all sixteenth-century theologians of every stripe) or a repetition of the Roman position. Finally, at least in Roting’s attack and in Melanchthon’s second prayer, there appeared for the first time the connection 18 For the earlier roots of the controversy, see the introduction and chapter 1 with the secondary literature listed there. 19 Mör 02 (1554): Joachim Mörlin, Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1 April 1554), E 1r & H 1r – H 2v. For details of the letters (Mör 01 [1551]), see chapter 1. 20 Mörlin, Historia, H 4v.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

33

between the doctrine of justification itself and its effect: the consolation of uncertain consciences with the sure promise of God.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552 Once Osiander published his massive Confession in the autumn of 1551 in both Latin and German, his prince sent copies to all of the major courts in the Empire, requesting their written responses. Despite the fact that Osiander had published his defense, the flood of responses reaching the Empire’s printeries developed slowly. This may in part have been due to Duke Albrecht’s request to respond to him directly and in part due to the theologians’ (faint) hopes that their unpublished responses would have a salutary effect on Osiander and his supporters. From the research of Martin Stupperich, we know that at least fifteen official responses to Osiander’s defense arrived in Königsberg in 1552, of which only a handful were published in the first half of 1552.21 In addition, however, a host of semi-official or unofficial pronouncements also appeared, some of which began their life as published documents. The published responses during the months after the appearance of Osiander’s Confession outline vividly how these Evangelical theologians were coming to understand their roles in shaping public theological opinion and refuting error. I. Official and Semi-Official Responses 1. The Church and Printers in Wittenberg Although Philip Melanchthon’s response to Osiander was in fact published in late January 1552, it would seem that he had not necessarily approved its publication, especially when his colleagues, Johannes Bugenhagen and Johann Forster, included far harsher letters of their own. But neither was he altogether displeased with the result. Moreover, in his opinion, addressed to the Christian reader and not to Albrecht, Melanchthon used the fact that he had been personally attacked in Osiander’s work as reason to respond publicly.22 Throughout this controversy, this became an important basis for publishing one’s objections to Osiander. Melanchthon also reminded the reader that he always submitted his writings to the (public) judgment of the church. He indicated, somewhat vaguely, that he was publishing his remarks “under command” (presumably of the elector of Saxony) and at the urging of many of high and low degree. At the same time he Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –1​ 552 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 286 – ​90. 02 (1552). For the following, see CR 7: 892 – ​900. The opinions of Bugenhagen and Forster are appended to the end of the letter (CR 7: 900 – ​02). 21 Martin 22 Mel

34

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

claimed to be writing “this clear and simple opinion,” not in a lengthy or polemical fashion but as a guide for the many who “through this controversy over this very important matter have experienced great sorrow and confusion” in order that they might understand the basics of the controversy and “what is necessary for the comfort of their souls.”23 These two goals (understanding what the issue was and its effect) formed a hallmark of all Melanchthon’s theological work. It also defined his criticisms of Osiander, who in Melanchthon’s opinion, had not only misunderstood the basics of justification (a point already outlined in the August 1551 declamation) but also the impact of his teaching on those uncertain of their standing before God.24 Bugenhagen and Forster had no such compunctions about publishing their replies. In part, this may have been connected to their efforts aimed at clearing the name of Wittenberg theologians who had been sullied through the attacks of the Adiaphoristic controversy.25 Yet, Bugenhagen’s was a rather simple testimony of support for Melanchthon’s writing and a reiteration of Philip’s insistence that the Wittenbergers had not departed from Luther’s own teaching.26 Similarly, Forster began with a testimony to Melanchthon’s fidelity to Luther, the Holy Scriptures, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. He, however, then leveled a series of harsh charges against Osiander, accusing him of theological sleightsof-hand and sophistic argumentation, as well as distortion of Luther’s teaching, all of which had disturbed the peace of the church. When Melanchthon received a copy of Forster’s remarks, he immediately realized that this would only anger Osiander, and thus Melanchthon’s criticism of their publication, which could be misconstrued as reticence in publishing his own comments, was for the tone of his colleagues’ comments not the content of his response. But Wittenberg’s theologians, sans Melanchthon, also produced a second document, which (most likely) Joachim Mörlin published in May 1552 without their “permission.” After Osiander had published his Confession, Mörlin, Hegemon, and Venediger set to work on their response.27 Completed on 7 December 1551, 23 CR 7: 893: “Nachdem ich aber nu Befehl habe, auch dazu zu reden, und von vielen hohen und andern Personen angesucht wurde, habe ich dieses klare und einfältige Bedenken nicht lang und nicht zänklich gestellt, sondern zur Anleitung vieler, die durch diesen Streit in dieser hochwichtigen Sache in große Betrübniß und Zweifel kommen, daß sie merken, wovon der Streit sey, und was ihnen zu ihrer Seelen Trost nöthig sey.” 24 For a lengthier description of this Antwort, see below, chapter 7. Melanchthon did not in any case mention any of the Christological problems with Osiander’s writings. 25 See Martin Lohrmann, “Johannes Bugenhagen’s Commentary on Jonah (1550): Biblical Interpretation as Public Theology in the Reformation,” (Unpublished dissertation: Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, 2010). 26 See below, chapter 6 for more discussion of Luther’s role in this dispute. 27 M/V/H 01 (1552): Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht/ auß Gottes Wort/ etlicher Theologen zu Künigsberg in Preussen: Wider die newe verfürische und Antichristische Lehr Andreae Osiandri, Darinnen er leugnet das Christus jn seinem vnschüldigen Leiden vnd sterben/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey (Königsberg: Lufft, 23 May 1552). English: A Funda-

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

35

its preface to Duke Albrecht was dated 27 February 1552. Before its publication, which was delayed in part because its title labeled Osiander’s teaching antiChristian, they sent copies to their supporters in Wittenberg and Magdeburg. When this defense of Königsberg’s pastors and teachers finally rolled off the city’s presses in May 1552, the good citizens of Prussia’s capital were able, at the same time, to purchase an opinion of it by Wittenberg’s pastors and teachers – Bugenhagen, Forster and Paul Eber. Published in both Latin and German, this note provided an instant “review” (even imprimatur) by respected theologians of the primary refutation of Osiander by his immediate opponents, as the title itself proclaimed: The Judgment by the Church of Wittenberg of This Our Book against Osiander.28 Mörlin’s brief prefatory letter sketched out an interesting biblical justification for its publication.29 The times, he wrote, were parallel to the situation before the apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). As Paul and Barnabas laid out their teaching before the Jerusalem community, “so we sent this our confession and refutation to our dear preceptors of the Churches of Christ at the University of Wittenberg, so that they might look it over and judge it.”30 This alone indicates that Osiander’s opponents, at least the ones in Königsberg, felt compelled to provide biblical warrant for the very publication of their responses. Moreover, the order of events recounted by Mörlin (first sending out an unpublished copy for review, then publishing it and the Judgment) tacitly marked a significant contrast to Osiander’s own behavior, who published first and asked for reviews later. The letter of the theologians itself, dated 25 January 1552, began with the Wittenbergers denying that they wanted to make matters worse in this dispute (something that may have reflected Melanchthon’s irritation with them over remarks appended to his published statement, as outlined above). However, they immediately added that having seen how Osiander twisted Christ’s death and resurrection and his obedience, they felt that they had no choice but to reply. Unlike Melanchthon, who said next to nothing about any Christological problems in Osiander Confession, Bugenhagen and his colleagues focused precisely on this, complimenting Mörlin and his compatriots for having written accurately on the Fall into sin, on the uses of the law, on justification by faith and “concerning the natures in Christ that must in no way be separated, neither in redemption, nor mental and True Report from God’s Word on the Justification of Faith by Some Theologians from Königsberg in Prussia against the New, Seductive and Antichristian Teaching of Andreas Osiander, in Which He Denies That Christ, in His Innocent Suffering and Death, Is Our Righteousness. For this tract, see chapter 4. 28 B/F 01 (1552): Iudicium Ecclesiae Witebergensis de hoc ipso libro nostro contra Osiandrum ([Königsberg: Weinrich], 1552); German (B/F 01.1 [1552]): Der Kirchen zu Witteberg jr IVDICIVM von diesem vnserm buch wider Osiandrum ([Königsberg: Hans Weinreich] 1552). 29 Iudicium, A 2r – v. 30 Mörlin indicated in his history of the events from 1554 that he also sent a copy to Nicholas von Amsdorf, who said he was too old to deal with it. See Mörlin, Historia, S 1r – v.

36

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

in our justification nor in our salvation.”31 They taught in line with Scripture, the three ecumenical creeds and the more wholesome writings of the ancient church and of all churches that have been renewed in their teachings. Thus, the teaching of Mörlin and his colleagues matched the position of Luther – both in his writings and what these Wittenberg theologians themselves had heard and had read both in Luther’s private letters to afflicted consciences and in his counsel. In contrast, Osiander had badly distorted Luther’s writings. Nevertheless, they closed the letter with a plea to Mörlin “to conquer with leniency and moderation,” basing his arguments upon the foundations of Scripture. Mörlin’s prefatory comment, parallel to Melanchthon’s appeal to the church to judge his writings, demonstrated just how important questions of authority and acceptance by the wider church were. Osiander’s problem was, in the eyes of his opponents, precisely this lack of support from other churches and his questionable use, especially, of Luther’s authority. For Mörlin, it meant that even though Duke Albrecht had bidden him and his colleagues to respond to Osiander’s confession and, after much negotiation, had allowed this response to be published, it was the support of the Wittenberg church, embodied by Bugenhagen and his colleagues, that gave it theological approval. Before considering the responses of other churches, it is also important to note how deeply Wittenberg’s printers participated in the attacks against Osiander. In addition to the contributions by Melanchthon, two anonymous tracts (the first comparing Luther and Osiander and the second a defense of the first in the light of Osiander’s published attack) also appeared in Wittenberg in 1551 and early 1552.32 A Latin tract of Flacius was also printed, in which the Croatian theologian attacked Osiander’s exegesis of key Old Testament passages.33 Copies of the response by Pomeranian pastors, chief among them Johannes Knipstro, rolled off Wittenberg’s presses in April 1552.34 Matthias Lauterwald, having been thrown 31 Iudicium, A 4v: “… de lapsu hominis, de legis offitijs, de iustificatione fidei, de naturis in Christo nullo modo separandis, uel in redemptione, uel in iustificatione, uel saluatione nostra ….” 32 Ano 01 (1551): Anonymous, ed., Wie fein der rabe Osiander primarius mit dem ehrwirdigen, hochgelarten herrn doctor Martino Luther seliger gedechtnis ubereinstimmet im artickel von der rechtfertigung, nach dem er rhümet widerumb seine lere sey des Luthers, anon. ed. [Wittenberg?: 1551]; Ano 02 (1552): Anon., ed. Tröstliche Gegensprüch … Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch (Wittenberg [Peter Seitz Heirs], 1552). 33 Fla 01 (1552): Matthias Flacius, De Iesu, nomine Christi servatoris nostri proprio, contra Osiandrum, De Iehova nomine veri Dei proprio (Wittenberg: Johann Krafft, 1552). For more on this tract, see Luka Ilić, “Praeceptor Humanissimus et duo Illyri: Garbitius et Flacius,” in: Irene Dingel and Armin Kohnle, eds., Philipp Melanchthon – ein europäischer Reformator (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011), 65 – ​79. 34 Kni 01 (1552): Johannes Knipstro, et al., Antwort der Theologen vnd Pastorn in Pommern auff die Confession Andreae Osiandri, wie der Mensch gerecht wird, durch den Glauben an den Herrn Christum (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). For further discussion of this important document, see below.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

37

out of Königsberg by Osiander on suspicion of heresy, published later in the year two responses in Wittenberg, including a set of theses that he may have defended at the University.35 Alexander Alesius, professor in Leipzig, also published an important “private” response in Wittenberg, which will be examined below. One of the more interesting contributions came from Georg von Anhalt, who up through the Smalcaldic War had been coadjutor bishop in Merseburg. Asked by Duke Albrecht for an opinion, Georg sent portions of two subsequently published (first in Leipzig then after his death three years later in Wittenberg) sermons on the warning in Matthew 7 against false prophets. Indeed, he had been reworking the sermons for publication as an attack against his Roman opponents and Trent.36 However, Georg also inserted comments that dealt directly with the controversy.37 Georg spared no words in denouncing Osiander’s teaching (but without naming names), calling people who denied that the sinners’ righteousness consisted of faith in God’s imputed righteousness given in Christ “beguilers, enemies and blasphemers of divine grace … who should be condemned to the heights.”38 He focused on their misuse of reason (they imagined that their “precocious wisdom stands on pelts of ermine”), through which they rejected the plain sense of Scripture, which talks about imputed righteousness, and simply inserted some sort of imagined “essential righteousness.” A critique of reason, however, moved him 01 (1552): Matthias Lauterwald, Fünff schlussprüche: wider Andream Osiandrum, Von Matthia Lauterwalt Elbingensi gestellet, vnd zu einem grunde geleget seinen volgenden Schrifften. Act: xv. Wir gleuben durch die gnade des HErrn Jhesu Christi selig werden (Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552); Lau 02 (1552): Matthias Lauterwald, Was unser Gerechtigkeit heisse, kürtzlich und einfeltiglich, … angezeiget, wider des wesentichters Andree Osiandri, schwermerische entzuckung, die er darff vermessentlich Gottes wesentliche gerechtigkeit nennen, die Gott selbs ist, Vnd sein allmechtiges vngeworden, vnd vngemachte Wesen, darff one scheu vnser geboten vnd geworden Gerechtigkeit in vns heissen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). They were published in July and September 1552, respectively. 36 Anh 01 (1552): Zwo predigten über das Evangelium Matth. VII von falschen Propheten: in 2 Tractate gebracht, in welchen die fürnembsten … misbreuche, die jtziger zeit vorhanden, in sonderheit gezeigt; sampt einer Vorrede … durch Fürsten Georgen zu Anhalt (Leipzig: Günter, 1552). For more details, see chapter 8. 37 Zwo predigten, 2nd ed., 266v – 270r. 38 Zwo predigten, 266v – 267r: “Derhalben hastu zu schliessen vnd zu vrteilen/ das diese nicht allein weit jrren/ sondern auch die höchsten Verfürer/ Feinde vnd Lesterer Göttlicher gnaden sind/ die do verleugnen/ vnd zum höchsten verdammen dörffen/ die klare vnd ware Apostolische lere/ welche deutlich anzeiget/ das die gerechtigkeit so fur Gott gilt/ nicht anders ist/ denn das vns allen/ so wir an Christum gleuben/ vnsere sünde nicht zugerechnet wird/ vnd vmb desselben Mitlers willen/ vnd von wegen des Glaubens an jn/ wir arme Sünder von Gott zu gnaden angenomen/ vnd fur gerecht geschetzt werden/ vnd also die gerechtigkeit/ dadurch wir vor Gott bestehen/ eine frembde/ vnd vns aus gnaden zugerechtete gerechtigkeit/ imputative scilicet/ & nobis imputata iusticia heisset/ vnd ist. Dargegen sie furgeben/ das solche gerechtigkeit in vns fur Gott werde nicht allein aus gnaden zugerechnet/ Sondern es sey vnd mus in vns eine warhafftige wesentliche gerechtigkeit sein/ dadurch wir Gott gefallen/ welche sein sol die liebe/ vnd die obgemelte werckgerechtigkeit.” 35 Lau

38

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

to express a kind of theology of the cross, dismissing human wisdom’s pride.39 The remainder of his comments rejected the notion of indwelling (with reference to the Creed, which did not connect forgiveness to either one’s virtues or an indwelling righteousness but to Christ’s merit), criticized the use of strange, new terms in the church (as Paul had said in Colossians 3: 16 – ​23), and gave an alternate explanation to indwelling (the work of the Trinity, especially the Holy Spirit, that begins in believers with new birth, the death of the old creature, and the first sparks of Christian virtue). On this final point, Georg distinguished “grace” and “gift,” explaining that both came from Christ’s merit not our work and arguing that one had to distinguish sanctification both from justification in this life and from sanctification in the life to come.40 Before concluding the sermon with comments on the problem of certainty, the former bishop argued for the continuing power of sin in believers’ lives, citing not only 1 John 1:9 but also another bishop, [pseudo‑]Augustine (actually Gennadius of Marseilles).41 This is the only instance in all of the material written against Osiander during this early period where a sermon became the mode of attack. Finally, there was the work of Johannes Pollicarius, published in February 1552, which represented the first thorough response to Osiander’s Confession to appear in Wittenberg.42 As superintendent in Weissenfels (approximately equidistant from Naumburg, Merseburg and Zeitz in Saxony), Pollicarius was also involved in a running dispute with the Roman bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, Julius von Pflug. His attack on Osiander even earned high praise from Melanchthon, who sent it to Osiander’s son-in-law in Nuremberg, Jerome Besold.43 Given its importance in the debate over how one ought (or ought not) to use Luther, this tract will be discussed more fully in chapter 6. Although he did not express his motives for publishing this tract, Pollicarius’s opening salvo against Osiander focused on Osiander’s distinction between redemption and justification, contrasting it not simply to a forensic understanding of justification but also to a different assessment of Christological implications of these positions. “But when I am speaking about the process of justification, I ought not divide the natures and characteristics in Christ. Instead I ought let 39 Zwo predigten, 268r: “Denn das ist Christi ampt vnd werck in seinem Reich/ das er die hohen nidriget/ die klugen nerret/ die heiligen verdammet/ Vnd widerumb die nidrigen erhöhet/ die narren erleuchtet/ vnd die armen Sünder gerecht vnd from machet/ damit sich niemands denn seiner gnaden allein zu rhüment habe.” For as closely as Georg von Anhalt and Melanchthon worked throughout this period, this kind of paradoxical statement rarely occurs in the latter’s writings and has its origins far more in Luther’s own theology of the cross. 40 Already Melanchthon’s 1522 Annotationes ad Rhomanos and Luther’s preface to Romans made a distinction between gift and grace. See WA Bi 7: 8, 10 – ​22. 41 See PL 58: 979 –​1054, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, c. 35 – ​36. 42 Pol 01 (1552): Johannes Pollicarius, Antwort auff das Buch Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). 43 See chapter 8.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

39

them remain united in the one person of Jesus Christ my Savior and, through faith, completely and simultaneously comprehend them in his work.”44 2. The Church in Ernestine Saxony As chapter 8 makes clear, the bulk of official statements by the Empire’s Evangelical churches were published only later in the controversy, although many were delivered to Duke Albrecht by midyear. What some theologians did in the interim was to publish their own “independent” positions. One of the first example of this came from Justus Menius, who in February 1552 published Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri.45 Menius’s response to Osiander was unique in several ways. In the preface he called himself a humble catechist over against Osiander’s boast to be “Primarius Professor Theologiae.” If pointing out Osiander’s hubris were not enough, Menius then proudly named himself a baptized Christian and an alumnus of the University of Wittenberg, student of both the “sainted, highly enlightened, blessed man” Martin Luther and his “true coworker,” Philip Melanchthon.46 He signed the preface in a similar way. Yet Menius could have hearkened to his own position and authority as superintendent of Gotha and Eisenach and the one who clearly spearheaded the production of the Censurae. Yet here, appearing in print under his own name, Menius decided to forego any claim to an authority derived from his official position, relying instead upon his educational pedigree. In the body of the tract, Menius outlined more fully his experience in the Wittenberg “school,” contrasting it at every turn to Osiander. But Menius, in addition to providing sharp arguments against Osiander’s position, also gave a small hint as to why he felt justified in publishing his tract against Osiander: not simply to answer the Confession, which he had already done in the lengthy Censurae of the Ernestine theologians (sent directly to Duke Albrecht and not immediately published), but rather to respond to Osiander’s a later tract, published in January 1552, in which Osiander argued that he had taught the same thing for thirty years and, thus, had Luther’s approval. Menius refuted this on several levels. He argued that Osiander’s latest work contradicted his earlier positions and Luther’s. Moreover, when one compared Melanchthon and Caspar Cruciger, Sr., to Luther 44 Pollicarius, Antwort, A iiiv : “Aber wenn ich jm Handel der Justification bin/ so sol ich solche Naturn vnd Idiomata in Christo nicht scheiden/ sondern sie beide vereiniget in der Person Jhesu Christi meines Erlösers lassen bleiben/ vnd sie samptlich vnd zugleich mit jren wercken durch den Glauben fassen.” 45 Men 01 (1552), printed in Erfurt by Gervasius Stürmer. English: Concerning the Righteousness That Suffices before God against the New Alchemistic Theology of Andreas Osiander. 46 Von der Gerechtigkeit, A 3v – 4r: “Demnach/ dieweil ich jhe von Gottes gnaden ein getauffter Christ/ der heiligen Christlichen Kirchen vnd Schuln zu Wittemberg alumnus/ des heiligen hocherleuchten Mans Doctoris Martini Lutheri Gottseligen/ sampt seines lieben getrewen mitghülffen D. Philippi Melanchtonis geringsten discipuln einer ….”

40

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

one found unity, not only of teaching but also in esteem in which they held one another.47 The details of Menius’s argument, where he further developed the contrast between “Wittenberg’s” theology and Osiander’s, are also important,. Where Osiander criticized Luther’s translation of the Pauline phrase, “righteousness of God,” as “the righteousness that suffices [or: matters] before God” (die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt), Menius defended it. More importantly, Menius, like Roting, was one of the first to focus on the Christological ramifications of Osiander’s teaching, calling it a form of Alchemy, passed down from such medieval alchemist-theologians as Raimundo Lulio (1235 –​1316).48 With this move, Menius wished to expose what he viewed as the Platonic overtones in Osiander’s Christology. Similarly, he criticized Osiander’s distinction in the Confession between the inner and outer word for undermining the comfort of the gospel.49 In his Schmeckbier, Osiander dismissed this charge but actually showed his true (Platonic) colors when he argued that by emphasizing the external, spoken Word, Menius had invented a fourth member of the Trinity. For Osiander, God’s Word could not be eternal if it was simply a spoken word.50 der Rechtfertigung, C 2r – D 1r. In defense of his position, Menius quoted Melanchthon’s preface to the second volume of Luther’s Latin works and Luther’s 1545 preface to his Latin works. 48 Von der Rechtfertigung, F 4v – J 4r. For example, on J 3r he wrote: “Vnd scheinet fast/ dem Osiandro sey lange zeit bis daher zu muth gewesen/ wie etwa dem Raimundo Lulio / welcher der Alchimisten kunst meister sein wolt/ damit sich auch des Osiandri Theologia/ in vielen stücken vergleicht. Denn gleich wie die Alchimey mit den wercken der schepffung zu thun hat/ vnd damit vmbgehet/ das sie nicht allein forschen/ wissen vnd leren wil/ Wie Gott durch wirkcung der Elementen vnd himmelskreffte/ von oben herab/ die Metallen/ so in der erden verborgen ligen/ schaffe vnd verwandele/ Sondern wie man auch solch Gottes werck/ nach/ ja nicht allein nach/ sondern auch Gott dem schepffer selbst weit zuuor thun/ vnd das jenige/ so durch Göttliche wirkchung/ zu seiner endlichen vollkommenheit noch nicht kommen ist/ … Gleich also macht jhm Osiander mit seiner selb vnd newerfundenen Theologia/ mit den wercken der erlösung vnd rechtfertigung auch zuthun/ Vnd gehet damit vmb/ das er den ewigen/ heimlichen/ vnerforschlichen radt/ vnd vnerschepfflichen brunnen der Gottlichen weisheit/ wie Gott seinen eingebornen vnd einigen/ ewigen Son/ menschliche natur an sich zu nemen/ wenn gleich kein mensch nie gesündiget hettet/ gleichwol beschlossen/ so klar vnd scheinbarlich ans liecht bringe/ das weiter gar nichts/ auch nicht ein einiger gedanck dauon verborgen bleibe. Gleich wie für des Lulij kunst/ sich auch kein silber noch goldt/ in der erden/ vnd die quinta essentia in keinem ding/ das geschaffen ist/ nicht verborgen bleiben kan.” Lulio’s De secretis naturae sive quinta essentia libri 2 was published in Strasbourg by Beck in 1541, edited by Walther Hermann Ryff. See Michela Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull (London: Warburg, 1989). Lulio was a symbol here for speculative theology at its worst. 49 Von der Rechtfertigung, N 1r – N 4v. 50 GA 10: 777 – ​81. Osiander also denied having been influenced by Lulio and claimed he could not tell Menius’s and Mörlin’s books apart, since they were filled with so many of the same lies. Cf. 779, 32 – ​780, 6: “Sonder ich setz ein innerlich und eüsserlich wort und sag von dem ausserlichen, es sey ein stimm, die in der zuhörer ohren verschwinde. Das kan ja nicht Gottis wort heyssen, dann Gottis wort wirdt nicht also zunichte wie die stymm, die da auffhöret. Vom innerlichen wort aber sag ich: Wann Got – ich mus auf menschliche weyß darvon reden – seine gedancken aus seinem götlichen, ewigen rhat heraus redet und offenbart den 47 Von

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

41

In April 1552 a second Ernestine theologian broke into print over this subject: the venerable Nicholas von Amsdorf. Counted among Luther’s oldest and most trusted friends, von Amsdorf not only contributed to the Censurae but also published a small tract, Auff Osianders Bekentnis ein Vnterricht vnd zeugnis, Das die Gerechtigkeit der menscheit Christi darinnen sie entpfangen vnd geboren ist allen Gleubigen Sündern geschanckt vnd zugerechent wird, vnd für ihr Person hie auff Erden nimmermehr Gerecht vnd heilig werden.51 In it, von Amsdorf attacked two points in Osiander’s Confession: that he distinguished between redemption and justification and that he insisted that only Christ’s divine nature was the basis of the believer’s righteousness. On the first, von Amsdorf insisted that there was a single time of salvation and justification: the time of faith.52 On the second, he insisted on the unity of Christ’s natures and thus on the origin of believers’ righteousness in both natures of Christ. God’s essential righteousness condemned even the best life, he wrote. Instead, one lived by faith alone. Osiander’s spirit, von Amsdorf concluded, was similar to that of Oecolampadius, that is, filled with heathen speculation and not God’s Word.53 3. The Church of Pomerania-Wolgast In May 1552, Johann Knipstro, the first general superintendent of Western Pomerania [Vorpommern], professor of theology in Greifswald and preacher at the Pomeranian court in Wolgast, arrived in Wittenberg bearing a copy of his pastors’ response to Osiander’s Confession that, with a cover letter to Duke Philip I of Pomerania-Stettin and that prince’s response, had been dutifully sent to Duke Albrecht.54 Excluding the published opinions of Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Forster, this was the first official, joint response by any of the theologians of the propheten und sie verkündigens uns, so ist ihr stymm ein eüsserlich wort, der syn aber und die meynung ist Gottis wort, das ewiglich bleibet, und die weil es im ewigen rhat Gottis ist, so ists auch Got selbest.” 51 Ams 01 (1552): Published in Magdeburg by Christian Rödinger. English: An Instruction and Witness concerning Osiander’s Confession: That the Righteousness of the Humanity of Christ, in Which It Was Conceived and Born, Is Bestowed upon and Reckoned to All Believing Sinners and for Their Persons Here on Earth [They] Become Righteous and Holy in No Other Way. 52 Here von Amsdorf rejected (along with Luther and Melanchthon) the notion of salvation history but instead followed what Luther had early on labeled the triplex adventus Christi (per carnem, per gratiam, and per gloriam), where Christians always live during the advent of Christ in grace. 53 Unterricht und Zeugnis, B 4r – v : “Daraus leicht zu mercken ist/ das die gelerten in künsten vnd sprachen der vernunfft Heidnischer kunst vnd weisheit mehr folgen vnd gleuben/ denn Gottes wort/ Darumb sie auch die gerechtigkeit des glaubens allzeit meistern/ Regiren/ Verachten vnd verdammen zu grossem verderb vnd schaden der Christlichen Kirchen/ Welche allein durch Gottes Wort ohn alle Heidnische kunst vnd weisheit soll gegründet/ gebawet vnd erhalten werden.” 54 Duke Philip I ruled Pommern-Wolgast from 1532 –​1560; his uncle, Barnim IX, ruled Pommern-Stettin. For Knipstro, see MBW 12: 429 – ​30.

42

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

Empire to be published.55 Even though Osiander questioned its authority, given that only Knipstro specifically signed it, it marked a turning point of sorts in the publication war. The preface to Duke Philip I outlined the objections to Osiander agreed to by the “synod” (consisting of the university rector, the superintendent [Knipstro], theologians and pastors). The document concentrated on the doctrine of justification, objecting to Osiander’s denial that believers were made righteous by Christ’s death, his insistence that Christ’s death redeemed but did not justify, and his imagining that believers were made righteous through Christ’s indwelling and not by being declared forgiven. Only a fourth objection – that Osiander imagined the humanity of Christ was not part of the believer’s righteousness – touched upon a Christological issue. The synod based its objections on the Scriptures, the apostles and Luther and complained particularly that Osiander distorted Scripture, not in the citations themselves but in his ignorance of their “circumstances and scope.”56 Thus, the authors recognized a hermeneutical problem in their opponent’s work. Osiander’s method evinced little difference to that of the monks, from which Scotistic and Thomistic theologies sprang. Furthermore, by teaching that righteousness came from Christ’s divine indwelling, Osiander’s teaching showed little distinction from the papists and their insistence on infused grace. Thus, he failed to distinguish justification and sanctification. Finally, they criticized Osiander’s arbitrary use of Luther, whereby he quoted him when the two agreed but argued in other places that Luther was hiding the truth from people, whereas Osiander knew better.57 In the Answer itself, the Pomeranian theologians went after Osiander on several fronts. They touched upon the Christological weakness in Osiander’s argument, arguing that both Christ’s humanity and divinity were the sinner’s righteousness and that Osiander confused the three persons of the Trinity by imagining that only Christ’s divinity indwelt the believer through the Word. They 55 Kni 01 (1552): Antwort der Theologen vnd Pastorn in Pommern auff die Confession Andreae

Osiandri, wie der Mensch gerecht wird, durch den Glauben an den Herrn Christum (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). English: Response of the Theologians and Pastors in Pomerania to Andreas Osiander’s Confession How the Human Being Becomes Righteous through Faith in the Lord Christ. 56 Antwort, A 3r – v : “Das er aber viel Schrifft/ auch gezeugnis Lutheri einfürt/ geschicht doch solchs zum meisten an den ortern/ Nemlich von der einwohnung/ da kein streit von ist/ Aber wenn er zur sachen kompt/ so braucht er entweder gleichnis vom galgen/ von der Türkey/ vnd dergleichen/ oder wenn er ja schrifft füret/ so zwinget er das draus/ welchs eigentlich nicht drinne ist/ wenn man den Scopum vnd alle circumstantias des Texts erweget.” 57 Antwort, B 1r: “Demnach tadelt er vnsers Vaters Lutheri arbeit/ vnd wenn es jm [Osiander] gefellet/ so ziehet er sie auff seine seitten/ wens jm aber nicht gefelt/ so ficht sie jn nichts an/ vnd saget/ Lutherus sey alwege nicht dabey gewesen/ vnd ist nichts denn ein falscher schein/ damit man die leute betriege/ das man fürgibt Lutherus habe auch also geleret/ weils doch Osiander selbs besser weis/ vnd nicht allein die/ so Lutherum gehort haben/ sondern auch seine Bücher allenthalben zeugen/ das wir durch die gnade vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi selig vnd gerecht werden.” See chapter 6 for a further investigation of this charge.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

43

also found fault with his definition of faith, arguing that he had equated faith with mere assent to the truth of doctrine rather than trust in Christ’s merit. Grace, too, was not merely an equivalent term for God’s nature but “the graciousness and favor of the Father because of his Son.”58 They also contrast Osiander’s approach to biblical texts to that of Luther, who rejected “philosophical, fleshly and glib talk for Paul’s doctrine.”59 Further, by confusing justification and sanctification, Osiander undermined the central comfort of the gospel itself. Finally, by improperly making righteousness dependent upon human action, Osiander misconstrued the entire Bible and imported into it his own humanly constructed glosses.60 4. The Church of Electoral Brandenburg In May 1552, the pace of publication against Osiander began to increase, led by Andreas Musculus and the church in electoral Brandenburg. In the first instance, Musculus himself published theses, with a preface dated 2 May, probably written for a public disputation at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder.61 Francesco Stancaro (1501–​1574), Musculus’s colleague from 1551–​1554, would claim in a later disputation on 10 October 1552 that only the human nature of Christ constituted the believer’s righteousness and thus constituted an opposite pole to Osiander’s emphasis on the indwelling of Christ’s divinity.62 In May, however, Musculus had already solidified the claim (held in common with Stancaro but for far different reasons) that Osiander’s Christology was antichristian. The preface to Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg called to mind the four ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon), which defended the faith until the anti-Christian papacy arose, and appealed to Joachim to call a similar council to rid his cousin’s lands of the pestiferous Osiandrianism. The theses themselves hammered away at the unity of Christ’s natures and their inseparability in reference to righteousness. This unity was, Musculus argued, the first prin58 Antwort,

D 2r: “Gnade aber heisst hie nicht die Gottheit oder das göttliche wesen/ sonder die hulde vnd gunst/ des Vaters gegen dem Son Jhesu Christo.” 59 Antwort, D 4v: “Solchs [von Luther] ist nicht eine Philosophische fleischliche vnd vnbedachte rede/ Sondern aus der Lere des S. Pauli genommen/ der dis also selbst deutet im folgenden Capitel zun Römern [in seiner Vorrede von der Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments].” 60 Antwort, H 1r: “So ist die vermeinte fürgesetzte definition/ das das gerechtigkeit sey/ das vns recht zuthun beweget/ lauter Menschen geticht vnd fündlin/ eigene/ getreumete/ ertichtete glossen/ vnd speculation/ aus frembden Menschen fleischlichem verstande one allen grundt der Schrifft/ ja wider die Schrifft hergeflossen.” 61 Mus 01 (1552): De adorando summa veneratione et fide inconcussa amplectendo mysterio Vnitionis duarum naturarum Christi, in unam personam, contra Antichristum septentrionis Osiandrum (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552). English: Concerning the Full Mystery of the Unity of the Two Natures of Christ in One Person Adored with the Highest Veneration and Unshaken Faith against the Antichrist of the North, Osiander. For more on Musculus, see chapter 8. 62 See “Francesco Stancaro,” Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 10 (1995): 1148 – ​ 52. Accessed on 14 July 2009 at: http://www.bbkl.de/s/s4/stancaro_f.shtml.

44

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

ciple of all theology, without which Scripture itself could not be understood.63 Throughout the work, Musculus referred not so much to Luther as to other church fathers (citing Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyprian, John Damascene, Maxentius, Bernard of Clairvaux, Ambrose, Leo I, Fulgentius, among others), in order to expose Osiander as Antichrist of the North. If others had touched upon the Christological weaknesses of Osiander’s position, Musculus brought them front and center, treating issues of justification by faith as having arisen from this heretical Christology.64 While Musculus’s theses arose out of his official work as university professor, Brandenburg’s theologians also published their own response, which appeared only shortly after Musculus’s theses did.65 Composed by Musculus, Johann Agricola and others, this statement was then the second published official response by a territorial church. Its approach, intimated in its title, showed yet another way to judge Osiander’s theology. The first fifty-six pages set up the theologians’ common understanding of justification, interpreting a series of biblical texts (especially Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 1, Isaiah 53 [described here as a beautiful divine picture and portrait of the self-emptying, justifying Servant of God] and Psalm 68) ending with an extensive examination of John 1– ​4. Justification through God’s Word was nowhere better demonstrated than in Jesus’ conversation with the apostles in John 1 (“hearing and speaking is the main thing”) or in his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (“the medium of justification again is knowledge from hearing the Word”).66 63 De adorando, B 2r (Thesis 7): “Sicut autem in omnibus disciplinis & artibus, necesse est primis principiis labefactatis, uel destructis, totum corruere. Sic tota Scriptura, fides, religio, salus, & spes vitae aeternae corruit, his omnibus, quicunque ab hac cognitione, huius mysterii unitionis nunquam separabilis, duarum naturarum Christi in una persona, uel paululum aberrant, ac propriis imaginationibus decepti, uel latum digitum discedunt.” Given such a statement one can imagine why Stancaro later would cross swords with Musculus. 64 Specifically, Musculus mentioned Osiander’s separation of justification and sanctification and of the internal and external word and his “Judaic interpretation” of Jeremiah 23 and the name Jehovah. Musculus routinely cited the church fathers. See Robert Kolb, “The Fathers in the Service of Lutheran Teaching: Andreas Musculus’ Use of Patristic Sources,” in: Leif Grane, et al., eds. Auctoritas patrum II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (Mainz: Zabern, 1998), 105 – ​23. 65 See chapter 8 for details of dating and authorship. M/Ag 01 (1552): Andreas Musculus, Johann Agricola, et al., Grüntliche anzeigung was die theologen des Churfürstenthumbs der Marck zu Brandenburgk von der Christlichen Euangelischen Lehr halten, lerhen vnnd bekennen. Auch warinne Andreas Osiander wider solche Lehr vnrecht lerhet, Welchs auch in diesem Buch aus Heiliger schrift nottürfftiglich gestrafft, vnd widerleget wird Roma. I. Reuelatur ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem & iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem Dei in iniustitia detinent (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552). English: A Fundamental Demonstration of What the Theologians of Electoral Brandeburg Hold, Teach and Confess; Also in What Things Andreas Osiander Unjustly Teaches against Such Teaching, Which Also in this Book Is Necessarily Censured and Refuted from the Holy Scripture … 66 Gründliche Anzeigung, C 2r – v and D 1v, respectively: “… hören/reden ist der hauptpunct/ das ist im [ihm] ansehen sehr schlecht vnd einfeltig/ Aber thu die augen auff vnd weit auff/

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

45

Only after having established their (biblically based) view of justification, did these theologians analyze Osiander’s position, contrasting his trust in Christ’s divinity (which to them did not differ in the least from the belief in God as creator held by Jews or Muslims) to their insistence on trust in the incarnate Son, who used the means of his flesh and his speech to save.67 They attributed to Osiander’s “essential righteousness,” profound Christological and soteriological errors, affecting preaching and the sacraments, which they labeled “a new Judaism.”68 After discussing sola fide (faith alone), the theologians then outlined Osiander’s arguments, as they understood them. They concentrated, among other things, on his downplaying of the external Word and linked his dismissal of it in his Confession with his earlier dismissal of a general absolution while a preacher in Nuremberg.69 After all of their harsh accusations, the Brandenburg theologians concluded by noting that some in their group knew Osiander personally and held him to be highly gifted. In this matter, however, they were forced to reject his teaching.70 Such a careful, highly nuanced response shows how unfortunate ja die augen vnd voerstandt des hertzens/ so wirdestu wunder vnd vberwunder ia die herligkeit/ als des eingepornen Sons vom vater sehen vnd erfaren/” and “Hie hörestu das medium iustificationis wider [wieder]/ Notitiam ex auditu uerbi. Das erkenne ist das/ dadurch Christus gerecht macht/ vnd wie wir gerecht vnnd für [vor] dem Vater angeben werden.” 67  Gründliche Anzeigung, H 1r: “Es hilfft auch Osiandrum nicht/ er mus ewig vordampt sein/ vnd im hellischen fewer brennen mit seiner wesentlichen Gerechtigkeit/ Dieweil er dis mittel/ dardurch es erworben ist vnd als gratia vnd donum zu vns kommen/ vorwirft vnd hinweg thut/ Wehe jme/ wo er sich nicht bekeret.” 68 Gründliche Anzeigung, H 2r: “DARAVS dann folget/ wie hernach gründlich vnd mit gewalt sol erwisen werden/ das Osiander greulich anleufft mit seiner wesentlichen gerechtigkeit/ domit er auffhebt diese erhöung des menschen sons von der erden/ Auch das gesichte/ dadurch man jne alleine in solcher erhöhunge sehen solle/ das er es sey/ Dann eben mit deme hebt er auff das gantze predigampt/ die ἐπαγγελίαν, alle Sacrament/ vorgebung der sünden vnd absolution/ vnd setzt an die stat ein newes Jüdenthumb/ darinne man leren vnd sagen solle/ Christus sey nicht Gott vnd mensch vnd Gott sey nicht mensche worden.” 69 Gründliche Anzeigung, K 2v: “ITEM/ Er laufft zu weit ins holtz hinein/ das er alles das was nicht Göttliche wesentliche gerechtigkeit heist vnd ist/ mus achten accidentia/ Wie dann diese gedancken alle Jüden vnd heiden haben von Christo/ Daraus dann folget/ das das Ministerium Euangelij, postestas clauium, Confessio cordis & oris, Absolutio, Remissio peccatorum, NICHTS nichts sein/ JA NICHTS vberal sein/ Vnd hie sihet man es/ aus was grunde der Osiander zu Nürenberg die auricularem confessionem hat gantz vnd gar abgethan.” For this dispute, see Ronald K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience and Authority in Sixteenth-Century German (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 138 – ​92. Luther and Melanchthon both opposed Osiander and defended Veit Dietrich’s position in this dispute. 70 Gründliche Anzeigung, P 3r: “Dann er hat vil hoher gaben/ damit wenig Leute von Gott geziret sein/ Allein in dieser hochwichtigsten sachen mus es heissen/ Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, Sed est praehonoranda ueritas.” This saying, used by Luther in De servo arbitrio (WA 18: 610, 10 –​11) and by many others, came originally, and in a slightly different form, from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics 1096a, 16 –​17. See Leonardo Tarán, “Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas: From Plato and Aristotle to Cervantes,” in: Collected Papers (1962 –​1999) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1– ​46; accessed on 14 July 2009 at http://books.google.com/books?id=G7qO2Otdnsk​C&​ dq=​leon​a​r​d​o​+taran+collected+papers&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=96​FcS​v​q​ BO4​​q​M​j​AeHzODPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4. Andreas Musculus was

46

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

it has been that scholars have simply followed the “big names” (Melanchthon, Brenz, or Mörlin) in their attempt to understand the reaction to Osiander. The Brandenburgers’ response showed how they approached the biblical message – in which they emphasized not simply biblical texts but also biblical stories of God’s external Word at work – how important the Christological issues were, and how carefully they distinguished Osiander’s good gifts from his bad teaching. Their stress on exegetical method and the way Jesus himself worked through words to deliver forgiveness, also brought a unique approach to the discussion. 5. The Church of Brandenburg-Küstrin In his theses against Osiander, Musculus heralded publication of not only the statement from Electoral Brandenburg but also the one from the margraviate of Brandenburg-Küstrin, which was also published in Frankfurt/Oder by the Eichorn press. Here again, Osiander’s own dogged insistence on publishing his own views and then defending them in print, caused the publication. The original opinion had been submitted to Margrave Johansen of Brandenburg on 16 February 1552 after consultations that had stretched for two weeks. As explained in the preface, the theologians promised to keep their judgment out of print, as long as Osiander did no further publishing of his errant views. When, at the end of April, he published his attack on Melanchthon and in May attacked the title of Mörlin’s own response, the theologians (chiefly Wenzeslaus Kilmann and Simon Musaeus) no longer felt any compunction about giving their judgment to the printer.71 The always sensitive to the problem of philosophy wrecking Luther’s thought. Consider his Thesavrvs: Hochnutzlicher tewrer Schatz vnd Gülden Kleinot/ aller frommen Gottes Kinder/ aus allen anfechtungen/ streit vnd kampff des Gewissens/ im leben vnd sterben/ sich zu entbrechen/ Vnd endlich friedlich/ frölich vnd seliglich von hinnen abzuscheiden. Aus den Büchern vnd Schrifften des heiligen Mans Gottes Lutheri/ zusammen bracht/ Durch Andream Musculum D. (Frankfurt/ Oder: Johan Eichorn, 1577), 3v: There are “noch wol etliche Scribenten vnnd Lehrer befunden/ aber der gleichwol wenig/ welche ja noch etwas/ in schreiben vnd leeren/ dem Luthero nach singen/ was er jnen fürgesungen/ die Leer den literam oder buchstaben belangent/ aber was Lutherus neben der Leer der Iustificationis/ oder des Glaubens/ vleissig/ trewlich/ viel vnd offt gebraucht/ getrieben vnd gehandelt/ als nemlichen/ der Leer Application vnd gebrauch/ informirung vnd vnterrichtung/ der armen betrübten gewissen/ wie sie jnen solche Leer/ im leben/ vnnd der mal eins im tothbette/ sollen nütze vnd gebreuchlich machen/ wird wenig von jnen gemeldet/ oder fast nicht mit einigem wort gedacht/ Der meiste teil aber vnter jnen/ machen aus der Lutherana Theologia/ vnnd doch vnter dem Namen vnd schein der Leere Lutheri/ Platonicam vnd Aristotelicam/ vnd sind in solcher Philosophischer Theologia/ die Discipel vber den Meister/ Das ay klüger als die Henne/ Luthers Lehr wird bey jnen/ alsgemeine vnd vberdrüslich geacht vnd gehalten/ für langst von jhnen an Schuhen zurissen/ bring des wegen/ aus jhrem hirn vnd kopffe jmmer etwas newes/ zu Marckt vnd in Buchladen.” 4r: Pastors and preachers should not buy their postilla but rather Luther’s. “Vnnd in den Schulen vnd Kirchen/ an stad Joannis Euangeliste vnd S. Pauli/ wider Herschen vnd Regiren Plato vnd Aristoteles.” The preface is dated 3 April 1577 and addressed to Elector August of Saxony. 71 K/M 01 (1552): Widerlegung der Opinion oder Bekentnus, Osiandri, welches er nennet Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, vnd der rechtfertigung des glaubens, von F. G. Marggraff Johansen zu Brandenburgk etc. Theologen, in gehaltenem Synodo zu Custrin vorsamlett ausgangen:

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

47

prefatory letter to Margrave Johansen elucidated their method. They immediately noticed that the title of Osiander’s work and its contents did not correspond but that, instead, the work contained despicable, new doctrines. They dismissed his claim in the preface to have taught the same for thirty years on the basis of the testimony of “one among us,” Simon Musaeus (who had lived in Nuremberg), and on the written testimony of Osiander’s own catechisms. Indeed such prevarication showed his true spirit (as that of the “Father of Lies,” the devil).72 Similarly, he showed his true spirit by defaming Christian and learned men, who had confessed their faith before the Emperor.73 The contradictions they found in the Confession made the authors think that Osiander was trying to put one boot on two legs. Over against Scripture, the Creeds and the fathers of the church and its unified confession, Osiander filled his Confession with false “presuppositions, definitions, divisions, questions, allegations and modes of speaking.”74 Again, as with the Brandenburg statement, the authors noted how their method differed from Osiander’s. In the body of their confutation, the theologians began by emphasizing their dependence on Scripture and the creeds (including the Augsburg Confession), to which their teachers also held fast. This mention of their teachers, reminiscent of Justus Menius’s approach, demonstrated once again the important roll authorization played in this dispute.75 Once Osiander had insisted that his teaching had not changed and that it agreed with Luther’s and once he had called into question (both in the Confession and in later tracts) the authority of Melanchthon’s teaching and (at least in Mörlin’s printing of Osiander’s letters) the Augsburg Confession, the question of authority loomed large over the entire dispute. Margrave Johansen’s theologians then outlined their own confession of faith, using a variety of Scripture passages before settling on Paul’s teaching on jusIn massen solchs Marggraff Albrechten dem eltern, Hertzogen in Preussen, auf seiner F. D. selbst schreiben, vnd begeren, zugeschickt worden (Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn, 1552). English: Refutation of the Opinion or Confession of Osiander, Which He Calls On the Only Mediator Jesus Christ and on the Justification of Faith, Originating from the Theologians of His Gracious Prince, Margrave Johansen of Brandenburg etc. Assembled in the Synod Held in Küstrin: Sent in Full to Margrave Albrecht, Sr., Duke in Prussia, at His Princely Eminence’s Written Request. For the arguments regarding dating and authorship, see chapter 8. In 1555, Musaeus, by then a pastor in Breslau, published a sermon on the Transfiguration and appended Melanchthon’s Antwort. 72 Widerlegung, A 3r. 73 Widerlegung, A 3v. They were probably had Luther in mind, although they could have been thinking of Melanchthon, too. 74 Widerlegung, A 4r: Osiander’s teaching was “wieder [wider] der gemeinen Apostolischen vnd Catholischen Kirchen/ eintrechtigen vorstandt/ vnd consensum/ vorgelschet vnnd vortunckelt/ in dem das er die Rechtfertigung des menschen/ allein der blossen Gotheit des Vaters/ Sons/ vnd heiligen Geistes/ gibt vnd zuschreibet.” 75 Widerlegung, B 1v: “Nach laut der heiligen Schriefft/ vnd der selben kurtzen Summarien/ welche sein die heiligen drey heubt Symbola/ sampt der Augspurgischen Confession/ haben wir bisher mit der algemeinen Catholischen vnd Apostolischen kirchen/ vnd ihren heiligen vnd bewerten lerern/ sampt vnsern praeceptorn/ also gegleubet vnd geleret.”

48

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

tification, which they summarized as follows: 1) justification is forgiveness of sins (proved Paul’s use of “by grace” [aus Gnaden] and “the righteousness that suffices before God” [die Gerechtigkeit die vor ihm (Gott) gilt]; 2) the efficient cause is Jesus Christ, God and human being; 3) the instrumental cause is faith, which comes by hearing and from which come fruit.76 Thus, Scripture could talk about all three aspects (forgiveness, Christ and faith) without contradicting itself, which was what these theologians accused Osiander of doing by limiting righteousness to the infusion of Christ’s divine nature and excluding his human nature, forgiveness and faith.77 Osiander’s position, since it defined righteousness as effecting righteous works in the human being, did not simply echo Rome and Trent but was Pelagian, pure and simple. Having thus called Osiander’s teaching into question, these theologians then turned to the fruits of his teaching. Here they accused Osiander of attacking and dealing harshly with other servants of the church (they probably had Mörlin in mind), of boasting to have held these positions for thirty years (secretly, perhaps, but not publicly, they retorted), of claiming to have made up the non-biblical phrase “essential righteousness,” just as the Nicene fathers developed homoousias in the Creed. To this final point, they responded that if Luther saw no need to invent new terms, why did Osiander, who, unlike the Nicene fathers, worked alone and developed the phrase to erase entirely the true teaching of justification? As others had done before them, they also pointed out Osiander’s other errors: separating salvation and justification; distinguishing the inner and outer word (and thereby denigrating the latter); abandoning the communicatio idiomatum by dividing Christ’s natures.78 Osiander also made a false distinction between cre76 On the third point, see Widerlegung, B 3r – v : “… wen wirs aus dem wort hören/ erkennen/ für warhafftig halten/ vnd vns darauff vorlassen/ So haben wir vorgebung der sünden vnd seind gerecht worden/ vnd folgt darnach als eine frucht der gerechtigkeit/ der newe gehorsam/ durch wirckung des heiligen geistes/ vnd beiwonung der heiligen dreifaltigkeit/ in denn gleubigen/ vnd gerechtfertigten angefangen wirdt/ das man dem fleische widerstrebet/ vnd lust zum gesetz Gottes gewinnet.” 77 Widerlegung, C 2v: “denn diese drey gehören all in einen methodum Articuli iustificationis, der gehorsam Christi ist causa efficiens, die vorgebung der sünde/ ist sein effectus/ der glaube/ ist der vorgebung der sünde/ im worth vorheischen/ Correlatiuum. Drumb wir solche stuck alle/ in der definition recht zusammen fassen/ vnd sagen also/ das vnser gerechtikeit/ dadurch wir vor Gottes gericht bestehen/ all vnser gebeth darauff grunden/ vnd entlich dodurch selig werden/ anders nicht sey/ denn vorgebung der sünden/ durch den gehorsam Christi erworben/ in das predigampt des Euangelij gelegt/ vnd mit vnserem glauben ergrieffen.” 78 On this final point, see Widerlegung, E 1v: “Zum sechsten do er handelt de communicatione idiomatum, braucht er eine betriegliche frage vnd falsum dilemma/ Ob Christus vns von Gott gemacht sey zur gerechtigkeit/ nach seiner gotheit allein/ oder aber nach der menschheit alleine/ vnd pronunciret darauff das er alleine nach seiner gotheit vns zur gerechtikeit gemacht sey/ welchs eben eine solche frage vnd antwort ist/ als wenn man fragen wolte/ Ob einer ein mensch where/ noch der sehlen allein/ oder noch dem leibe allein/ so doch dieser keins entzlich ein mensch machet/ sondern beides zusammen leib vnd sehle/ machen einen menschen/ Gleich also ist auch Christus/ wider noch der gotheit alleine/ oder noch der menscheit allein vnser gerechtikeit/ sondern der gantze Christus/ wharer Gott vnd mensch/ ist durch seinen

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

49

ated and uncreated righteousness, instead of understanding that all righteousness before God is imputed. He falsely interpreted Scripture, especially Jeremiah 23 (“The Lord is our righteousness”). In the end of their tract, they returned to Osiander’s claim to be one with Luther, quoting extensively contradictory passages not only from Luther but also from Augustine.79 These theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin, however, went one step further and linked these authorities with the testimony of experience. Using an argument already found in Roting and Melanchthon and central to their understanding of justification, they claimed that Osiander’s teaching robbed believers of comfort in the face of Anfechtung, citing as proof an (apocryphal) story of Augustine’s deathbed confession that Melanchthon had used in his preface to the African bishop’s On the Spirit and the Letter.80 In sum, Osiander’s teaching did nothing but rob Christ of his honor and sinners of true comfort.81 6. The Theologians of Magdeburg82 Perhaps the greatest irony concerning the first spate of tracts published against Osiander in 1552 came from the publications out of Magdeburg. Duke Albrecht and his chief theologian, Osiander, grossly miscalculated their situation. As with von Amsdorf, they had simply assumed that Matthias Flacius would be only too happy to attack Melanchthon and join Osiander’s side. Indeed, Duke Albrecht expressed this in a letter to Flacius, dated 5 May 1552.83 As late as Osiander’s refutation of Melanchthon’s attack on him, the former was still calling the Magdeburgers, “learned men” (gelehrte Männer), but by the time he wrote his Schmeckbier, they had turned into pig herders, a change Flacius himself later noted.84 genhorsam/ leiden/ sterben vnd aufferstehung/ vnser gerechtigkeit.” Menius had already made this point. 79 They even give their reasons for citing these theologians. Widerlegung, E 4r: “Diese sprüche Lutheri vnd Augustini haben wir darumb angezogen/ das iederman sehe/ wie felschlich Osiander auff ihre zeugnus sich beruffen vnd steuert/ als solten sie ihm bey fallen.” 80 Widerlegung, E 4r – v : “So zeuget auch die erfarung beide vnser / vnd aller rechten heiligen/ das für Gottes gericht/ in den hohen anfechtungen/ keine andere gerechtigkeit bestehe/ denn die imputatiua iustitia vnd vorgebung der sünden/ wie man siehet an dem lieben Dauid/ so offte er die krafft des gesetzes gefület/ vnd vmb seiner sünde willen/ für Gottes gericht erschrocken gewesen/ Appellirt alleine zur gnade vnd vorgebung der sünden. Desgleichen schreibt man auch von S. Augustino/ das er mitten in seinen todes nöten/ sich selbst getröstet habe/ mit diesen worten/ Torbabor sed non perturbabor, uulnerum domini recordabor.” See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and Augustine of Hippo,” Lutheran Quarterly, 22 (2008): 249 – ​67. They also cited Bernard’s experience. 81 The Widerlegung ended with an attestation by Margrave Johansen, who noted that biased (Parteysch) people like Stancaro had not taken part in the deliberations, lest it be thought that Osiander’s opponents unduly influenced his theologians. 82 For more on this topic, see below, chapter 4. 83 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 276 – ​81. 84 In F/G 02 (1552): Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]), A 2r.

50

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

In the preface to his first salvo against Osiander, dated 1 March 1552, Flacius revealed his grounds for publishing his opinion: Because he was in a fight with some theologians in the land, “Many imagine that I am against them on all topics.”85 This very confusion gave Flacius leave to publish his attack. He laid out his mode of argumentation in the preface to Albrecht, outlining his topics: defining the believer’s righteousness as Christ’s obedience (completely separate from renewal) and charging Osiander with misunderstanding Luther. What Melanchthon accomplished by including his 1536 conversation with Luther over justification, Flacius brought about by recounting Luther’s reaction to Osiander’s sermon in Smalcald from 1537.86 Far from praising the Nuremberg preacher, Luther had instead threatened to write against him.87 Flacius then sketched a history of the world, providing examples of how good ideas quickly went awry, finally arriving at Luther and his battles with the Roman Antichrist and others. Like Osiander, these opponents attacked Luther’s theology and even made derisive comments about Luther’s translation of the Bible. In Flacius’s eyes, Osiander’s biggest problem lay with his deep desire to create new, unheard of theology, contradicting both Luther and the apostles and reviving old heresies.88 With this, Flacius literally put Osiander in his (historical) place: as one more heretic opposing the truth. Thus, Flacius began by explaining how Osiander could possibly exist in the Evangelical church before refuting his teaching. More than any other opponent, Flacius thus put Osiander on the defensive by putting Osiander’s teaching in the historical context of the early history of heresy. In the body of his work, Flacius revealed his unique approach to theological argumentation, skipping over Christological questions to seize on Osiander’s own question (“Whether God does what false judges do [by declaring sinners not guilty]”) and to answer it with a word study of justification. As in Melanchthon’s initial oration of 1551, for Flacius everything depended upon proper definition. 85 F/G 01 (1552): Verlegung des Bekentnis Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung der armen sünder durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit der hohen Maiestet Gottes allein. Durch Matth. Fla. Illyr. Mit vnterschreibung Nicolai Galj/ darin der grund des jrthums Osiandri sampt seiner verlegung auffs kürzest verfast ist (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552), b 2r – v : “… viel meinen/ ich sey in allen stücken widder sie.” See chapter 8 for details about the translation into Latin and dating. English: Refutation by Matthias Flacius of Illyrium of the Confession of Osiander on the Justification of Poor Sinners throught the Essential Righteousness of the High Majesty of God Alone, with Subscription by Nicholas Gallus, in Which the Basis of Osiander’s Error along with Its Refutation Is Composed Most Briefly. 86 See Osiander’s comment in GA 10: 442 – ​43, published on 10 January 1552. 87 Cf. WA TR 3: 694 (no. 3900, from 27 June 1538) and especially 4: 476 (no. 4763), which contains Luther’s reminiscence of events in 1537. 88 Verlegung, b [=c] 4r: “Warlich/ so viel seine [Osianders] meinung betrifft/ dauon sag ich frey/ das sie Gotlos vnd den menschen verterblich ist/ vnd das die Aposteln vnd D. Luther/ in jhrer lehr/ nichts dauon wissen/ ja sie ist der kirche zu allen zeiten gantz vnbekant/ on allein/ das sie zum teil mit der Sophisten meinung/ vnd sonst mit einem alten Irthumb kan vergleicht werden/ wie wir darnach beweisen wollen.” In this he was reflecting the views of history present in both Luther and Melanchthon.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

51

Where Osiander knew of only two kinds of righteousness – divine or human – Christ offered a third kind: the obedient righteousness of one who is both divine and human. Osiander failed in Flacius’s eyes to distinguish Christ’s person from his office. Following the logic of the substitutionary atonement Flacius described Christ’s death as the “money” used to buy grace and eternal life for humanity.89 As had other opponents of Osiander, Flacius then went after Osiander’s failure (according to Flacius) to distinguish law and gospel. As Philip Melanchthon had first instructed in his book on rhetoric from 1531, Flacius shaped his answer to Osiander by following the rhetorical outline of judicial speech (genus iudiciale).90 At the end of Flacius’s work, Gallus added a short “subscription,” in which he attacked Osiander’s Christology (a theme absent from Flacius’s work), calling it Nestorian for dividing Christ and for not understanding the nature of the communicatio idiomatum, all points he had also read in Mörlin’s refutation.91 An appendix by Flacius (most likely) provided a summary of the differences between Osiander and the Magdeburgers. II. “Privately” Published Responses The line between public and private fell in very different places in early modern Europe. In addition to the official responses of various churches in the Empire, however, and from the very beginning of the controversy, certain theologians took note of Osiander’s teaching and attacked it mercilessly in print. The works of Bernhard Ziegler, Wolf Waldner and an anonymous writer, three responses to Osiander published in late 1551, focused on refuting the Prussian theologian’s incorrect view of Luther’s theology by quoting Luther against him.92 More interesting for the purposes of this chapter are the other longer responses to Osiander’s confession and its theology. 1. Erasmus Alber One of the earliest such responses came from Erasmus Alber, who had received his doctorate under Luther at Wittenberg in 1543.93 Alber was in Wittenberg during the Smalcald War but left because of the Interim and, after a brief stay in 89 Verlegung,

E 3r: “Vnd mit diesem (das ich so rede) Gelde/ hat vns Christus von Gott/ der zuuor mit vns zürnete/ gnad vnd ewiges leben erkaufft.” The parenthetical remark made clear that Flacius realized he was using a metaphor. In the summary of his arguments (p. O 3v), Flacius likened the Ten Commandments to a registry of debt to the Father, which the Son pays off on humanity’s behalf. 90 For details see below, chapter 4. 91 Verlegung, P 2v. Later in the same paragraph, Gallus called him a Eutychean. 92 See Zie 03 (1551), Wal 01 (1551) and Ano 01 (1551), discussed in chapters 6 and 8. 93 Alb 01 (1551): Erasmus Alber, Widder das Lesterbuch des hochfliehenden Osiandri, darinnen er das gerechte Blut unsers Herrn Jesu Christi verwirfft, als untüchtig zu unser Gerechtigkeit etc. An den Hertzogen in preussen geschrieben ([Hamburg]: Joachim Leo, [1551]).

52

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

Magdeburg, found himself in Hamburg.94 The preface to the work, addressed to Duke Albrecht, indicates that Alber did not simply see himself as responding as a private citizen, so to speak, but as a representative of Luther’s Wittenberg theology. Indeed, he contrasted his thirty-year association with Luther (he had matriculated in Wittenberg first in 1520) to Osiander’s distortion of Luther’s theology. He drew a direct line from Johann Agricola’s work on the hated Augsburg Interim, the position of the “adiaphorists” (i.e., Melanchthon and his colleagues) and Osiander. They were all tools of Satan bent on destroying the gospel and the churches’ unity around it. Luther, by contrast, was a prophet, and Alber wasted little time before citing sections of the reformer’s works to demonstrate Osiander’s errors. Why did Alber feel constrained to respond to this abomination? Because Osiander publicly lies on the basis of Dr. Martin’s teaching and permits his lies to be printed and intends to mislead all people with the name of Dr. Martin as a very famous Prophet (about whom he himself cares little in his heart), and you [Duke Albrecht] adhere to his false teaching, which he builds on lies, so either you must be a real fool – or you pretend to be one – and you must be the kind of person who likes to lie.95

In the book itself, Alber concentrated particularly on Osiander’s Christological errors, calling him an Arian for dividing Christ’s natures, and he noted the hermeneutical divide between Luther and Osiander. In passing, he also rejected Osiander’s attack against Wittenberg’s teachers in the Confession. In contrast to nonWittenberg trained Johann Carion (the astrologer and soothsayer from Berlin, whose chronicle on world history Melanchthon later expanded and published),96 Alber insisted that “in Wittenberg one does not make that kind of doctor.”97 This charge against Wittenberg’s doctorates was serious enough for Melanchthon to devote an entire declamation to it in 1553.98

MBW 11: 49 and Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Herzog, vol. 19 (Gotha: Besser, 1865), 33 – ​34. 95 Alber, Widder das Lesterbuch, D 2v – D 3r: “Weill nun Osiander vff D. Martini lere offentlich leuget/ vnd seine lügen trücken lest/ vnd alle menschen vntersteht zubetriegen mit dem namen D. Martini als eines hochberümpten Propheten (von dem er doch selbst im hertzen nichts helt [)] vnd du bleibst gleich wol an seiner falschen lere hangen/ die er vff lüegen bawet/ so mustu entweder ein Narr oder Schalcksnarr vnd ein sölcher mensch sein/ der auch lust zu lügen hat ….” 96 CR 12: 711–​1094. 97 Alber, Widder das Lesterbuch, G 4r: “Zu Wittemberg macht man sölche Doctores nicht.” On 1 September 1534, Georg Sabinus as poet had received from the pope the title of papal count palatine, to which was connected the right to bestow doctoral degrees, one of which he bestowed (probably as a joke) on Carion, who was known for his size and his capacity for alcohol. On this occasion, Luther wrote him an equally funny letter of congratulation. See WA Br 7: 173 – ​75, especially n. 4. 98 See Mel 06 (1553). 94 See

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

53

2. Johannes Brettschneider (Placotomus) Another important “private” response came from Johannes Brettschneider, one time professor of medicine and rector at the University of Königsberg and court physician there, who had received his medical degree in Wittenberg.99 Expelled from Königsberg for opposing Osiander, Brettschneider fled to Danzig and then published a set of theses attacking not Osiander’s position on justification but his earlier theses, where Osiander as a newly minted professor of theology had argued that even without the fall into sin Christ would have become incarnate. This publication included a poem by a former student in Königsberg, Heinrich Moller, who had been expelled from the University in 1550 for writing a threatening poem against Osiander. What both Brettschneider and Moller took Osiander to task for was his unbridled speculation in theological argumentation.100 Brettschneider had corresponded with Melanchthon on the problem of Osiander in 1551 and received that summer from Wittenberg’s Praeceptor a copy of Roting’s attack and Melanchthon’s promises (as early as October 1551) that a response to Osiander’s confession was in the works. Despite the novelty of Osiander’s argument, the fact that this was the only published refutation of Osiander’s earlier disputation shows how much more important the question of justification was for the Empire’s Evangelical theologians than speculation over the Fall. Their responses about justification were not simply a vendetta against a more creative theologian nor an attempt to defend the authority of Wittenberg’s theologians. Instead, there was something about the nature of the topic of justification that begged such a widespread response. Moreover, Osiander’s subsequent defense of his position, coupled with Duke Albrecht’s request for responses from the Empire’s Evangelical churches, combined to ignite a firestorm of refutations. Indeed, given that Brettschneider probably published his response first in 1552, well over a year after the theses were written, may indicate that he decided to enter the fray (and clear his name for having lost his position) only after other theologians had begun attacking Osiander’s Confession.101   99 Bret 01 (1552): Johannes Bretschneider [Placotomus], De incarnatione Christi conclusiones quaedam contra novam, minime necessariam, inutilem, & impiam opinionem Andr. Osiandri asseuerantis, Christum oportuisse fieri hominem, etiamsi Adam lapsus non fuisset (Lübeck: Georg Richolff, 1552). 100 For details of this poem, see chapter 8. On this point, Osiander was perhaps reflecting certain Eastern Orthodox views, that insisted that the incarnation would have taken place to lead a perfect humanity from its created state to a more fully complete spiritual state, a view that was very important in Origen of Alexandria. 101 While still in Königsberg, Brettschneider had managed to publish (in Wittenberg) other philosophical and medical theses for debate without any delay. See, for example, Disputationes quaedam philosophicae in Academia Regiomontana propositae. Item aliquot medicae a superioribus non alienate (Wittenberg: Georg Rhau, 1548), with a preface to Duke Albrecht dated 18 March 1548.

54

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

3. Anonymous Tracts (Caspar Aquila) Several anonymous broadsheets appeared in 1552, with at least one connected to Caspar Aquila.102 These pieces of invective show a different motivation for going to print: not to address Osiander’s position but to attack his character. In one, structured as a conversation between the author and a lay person, we “learn” that Osiander’s grandfather was Jewish, that he married for money, that he followed Johannes Funck to Königsberg to receive more money and that, having failed to receive a call to the pastorate held by Mörlin or to become bishop, he finally became the university’s chief theologian, except that he was more a drunk (ein Bacchant) than a doctor of theology. The author also noted Osiander’s rejection of the Augsburg Confession and the names of other members of his party (Andreas Aurifaber and Johannes Sciurus among others). Worse yet, when students attacked him in unpublished poems and were arrested, Osiander wanted to kill them, showing again his vainglory and interest in novelty. Only at the end did the author briefly mention Osiander’s false teaching: that faith was not a part of repentance, that Christ would have been incarnate regardless of sin, and that one is justified by an indwelling of Christ’s righteousness. The second broadsheet, titled The Fool Devourer of Prussia, presented in doggerel verse a description of all the fools in Prussia who seek after novelty and need to be medicated back to sanity. A third anonymous tract depicted a rhymed colloquy in heaven involving conversations by the recently departed Paul Speratus with Martin Luther and St. Peter, among others, who discuss the novelty of Osiander’s theories about justification.103 Again, Osiander’s character was also attacked, in this case by Luther, who ventured that already as a preacher in Nuremberg Osiander was too proud.104 Now, Speratus reported, Osiander had dreamed up a new definition of righteousness and twisted Luther’s writings, like the spider who sucks poison not honey out of flowers. While most of the poem dealt with the misuse of Luther’s thought, it also complimented Joachim Mörlin. After St. Peter issued an attack on Johannes Funck (quoting Luther’s hymn, “Erhalt uns Herr”), St. Paul appeared and rejected Osiander’s understanding of justification and Christ’s obedient righteousness. By the end, St. Bernard, St. Stephen, St. Thomas the Apostle and Jesus himself had enter the lists against Osiander, with Thomas opining that “there was no greater heretic in the land” for denying the suffering of Christ. 102 For details, see chapter 8. The anonymous broadsheets are Aqu 01 (1552) and Aqu 02 (1552). 103 Pas 01 (1552). 104 Indeed, in the Table Talk, Luther had said as much. See, for example, WA TR 4: 476 (no. 4763). For more on Osiander’s personality, see Ronald K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience and Authority in Sixteenth-Century German (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), passim.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

55

4. Anton Otto In May came an attack from Magdeburg’s presses by the head pastor in the imperial city of Nordhausen.105 Otto may have been personally acquainted with Joachim Mörlin, to whom he dedicated his tract. Like several others, including the initial offerings of Wolf Waldner and Bernhard Ziegler, Otto concerned himself most directly with Osiander’s use of Luther, citing long sections from the Reformer’s sermon on John 16.106 5. Alexander Alesius Alesius was Scottish refugee, who received his MA from Wittenberg, returned to England but fled at the introduction of Henry VIII’s “Six Articles of Religion” and finally became professor of theology first in Frankfurt/Oder and then in Leipzig. He took up the torch of Bernhard Ziegler against Osiander, after his colleague died in January 1552, publishing in all three pieces against Osiander. The first, Diligens Refutatio errorum quos sparsit nuper Andreas Osiander in libro, cui titulum fecit: De unico mediatore Christo, reflected Alesius’s scholastic training in that he first defined seven chief arguments of Osiander and refuted them one by one, showing weaknesses in logic, biblical proofs and the like.107 The result was one of the most thoroughgoing attacks on Osiander, easily equal in breadth to any response from individual Evangelical churches. Because it lacked a preface, it is difficult to discern precisely what prompted Alesius to write this tract, outside of his passing reference to Ziegler’s death and Osiander’s unfair attacks on his colleague. What Alesius produced was among the most sophisticated refutations from this early period. First, he noted that Luther’s position was neither ambiguous nor controverted, so that even the monks admitted that he was clear. Thus, Osiander’s claim to have taught this for thirty years was prima facie false. Then, Alesius stated Osiander’s main argument: that Christians are righteous not merely by declaration of forgiveness but by an indwelling of the divine nature of Christ.108 Alesius rejected Osiander’s arguments 105 Ott 01 (1552): Anton Otto, Wider die tieffgesuchten vnd Scharffgespitzten aber doch nicht­ igen Vrsachen Osianders, darmit er den Artikel von der Gerechtigkeit lestiget vnd verkeret kleglich (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552). English: Against the Thoroughly Investigated and Sharply Pointed but Still Inane Arguments of Osiander, with Which He Blasphemes and Pitifully Confuses the Article on Righteousness. 106 See below, chapter 6. 107 Ale 01 (1552): Diligens Refutatio errorum quos sparsit nuper Andreas Osiander in libro, cui titulum fecit: De unico mediatore Christo (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1552). English: A Careful Refutation of the Errors Which, Andreas Osiander Recently Spread in a Book to Which He Gave the Title: Concerning the One Mediator Christ. 108 Refutatio, A 5r: “Renati sunt iusti non tantum propter fidem & fidutiam remissionis peccatorum, uel imputationem fidei in Christum pro perfecta iustitia, sed per habitantem in ipsis diuinam Christi iustitiam, hoc est, ut ipse interpretatur, per illam iustitiam, quam renati a Spiritu sancto praestare possunt. ‘Haec est illa Helena,’ ‘Hinc illae lachrimae.’ ” Alesius cited first

56

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

out of hand, calling him “Mr. Super Sophist” (Sophisticissimus) and claiming that he proved what Aristotle said about those who are paralogismi (misled by false reasoning), by using false premises and bad examples.109 In order to demonstrate Osiander’s incompetence, Alesius broke his opponent’s argument into seven assertions, which he then systematically and logically destroyed. The issues for him were the usual (Osiandrian) suspects: 1) Justification was not absolution but the making of a person righteous by the indwelling of Christ; 2) redemption and justification, like righteousness and forgiveness, had to be kept separate; 3) it was an error to reduce justification to forgiveness and the alien righteousness of Christ outside of us; 4) for faith to be imputed as righteousness there had to be an essential and corporeal indwelling of Christ in us; 5) it was an error to imagine that Christ’s merit was our righteousness because it divided Christ’s natures, since merit is earned by the human nature not the divine; 6) true faith included in it the bodily indwelling of Christ in us; 7) the righteousness of God does not mean righteousness reckoned or imputed to us but rather the righteousness by which God is right, that is, his divine essence or nature.110 Alesius’s judgment? This was simply a return to Trent and the monks. Over against Osiander’s principles, Alesius then defined his own: that, in accordance with Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed, forgiveness of sins was not the final, perfect righteousness but rather grace, forgiveness and comfort in this life. This refuted Osiander’s first point. Osiander’s second point sounded in Alesius’s ears only too much like the Roman bishop Sadoleto’s commentary on Romans (on which Alesius was lecturing at the time). Osiander’s division of redemption and justification excluded Old Testament believers.111 On point three, Alesius a common saying, related to the Iliad, which means, “This is what the controversy is all about” (Haec illa Helena). He combined it with a reference to Terence, Andria, I, i, 126, where a character recognized that someone’s tears at a funeral were for unrequited love and not out of grief. 109 Refutatio, A 5r – v. 110 Refutatio, A 6r – 7r: “I. ‘Iustificari non significat absolui a peccato, uel habere remissionem peccatorum, Sed significant ex iniusto iustum fieri & habere iustitiam inhabitantem.’ II. ‘Redemptio debet separari a iustificatione, & remissio peccatorum a iustitia.’ III. ‘Constat illos errare, qui docent iustificationem significare remissionem peccatorum, imputationem iustitiae per fidem, & acceptationem ad uitam aeternam, & homines iustificari aliena iustitia Christi, qui est extra nos, quia inter se dissident.’ IV. ‘Fidem imputari pro iustitia, est Christum inclusum in fide, & diuinam atque humanam eius naturam essentialiter & corporaliter in nobis inhabitantem, esse nostram iustitiam.’ V. ‘Illi diuellunt diuinam & humanam naturam in Christo, qui dicunt, eum sua passione meruisse nobis iustitiam, & non esse nostram iustitiam iuxta diuinam naturam inhabitantem in nobis.’ VI. ‘Fides uera non tantum discernenda est a fide falsa, sed dicendum est, fidem includere Christum, & per fidem Christum in nobis corporaliter inhabitare.’ VII. ‘Iustitia Dei non significat iustiam coram Deo, uel imputationem iustitiae propter fidem, Sed significat iustitiam, qua Deus est iustus, hoc est, diuinam eius naturam uel essentiam.’ ” 111 Refutatio, B 8v: “Sancti patres, qui praecesserunt Christum, sunt iustificati, sicut nos iustificamur & contra, nos iustificamur, sicut ipsi sunt iustificati.” This fierce unity of the Testaments was a hallmark of Lutheran exegesis over against Rome, the radicals and the Reformed and can be traced back to Luther’s lectures on the Psalms. See James S. Preus, From Shadow

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

57

accused Osiander of failing to distinguish faith and works and ignoring the role that repentance and faith together (that is, law and gospel) played in Lutheran theology. Osiander also failed to differentiate between the righteousness given by God as gracious imputation and the beginnings of obedience, as between cause and effect.112 In this regard, Luther always distinguished gratia (God’s favor) from donum (God’s gifts of righteous living) in his interpretation of Paul. On point four, Alesius distinguished final perfection, when Christ would dwell in believers, from their present state, when they most needed consolation in the face of sin.113 Here Alesius contrasted an indwelling righteousness to Christ extra nos, a familiar strain in Luther’s own theology.114 Similarly, on point five Alesius insisted that faith trusted the entire Christ (two natures in one person) as mediator and redeemer, since this alone provided believers with true consolation, as the examples of David and Daniel proved.115 Osiander, contrariwise, actually divided Christ’s natures, separated redemption and justification (so far that Alesius wondered how he could even pray), and did not distinguish the faith of devils from true faith and trust in Christ. On the sixth point, concerning the definition of faith, Alesius drew a stark contrast between Osiander’s “new theology and grammar” and the Evangelical definition of faith as trust in God’s mercy promised through Christ.116 Alesius brushed away Osiander’s final point by citing Luther, who translated Paul’s “righteousness of God” as “the righteousness that suffices before God.” As if that were not enough, Alesius then marched back through Osiander’s seven points and showed his paralogisms (errors in logic).117 Finally, as a kind of coup de grace, Alesius explicitly mentioned Bernard Ziegler, who had borne Osiander’s attacks with patience. Not only did Osiander lie, but he also broke the fifth commandment by hating his brother. Thus, Alesius produced a scholarly tour de force, questioning Osiander’s theological principles, his basic conclusions, his logic and his moral character. It is little wonder that, in his Schmeckbier, Osiander, in what can only be described as a mean-spirited response, first derided the fact that Alesius wrote in to Promise: Old Testament Interpretaion from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1969). 112 Refutatio, B 2v – C 6v. 113 Refutatio, C 6r – D 3r. C 7r: “Hic igitur oportet sanctos habere consolationem … His proponitur haec consolatio ….” 114 Refutatio, D 2r: “Necessario sequitur quod non sumus iusti corporali inhabitatione Christi in nobis, aut iustitia eius, corporaliter in nobis inhabitante, Sed sumus iusti iustitia Christi, qui est extra nos, uel iustitia quae est in Christo, sedente ad dextram Patris.” See Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, Nos extra nos: Luthers Theologie zwischen Mystik und Scholastik (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972). 115 Refutatio, D 3r – D 8v. 116 Refutatio, D 8v – E 2r. 117 Refutatio, E 3v – E 7v.

58

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

Latin (a sign of his pride) and that he was a Scottish refugee.118 He concentrated on the matter of Christ’s indwelling, not so much answering Alesius’s arguments as restating his own, making an effort to distinguish the indwelling of God as Christian righteousness from the monkish infusion of grace based upon human merit or the civil indwelling of moral good. 6. Stephan Bülau The attack by Stephan Bülau, then preacher in Danzig, was unique. His tract119 arose after Joachim Mörlin (mistakenly) forbade him to preach during a visit to Königsberg, an action that led to the accusation in Danzig that he was secretly an Osiandrist. In order to clear his name, he penned this tract, having it published in Frankfurt/Oder by May 1552. He wrote, however, not only to defend his preaching “under the cross” but also for the sake of “my dear teachers: Mr. Philip, the light of all Germany, and the other praiseworthy men at Wittenberg and Leipzig.”120 Perhaps feeling the heat of Mörlin’s ban, Bülau’s introductory comments were particularly pointed. He wrote that Osiander’s view of the Augsburg Confession mirrored that of the Jews’ view of John the Baptist (in John 1). Having seen Melanchthon’s publication (which appeared at the end of January), Bülau now was encouraged to publish his own. His contacts with Königsberg’s other preachers (clearly supporters of Osiander) had simply been part of a preacher’s calling, he argued, but as soon as he heard what they were saying, he broke off relations with them.121 While Bülau was in Königsberg, Mörlin became suspicious and refused to allow him to preach there, an action that severely damaged his reputation at home in Danzig. Rather than return immediately to Königsberg and force the issue, Bülau stayed away so as not to hurt Mörlin further. While leaving the complicated arguments to the theologians, this preacher wanted to explain things for his parishioners. Of the four possible meanings of righteousness (eternal/essential, merited by Christ, pharisaical, and perfection in the next life), he wrote, for Christians it meant to be made or declared righteous by God because of Christ’s merit. Osiander confused the “being made righteous” (Romans 8:30) and “being declared righteous” (Romans 5:1).122 Always with an eye toward his parishioners, Bülau then defined the central terms: “Recht” meant law; “Gerechtigkeit,” the Law’s fulfillment; “Gerecht,” the one who had fulfilled 118 GA 10:

789 – ​92.

119 Bül 01 (1552), Ein Bekentnis und kurtzer bericht widder die irrige lehr Andree Osiandri, von

dem Artickel der Rechtfertigunge, auff vordechtige anforderunge etlicher von Dantzk und Königisperck durch M. Steffanum Bilaw von Osthatz/ einfeltig geschriben (Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn, 1552). The curriculum vitae of this north German, Wittenberg trained theologian (also spelled Bilaw) and the arguments for dating are given in chapter 8. 120 Ein Bekenntnis, A 2v – A 3r. 121 Ein Bekenntnis, B 1v. 122 Ein Bekenntnis, B 2r – v. Bülau switched the references.

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

59

it. “Justification [Rechtfertigung], however, is the sentence through which God accepts us and declares us righteous [gerecht].”123 Contrary to this gracious declaration, Bülau asserted, the essential righteousness of God lacks all mercy. Osiander’s feeble attempt to escape this fact by defining two essential kinds of righteousness missed the point; there was only one.124 This single righteousness never changed, Bülau asserted, but in Christ God found the means to be merciful to the human race. Contrasted to this merciful forgiveness, Osiander’s approach produced only wrath. As we will also see in the next chapter, Bülau – precisely because he saw himself directly addressing his congregants – focused his remarks on the comfort of the gospel, contrasting it to what he viewed as Osiander’s theological “reign of terror.” Using examples from Scripture, Bülau contrasted the comfort given by God’s merciful righteousness in Christ to those in Anfechtungen to those terrified by God’s essential righteousness.125 Thus he emphasized the centrality of God’s mercy in Christ at every turn. To investigate God’s essential righteousness meant for him to ignore the very heart of God.126 Turning to Osiander’s specific arguments, Bülau outlined them and showed their logical inconsistencies, not unlike his teachers (Melanchthon or, possibly, Alesius) would have done. To Osiander’s chief argument (human beings were righteous through faith; faith came from God and thus had to participate in God’s essential righteousness not merely in Christ’s merit), he responded that not only were Osiander’s conclusions false but that the Königsberger misunderstood the central terms in the debate. First, taking a page from Melanchthon’s Loci, Bülau insisted that faith was not to be understood absolutely (using the Latin: absolute) but relationally (Latin: relative).127 Second, faith was given by God but through baptism by water and Spirit. Third, faith was not God’s righteousness but rather a trust in future things (Hebrews 11:1). Fourth, faith did not imply participation in Christ’s eternal righteousness outside of Christ’s suffering, given to us 123 Ein Bekenntnis, B 3r: “… rechtfertigung aber/ der sententz Dadurch vns Gott auffnimpt vnd gerechtspricht.” 124 Ein Bekenntnis, B 3v, where Bülau addressed his parishioners directly: “Wie ir aber in allen meinen predigen gehöret/ die ich mit Gottes hülff aus der schrifft beweret/ vnd in gleichförmiger lehre des seligen Doctoris Martini Lutheri vnsers teutschlandes heiligen propheten/ gethan vnd geleret hab ….” 125 He summarized this section of Ein Bekenntnis, C 2v – 3r, in this way: “Diese stellen … die lauten alle auff Gottes barmhertzikeit/ auff das wort des hertzen des vaters/ welches ist Jhesus Christus Gottes son vnser heiland ….” 126 Ein Bekenntnis, “Darumb wan wir nun wollen von der warhafftiegen gerechtigkeit sagen die vns genugsam zur seligkeit ist So mus ich nicht hinauffsteigen vber Christum/ vnd sagen/ das ich mit der ewigen götlichen/ wesentlichen gerechtigkeit/ gerecht sey/ vnd in der hoffart die mittel noch Gottes gebott vorachten … Darnach mus ich auch nicht vnter Christum faren vnd gerechtigkeit bey den Engelen/ menschen ader bei eigenen wercken suchen … Sondern ich mus auff dem mittel beruhen/ vnd auff den waren grundstein Christum im glauben gegründet sein.” 127 Ein Bekenntnis, D 1r: “… das ist von wegen des fundaments grundsteyns/ welches ist Christus der her/ mit al seinem vordienst welchen ich im glauben also gantz ergreiffe vnd fase/ so ich im dieses nach seinem wort vortrawe.”

60

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

through the preaching of the Word and the Lord’s Supper. Here, Bülau provided his readers with one of the clearest expression of the theology of the cross: God revealed, contrary to human wisdom, in weakness. We cannot know Christ in a better way than through the preached Word, through which he attracts us and invites us to come to him … so that a person can be sought out at the cross. For in this form the Apostle points us to him … in this form of simplicity and kindliness he allowed himself to be seen, in order to allow the poor sinner to touch [him] and the weak human race to recognize him. In the same way he also gives his holy flesh and blood under the form of bread and wine, in simplicity and a spirit of service for the comfort of us lowly sinners because of our weakness, so that we should not be afraid of him and fear his glory but ourselves leave despair here [at the cross].128

After posing and answering a series of catechetical questions, designed to outline the Evangelical position, he admonished his hearers to trust Christ come in the flesh and not some eternal, divine righteousness. He then returned to the theology of the cross by defining the opposing theologians of glory, marked by foolish speculation about Christ’s divine nature, as if they were the first to discover such pearls, so that they would as soon find the Holy Spirit in the Jewish Talmud as in the Augsburg Confession.129 Over against Osiander’s claim that Jehovah in Jeremiah 23 referred only to Christ’s divine nature, Bülau simply remarked that “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14) and cited Philippians 2.130 Luther’s paradoxical theology of the cross lay at the center of Bülau’s thought. The simplicity of faith in the incarnate God was placed over against what Bülau viewed as unnecessary speculation. Finally, to Osiander’s insistence that faith 128 Ein Bekenntnis, D 4v – E 1r: “Besser aber konnen wir in [Christum] nicht kennen/ dan durch das gepredigte wort/ da durch er vns locket vnd zu sich komen heist … damit ein mensch zum Creutz kan vorsucht werden/ den in dieser gestalt weiset vns der Apostel zu im … In dieser gestalt/ einfaltigkeit vnd freuntligkeit/ hat er sich auff erden lassen ansehen/ den armen sündern zugefüget/ vnd dem schwachen menschlichen geschlecht/ also zuerkennen gegeben/ gleich wie er auch seinen heiligen leib vnd blut vnter der gestalt brot vnd weines/ in der einfaltigkeit vnd dienstbarkeit/ vns armen sündern zu trost von wegen vnser schwachheit/ auff das wir nicht solten fur im erschrecken/ vns fur seiner herligkeit furchten aber vorzagen/ alhie gelassen.” 129 Ein Bekenntnis, E 3r – v : “Vnd sol ia niemandts weitter gaffen vnd narren/ von ewigen dingen der vnausgrundtlichen Gottheit/ vnd Christum nach der Gottheit betrachten/ vnd an seiner menschlichen gestalt nicht wöllen genüge haben … wie auch Osiander saget … Newe/ vnnötige/ stoltze/ nerrische fragen herfur zubringen/ demselbigen geticht einen schöenen namen geben/ als einer herlichen perlen/ die niemandts hat finden mugen bis auff dise zeyt/ da sie der heilige geist in der Juden Chalmet [Kabala? Talmud?] vorsterckt (vnd durch die vorechter vnd schender der Augspurgischen Confession vnd bekentnis/ sampt dem gantze bundt der bekhenner vnd lehrer) herfur hat bracht/ darin der heilig Lutherus/ Philippus Melanthon/ Creutziger ec. neben andern hohen lichtern/ vnd iren mitglidern vorsprochen vnd Gottes vergessene genennet werden.” 130 Ein Bekenntnis, F 2v: “Niemand sol Gott dem Herren sein wort meistern/ vnd deuten/ die er in seinem ewigem radt vnd willen beschlossen hat/ Dan in diser menscheit Christi/ ist mehr dan ein schlechte Creatur/ darumb das sie mit der gotheit voreiniget ist/ welches dan keiner Creatur von ewigkeit geschehen ist/ auch nicht geschehen wurdt.”

B. To Write or Not To Write: Publishing Attacks on Osiander to June 1552

61

had to participate in God’s very being, Bülau responded again with reference to Christ’s self-emptying. One had to distinguish God’s power from God’s essence and realize that God’s indwelling arose through a creaturely Word.131 In any case, the indwelling of Christ in the sinner dared not be equated completely with Christ’s incarnation, lest one was forced to argue that through that indwelling people ceased to sin. Throughout his tract, Bülau turned to the basics of the faith to refute Osiander: the incarnation, the Lord’s Supper and means of grace, the self-emptying of Christ on the cross. He attacked Osiander’s use of reason in replacing simple Christian teachings with complicated rational dreams.132 He then closed his tract first with a string of citations from Luther, which (he believed) completely refuted Osiander’s position, and finally with his own confession, defending this publication not because Osiander was not a smarter theologian than he but because of “the need of my poor flock.”133 7. The Silence of Württemberg There was, of course, another course of action open to all of these theologians: direct negotiations coupled with public silence. Perhaps the extreme of reticence was spelled out by the responses written by the Württemberg theologians, chief among them Johannes Brenz. They sent a variety of letters and position papers to Königsberg – most of which third parties eventually published, but none of which the Württembergers themselves published. Indeed, even when the opportunity arose in 1555 for Brenz to help Melanchthon root out the last vestiges of Osianderianism from Nuremberg, he demurred. If anyone could be accused of Leisetreterei (treading lightly) in this controversy, it would have been Brenz not Master Philip!134 Among all the Evangelical opponents to Osiander, Brenz’s reconciling approach seemed most to have failed. What he did not comprehend was that public silence and backchannel negotiations helped little when the protagonist, and later his followers, refused to stop writing and when many of the opponents thus felt constrained to reply.135 To be sure, in between the extremes of the rather quickly published reply of Melanchthon (with or without his approval) 131 Ein Bekenntnis, F 3v: “Die ist alzu milde geredet/ vnd ist vnserm Got/ ein grosse verkleinigung … Darnach ist nichts weder in himel vnd auff erden/ von allen Creaturen wie gros aber klein sie seindt/ darinne Gottes krafft nicht were.” 132 Ein Bekenntnis, G 3v: “Auff dismal in der einfaltigkeit dauon genugsam/ auff das wir mit der schönen/ blinden/ thörichten vernunfft/ vnserm Gott nicht zulange fur der nasen spilen/ vnd mit losen fragen vnd fabel/ die Paulus vorbeut/ Gott dem Herren zunahe zukommen ….” 133 Ein Bekenntnis, H 3v. 134 For a helpful exposition of the charge of Melanchthon’s Leisetreterei, see Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthon und Luther während des Augsburger Reichstags 1530,” now in: Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon und die Reformation: Forschungsbeiträge, ed. Gerhard May & Rolf Decot (Mainz: von Zabern, 1996), 198 – ​220. 135 See below, chapter 5.

62

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

and the publishing silence of Brenz fell the responses of several other churches that produced and sent documents for Duke Albrecht early in 1552 but waited some time before publishing them.

C. Osiander Strikes Back: Responses Breed Responses Although it is not the point of this book to review Osiander’s writings, the theme of this chapter demands a brief account of Osiander’s responses simply to show how, rather than resolve the issue, they made matters worse for Königsberg’s “primary” theologian. From some of his early publications in 1552, it seemed that he imagined that he could withstand the (relatively small) onslaught of publications attacking him by answering them one by one. Thus, on 10 January 1552 he published a refutation of a single-sided broadsheet from 1551, which had unfavorably compared his theology to Luther’s. The result? His Wider den Liecht flüchtigen NachtRaben/ der mit einem einigen bogen Papiers/ ein falschen schein zumachen vnterstanden hat/ als solt mein Lehr/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ Doctor Luthers seligen Lehr/ entgegen vnd gantz widerwertig sein,136 resulted in an even more pointed response by the same anonymous author, who added comments by Flacius and von Amsdorf to the mix.137 Wolf Waldner collected readings from Luther on justification, adding a sharp preface (but without mentioning Osiander by name). Again, Osiander responded in his Schmeckbier (see below). Already on 24 January 1552, however, Osiander, who had already mentioned Michael Roting in his 1551 Confession, felt compelled to attack some young Nuremberg preachers for spreading lies about his changing views of justification and published Beweisung, das ich nun uber die dreisig jar alweg einerley lehr von der gerechtigkeit des glaubens gehalten und gelehret hab.138 Again, as a result some unnamed Nuremberg preachers (probably including Waldner, Roting and, perhaps, Sebald) responded in a tract published in Magdeburg, attacking “The Primary Rabbi of Nothing at All.”139 The Wittenberg tract, which included Melanchthon’s Antwort, published in January, demanded special attention. As a result, Osiander responded in a separate tract, Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons, printed 21 April 1552.140 Although 136 GA 10: 398 – ​413. See chapter 6. English: Against the Light-Fleeing Nightingale Who with a Single Sheet of Paper Understood Himself to Create the False Appearance As If My Teaching on the Justification of Faith and Doctor Luther’s Were Completely Opposed and in Conflict. 137 See Ano 01 (1551) and Ano 02 (1552). See chapter 8 for questions of authorship. 138 GA 10: 421– ​49. English: Proof That I Have Held and Taught for Over Thirty Years One and the Same Doctrine concerning the Righteousness of Faith. 139 Wal 02 (1552). Osiander’s skill in Hebrew and his connections to rabbinic sources and to Johannes Reuchlin meant that he would often be suspected of propagating Jewish teaching. 140 GA 10: 561– ​670.

C. Osiander Strikes Back: Responses Breed Responses

63

Melanchthon did not respond to this directly, Flacius, of all people, did.141 Indeed, Osiander’s brutal refutation of Melanchthon may especially have stimulated other theologians to publish their various attacks. By this time, attacks against Osiander were coming fast and furiously. With the May appearance of Mörlin’s Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht,142 the publication of which had been delayed because of its bellicose subtitle (Against the New, Misleading Anti-Christian Teaching of Andreas Osiander), Osiander responded with a short tract, published at almost the same time, attacking the title.143 Already in 1551, when his interpretation of John 16 came under scrutiny, Osiander had published a short piece defending his interpretation of that text.144 Flacius responded with a tract in May or June of 1552 that also touched on Osiander’s 10 January tract as well.145 By June it had become clear that such a piecemeal approach to his opponents would hardly suffice, so Osiander came up with his Schmeckbier (Beer Tasting), gathering up a host of his opponents and responding to all of them in a single tract. Most of the previously published tracts, discussed in detail above, became the subject of this work. Thus, he defended himself against Mörlin (M/V/H 01 [1552]), Roting (Rot 01 [1551]), Waldner (Wal 01 [1551]), Menius (Men 01 [1552]), Flacius and Gallus (F/G 01 [1552]), Pollicarius (Pol 01 1552), Alesius (Ale 01 [1552]), von Amsdorf (Ams 01 [1552]), and Knipstro (Kni 01 [1552]). Of course, he missed some works. Among those tracts by individuals, Osiander did not reply to Erasmus Alber’s Widder das Lesterbuch des hochfliehenden Osiandri,146 to Johannes Brettschneider’s [Placotomus] attack on Osiander’s theses of 1550,147 to any of the other anonymous pasquilles,148 to any of the work of Friedrich Staphylus (his departed Königsberg opponent), to the short work of

141 Fla 03 (1552), which concentrated on a single phrase that Flacius saw as promoting selfworship. English: A Fundamental, True Report on Justification by Faith. 142 M/V/H 01 (1552). 143 Wider den erlognen, schelmischen, ehrndiebischen titel auff D. Joachim Mörleins buch “Von der rechtfertigung des glaubens” zu dem er seinen namen ans liecht zu setzen aus pösem gewissen gescheuhet hat (Königsberg: [Hans Weinreich], 1552. Now in GA 10: 698 – ​710. English: Against the Lying, Roguish, Honor-Robbing Title for Dr. Joachim Mörlin’s Book, On Justification of Faith, to Which because of a Bad Conscience He Avoided Putting His Name on Publicly. 144 Rechte, wahre und christliche Auslegung uber die wort des Herrn Johannis am 16 … Wider die neuen ketzerey, die die göttlichen gerechtigkeit unsers herrn Jhesu Christi verwirft und verlestert, als sey sie nicht durch den glauben unser und in uns (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 20 September 1551), now in GA 10: 307 –​16, and GA 10: 398 – ​413. English: Correct, True and Christian Interpretation of the Word of the Lord in John 16 … against the New Heresy That Rejects and Maligns the Divine Righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ As If It Were Not through Faith Ours and in Us. 145 Fla 02 (1552). 146 Alb 01 (1551/2). 147 Bret 01 (1552). 148 Aqu 01 (1552), Aqu 02 (1552), and Pas 01 (1552).

64

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

Anton Otto,149 to Andreas Musculus’s theses,150 or to the work of Stephan Bülau.151 He certainly did not answer any of the responses to his responses. But he also passed over statements from Electoral Brandenburg and from BrandenburgKüstrin.152 Indeed, with the exception of Knipstro’s work, which was actually the statement of the Pomeranian church and thus an official response, Osiander completely ignored the other official responses, perhaps precisely because they were official, despite their having been published. In any event, one result of his beer-tasting party was, not surprisingly, more responses. Wolf Waldner took particular exception to the attack and answered in kind in his Antwort auff des Osianders Schmeckbier (Response to Osiander’s Schmeckbier).153 Flacius, who had already published more separate tracts than anyone else (and would go on to “hold the record” for publications in the years ahead), and Gallus produced Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier (An Antidote to Osiander’s Poisonous Schmeckbier).154 Not content with that, Flacius himself then wrote Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeck­ bier (Osiander’s Two Principle Foundations Published for a Schmeckbier).155 Menius and von Amsdorf responded by publishing the Ernestine Saxon theologians’ Censurae in August, marking a reaction similar to the theologians in Brandenburg-Küstrin, who published their official opinion because of Osiander’s continued attacks.156 In a less direct way, Alexander Alesius finally responded to Osiander’s attack on him in the Schmeckbier in the second of his 1553 public disputations on justification held at the University of Leipzig.157 After this burst of publications and counter-publications, after 1 September writing against Osiander came to a virtual standstill in 1552, except for the work of Flacius and Gallus, who would produce another four tracts before the year was 149 Ott

01 (1552). 01 (1552). 151 Bül 01 (1552). 152 M/Ag 01 (1552) and K/M 01 (1552). 153 Wal 03 (1552). 154 F/G 02 (1552). 155 Fla 04 (1552). By 1 September, Flacius had alone or with Gallus produced six tracts against Osiander. 156 M/Am 01 (1552): Censurae, AA 2r – DD 3v. Justus Menius wrote this preface (addressed to all godly Christians especially those in Prussia) and dated it 1 August 1552. He mentioned Osiander’s attack on Melanchthon (GA 10: 561– ​670, published 21 April) on Mörlin (GA 10: 698 – ​710, published 28 May) and against “etliche” [several] (clearly the Schmeckbier, GA 10: 742 – ​96, published 24 June). Menius also gave one reason for publishing this material: that Osiander condemned some responses sent to the Duke which had not yet been published. 157 Ale 03 (1554): Tres Disputationes, C 7v – C 8r: “Et refutatum est hoc ipsius dogma abunde ab alijs, & a nobis quoque [= Ale 01 (1552)], edito libro, ad quem ipse nihil alius respondit quam minas, & me de ipso mentiri, quod dixerim eum idem alijs uerbis docere, quod monachi imo mutato uno uerbo, scilicet, inhaerente. Nam ipsi docent nos esse iustos, iustitia formali inhaerente, ipse autem contendit nos esse iustos, non tantum imputatiue & aliena iustitia, id est, Christi, quae nobis imputatur propter fidem, sed iustitia inhabitante.” 150 Musc

D. Looking Back: Lutherans at War

65

out.158 Beyond this, there were only the theses of Matthias Lauterwald, published in Wittenberg, which can be characterized more as material from normal university disputation than a very substantive piece of work.

D. Looking Back: Lutherans at War In dealing with the Osiandrian controversy, scholars may be tempted to reduce the affair to a few famous men: Melanchthon, Mörlin and Flacius. The opening salvos in this paper war, however, indicate a quite different unfolding of the events surrounding Osiander’s theology. A wide variety of theologians, many but not all from Wittenberg, took a diverse range of approaches in attacking their Prussian foe. First, consider the variety. Despite Osiander’s best efforts to smear all of his foes with Melanchthon’s name, the opponents included such staunch opponents of Melanchthon in the adiaphoristic controversy as Nicholas von Amsdorf, Nicholas Gallus, Johannes Aepinus, Erasmus Alber and, above all, Matthias Flacius. The training also varied. Michael Roting and Wolf Waldner never studied at Wittenberg. Musculus and Alesius received masters of arts at Wittenberg but their doctorates at Frankfurt/Oder. Von Amsdorf had been teaching at Wittenberg already before the Reformation. They also used different methods to confront their common foe. Alesius employed a scholastic method of definition and objection. The theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin produced a confession of faith. Stephan Bülau was forced to write a defense of his own orthodoxy, with an eye to his own congregation. Bugenhagen and Forster’s second publication, also signed by Paul Eber, was a kind of imprimatur for the defense by Mörlin and his Königsberg compatriots. Only one writer, Johannes Brettschneider, dealt at all with Osiander’s earlier disputation about the necessity of the incarnation. Flacius was the only one to place Osiander’s writings within the broader history of orthodoxy and heresy in the church. There were also recurring, common themes in these works. Many focused their objections on Osiander’s improper definitions. Thus, already in 1551 Melanchthon delivered a speech on the proper definition of iustitia. Flacius, too, concentrated on proper definitions of terms. Three very different tracts (by Georg von Anhalt, Alesius and the theologians of Electoral Brandenburg) noted Osiander’s confusion of the terms gratia and donum. Von Amsdorf, among many others, challenged Osiander’s distinction between redemption and justification. Knipstro and his associates noted differences on the definitions of faith and grace. Alesius used a tightly argued logical piece to refute Osiander’s definitional errors. 158 Fla

05 (1552), Gal 01 (1552), Fla 06 (1552), F/G 03 (1552). For details, see chapter 4.

66

Chapter 2: Protesting Osiander (1551–1552)

If definition was important, then so was the effect of Osiander’s teaching about justification. This coupling of a proper definition of justification with its effect of comforting the afflicted conscience, already pointed out in Melanchthon’s Romans commentary of 1532 and linked to Romans 5:1 (already used this way in the Augsburg Confession, article twenty), became one of the chief battle cries in this conflict. First expressed by Michael Roting in 1551 and then by Melanchthon himself early in 1552, we find this refrain especially in the publications of Knipstro, Menius, Bülau and the theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin. While not all theologians (Melanchthon and Flacius among them) mentioned the Christological problems in Osiander’s thought, many did, including Roting, Pollicarius, Menius, von Amsdorf, Knipstro, Musculus, Gallus and Alber. Not surprising that The Book of Concord (article three) then used this “heresy” (of attributing righteousness to either the human nature [Stancaro] or the divine [Osiander] and, hence, dividing the person of Christ) to introduce this article. Yet at this point in the struggle, Osiander’s opponents were also worried that such a division undermined the atoning death of Christ and introduced a sharp gap between Christ’s redemption and human justification – something that none of them found in their reading of Scripture. Although only Flacius gave an extended historical analysis of heresy, many theologians were quick to associate Osiander with other, recent heresies, especially ones that defined Evangelical theology over against Rome (e.g., Aepinus and Knipstro). Especially important was the association of Osiander’s theory of divine indwelling with the Roman understanding that grace constituted the infusing of a habitus caritatis (disposition of love). Roting included not only Rome but also Zwingli and the Anabaptists in his list of Osiander’s look-alikes. Of course, there were also important objections to Osiander’s method of theological argumentation. Both Georg von Anhalt and Stephan Bülau contrasted Osiander’s philosophical speculation with a theology of the cross – Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection as contrary to reason and received only by faith in God’s promises. Other theologians, notably Knipstro and both sets of theologians from Brandenburg, objected more generally to Osiander’s approach to Scripture, also seeing it as too dependent upon a foreign importation of philosophy. Questions of method were also tied directly to debates over authority. Here, the pointed appeals to the judgments of other churches made by Melanchthon and Mörlin and the imprimatur issued by Wittenberg’s theologians of Mörlin’s work, brought this issue to a head, especially in comparison to what his opponents saw as Osiander’s theological hubris. But Osiander himself had also raised the questions of authority both negatively in his letters to Mörlin, where he questioned the authority of the Augsburg Confession, and positively in his insistence on the agreement between himself and Luther. The authority of Luther, which became central in the tracts of Melanchthon, Roting, Mörlin, Alber, Otto and Waldner among others, will be the subject of a separate chapter. But Osiander had also

D. Looking Back: Lutherans at War

67

called into question Wittenberg’s authority, especially that of Melanchthon. To this charge we have answers from Flacius (defending Melanchthon!), Menius and the theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin. Even one of the anonymous tracts, along with Menius and the Küstrin theologians, attacked Osiander for his questioning the Augsburg Confession. Only in the work of Andreas Musculus do we find extensive reliance on the church fathers as authorities – perhaps because of his specific interest in the Christological weaknesses of Osiander’s arguments. Perhaps most striking about these responses to Osiander, however, was their sheer variety and, nevertheless, unity. There was clearly dependence of thought – upon the Augsburg Confession and Apology, upon Melanchthon and Wittenberg’s theology and upon Luther. But there was at the same time remarkable independence. What thinkers stressed, how they argued, whom they quoted, what they most strenuously objected to differed enormously – even at this very early stage of the debate. What was immediately clear to these combatants, however, was their general agreement to the basics of the Evangelical approach to justification – so much so that they never attacked one another. Justification and redemption were not to be separated, especially not along the lines of Christ’s divinity and humanity. Philosophical speculation about the nature of the divine could not finally trump the central scandal of the cross. Faith, grace, and righteousness were definable, easy-to-understand terms, the meanings of which the biblical witness made abundantly clear and the effects of which could be measured by what they did to the sin-sick soul, namely, give comfort and assurance.

Chapter 3

Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine: “Justification by Grace, through Faith, on Account of Christ” 25 June 1530: In a clear voice strong enough to be heard on the streets below, Christian Beyer, chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, read out in German a confession of faith. Although it is rumored that the Emperor Charles V dozed off in the middle of the two-hour-long reading of the Augsburg Confession – German was hardly his native tongue – one can imagine that when Beyer arrived at the fourth article the assembled estates of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, his imperial majesty included, would have heard these words. Furthermore, it is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God out of grace for Christ’s sake through faith when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness in his sight, as St. Paul says in Romans 3 and 4.1

Among those who had worked on the document in 1530 and would themselves subscribe to it in 1537 were Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg, Johannes Brenz of Schwäbisch-Hall and, as chief drafter, Philip Melanchthon. Which of these three could have imagined then that twenty-two years later they would be caught up in a controversy over the meaning of these very words? To be sure, a foreshadowing of this controversy arose almost immediately, reflected in the epistolary correspondence between Luther, Melanchthon and Brenz in 1531.2 Brenz, who was more faithful to Augustine in this regard, ima­ gined that God pronounced sinners righteous on the basis of their becoming righteous in the future. In a joint letter to their comrade dated 12 May 1531, Luther and Melanchthon, each in their own unique ways, corrected Brenz on several points, which in Melanchthon’s case were reflected in the second Latin edition of the Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession and its German translation by Justus Jonas (Fall, 1531), in his 1532 commentary on Romans, 1 BSLK,

56; CA (German), trans. Eric Gritsch, art. IV in: BC, 38 & 40. Timothy J. Wengert, “Melanchthon and Luther/Luther and Melanchthon,” LutherJahrbuch 66 (1999): 68 – ​70, now in: idem, Philip Melanchthon, Speaker of the Reformation: Wittenberg’s Other Reformer (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010), essay X, and, more generally on this period, Martin Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther: Studien zur Gestalt der Rechtfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537 (Witten: Luther Verlag, 1965). 2 See

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

69

and in subsequent editions of the Loci communes theologici. In the letter, Melanchthon urged Brenz to cast your eyes back to the promise and Christ and away from this renewal and from the law completely. . . . Thus we are righteous by faith alone, not because (as you write) it is the root [of human righteousness] but because it apprehends Christ, on account of whom we are accepted, whatever kind of renewal is there. Although [this renewal] ought necessarily to follow, it does not give the conscience peace.3

Here Melanchthon gave a thumbnail sketch of his later position: the righteousness of faith comes because faith apprehends Christ, apart from any renewal, and it gives the conscience peace. In a postscript to the same letter, Luther added in his inimitable style: And I am accustomed, my Brenz, for the sake of understanding it better, to think of it in these terms: as if there is no quality in my heart that might be called “faith” or “love,” but in that place I put Jesus Christ and say, “This is my righteousness; he is the quality and (as they say) formal righteousness,” so that I may in this way set myself free and disentangle myself from considering the law and works – even from considering that objective Christ, who is understood as teacher or giver. But I want him to be gift and teaching in himself, so that I may have all things in him.4

The careless reader could easily overlook the words with which Luther introduced his comment, “In that place I put Jesus Christ and say ….” The central point for Luther was not that justification was an ontological joining of Luther to Christ but precisely the opposite: In place of a quality or virtue in the soul, Luther pronounced an absolution and union with Christ to himself: I put Jesus Christ and say. Thus, despite obvious differences in style and expression, Luther and Melanchthon both placed justification by faith in the Word and the comfort it afforded the sinner, not in the sinner’s renewal or supposed participation in God’s essential righteousness but in God’s declared promise. In 1533, a controversy over the general absolution spoken after the sermon broke out in Nuremberg and involved Andreas Osiander, who objected to such a declaration, worrying that hardened sinners would take it as a carte blanche to continue sinning and neglect private confession. Unable to bring their theologians to heel on this matter, the Nuremberg city council turned to Wittenberg’s theological faculty, which produced an official opinion, dated 18 April, that completely supported such a practice.5 3 MBW 1151 (Texte 5: 104 –​13, here 109, 9 –​18; =WA Br 6: 99,10 –​100,17). Melanchthon also pointed out how Brenz’s position corresponded to Augustine’s and that “propter adversariorum calumnias” he had not been as clear in the [first edition of the] Apology as he would have liked. 4 MBW 1151 (Texte 5: 112, 51– ​57; =WA Br 6:100,49 –​101,55). 5 MBW 1320 (Texte 5: 407 –​10; =WA Br 6: 453 – ​56 with 13: 215). There were, in the course of time, more letters exchanged on this issue, which goes beyond the scope of this study. See Ronald K. Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience and Authority in SixteenthCentury German (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

70

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

We cannot censure or reject the general absolution for this reason: the preaching of the holy gospel itself is also in essence an absolution, in which the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to many people in the congregation publicly or to a single person alone, either publicly or privately … For this reason, although not all believe the absolution, it is not to be rejected. For every absolution, whether it takes place in a communal or individual setting, must still be understood to demand faith and to help those who believe it, as the gospel itself proclaims forgiveness to everyone in the world and excepts no one from this universal [proclamation].6

The problem for Osiander lay with the effect of the word of absolution and with his worry over subsequent immoral behavior of sinners forgiven in this way. For Luther and Melanchthon, contrariwise, an unconditional message of forgiveness lay at the very heart of the gospel’s address to terrified sinners and had to remain front and center in the congregation. It was hardly accidental, then, that the theologians of electoral Brandenburg recalled this controversy and connected it to their own condemnation of Osiander’s Confession.7

A. The Contours of the Theological Debate Others have investigated in detail Osiander’s theological position in this debate.8 For the purposes of this chapter, as tempting as it may be to offer a summary of his basic viewpoint (perhaps with the caveat that Osiander’s opponents often found his positions contradictory and unclear), this study’s interest is not to compare Osiander’s position to his opponents’ but to make clear how his opponents constructed their own theological positions (and Osiander’s!) and thereby expressed their basic agreements with one another.9 Thus, references to 6 MBW 1320

(Texte 5: 409, 5 – ​410, 17; =WA Br 6: 454, 5 –​17). 01 (1552): Gründliche Anzeigung, K 2v (capitalization in the original): “ITEM/ Er laufft zu weit ins holtz hinein/ das er alles das was nicht Göttliche wesentliche gerechtigkeit heist vnd ist/ mus achten accidentia/ Wie dann diese gedancken alle Jüden vnd heiden haben von Christo/ Daraus dann folget/ das das Ministerium Euangelij, postestas clauium, Confessio cordis & oris, Absolutio, Remissio peccatorum, NICHTS nichts sein/ JA NICHTS vberal sein/ Vnd hie sihet man es/ aus was grunde der Osiander zu Nürenberg die auricularem confessionem hat gantz vnd gar abgethan.” 8 Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –1 ​ 552 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 122 – ​24, 130 – ​36, 195 – ​203; Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​ 1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 86 –​109; and, more recently, Anna Briskina, Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2006), 145 – ​91. One of the best synopses of Osiander’s thought was written by Gottfried Seebaß in TRE 25: 507 –​15, esp. 510 –​12. 9 Hermeneutically speaking, a strict comparison would simply pit the predilections of this study’s author against one another. Whatever Osiander may have intended to say – and he often complained that his opponents misunderstood him – investigating what his opponents thought he was saying and what they then replied will adumbrate far more effectively the central theme 7 M/Ag

A. The Contours of the Theological Debate

71

“Osiander’s position” here do not mean so much what Osiander said as what his opponents took him to be saying. The debate over Osiander’s understanding of justification by faith, as already hinted at in the preceding chapter, developed around several general, interrelated topics: the meaning of justification, the unity of Christ’s two natures and the nature of theological discourse. In the first instance, the opposition articulated the meaning of the basic terms (justification, righteousness, faith, grace) and showed how one’s teaching on justification affected the sinner. In the second, questions arose both over the unity of redemption and justification and, in light of debates involving the role of Christ’s meritorious death in the sinner’s justification, over the unity of Christ’s two natures – especially over against Osiander’s insistence that the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature alone was the believer’s righteousness. Thirdly, many of these theologians went after Osiander’s “philosophical” method and contrasted it to their own Scriptural approach to theology, at times even expressing their criticisms in terms that echoed Luther’s theology of the cross. In each of these three areas, alongside reactions against Osiander’s teaching, theologians were expressing their understandings of justification, Christology and methodology, based upon Scripture (including passages that Osiander misinterpreted) and tradition (including Luther, the subject of chapter 6). Sometimes, the distance of 450 years can give church historians enormous advantages in understanding earlier theological disputes. In this case, however, it might be easy to downplay the differences between Osiander and his opponents as the over-sensitive squabbles by people who had far more in common than they realized10 and that, to use a particularly grim analogy, they were merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But such an approach measures early modern thinkers by twenty-first-century ignorance of (or even contempt for) theological precision or confession of faith. The Ernestine Saxon theologians, perhaps, reflected precisely how Osiander’s thought appeared to them. At the beginning of their Confutatio, they wrote We find in truth, however, that this Opinion and novelty of Osiander was undertaken without any necessity, without any usefulness, against the Scripture and the Augsburg Confession; with the obliteration of many Christian, well-founded articles [of faith]; with the distortion and corruption of many places in the Scripture cited by Osiander; with censure and condemnation of many godly, learned people, who either long ago fell asleep in the Lord or consistently still exercise here on earth their offices in a true, Christian way of this book: how Lutherans constructed a unified approach to the doctrine of justification in the face of Osiander’s position. 10 See, especially, Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 323 – ​50. In her essay, “Streitkultur und Kontroversschrifttum im späten 16. Jahrhundert: Versuch einer methodischen Standortbestimmung,” in: Irene Dingel and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele, eds., Kommunikation und Transfer im Christentum der frühen Neuzeit (Mainz: von Zabern, 2007), 95 –​112, Irene Dingel refutes the same cliché more broadly regarding the “Streitkultur” of mid-sixteenth-century Evangelical Germany.

72

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

without any censure; and with such great anguish and sorrow for the dear Church; and [the Opinion] has spewed forth [these things] in these difficult, miserable times, during which even without this [dispute] the holy church has been so utterly attacked everywhere.11

For these authors, clearly, everything was at stake: defining necessary doctrine, using authorities properly, undermining the clear teaching of Scripture, attacking others unnecessarily, and causing trouble for the “holy church” at its worst possible moment (namely, in the midst of the struggle over the Augsburg Interim and adiaphora).

B. Defining “Justification by Grace through Faith” “The pivotal point of the entire dissension,” Johannes Aepinus wrote, “turns most centrally around the definition: what is the righteousness of the human being by which such a one stands blameless before God and attains salvation.”12 He did not stand alone in that assessment. Time and again, Osiander’s opponents concentrated their attacks on what they regarded as not just a defective but even, at least for some, an anti-Christian approach to the central teaching of the church. Debate swirled around several different aspects of Osiander’s proposal. Opponents compared his theory of the indwelling of Christ’s righteousness to the declaration of forgiveness. They then defended defining righteousness as imputation against Osiander’s charge that this amounted to cheap grace, and they attacked what they conceived as his misunderstanding of the relation between law and gospel and between justification and sanctification. They railed at his arbitrary separation of redemption from justification and at his dismissal of the righteousness in Christ’s meritorious death in favor of the righteousness contained in the indwelling of his divine nature. I. Christ’s Divine Indwelling versus Divine Imputation What stirred the blood of Osiander’s opponents more than anything else was his insistence that the absolution and the “mere” imputation of righteousness to the 11 M/Am 01 (1552): Confutatio, a 2v – a 3r: “Wir befinden aber jnn der warheit/ das solch Osiandri Opinion vnd newerung/ on alle not/ one alle nutz/ wider die geschrifft vnd Augspurgische Confession, mit zerrüttung vieler Christenlicher wolgegründter Artickel/ mit verfelschung vnd corrumpierung/ vieler ort der geschrifft von jme Osiandro angezogen/ mit thadelung vnd verdammung/ so viel frommer gelerter Leut/ so entweder/ vor lengest im HErrn entschlaffen/ oder noch auff erden jre empter trewlich/ Christenlich vnd one allen thadel/ hin vnd wider verwaltet/ mit so grosser ergernis vnd kümmernis/ der lieben Kirchen fürgenommen/ vnd jnn dieser engstlichen betrübten zeit/ da one das die heilig Kirch/ von allen örten/ so treffenlichen angefochten/ ausgegossen hat.” 12 Aep 02 (1552): Responsio, B 2v – B 3r: “Totius dissensionis cardo [pivot; chief point] potissimum uertitur in definitione, quae, & quid sit hominis iustitia, qua coram Deo irreprehensibilis consistit, & salutem consequitur.”

B. Defining “Justification by Grace through Faith”

73

sinner did not constitute the true righteousness of justification by faith. Indeed, Osiander argued, God’s righteousness was divine, not human, and therefore had to come directly from Christ’s divine nature and not from some external word that, once spoken, faded away. For him, without direct contact with Christ’s divine righteousness, the soul could never become righteous. Osiander could not conceive of reality apart from a substantialist reality and thus not in what already in the sixteenth century was labeled a Hebraic way of construing reality relationally, since God is a person, that is, a God of conversation and community. Even saying that objections to this way of thinking marked the underlying drumbeat of opposition to Osiander takes their fury against him too lightly. In the first part of their Censurae, for example, the Ernestine theologians rejected Osiander’s assertion out of hand. For them the term justification implied that there were three persons present: the judge, the accused and the mediator. If Christ accepted sinners through his eternal righteousness, then there was no need for the incarnation or his meritorious death on the cross.13 Here we can see how the judicial metaphor could dominate the discussion and create its own grounds for dismissing Osiander’s claims. But concern for the legal image associated with imputation was not the opposition’s only approach to Osiander’s views. The theologians of BrandenburgKüstrin suspected that Osiander insisted on the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature because of his confusion over the nature of grace. “Grace, however, does not mean here the divinity or the divine essence but the mercy and favor of the Father regarding the Son, Jesus Christ.”14 As will become clear in the third major section of this chapter, they and others connected this misunderstanding to a fundamental flaw in Osiander’s method. Part of the argument over the definition of righteousness revolved around Luther’s translation (in Romans 3:21 and elsewhere) of the Greek δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Latin: iustitia Dei) as “die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt” (the righteousness that suffices before God). Not only had Osiander called this translation into question – an affront against Dr. Martinus of blessed memory and his use of “dynamic equivalency” to understand the genitive θεοῦ (“of God”) – but Osiander also insisted that Paul had separated the means for offering sinners righteousness (through Christ’s redemption) from the actual righteousness (inhering in Christ’s divine nature). Justus Menius, in his separate publication of 1552, even put the offending words in the title of his tract.15 In the body of that writing, he concentrated on defending Luther’s translation (after all, it had gone through several carefully edited printings). What Osiander did not attack during Luther’s 01 (1552): Censurae, C 3v – D 2v. 01 (1552): Antwort, D 2r: “Gnade aber heisst hie nicht die Gottheit oder das göttliche wesen/ sonder die hulde vnd gunst/ des Vaters gegen dem Son Jhesu Christo.” 15 Men 01 (1552): Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri. 13 M/Am 14 Kni

74

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

lifetime, Menius fumed, he saw fit to criticize now. In von Amsdorf ’s separately published criticism, Luther’s old friend emphasized how God’s essential righteousness only condemned the sinner, so that all humanity (but especially sinners) need another righteousness: that won through Christ’s merit.16 Knipstro and the theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin took a slightly different approach to the problem. They were more than willing to admit that Christ dwelt in the believer as a result of being justified, but they accused Osiander of confusing justification with its result, sanctification. Thus, Osiander’s position was no different from that of the monks whom Luther opposed, and thus Osiander, too, deserved condemnation. He does not distinguish between justification and sanctification. Instead, he teaches about grace like the Papists, namely, that righteousness, that is, the divinity, is infused in us. This moves us to do the right, to behave in a new way and, in reality, to act rightly, so that he abolishes the imputation of iustitia [righteousness] and mixes together righteousness and holiness.17

II. Essence versus Relation in Justification Along with using words like imputation and absolution to define their arguments vis-à-vis Osiander, some voices noticed that an appeal to the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature as the believer’s righteousness undermined the relational nature of justification. Without question, the language of relatio came directly from Melanchthon’s writings, beginning with the 1532 commentary on Romans.18 However, its use here by others represented an important sharpening of the criticism against Osiander, while at the same time constituting one ground for the near unanimous rejection of his theology. In the Vorlegung (perhaps authored by von Amsdorf), the Ernestine Saxon theologians outlined the basic parts of justification: “redemption (Erlösung) that took place through Christ our savior, reconciliation (Versöhnung) with God, forgiveness (Vergebung) of sins and the imputation (Zurechnung) of the righteousness or obedience and merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”19 As proof, they examined John 16:8 –​11, a passage that Osiander had interpreted at length in his Confession, and concluded that it emphasized justification as reconciliation with God on the basis of the phrase, 01 (1552): Unterricht, B 2v. 01 (1552): Antwort, A 4v: “Er macht keine vnterscheid zwischen der Justification/ vnd Sanctification/ Sondern leret wie die Papisten von der gnade/ das vns die gerechtigkeit/ das ist/ die Gottheit/ eingegossen wird/ die vns Recht zuthun bewege/ new gebere/ vnd in der thadt recht mache/ damit hebet er auff Imputationem iusticiae/ vnd menget ineinander die gerechtigkeit vnd heiligung.” 18 For a complete discussion of this term, see chapter 7. 19 Ams 02 (1552): Vorlegung, Bb 4v – Cc 1r: “… die erlösung/ so durch Christum vnsern Heiland geschehen/ die versünung mit Gott/ die vergebung der sünden/ vnd zurechnung der gerechtigkeit oder des gehorsams vnd verdienst vnsers HERRN vnd Heylands Jhesu Christi.” 16 Ams 17 Kni

B. Defining “Justification by Grace through Faith”

75

“because I [Jesus] go to the Father.”20 They then noted that Paul used the term justification as imputation throughout Romans 4 and 5. “But Osiander rips out of the whole of theology the relationes or imputation and from his head puts in its place a vain, self-essential thing.”21 Imputation implied a relational understanding of justification. Johannes Aepinus, whose earlier work on justification Melanchthon had warmly praised, also contrasted Osiander’s essentialist language to the relational language of imputation in his Responsio, written for and signed by the clergy of Hamburg and Lüneberg. As cited above, for Aepinus “the pivotal point of the entire dissension turns most centrally around the definition: what is the righteousness of the human being by which such a one stands blameless before God and attains salvation.”22 Then, without using the terms, he broke down Scripture into judging law (including the Fall, sin, unrighteousness, punishment, God’s wrath and Satan’s kingdom) and saving gospel, that is, “God’s mercy, grace, righteousness imparted through the Son of God made a human being who died and was raised.”23 God was the efficient cause of human righteousness, not merely the formal cause as Osiander imagined. In this regard, Aepinus defined righteousness relative (in a relative or relational manner), whereas Osiander thought only absolute (in an absolute or ontological manner).24 Georg Schermer’s propositional refutation of Osiander, first published in 1554, also discussed relatio. In his twenty-seventh thesis, he described how the word justification was used throughout Scripture, where it signified an entire action or relation. Behind his Aristotelian categories (Schermer went on in subsequent propositions to outline the various causes of justification), stood his judgment that Osiander’s narrow definition of the term justification excluded its heart, namely, that it involved not a concept but an action or relation. Moreover, because of the complex nature of relations, he added, varied phrases in Scripture nevertheless signified the same action. [Justification] is not a simple form or quality, but it is a kind of wondrous action or relation. Hence it may be that on account of multiple causes, realities, or forms in the same action (as is customary in relationships), at the same time running together and cohering 20 Others argued, in part based upon Luther’s own interpretation of the passage, that it dealt with justification per se. 21 Vorlegung, Cc 2r: “Aber Osiander nimpt hinweg/ aus der gantzen Theologia die relationes oder zurechnung/ vnnd setzet aus seinem Kopff an die statt eytel selb wesentliche ding.” 22 Aep 02 (1552): Responsio, B 2v – B 3r: “Totius dissensionis cardo [pivot; chief point] potissimum uertitur in definitione, quae, & quid sit hominis iustitia, qua coram Deo irreprehensibilis consistit, & salutem consequitur.” 23 Responsio, B 4v: “Tota scriptura circa haec duo praecipue occupatur, proponit hominis lapsum & transgressiones, peccati & iniustitiae poenas, iram Dei, mortem, totumque peccati & Satanae regnum. Econtra proponit Dei misericordiam, gratiam, iustitiam, & salutem partam per filium DEI, hominem factum, mortuum & resuscitatum.” 24 Responsio, E 2r.

76

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

by means of a necessary connection, it is called by various names (which always nevertheless have the same meanings, since by completely ordinary synecdoche individual things comprehend the entire action).25

Later, Schermer returned to the subject first by citing from Luther’s 1536 disputation on justification, in which the reformer stated that through faith one acquired righteousness while remaining ungodly sinners and enemies of God.26 This kind of talk, Schermer added, offended those who thought of righteousness as a substance or person “and not a relation” (& non relatio). III. Cheap Grace versus Repentance and Sanctification

Behind Osiander’s rejection of imputation lurked his suspicion of what a much later generation would call “cheap grace.”27 Indeed, one of Osiander’s most loyal defenders, Johannes Funck had stated as much.28 For the most part, the opponents’ responses harkened back to the order of salvation. Justification is one – albeit central  – step in the process. First, one was convicted of sin; then one heard the declaration of God’s promise; then one could bear the good fruit of righteous works. Osiander’s opponents clarified their view on this subject by separating God’s grace from God’s gifts, a distinction that they believed St. Paul expressed in Romans 5:15 (“For as by the sin of one person many died, so much more are God’s 25 Sche 01 (1554): Propositiones, A 6r: “[non est] simplex forma seu qualitas, sed est miranda quaedam actio seu relatio, hinc sit ut propter plures causas, res, uel formas in eadem actione, ut solet in relationibus, simul concurrentes & necessario nexu cohaerentes, uarijs appelationibus (semper tamen idem significantibus, cum usitatissima synecdoche singulae totam actionem comprehendant) nominetur.” For more on Schermer, see chapter 8. 26 Propositiones, A 7r, citing WA 39/1: 83, 24. This was related to Luther’s understanding of the believer as simul iustus et peccator. 27 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. H. Fuller, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1959), 35 – ​47. 28 Johannes Funck, Warhafftiger vnd grundlicher Bericht wie vnd was gestalt die Ergerliche Spaltung von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sich anfenglich im Lande Preussen erhaben vnd was eigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit Christlich/ nach brauch der heiligen Schrifft/ vnd der rechtschaffnen Lehrer alter vnd vnserer zeit/ gehalten werden müge : den armen gewissen so diser Zeit durch mancherley Schreiben/ affterreden/ vnd erdicht der vnbestendigen Geister/ erirret sind zu Trost/ den andern jre jrthumb zuerkennen/ zur vermanung geschriben / durch Johan. Funck (Königsberg: Hans Weinreich, 28 March 1553), M 4v: “Zwar viel meinen wenn sie ein wohn/ (den sie glauben nennen) bekummen/ Sie haben vergebung der Sünden durchs verdienst Christi erlanget/ so sey es genug/ sie dürffen nu nichts weiter begeren etc. Aber solche betriegen sich sehr weich/ denn es ist auch von nöten da man gedenck/ warumb vns die Sünde vergeben werden/ so wirds sichs finden/ das geschriben stehet/ Lucas 1. Auff das wir erlöset von vnsern Feinden/ Jhme (Got) dineten one forcht vnser lebenlang/ inn Heilikeit vnd Gerechtikeit fur Ihme. Oder die Jhm gefellig ist etc. Sollen wir nu Got dienen/ vnd wir sind Todt inn Sünden/ wie oben gemelt/ so mus vns nicht allein die Sünde vergeben werden/ das sie vns nicht zugerechnet werde/ Sonder es mus vns auch gegeben werden das Leben/ welches vnd lebendig mache/ das wir Got dienen künden.”

B. Defining “Justification by Grace through Faith”

77

grace and gift richly experienced through the grace of one man Jesus Christ”). In his preface to Romans, Luther had underscored this distinction. Grace and gift are two different things. Grace actually means God’s mercy or favor, which he bears toward us from himself, from which he is inclined to pour into us Christ and the Spirit with his gifts …. Although the gifts and the Spirit daily increase in us and are still not perfect, so that evil desires and sins remain in us, which struggle against the Spirit … nevertheless, the grace does so much that we are reckoned completely and totally righteous before God. For his grace does not divide or parcel itself out, as the gifts do, but instead takes [us] wholly and completely up into mercy, for the sake of Christ our intercessor and mediator and so that the gifts are begun in us.29

Precisely this distinction, many argued, was lacking in Osiander. Thirty-two years after Luther first made this distinction, Georg Schermer followed a definition of justification as imputation with these words. “With this justification of grace or imputation, is always conjoined the presence of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, insofar as, at the same time, the Justifier enkindles with new life, regenerates from God, purifies hearts, consoles and raises up terrified consciences, and begins in them eternal life, wisdom and glory.”30 One thinker, however, Matthias Lauterwald, a theological refugee from Königsberg, proposed a different approach to the problem. He questioned Osiander’s motives for bringing the subject up in the first place, explaining that Osiander hated God’s grace just like the elder son in the Jesus’ parable! But Osiander, like the brother of the prodigal son, rejoices more in his fictive righteousness than in this gracious forgiveness of sins. Indeed, he may shamelessly call this teaching about the realm of grace colder than snow, and they scold that it is the cause of a lawless life that the devil and the flesh bring about. O how suspicious Osiander’s eye is that God is so kindly and for Christ’s sake alone out of grace without any merit of ours bestows the forgiveness of sins!31

29 WA Bi 7: 9, 10 – ​22. For more on this important distinction and its origins in Wittenberg’s interpretation of Romans, see Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5:15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s,” in: Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, eds., Philip Melanchthon (1497 –​1560) and the Commentary (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79 –​104. 30 Sche 01 (1554): Propositiones, A 2r: “Cum hac iustificatione gratiae seu imputationis, semper coniuncta est praesentia Dei & donatio spiritus sancti, qua iustificator simul noua luce accendit, ex Deo regenerat, purificat corda, consolatur & erigit pauefactas conscientias, aeternam uitam, sapientiam & gloriam in illis inchoat.” Already the Ernestine Saxon theologians referred back to this same distinction in the Confutatio, i 1v. 31 Lau 02 (1552): Was unser Gerechtigkeit heisse, C 2r – v : “Aber Osiander sampt dem bruder des verloren Sons/ frewet sich mehr vber seiner ertichten gerechtigkeit/ denn vber dieser gnedigen vergebung der sünden/ ja er darff vnuerschemet diese gnadenreiche leer kilter [=kelter] heissen denn schne/ vnd sie schelten ein vrsach des rohen lebens welches der Teuffel vnd das fleisch wircket/ Ey wie scheel sihet das auge Osiandri das Gott so gütig ist/ vnd vmb Christus willen alleine aus gnaden on allen vnsern verdienst/ die vergebung der sünden schencket ….” Like Lau 01, this was published in Wittenberg.

78

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

In addition to the above comment, the 1554 theses on justification provided another interesting and, perhaps, unique insight into the role of sanctification. After spelling out the typical distinction between being declared righteous and becoming righteous and arguing that the latter is a result and fruit of the former, Schermer proposed the following explanation for why the latter occurred. For God the Father is not feebly reconciled to the sinner nor does he love him in the Son so weakly that he leaves him in sins and corruption, but as without a break – as reconciliation and adoption in him [Christ] are done first – at the same time [simul] by [that] action he [God] begins to sanctify him and to cleanse from sin and to clothe or adorn him with new and eternal righteousness, and so he adopts and receives him into the same kingdom and common inheritance of the Son.32

Here, justification and sanctification are not just God’s random actions or necessities arising from the law, but instead they grow together out of God’s reconciling love. As will become clear in chapter 7, Melanchthon, too, used the simul in a similar way without, however, expressly linking it to God’s love for the sinner. Osiander tied his definition of justification as the indwelling of Christ’s divine righteousness to a secondary definition, also roundly attack by his accusers. He insisted throughout the debate on a single definition of iustitia (Gerechtigkeit) as “that which moves us to do the right.”33 One can hear echoes of Brenz’s Augustinian definition and the insistence that only those who finally do and become righteous are the truly justified. Osiander’s opponents could not cotton this approach and saw in it a return to the works righteousness of Rome and the monks. Matthias Lauterwald probably defined the threat most clearly when he wrote One can truly see, if only one wants to see it, what Osiander is up to, namely, that he would really like to tear out of the heart, sense, disposition, and even the eyes the real, true and living comfort that we have from the passion and victory of Christ. For should we look to the righteousness “that makes us do the right,” then we will in all eternity never be certain of our righteousness. Instead we will have to (especially in Anfechtung) wholly and completely doubt.34

32 Sche 01 (1554): De iustificatione hominis, A 4r – v : “Nam Deus pater non ita frigide reconciliatur peccatori, neque tam languide ipsum diligit in filio suo, ut in peccatis & corruptione eum relinquat, sed ut continuo, quam primum facta est reconciliatio, & in ipsa adoptione simul etiam facto sanctificare eum, ac mundare a peccato, nouaque & aeterna iustitia induere seu exornare incipiat, atque ita in idem regnum & communem haereditatem filij ipsum adoptet & recipiat, sicut dicitur, ‘Nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad uitam’ [1 John 3:14]. Item, ‘Charissimi nunc filij Dei sumus & nondum apparuit quod erimus, scimus autem quoniam cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est, & omnis qui habet hance spem in eo sanctificat se, sicut ille sanctus est’ [1 John 3:2 – ​3].” 33 GA 10: 160, 23: “Gerechtigkeit ist eben das, das den gerechten, recht zu thun, bewegt.” 34 Lau 02 (1552): Was unser Gerechtigkeit heisse, A 3r: “Man sihet ja wol/ wenn man es nur sehen wolte/ wamitt Osiander vmb gehet/ nemlich/ das er vns gern wolte aus dem hertzen/ sinne/ vnd gemüte/ ja aus den augen reissen/ den rechten warhafftigen vnd lebendigen Trost/ den wir haben aus dem leiden vnd siege Christi. Denn sol man auff die gerechtigkeit sehen/

C. Justification, Consolation and the Role of Experience

79

This link between the definition of righteousness and the lack of consolation in Osiander’s teaching needs closer examination.

C. Justification, Consolation and the Role of Experience “Experience alone makes a theologian!”35 These famous words of Martin Luther, echoed in various ways throughout his career, were also taken seriously by Osiander’s opponents. They were convinced that theology could never be simply theoretically or abstractly correct but had to provide, especially regarding the central teaching of justification, the effect God intended: to console consciences afflicted by sin and the law. At the same time, the experience of theology meant that these theologians could not simply talk about the theological problems that Osiander posed but that they had to confess their own faith over against what they viewed as his outrageous distortions of the gospel. I. Robbing Comfort from the Afflicted Conscience If there was a leitmotif running through the responses to Osiander’s understanding of justification, it was that Königsberg’s primary theologian had constructed an approach to justification that robbed anxious consciences of the very thing Luther had discovered in “the righteousness of God,” namely, the comfort of the gospel. In this regard, Osiander’s theology was suspect on two levels: the indwelling of Christ’s divine righteousness left consciences uncertain since, when attacked by the devil, one could not tell whether Christ was there or not; and Osiander’s insistence upon connecting Christ’s indwelling righteousness with becoming righteous and doing righteous deeds left people again dependent upon their works and the results of faith, not upon the certainty of God’s promise. This connection between Christian teaching and consolation went back to the very beginning of the Reformation, but was nowhere more clearly stated than by Philip Melanchthon himself, beginning with the very first edition of the die vns machet recht thuen/ so werden wir in ewigkeit nicht gewiß sein vnser Gerechtigkeit/ sondern wir müssen (fürnemlich in der anfechtung) gantz vnd gar verzweifeln.” 35 WA 25: 106, 26 – ​27, from Luther’s lectures on Isaiah, published in 1532/34: “Non possunt autem haec intelligi sine experientia, quae sola facit Theologum.” Luther indeed returned to this insight throughout his career. See his early glosses to Tauler of 1516 (WA 9: 98, 20 – ​21), which contrasted sapientia experimentalis to sapientia doctrinalis; another passage in his Isaiah lectures, this time contrasted to Erasmus’s interpretation of Scripture (WA 26: 172, 37 –​173, 2); commentary on Psalm 51 from 1532 (WA 40/2: 463, 8 –​12); commentary on the Psalms of Ascent, 1532/35 (WA 40/3: 64, 23 – ​27); his commentary on Psalm 90 from, published in 1541, where he contrasted experience to [pseudo‑]Dionysius (WA 40/3: 542, 31; 543, 8 –​13). See also WA 48: 387, 18 (with WA TR 1: 16 [no. 46]); WA 57: 179, 5 –​15; and WA TR 5: 384 [no. 5864].

80

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

Loci communes.36 Proper definition of justification without taking into account that definition’s intended effect led to bad theology. The appeal to the gospel’s consolation, however, meant that the experience of that consolation became authoritative in theological debate.37 In the current dispute, specifically in his Antwort of January 1552, Melanchthon expressed his concern over the lack of comfort emanating from Osiander’s theology.38 To imagine, however, that such concern for comfort was simply an idiosyncrasy of Melanchthon’s work would be to miss just how fundamental this connection was in the thought of almost every Evangelical theologian of the time. They were not simply copying this from Master Philippus or Dr. Martinus; it was central to their experience of the gospel in their own lives and the lives of their parishioners. One of the clearest expositions of the connection between consolation and authoritative experience came not from Philip Melanchthon’s closest followers in this dispute but from Johannes Aepinus and the assembled clergy from Hamburg and environs. According to them, precisely because both Paul and the Psalms insisted that justification occurred in and for consciences under attack, one had to appeal to experience – the very thing Osiander neglected. Therefore, in this dispute one must be allowed to appeal to the experience of consciences, which in contrition struggle with the judgment of God. Nor do these consciences find rest until they sense that the sentence of God’s judgment has been lifted and that through mercy they are absolved of the guilt of their iniquity.39 36 See chapter 7 and Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: Droz, 1967); Siegfried Wiedenhofer, Formalstrukturen humanistischer und reformatorischer Theologie bei Philipp Melanchthon, 2 vols. (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1976); Timothy J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to Its Predecessors and Contemporaries (Geneva: Droz, 1987), especially 203 –​11. 37 For a particularly trenchant example of this connection, see CA XX.15 – ​22 (Latin), in BC, 55 & 57 (BSLK, 77 – ​79). 38 See below, chapter 7. 39 Aep 02 (1552): Responsio, C 1r – v : “Ideo licebit in hac disputatione appellare ad experientiam conscientiarum, quae in contritione cum iudicio Dei luctantur, nec ante acquiescunt, quam sentiant se releuari sententia iudicij Dei, & per misericordiam absolui a reatu suae iniquitatis.” Others who made reference to the comfort of their teaching (as opposed to Osiander’s) included Justus Menius (Men 01 [1552]), Von der Gerechtigkeit, N 3v: “Darzu möcht es vielleicht dienen/ das geengstete vnd angefochtene gewissen/ wenn die mit Gottes wort getröst würden/ bey sich selbs dauon disputieren mochten/ ob sie das jnnerliche wort auch recht hetten oder nicht/ vnd wenn sie das nicht gnugsam vergewisset weren/ am eusserlichen wort auch zweiffeln möchten.” The theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin (Musa 01 [1552]), Widerlegung, E 4r – v, stated: “So zeuget auch die erfarung beide vnser  / vnd aller rechten heiligen/ das für Gottes gericht/ in den hohen anfechtungen/ keine andere gerechtigkeit bestehe/ denn die imputatiua iustitia vnd vorgebung der sünden/ wie man siehet an dem lieben Dauid/ so offte er die krafft des gesetzes gefület/ vnd vmb seiner sünde willen/ für Gottes gericht erschrocken gewesen/ Appellirt alleine zur gnade vnd vorgebung der sünden. Desgleichen schreibt man auch [cf. Melanchthon’s preface to Augustine’s Spirit & Letter] von S. Augustino/ das er mitten in seinen todes nöten/ sich selbst getröstet habe/ mit diesen worten/ Torbabor sed non perturbabor, uulnerum domini recordabor. Dergleichen lieset man auch von S. Bernahrdo/ als derselbe ein mhal eins/ hart krangk gelegen/

C. Justification, Consolation and the Role of Experience

81

Already in 1551, in the very first published salvo in this fight, Michael Roting criticized Osiander for undermining the certainty of the gospel and cited Romans 5:1 (“being justified by faith we have peace with God”), thus reiterating an interpretation found already in Melanchthon’s 1532 commentary on Romans that Paul linked justification and peace.40 At this place, namely, he [Osiander] places a mystery of such wisdom in that Christ indwelling is placed between faith and righteousness. But which of the Apostles ever taught this? And who does not see that this satanic comment leads to the destruction of faith and righteousness of God through faith? Through faith the following is sought: that our conscience may be certain about forgiveness and righteousness before God, as the Apostle says [Romans 5:1], “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”41

This appeal to experience, certainty and comfort had direct consequences for the ways in which Osiander’s opponents could appeal to Scripture, using not only proof texts and arguing over the interpretation of specific verses in Scripture but also employing the experiences of biblical characters, especially sinners like David or believers like Daniel. Although such references would generally have fallen under the rhetorical (not dialectical) category of exempla, yet because of the close association between this doctrine and its effect on stricken consciences they also took on more authority. For example, Alexander Alesius, who could hardly be labeled simply a student of Melanchthon and who was clearly a theologian in his own right at the University of Leipzig, insisted that trusting the entire Christ as mediator and redeemer was the only consolation for saints in the face of their remaining sin, as shown in the examples of David and Daniel. Without such assurance, the Scottish theologian wondered, how could Osiander even pray?42 vnd seins lebens sich erwegen müssen/ hat er gesagt. Ich armer sünder habe mein leben vbel zubracht etc.” 40 MSA 5: 155 – ​57. For the 1540 reworking of the Commentarii, see CR 15: 611–​13. See also chapter 7 below. 41 Rot 01 (1551): Testimonium, F 2v: “Scilicet hoc loco prodit mysterium tantae sapientiae ut inter fidem & iusticiam ponatur Christus inhabitans. Sed quis Apostolorum unquam sic docuit? Ac quis non uidet hoc Sathanicum commentum esse ad fidei & iusticiae Dei per fidem destructionem. Per fidem hoc quaeritur, ut conscientia nostra de remissione & iusticia coram Deo certa sit, sicut Apostolus ait [Romans 5:1]: ‘fide iustificati pacem habemus erga Deum.’ ” See also M/Ag 01 (1552): Confutatio, e 3r, where the Ernestine Saxon theologians also connect the comfort of the conscience to imputation and Romans 5:1. 42 Ale 01 (1552): Refutatio, D 4r – D 5r. See also Johannes Aurifaber (Vratislaviensis) in AurJ 01 (1552): Eine Predigt, who in his sermon on John 1 connected the comforting confession of the Trinity with the certainty of prayer. C 4v: “Mein Gott/ den ich anruffe/ vnd zu dem ich zuflucht habe/ ist der Vater meines Herren vnd erlösers Jhesu Christi. Dieweil er nu seinen allerliebsten Son mir zu einem erlöser gesendet hat/ mus er es warlich gar hertzlich wol vnd gut mit mir meinen. Ja da ist kein zweifel an/ nach dem ich durch diesen allerliebsten Son mit dem Vater versönet vnd zu gnaden angenomen bin/ so liebet mich die Göttliche Maiestet mit warer vnd gantz veterlicher liebe. Gibt mir derhalben seinen Heiligen Geist/ der mich regire/ leite vnd heilige. Wird mir auch warhafftig geben ewigs leben vnd seligkeit. Dafur sei meinem Gott lob vnd danck in ewigkeit/ Amen.”

82

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

The Ernestine Saxon theologians claimed that Osiander could surely never have experienced in his own life any such attacks as Jonah, Hezekiah or David had experienced, otherwise he would not have come up with such a comfortless theology. Three days in the belly of the whale would have cured him!43 Stephan Bülau, who had to defend himself against charges of being an Osiandrist, lengthened the biblical list substantially. Christians, he wrote, actually follow in Christ’s footsteps. As he was tempted, so, too, were Mary, Abraham, David, Job, Jeremiah and Christians down to this very day. Strengthened by God’s declaration of forgiveness and Jesus’ merit, the temptations of these Christians, “served them along with all other Christians, as already mentioned, for steadfastness and salvation.” Contrariwise, Bülau also listed a host of biblical characters (the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, Achitophel, Saul, Herod, Caiaphas, and Judas), whose encounter with God’s essential righteousness spelled their destruction. II. Confessing the Faith One way that Osiander’s opponents defined this iustitia (Gerechtigkeit; righteousness) was not so much through theological argumentation pure and simple but through actual confession of faith.44 In one of the most striking examples, the theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin combined echoes of the Augsburg Confession with a citation of Paul. Their down-to-earth, confessional style and tone is particularly noteworthy. As outlined in chapter 2, these theologians, among the first to publish their work, found themselves compelled to confess their faith not just explain it – but in such a way that Osiander’s weaknesses would also become clear. Here is our correct and clear answer [to the question: what is Gerechtigkeit?]: That our righteousness, in which we stand before God’s judgment and upon which we base all of our prayers and with which we overcome all Anfechtungen [assaults] is and can be nothing other than grace alone and the forgiveness of sins that Christ, true God and Human Being, merited and won for us through his obedience with deeds and suffering and which is revealed and declared to us through the preaching office of the gospel to be received and grasped with faith, as Saint Paul says in Romans 3[:24 f.]… This is a powerful saying in which St. Paul comprehends the entire process and method of our justification and demonstrates it in many ways.45 43 Ams 02 (1552): Vorlegung, Cc 4r – v : “Wenn Osiander were mit dem heiligen Propheten Jona drey tag im bauch des grewlichen Walfisches gestecket/ Oder were wie der König Ezechias in todes angst gewesen/ oder hette mit Dauide im elend die schuldzeiche vmb getragen/ so würde er vngezweiffelt faren lassen die selbwesentelich gerechtigkeit Gottes in vns wonend vnd wirckend/ vnd sich mit gantzem hertzen wenden nach der zugerechneten gerechtigkeit/ die das ist jnn vergebung der sünden.” 44 See Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis, Concordia, 1991), 99 –​118. 45 K/M 01 (1552): Wiederlegung, B 2r – v : “Hie ist nu vnsere richtige vnd klare antwort/ das vnsere gerechtigkeit damit wir vor Gots gericht bestehen/ alle vnser gebeth darauff grunden

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

83

This was by no means an isolated example. Over against what Osiander thought was his “confession,”46 other theologians also felt compelled to confess. Thus, when Osiander attacked his former colleagues, the younger preachers in Nuremberg, they also began their defense with a summary of their faith, which (they claimed) they held with all Evangelical churches.47 Similarly, the statement of the theologians from electoral Brandenburg also started with their account of human salvation as the fundamentum fidei.48 Given its length, it read more like a catechism or exposition of faith than a simple confession. Nevertheless, like many others, the Brandenburgers felt constrained first to state (and, thus, confess) their own position in full before judging Osiander’s.49 Indeed, these confessions took a variety of forms. Some, as in the case of Electoral Brandenburg, recounted salvation history; others, as in Mörlin’s own confession, focused on the distinction between law and gospel. Still others, such as the tract from Brandenburg-Küstrin, the preface of which even called the writing “a confession and confutation,” confessed briefly the meaning and effect of justification itself. The role of confession for Mörlin and the Magdeburgers will be discussed in chapter 4.

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement I. Propter Christum: Justification and the Atonement “Jesus Christ, true God and true human being, died for our sins.”50 This statement of the young Nuremberg preachers belonged to the common heritage of all Christians, so much so that when St. Paul wrote it in 1 Corinthians 15:3 (“For I vnnd alle anfechtunge vberwinden/ anders nichts sey/ noch sein moge/ denn alleine gnade vnd vorgebung der sünden/ die Christus wharer Gott vnd mensch/ durch sein gehorsam mit thun vnd leyden vordienet/ vnnd erworben/ vnd vns durchs Predigampt des Euangelij offenbaret vnd furgetragen/ mit dem glauben zuentpfangen/ vnd zuergreiffen/ wie S. Paulus zun Röm. am 3. spricht.” [We are made righteous without merit.] “Dis ist ein gewaltiger spruch darin S. Paul. Den gantzen handel vnd methodum/ von vnser gerechtfertigunge begreiffet vnd zeiget vierley an.” 46 One recalls from chapter 2 that several tracts questioned the legitimacy of the title. 47 Wal 02 (1552): Verantwortung, A 3r – v : “Das Jhesus Christus warer Gott vnd mensch sey für vnsere sünde gestorben/ hab die selben mit seinem heiligen blut am Creutz vnter Pontio Pilato abgewaschen … das die so es gleuben/ durch solch sein leiden/ todt/ blut vnd aufferstehung für Gott gerecht sein … vnd werden on verdienst gerecht aus seiner gnade durch die erlösung/ … damit er die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt/ darbiete/ in dem das er sünde vergibt/ vnd abermals.” 48 M/Ag 01 (1552): Gründliche Anzeigung, A 3r – J 4v. 49 In one case, that of Stephan Bülau (Bül 01 [1552]), the confession of faith constituted the entire tract, since he was suspected of being an Osiandrist. 50 Wal 02 (1552): Verantwortung, A 3r – v : “Das Jhesus Christus warer Gott vnd mensch sey für vnsere sünde gestorben.”

84

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”), even he made clear, using the language of the rabbis, that this was not his own statement but was handed down from others. (See also 1 Peter 3:18.) But what exactly did this mean? When those opposing Osiander suspected that his theology denigrated the death of Christ by reducing its importance to redemption and excluding it from justification (which could only be effected by the indwelling of Christ’s divinity and not by his meritorious death), they had a variety of ways to describe the atonement, all of which, as we shall see, they used. One approach came from the writing of Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus homo?. There the English saint had proclaimed the picturesque views of Christ defeating the devil and death passé and had invented instead a logical description (highly suggestive of feudal codes of honor) where the Fall, which resulted in robbing God of honor and heaven of the perfect number of beatific inhabitants, necessitated a human payment of honor in blood that only God could satisfy.51 Language reminiscent of Anselm’s theory had been employed by the reformers, chief among them Philip Melanchthon, in the 1530s and 1540s, although certain aspects of both Luther and Melanchthon’s comments about the atonement earlier in their careers occasionally also described Christ’s death as making satisfaction for a debt.52 What in the Osiandrian controversy seemed particularly useful in Anselm’s theory was the way in which it supported the judicial metaphor of imputation. In the 1520s, however, Melanchthon employed the language of Christ’s satisfaction in large measure to replace the role of human satisfaction in the sacrament of Penance.53 As the reformers came to take over and modify the first two parts of Penance (contrition and confession) under the rubric of law (that terrifies the sinner) and gospel (that forgives and comforts the sinner), they emphasized that there was no need for the third part of Penance, satisfaction for the penalty of our sins (temporal or eternal), because Christ had made full 51 See the classic work by Gustav Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. A. G. Hebert, foreword by Jaroslav Pelikan (New York: MacMillan, 1969), 81– ​95. 52 Here, among other places, Aulén’s Christus Victor, 101– ​22, needs correction regarding Luther, who used many different metaphors to describe Christ’s atoning death and resurrection and did not simply revive the patristic one. For a thorough history of later struggles over the atonement, see Gerhard O. Forde, The Law-Gospel Debate: An Interpretation of Its Historical Development (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969). Luther made no specific reference to Anselm in this regard, although a comment on Hebrews 9:17 in his lectures of 1517 –​1518 shows familiarity with the position (WA 57: 211, 21). 53 Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 142 & 160. Luther thought that only Christ’s death, not his active obedience, satisfied the demand of the law, whereas others seemed to think, despite Luther’s distinction between the two kinds of righteousness, that his active obedience made up for failure to keep each of the commandments.

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

85

satisfaction for them.54 The same general attitude may be seen in the Augsburg Confession, article four, especially in the Latin, which reads: “But they are justified as a gift on account of Christ through faith when they believe that they are received into grace and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins.”55 The emphasis here, however, was not on Christ making satisfaction to the Father or even satisfying the Father’s wrath but rather on the contrast between his death, which made satisfaction, and human works, which could not. Even Melanchthon’s appropriation of Anselm must be carefully evaluated.56 An early, favorable use of satisfaction language linked to Anselm came in a joint letter of 1549 from Bugenhagen and Melanchthon to the pastors in Berlin.57 For the beginnings of this doctrine much be learned: that God is truly and horribly angered by sins and so that he might satisfy his righteousness, there needed to be a victim without sin. For no other creature in heaven or on earth except the Son of God is without sin, through whom all the elect are redeemed. Therefore Anselm, too, says concerning the Son, “through him both the Mother, from whom he was born, and others were made clean.”58

Of course, this quote is not from Cur Deus homo? at all but from De virginali conceptu et de peccato originali, a work that Melanchthon had been citing favorably (because of Anselm’s definition of original sin as a lack of original righteousness) for several years.59 Moreover, the issue that the Wittenbergers 54 See, as a particularly important example, the 1528 Unterricht der Visitatoren (Instruction by the Visitors; WA 26: 217, 28 – ​222, 7), which went out under the crests and with the approval of both Luther and Melanchthon. Cf. especially 220, 21– ​22: “Genugthuung fur unser sunde sind keine unsere wreck, Denn allein Christus hat fuer unsere sunde genug gethan.” 55 CA IV.1– ​2 (BSLK, 56; BC, 38). 56 In part because the standard treatments, for example that of Reinhold Seeberg, simply assume that Melanchthon was Anselmian. See Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4/2: Die Fortbildung der Reformatorischen Lehre und die Gegenreformatorische Lehre (reprint: Basel/ Stuttgart: Benno Schwabe, 1960), 468. “Dieser Forderung entspricht Melanchthon dadurch daß er im wesentlichen die Satisfaktionslehre Anselms in der üblich gewordenen Fassung – er beruft sich ausdrücklich auf Anselm [CR 24: 579] – reproduziert, indem er hierdurch zugleich die Gottheit und Menschheit Christi in ihrer Notwendigkeit für die Erlösung erweist.” Seeberg proves this by referring to CR 24: 579, student notes to a sermon on the Annunciation from the 1550s. There is no indication that this was central in Melanchthon’s thought. Most of Seeberg’s other references are also to this very questionable source. In the Loci communes, by contrast, Melanchthon was far more interested in making sure the readers knew that human beings could not satisfy the demands of the law. Moreover, as we will see in chapter 7, Melanchthon, unlike Anselm, thought of Christ’s death satisfying the wrath of God only as a final cause not the efficient one. 57 MBW 5633 (CR 7: 465 – ​57), Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Bugenhagen to Georg Buchholzer and other cleric in Berlin, dated [before 19 September 1549]. 58 CR 7: 465 – ​67. 59 See MBW 2567, 2568 and 2570 (MBW T 5: 494, 25 – ​41; 503, 25 – ​51; 517 –​18, 57 – ​80) – all notes dated November/December 1540 by MBW and made in connection with debates over original sin at the colloquy in Worms of 1540.

86

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

were addressing was whether Christ’s death availed for everyone, even Mary. Only in 1553, thus after the controversy with Osiander and his followers was in full swing, did Melanchthon refer to having read Cur Deus homo?. In a letter to his confidant, Georg von Anhalt, Melanchthon wrote on 19 February 1553, “I have read Anselm’s writing, Cur Deus homo?, with which, although it is weaker and more obscure, still students should not be unfamiliar.”60 Hardly a ringing endorsement! Even in the second and third Latin editions of the Loci communes theologici, Melanchthon most often simply associated the language of satisfaction with human inability to satisfy the law. However, he also often repeated the notion that Christ became an offering (victima) for humanity’s sin.61 Here, precisely where the echoes of Anselm’s theory were perhaps the loudest, did differences between the two thinkers stand out most clearly. For Anselm, the problem of the atonement resided in God and God’s plan for a heaven filled with immortal souls in the face of human dishonor. On the contrary, Melanchthon only rarely linked either the language of satisfaction or Christ’s offering for sin to a problem in God or a conflict between justice and mercy. Instead, speaking of Christ as a sacrifice for sin demonstrated two things to human sinners. On the one hand, as mentioned above, Christ’s sacrificial death showed human beings that their works could not satisfy God’s righteousness, and, on the other, it revealed God’s love to the conscience, overwhelmed in sin and terrified, by placating the wrath that sin merited.62 Similarly, the German translation of the Loci, completed by Justus Jonas in 1542, contained more explicit comments about Christ’s satisfaction in association with a definition of the term “gratis” (umb sonst). Now the little word “gratis” (umb sonst) consists of these two parts. It excludes all of our merit, and it points us alone to the merit of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. For here one sees, first, how great God’s wrath is against sin so that no other offering could have made satisfaction for it save for the death of the Son of God. Second, the great, inexpressible love of God also shines here, who has given his only Son to death for us.63

60 MBW 6734 (CR 8: 29 – ​30), to Georg von Anhalt, dated 19 February [1553]. In the same letter, Melanchthon mentioned completing an attack on Stancaro (MSA 6: 260 – ​77) and the German edition of the Loci communes. 61 In the first edition of the Loci (1521/22) there was one reference to Christ as victima; in the second edition of 1536 only six; in the final Latin edition of 1543 over fifty. 62 See CR 21: 311, where he simply stated that human beings are pleasing to God because Christ redeemed them and not because they satisfied the law. Even in his use of the language of sacrifice, there was very little by way of speculation concerning how this might have occurred. The point was rather simply to contrast human inability to fulfill the law to God’s mercy on account of Christ. 63 CR 22: 352. Cf. the translation of 1553, Philipp Melanchthon, Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere: Melanchthon s deutsche Fassung seiner Loci theologici, nach dem Autograph und dem Originaldruck von 1553, ed. Ralf Jenett and Johannes Schilling (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002), 270 – ​71 (CR 22: 331– ​32), where the satisfaction language completely disappeared.

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

87

Jonas’s sharpening of “Anselmian” language occurred before the Osiandrian controversy, but some of Osiander’s critics borrowed this language. Georg von Anhalt’s sermons on the Christmas text (John 1:1–​14) contained a detailed description of the grounds for the incarnation in seven numbered points.64 Here was Anselm’s theory in a far more direct form. 1) After the Fall, humanity’s first parents were trapped under sin. Without a human being who could help, they and their descendants would still be trapped in sin. 2) In the tension between mercy and justice, the payer of the debt had to be human, but 3) in order to pay enough he also had to be God. 4) This payment had to occur not only in suffering but also in victory over death (Genesis 3:15). 5) Human nature could not carry God’s wrath on its own. 6) As High Priest Christ always prays to the Father and, therefore had to be God to speak this way to God. 7) Finally, as head of the church, Christ must be able to protect it through divine power. Even Prince Georg’s point, however, was not so much to explain the atonement as to prove that Christ was true God. Even more to the point were the comments of Alexander Alesius, who in his Leipzig disputations explicitly referred to Anselm. In the second disputation, Alesius, having dismissed Osiander’s claim that justification came from the indwelling of Christ’s divinity, turned to the theory of Francesco Stancaro, that only the humanity of Christ was our righteousness. Here he praised Osiander for having introduced into the conversation the passage from Jeremiah 23, “Yhwh is our righteousness.” If only a human being could make satisfaction to God, then there would be no need for the incarnation whatsoever. As proof, Alesius cited Ambrose and Anselm’s Cur Deus homo?. After mentioning the scholastic debate involving Lombard over whether God could have saved humankind in any other way than through the incarnation and passion of Christ, Alesius returned to Anselm, stating his preference for the English archbishop’s position.65 Outside of these references, there was no direct citation of Anselm, and little in these tracts showed any direct use of his particular theory. However, plenty of Osiander’s opponents, because he limited Christ’s suffering to redemption and explicitly excluded it from justification (since justifying righteousness had to be from the divine essence and not merely from the merit of human suffering), talked about the necessity of the crucified Christ’s righteous merit in the justification of the sinner. It was not so much that they worried Osiander was rejecting Anselm or a satisfaction theory of the Atonement but that he was eliminating Christ’s meritorious death from justification and thus dividing the two natures of Christ. 64 Anh 02 (1553): Eine Predigt, O 3r – O 4r. Melanchthon’s letter to Georg mentioning Anselm corresponded almost exactly with the publication of this sermon in Leipzig. 65 Ale 02 (1553): Tres disputationes, D 1v – D 2v. The other major theologian dependent upon Anselm was Matthias Flacius. See chapter 4.

88

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

II. Justification on account of the One Christ Most of Osiander’s opponents acknowledged the Christological difficulties inherent in Osiander’s position. But they attacked them in a myriad of ways. For example, already Osiander’s earliest opponent from outside Königsberg, Stephan Roting, mentioned the problem of separating Christ’s sacrificial death “1500 years ago,” as Osiander put it, from the present. This simply invited reinstituting the sacrifice of the Mass, Roting thought. The whole point of Christ’s incarnation was to defeat sin, and thus it could not be relegated to a past event.66 Erasmus Alber, one of the first to attack Osiander’s Confession in print, focused on Osiander’s comments about Christ’s blood. The Königsberg theologian had argued that passages referring to salvation through Christ’s blood could not be taken as the cause of human righteousness before God because blood was only mortal and thus could not truly bring the divine righteousness that was truly needed. Alber did nothing to hide his contempt for such talk. Osiander thought so little of Jesus’ blood, “so that it is a sign that his heartfelt position about it is no different than the Jews and that he is an enemy of Christ.”67 Later in the tract, he returned to the problem, reducing Osiander’s argument to a syllogism to prove Osiander’s Arianism: “Christ’s blood is a creature. How can a creature justify? Do you see how Arius is raising up his head?” Under another stunning piece of vitriol, Alber managed to cloak an important point. “The devil spits out such words from his hellish wrath, because he is an enemy to no other article of our religion as much as this one, where it says, THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH.”68 The connection to John 1:14 would remain important for others as well, as we will see in chapter 4.69 Alber also suspected Osiander of the Zwinglian heresy, since tying the blood to Christ’s humanity meant removing it from the Lord’s Supper, and he accused him of Nestorianism. But Alber also introduced another aspect of the Christological debate. “Osiander boasts that he knows very well what the Communicatio idiomatum [communication of attributes] is all about. If he knows, then why does he separate the WORD from the flesh, that is, the righteousness from the blood of Christ?”70 66 Rot 01 (1551): Testimonium, D 2r – D 3r. He also referred to Osiander’s earlier disputation over the necessity of Christ’s incarnation. 67 Alb 01 (1551): Wider das Lesterbuch, D 4r: “so ists ein Zeychen/ das ers in seinem hertzen mit den vngleubigen Jüden helt/ vnd Christo feind ist.” 68 Wider das Lesterbuch, E 1v (capitalization in the original): “Weill nu Osiander des Herrn Christi Blut ein Creatur nennet/ so sehen wir ia wol/ was er im Schilde füret/ vnd wo er hinaus will. Der Teuffel speiet solche wort aus seinem hellischen Rachen/ als der keynem Artickel vnser Religion so feind ist/ al dissem/ der da heyst. VERBVM CARO FACTVM EST.” 69 A sermon on this text became Joachim Mörlin’s own swan song from Königsberg, when he contrasted Osiander’s obsession with abstractions about Christ’s divinity and the Trinity to the incarnate child in the manger. 70 Wider das Lesterbuch, F 4r: “Osiander rhümet sich/ er wisse wol wie es sich halt vmb die

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

89

1. The communicatio idiomatum Alber’s polemic – much heat and little light – contrasted to the relatively more civil conversation of many of Osiander’s other critics. And yet later suspicions were already expressed in Alber’s tract: Osiander the Arian, the denier of Christ’s suffering, the Nestorian, the theologian who did not understand the communicatio idiomatum. On this final point, the signers of the Censurae of Ernestine Saxony also went after Osiander. Christ, they wrote, is mediator according to both natures not one, and Osiander should not have compared the work of the second person of the Trinity in creation (ante incarnationem) with justification. Moreover, Christ’s human nature is righteous in itself, not just by the indwelling of the divinity.71 The theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin also rejected what they viewed as Osiander’s abuse of the communicatio idiomatum. Although it would be another nine years before Martin Chemnitz defined, for the first time, three different genera of the communicatio idiomatum,72 these theologians already understood that the unity of natures in the person of Christ would not allow for any division, especially since both natures were righteous per se and that Osiander falsely distinguished human and divine righteousness, as if the soul needed an infused quality to be righteous, when in fact God simply imputed righteousness to them. Osiander’s argument left them with an impossible Christological choice. Sixthly, where he deals with de communicatione idiomatum, he uses a deceitful question and a false dilemma: Whether God made Christ our righteousness according to his divinity alone or, on the contrary, according to his humanity alone. And he pronounces on the matter that Christ alone according to his divinity was made our righteousness. This is the same kind of question and answer as if one were to ask whether a human being is human according to the soul alone or, on the contrary, according to the body alone, when in fact neither of the two singly makes a human being but instead both together, body and soul, make a human being. Thus, in the same way Christ, too, is our righteousness neither according to his divinity alone nor according to his humanity alone. Instead the whole Christ, true God and human being, is through his obedience, suffering, death and resurrection our righteousness.73 Communicatio idiomatum. Weys ers/ warumb trennet er denn das WORT vom Fleische/ das ist/ die Gerechtigkeit vom Blute Christi?” 71 M/Ag 01 (1552): Censurae, B 1r – B 3r. 72 Theodor Mahlmann, Das neue Dogma der lutherischen Christologie: Problem und Geschichte seiner Begründung (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969). 73 K/M 01 (1552): Widerlegung, E 1v: “Zum sechsten do er handelt de communicatione idiomatum, braucht er eine betriegliche frage vnd falsum dilemma/ Ob Christus vns von Gott gemacht sey zur gerechtigkeit/ nach seiner gotheit allein/ oder aber nach der menschheit alleine/ vnd pronunciret darauff das er alleine nach seiner gotheit vns zur gerechtikeit gemacht sey/ welchs eben eine solche frage vnd antwort ist/ als wenn man fragen wolte/ Ob einer ein mensch wehre/ noch der sehlen allein/ oder noch dem leibe allein/ so doch dieser keins entzlich ein mensch machet/ sondern beides zusammen leib vnd sehle/ machen einen menschen/ Gleich also ist auch Christus/ wider noch der gotheit alleine/ oder noch der menscheit allein

90

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

Andreas Musculus, who later crossed swords directly with Stancaro over related matters, devoted an entire tract to the Christological weaknesses of Osiander’s Confession. He began by invoking the authority of the ecumenical councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. The publication itself, a series of theses debated at the University of Frankfurt/Oder and laced with excerpts from the church fathers, argued that the unity of Christ’s two natures in one person was the first principle of all theology.74 Osiander’s position on Christ’s divine righteousness, Musculus insisted in no uncertain terms, was simply a revival of the Nestorian heresy.75 Separating Christ’s natures along the lines of redemption and justification was simply another example of Satan masquerading as an angel of light. Musculus introduced the term communicatio idiomatum as coming from scholastic theology but as containing a central truth about the unity of Christ’s natures. In the schools they call this form of speaking about the two natures of Christ by its accustomed name: to be said properly – nay rather most truly – “through a communication of Attributes,” or “through a conversion [of a proposition],” because we believe that all sayings, deeds, miracles, the suffering, death, etc., to be of one and the same: the Word incarnate and the one who became a human being. For there is not one who is God and another who is a human being but the same one is God and human being. … For as the two natures are united in one person, Jesus Christ, so also the names of the natures are united. When I say Christ is true human being born of the virgin Mary and crucified by the Jews, etc., so I also am saying that God also is born of the virgin Mary and was crucified by the Jews. … Because when the person [of Christ] is named in concreto, as they say in the schools, all of his properties, which belong to each nature, are attributed to him. … But when one nature is named in abstracto, properties of the other nature cannot be attributed to it.76 vnser gerechtikeit/ sondern der gantze Christus/ wharer Gott vnd mensch/ ist durch seinen gehorsam/ leiden/ sterben vnd aufferstehung/ vnser gerechtigkeit.” 74 Musc 01 (1552): De adorando, B 2r: “Sicut autem in omnibus disciplinis & artibus, necesse est primis principiis labefactatis, uel destructis, totum corruere. Sic tota Scriptura, fides, religio, salus, & spes vitae aeternae corruit, his omnibus, quicunque ab hac cognitione, huius mysterii unitionis nunquam separabilis, duarum naturarum Christi in una persona, uel paululum aberrant, ac propriis imaginationibus decepti, uel latum digitum discedunt.” 75 De adorando, C 2v: “Hoc delirio, amentia, & caecitate deceptus Osiander, nunc misere corruit, non sine summa optimarum Ecclesiarum Prußiae iactura & interitu, qui dum suis monstrosis imaginationibus, naturas Christi in opere redemptionis & iustificationis, ita unitas, ut nunquam separari sine summo sacrilegio poßint, separat in libro suae confeßionis Nestorianae, eo prolabitur miser, & fascinatus niger a nigro, ut totam scripturam obscuret, contaminet, imo tollat, Christum e medio aufferat, nouum dogma, blasphemum, inauditum, omnibus pijs Doctoribus incognitum, nunquam a quo quam fanatico etiam motum, a scripta sacra, & scriptis omnium Veterum & recentiorum alienißimum, in medium cum summa impudentia & termeritate plus quam Diabolica proferat, damnatum nunc a pijs Ecclesijs Germaniae plaerisque hisque praestantioribus communi calculo & suffragio.” 76 De adorando, C 2r – C 3v: “Hanc formam loquendi de duabis naturis Christi, in scholis usitatis uocabulis uocarunt, dici per communicationem Idiomatum, seu per conuertentiam, & recte, imo uerissime, quia unius eiusdemque, Verbi incarnati, & hominis facti credimus esse omnia dicta, facta, mirabilia, passionem, mortem, &c. Quia non alter Deus, alter homo, sed idem Deus et homo. … Sicut enim uniuntur duae naturae in una persona Iesu Christi, sic &

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

91

Thus, it would be proper to say the Son suffered but not the divinity or that the Son is eternal but the humanity is not. In light of this short summary of traditional Christological teaching, Musculus concluded by asking whether Osiander was not the Anti-Christ of the North. As if he had been reading Musculus’s theses, in 1553 Georg von Anhalt included a German version of the same argument in his Christmas sermon. For him, as for Musculus, the theologian had to distinguish between what could be said about Christ in concreto from what could be said in abstracto. “Moreover, the Idiomata, or characteristics, … must and can in no way be talked about (as the learned call it) in abstracto, that is, about the divine or human nature according to their essence in themselves, but rather can and must be talked about in concreto, about the one Person of Christ, indivisibly united, per communicationem Idiomatum.”77 2. Osiander, the Nestorian Even without directly referring to the communicatio idiomatum, Osiander’s opponents stressed the unity of the two natures in the one person of Christ and consistently saw Osiander’s theology dividing them as had the heretic Nestorius. In his separate tract, Justus Menius called Osiander’s Christology a form of alchemy, brewed under the influence of Raimundo Lulio.78 His self-absorbed theology pretended to be drinking from the source of divine wisdom when it created a distinction between redemption and justification. Menius countered Osiander’s buffoonery (alfentzerey) by insisting that Christ is mediator according to both natures, just as Luther had written in On the Councils and the Churches.79 In the Pomeranian response, Johannes Knipstro, before dealing with justification per se, put the Christological issues front and center. After summarizing Osiander’s errors, Knipstro outlined his response, beginning with a discussion naturarum uniuntur nomina, Sicut dico Christum uerum hominem natum ex Maria uirgine & crucifixum a Iudaeis &c. Sic dico & Deum natum de Maria uirgine, & crucifixum a Iudaeis. … Quia cum persona in concreto, ut in scholis loquuntur, nominatur, tribuuntur ei omnes proprietates, quae utrique naturae competunt. … Cum uero in abstracto una natura nominatur, non possunt ei alterius naturae proprietates attribui.” This terminology, which occurred often in Melanchthon’s writings, is found in only one place in Luther’s, his exposition of Isaiah 53, first published in 1550 in Magdeburg. See WA 40/3: 709, 24 – ​28, where it appears as something of a gloss on Luther’s comments. The three other places where it occurs in Luther’s writings, the source is clearly Melanchthon or one of his students (WA 60: 151, 191; 39/2: 108, 27 & 332, 24). 77 Anh 02 (1553): Eine Predigt, C 2r – v : “Demnach müssen vnd können die Idiomata oder eigenschafften … keines weges (wie es die gelerten nennen) in abstracto, das ist von der Göttlichen oder Menschlichen Natur nach jrem wesen/ an jhr selbst/ sondern in concreto, von der einigen Person Christi … vnzertrenlich vereinigt/ per communicationem Idiomatum, gesagt werden.” 78 Men 01 (1552): Von der Gerechtigkeit, F 4v. 79 Von der Gerechtigkeit, R 3v. Luther’s description of the Council of Ephesus is in WA 50: 581, 15 – ​592, 14; he mentioned the communicatio idiomatum with reference to Nestorius specifically at 587, 19 – ​590, 22.

92

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

of Christ’s name, person, office and work as mediator. Christ was mediator as priest and king, which implied that he was mediator according to both natures, not one.80 Von Amsdorf in his separate publication of 1552 also took a similar approach, reducing his dismissal of Osiander’s argument to a syllogism: Christ was redeemer according to both natures; one could not separate redemption and justification; therefore Christ was the sinner’s righteousness according to both natures.81 The Ernestine Saxon theologians expanded upon this brief exposition in their Vorlegung, published in August but composed in January 1552. There they concentrated on showing what kind of a Rottengeist [sectarian] Osiander really was. He “mutilates and martyrs” (stimmelt und martert) Luther’s works according to his pleasure.82 Similarly, instead of taking seriously the central task of the theologian, properly to interpret Scripture, he constructed judgments “from mutilated or abbreviated passages” (aus gestimleten oder kurtzen redden), interpreting clear texts of Scripture by obscure ones.83 Moreover, the effect of his teaching, which should have been to comfort the terrified, simply piled on more anxiety. Then, after rehearsing several arguments against Osiander’s position on justification, the authors attacked Osiander’s separation of human and divine righteousness in Christ. If Christ’s human nature did not also mediate the righteousness that pleases God, why did he become incarnate in the first place?84 They then described the characteristics of the human and divine natures in Christ and added, “No sane person has ever mixed these characteristics of both natures in Christ in abstracto.”85 Moreover, the authors also pointed out how the church had attributed some works to one nature or the other and others to the whole person of Christ.86 These authors, as will be shown in the following section, then tied confessing the unity of Christ’s natures to the comfort of terrified consciences, pointing to the comforting preaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:18 – ​25. Thus, not only did they not wish to argue about Christ’s abstract natures, but they also insisted on pastoral, experiential proofs for their concern. In 1553, writing for an academic audience, Alexander Alesius also took on the task of proving Osiander’s Nestorianism. Like Musculus in De adorando, Alesius relied heavily on statements from the church fathers to make his case. He referred 01 (1552): Antwort, B 2r – C 1v. 01 (1552): Unterricht, A 4r. 82 M/Am 01 (1552): Vorlegung, Aa 3v. 83 Vorlegung, Bb 1r. 84 Vorlegung, Ee 3v. 85 Vorlegung, Ee 4r: “Diese eigenschafft beider nature in Christo/ hat nie kein verstendiger in Abstracto vermenget.” 86 Vorlegung, Ee 4v: “Wie nun die eigenthümlichen werck einer jedern nature/ niemand sol abstractiue vermengen/ auff das der vnterschied beider natur in Christo bleibe/ Also schreibet die Kirche nicht on grossen bedencken/ die gemeine werck der gantzen person zu/ auff das die einigkeit der Person erhalten werde.” 80 Kni

81 Ams

D. “Justification … on Account of Christ”: Christ’s Person and the Atonement

93

directly to John of Damascus for a definition of the communicatio idiomatum, and he dismissed those who denied Christ to be mediator according to his human nature with reference to Cyril’s letter to Nestorius and Pope Leo’s to Fulgentius.87 3. Debating Biblical Texts. The Christological arguments, like the ones on justification, also involved a series of biblical texts, not only John 1:14 but, even more importantly Jeremiah 23:6 (“Yhwh is our righteousness”). While neither side denied that this text had to be understood as a prophecy about Christ, Osiander insisted that this text, because of its reference to the divine name (Yhwh), referred only to Christ’s divine nature. Worse yet for the opposition, Osiander also pointed out that other reformers had praised him for his interpretation of this verse. In their brief tract, the young Nuremberg pastors zeroed in on the second issue: the apparent imprimatur of Osiander’s exegesis by other reformers (Urbanus Rhegius, Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon). They had approved of Osiander’s exegesis for what it affirmed, namely, that Jeremiah 23:6 refuted those who denied Christ was the Messiah. But at the time Osiander gained the approval of others, he had been silent about what he thought the text denied: that Christ’s humanity could be our righteousness.88 In a more thorough manner, Johannes Aepinus went after the heart of the matter. First, he took seriously Osiander’s worry that the two natures might be mixed. But Osiander had committed a far more egregious error by separating the natures with respect to Christ’s central benefits. Indeed, the natures of Christ, which ought not be mixed, are rightly distinguished, since God and the human being are one without confusion of substance but with unity of person. Each nature’s own properties are rightly attributed to each nature, since each may be considered per se. But nevertheless this must be done in such a way that the benefits of Christ in redemption and justification are not divided and that we do not say that he redeemed, justified and saved us according one nature, so that these things be taken away from the other.89 87 Ale 02 (1553): Tres disputationes, A 5v – B 1v, giving instructions on how to work this communicatio out. See also E 2r – F 8r, where he dealt with the problem of the possibility of Christ being divine, quoting sources in Lombard, Vigilius, Basil, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrose, Leo, Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom. 88 Wal 02 (1552): Verantwortung, B 3v. Matthias Lauterwald [Lau 01 (1552): Fünf Schlußsprüche, A 1v] was not nearly as kind, accusing Osiander of having forgotten logic and his Hebrew grammar. No one in the church ever said that “our” righteousness or that of all Christians is God himself. Saying that Jehovah is our hope would not mean that God himself in his essence is our hope, but “such words [like righteousness] mean God’s activity and help, upon which one hopes” (“… sondern solche worte bedeuten Gottes wircken vnd hülffe/ darauff man hoffet.”) Even school children know that the grammar and logic prevent the kind of conversio [a technical term in rhetoric for a change in speech; here a subversion of a text] Osiander wanted to make. 89 Aep 02 (1552): Responsio, E 3v: “Recte quidem distinguuntur naturae in Christo, quae misceri non debent, quandoquidem Deus & homo unus sit Christus non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae, recte cuique naturae sua propria tribuuntur, cum unaquaequam pet [=per]

94

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

Taken in this light, the passages from Jeremiah refer to Yhwh as incarnate, both human and divine. Stephan Bülau, in confessing his faith to his Danzig parishioners, also examined Jeremiah 23, dismissing with a reference to John 1:14 Osiander’s attempt to apply this text merely to the divinity of Christ. He pointed out that in a similar way Daniel referred to an eternal righteousness, as a reference not to Christ’s divinity but to the fact that it would last forever. Calling Osiander’s interpretation mere Jewish wisdom and fables, Bülau looked at the larger context of the Jeremiah 23 passage, noting that God’s promise, “I will give my glory to none other,” did not exclude Christ’s humanity but rather, in light of Philippians 2:5 –​11, revealed the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ. “No one should master and interpret for the Lord God his words, which he has decided according to his eternal counsel and will. For in this humanity of Christ is more than a mere creature, since it is united with the divinity, which has not happened and will not happen to any creature in all eternity.”90 Bülau’s point was echoed earlier in the Ernestine Saxon Vorlegung. These theologians contrasted even more strongly Osiander’s misinterpretation, which concentrated on Christ’s divinity, to the weakness of Christ crucified and the comfort that brings the sinner.91

E. “To Obtain Such Faith”: Philosophical versus Scriptural Method in Theology The history of Luther’s theology of the cross among his immediate followers has yet to be written and, given that the category was as much the discovery of Walter von Loewenich as a fixed category of Luther’s thought, perhaps it never can or will be.92 Nevertheless, one of the important strands of Luther’s thought derived from the foolishness and weakness of Christ crucified and how they brought to nothing the wisdom and power of this world (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18 – ​25). This “revelation of God under the appearance of the opposite” also found its way into se consideratur. Id tamen ita faciendum est, ne beneficia Christi in redemptione & iustificatione diuellantur, ne dicamus eum secundum alteram naturam redimere, iustificare & saluare, ut alteri haec adimantur.” The theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin also attacked Osiander’s interpretation of Jeremiah 23 as a false use of Scripture. See Kni 01 (1552): Widerlegung, E 2v. 90 Bül 01 (1552): Ein Bekentnis, F 2v: “Niemand sol Gott dem Herren sein wort meistern/ vnd deuten/ die er in seinem ewigem radt vnd willen beschlossen hat/ Dan in diser menscheit Christi/ ist mehr dan ein schlechte Creatur/ darumb das sie mit der gotheit voreiniget ist/ welches dan keener Creatur von ewigkeit geschehen ist/ auch nicht geschehen wurdt.” 91 M/Ag 01 (1552): Vorlegung, Ff 1r – v. See the next section for more on this point. 92 See Walther von Loewenich Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trans. Herbert J. A. Bouman (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) and Timothy J. Wengert, “ ‘Peace, Peace … Cross, Cross’: Reflections on How Martin Luther Relates the Theology of the Cross to Suffering,” Theology Today 59 (2002): 190 – ​205.

E. “To Obtain Such Faith”: Philosophical versus Scriptural Method in Theology

95

the discourse of Luther’s followers.93 The revelation of God in the manger and on the cross of Christ judged all attempts at philosophizing about the nature of God and humanity. If Luther railed against the Sacramentarians’ worship of reason, his followers followed suit, especially when their opponents seemed to violate the plain and simple sense of Scripture and the proclamation of the church. Nowhere was this more apparent than in opposition to Osiander. Perhaps one of the most vivid contrasts between Luther’s simple, biblical message about the cross and incarnation and Osiander’s complexity and rhetorical conceit came from the pen of Justus Menius. Menius, who published a separate attack on Osiander already earlier in 1552, in which he boasted to be a Wittenberg student, used Osiander’s later attacks on Melanchthon, Mörlin and others as an excuse to publish the Censurae of the Ernestine Saxon theologians in August. After describing Luther’s simple understanding of redemption and justification in the preface, he then painted this stark contrast, mixing an attack on Osiander’s pride with a reflection of the purpose of simple Lutheran preaching. But such a simple way to teach and preach in no way belongs to a self-made and selfimportant Primarius Theologia Professor, much less to a VICE PRESIDENT of the glorious bishopric of Samland. For how could it possibly make any sense if such a self-made and self-important Professor should get into the lecture hall and an episcopal VICE PRESIDENT into the pulpit, open the hearts, mouths, eyes, noses and ears of the entire world, allow them to gape at him with great expectation, and then could produce nothing different or better than what the angels set forth and taught to the shepherds in the field about the savior swaddled in the manger, than what St. Paul set forth and taught about the crucified Christ, which not only Doctor Luther of blessed memory so richly and powerfully set forth during his lifetime but also Dr. Joachim Mörlin along with all the other Wittenberg doctors, indeed along with all the poor Evangelical village pastors – to their horse wranglers and milkmaids – the old ladies among themselves in nursing homes sitting behind the warm tiled stoves and with the unschooled laity and artisans to their children, servants and households, set forth and teach to the present day?94 93 For

example, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s 1546 ‘Enarratio’ on John’s Gospel: An Experiment in Ecclesiological Exegesis,” Church History 61 (1992): 60 – ​74. 94 M/Am 01 (1552): Censurae, BB 1v – BB 2r: “Aber solche einfaltige weise zu leren vnd predigen/ gehöret keinem selbgewachsenen vnd selbverwesenden primario Theologia professor/ viel weniger aber einem VICIPRAESIDENTEN des herrlichen Bistumbs auff Samland/ zu [these titles taken from the attack on Mörlin, GA 10: 701]. Denn wie solt sich das reimen/ wenn ein solcher selbgewachsener vnd selbverwesender Professor auff die Cathedra vnnd ein Bistopfflicher VICIPRAESIDENT auff die Cantzel aufftretten/ aller welt hertzen/ maul/ augen/ nasen vnd ohren auffsperren/ sie auff sich mit grossem verlangen gaffen lassen/ vnd denn nichts anders noch bessers erfür bringen solt/ denn was die Engel den groben hirten im feld/ vom heiland inn der krippen vnd windeln/ Sant Paulus vom gecreutzigten Christo/ welches nicht allein Doctor Luther gottseliger/ so reich vnd starck die zeit seines lebens getrieben/ sondern D. Joachim Mörlein sampt andern Wittenbergischen Doctoribus/ jha auch alle arme Euangelische dorffpfarherrn mit jhren roßhirten vnd grasemegdlein/ die alten weiber inn Spitalen hinerm kachelofen vntereinander/ vnd die vngelerten Leyen vnd handwergsleute jhren kindern vnd gesidne/ jha jhren heusern/ noch heutiges tages treiben vnd leren.”

96

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

Later, one of the individual censures produced by the Ernestine Saxon theologian made a distinction between the abstract and the concrete, arguing that in Scripture the latter had to interpret the former and that, in the case of Christology, true comfort for the sinner rested in the concrete, one person of Christ rather than in an appeal to an abstract single nature (in Osiander’s case to the divine nature).95 Pointing to the angel’s proclamation to the shepherds, the church’s declaration of forgiveness to the sinner, and such Scripture passages as 1 Corinthians 1 and Isaiah 53, the author noted “For stricken consciences can strengthen themselves better with the entire person of Christ, in which the divinity is united with the flesh, and receive more comfort, than only with one nature of this Lord and Savior.”96 It was not as if Osiander did not understand the problem of importing “human” definitions into this discussion; indeed, he attacked his opponents on those grounds.97 At least one author (perhaps von Amsdorf) noticed this in his contribution to the Censurae of the Ernestine Saxons mentioned above. But even he returned to the problem of reason and its power to distort the biblical message and even gave a method for sifting out true human hubris in theological argumentation. It is true, dear Osiander, that one should understand and interpret the little word “justify” not in a human but in a divine manner. No one denies that. But whether our meaning or Osiander’s is more human, that is the question. For one must always confess that the nearer reason and the more accommodating to the judgment of reason something in this high, hidden matter of the justification of the human being is put and taught, the more human that very thing is and should be viewed.98

The author then went on to say that Osiander’s view of an infused righteousness was a thousand times more reasonable than the imputation of an alien righteousness. It was precisely in its reasonableness that Osiander’s view corresponded to Rome’s position. On the contrary, the opponent’s view of Romans 4 and divine imputation were linked to 1 Corinthians 1 and the “foolishness” of what Paul preached. In the end, the author (emphasizing, as did many other opponents 95 Because the individual authors of the Censurae were not identified, it is unclear who the author was. The most likely authors are Menius, von Amsdorf, or Justus Jonas. See chapter 8 for details. 96 Vorlegung, Ff 1r: “Denn an der gantzen person Christi/ in welcher die Gottheit dem fleisch vereiniget ist/ können die erschlagenen gewissen sich besser erquicken/ vnd mehr trostes erholen/ denn nur an der einen natur dieses HERRN vnd Heylands.” 97 GA 10: 156, 33 –​158, 3, quoted in the Confutatio (see below). 98 Confutatio, l 1r – v : “War ist es jhe/ lieber Osiander/ das man nicht auff menschliche/ sonder auff Göttliche weise/ das wörtlin rechtfertigen/ verstehen vnd auslegen solle/ das verneinet niemand. Ob aber Osianders oder vnser meinung menschlicher seie/ daran wil es gelegen sein/ Denn man mus jhe bekennen/ das jhe neher der vernunfft/ vnd annemlicher dem vrtheil der vernunfft/ etwas inn dieser hohen verborgen sachen der rechtfertigung des menschen/ gesetzt vnd gelert wird/ jhe menschlicher das selbig seie vnd gehalten solle werden.”

E. “To Obtain Such Faith”: Philosophical versus Scriptural Method in Theology

97

of Osiander, biblical examples of sin and forgiveness) returned to the comfort received by the likes of Jonah, Hezekiah and Job, namely, the Son of God on the cross.99 Many of Osiander’s opponents also contrasted his philosophical speech to the simplicity of Luther’s thought. Few, however, managed to state in such Luther-esque language the conflict between reason and the gospel, as did Georg Schermer. Schermer enrolled at the University of Wittenberg in 1536 and in his series of theses attacking Osiander even cited an excerpt from a disputation of Luther’s held that same year.100 He concluded his theses with these words: “For all reason with all of its arts, acumen and universal philosophy must on this topic be submitted to the Word of God and must be made captive in obedience to faith.”101 This captivity to the Word of God was not simply a ploy to discredit Osiander but represented for these Evangelical opponents of him one of the most profound insights into the nature of justification by faith in the realm of theological reflection: the gracious speaking of promised forgiveness to a sinner overturned everything that one would reasonably expect from a just God and forced the sinner to rely in faith on this very promise. Yet Schermer was by no means alone in judging Osiander’s philosophical method. Indeed, several opponents were even more direct in their attack, accusing Osiander of being beholden to Plato and the kind of philosophical speculation inimical to the Christian faith. Here the theologians of electoral Brandenburg led the way. They concentrated on a distinction made by Osiander that quite a few of his opponents found suspicious: the distinction between an inner and an outer word.102 One of the reasons, Osiander had argued, that the absolution and an imputed righteousness could not truly be a Christian’s righteousness rested in the fact that such a proclamation was merely an external, human word that passed away. For true righteousness, Christians needed the indwelling, divine   99 Confutatio,

m 1r. 83, 24, cited in Sche 01 (1554): De iustificatione hominis, A 7r. 101 Sche 01 (1554): De iustificatione hominis, B 9v: “Tota enim ratio cum omnibus suis artibus, acumine, atque uniuersa philosophia uerbo Dei hoc loco submitti & in obsequium fidei captiuari debet.” 102 Others also pointed to this problem. Aepinus (Aep 02 [1552]: Responsio, F 1v – H 4v) insisted that the external Word as law and gospel saved the sinner. Menius (Men 01 [1552]: Von der Gerechtigkeit, N 1v – N 4v) claimed that Osiander’s distinction robbed the sinner of comfort, writing (N 3v): “Darzu möcht es vielleicht dienen/ das geengstete vnd angefochtene gewissen/ wenn die mit Gottes wort getröst würden/ bey sich selbs dauon disputieren mochten/ ob sie das jnnerliche wort auch recht hetten oder nicht/ vnd wenn sie das night gnugsam vergewisset weren/ am eusserlichen wort auch zweiffeln möchten.” The theologians of Brandenburg-Küstrin (K/M 01 [1552]: Widerlegung, D 4v – E 1v) allowed for Osiander’s distinction (although finding it foreign to the case at hand) but could not understand why he denied that the oral word justified, instead imagining that it only reconciled the sinner to God. E 1r: “… ertichtet er ihm ein sonderliche weise/ den er sagt/ wen schon Christus durchs mündliche wort/ vnd vnseren glauben zu vns komme/ vnd vns die sünde vorgeben hat/ iedoch sein wir durch solche vorgebung der sünden noch nicht gerechtfertiget/ sondern alleine versönet.” 100 WA 39/1:

98

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

Logos of the Father, lest they end up trusting a mortal thing rather than the immortal God. To this challenge, the Brandenburgers replied by referring to Augustine’s final disappointment with Plotinus’s writings (where the bishop could not finally find the Word made flesh [John 1:14]). But Osiander treated Scripture in the same way by forcing it to conform to his philosophy rather than the other way around. The spoken Word of God, to be sure, had two offices (law and gospel), but it could not be divided into internal and external words. Thus, what he juggles around concerning the external and internal word, one can let pass and ignore as the mere philosophical blather of a schoolboy (as St. Augustine writes, that he found the entire Gospel of John in the Platonist Plotinus, except for “The Word became flesh”; and Osiander’s spirit is one and the same as Plotinus’s), if the Scripture did not have a better and different way to speak about this, to which the teachers of the Holy Scripture ought to accustom themselves. For the Scripture, as stated above in the Body of the Confession, holds the Word that the apostles saw and heard and touched with their hands to be the Word of life.103

The result of Osiander’s speculation, they argued, undermined the preaching office itself and Paul’s insistence on knowing only Christ and him crucified. Even the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, which they did not deny, served to reveal the Son and his gifts, not to connect one up to divinity. Why did Osiander construct such bad theology? These theologians replied that Osiander was like Nicodemus in John 3, a teacher of Israel who knew nothing, as described in Psalm 10:2 by the Hebrew word mismah, which meant scelerata cognitio (defiled knowledge) or what Paul called in Romans 1:21 (“they became futile in their thinking”), by which he meant their most glorious, wisest, cleverest thoughts.104 Such a person as Osiander could not find wisdom in Christ’s flesh. “Why? The Mismah sits in his heart and takes from him life, light, Spirit and all blessedness and cannot maneuver itself into the relatio. And to him all things that are outside of the divinity of Christ are accidentia. This then is a brand-new-as-nails Jewish heart, which must confuse and separate the persons [in Christ]. For a person is to him an accidens.”105 103 Latin placed in italics. M/Ag 01 (1552): Grundliche Anzeigung, N 4v: “Darumb was er geuglet de uerbo externo & interno, das könde man/ als ein schullers vnd philosophisch geschwetz/ (wie Sanct Augustin schreibet/ er hab in Photino [sic! = Plotino] Platonico das gantz Euangelium Joannis funden/ bis auff das Verbum caro factum, Vnd ist derselb Osiandri geist/ derselbige Photinische [sic!] geist) wol paßiren vnd hingehen lassen/ wenn die schrifft nicht ein andere vnd bessere weise hette dis zureden/ zu der sich die Lerer der heiligen schrifft gewenen solten. Dann die schrifft/ wie oben in corpore confessionis klerlich ist angezeigt/ helt das wort/ das die Apostlen gesehen/ gehort/ vnd mit henden begriffen haben/ fur das Verbum uitae.” 104 Grundliche Anzeigung, M 4r. 105 Grundliche Anzeigung, N 2r: “Warumb? Das Mismah sitzt jm im hertzen/ vnd nimpt jme leben/ licht/ Geist/ vnd alle seligkeit/ vnd kan sich in die relation nicht schicken/ Vnd seind jme alle ding/ die ausserhalb der Gotheit Christi seind/ accidentia/ Welchs dann ist ein rechtes nagelnewes Jüdenhertz/ das da mus personas confundiren/ vnd separirn/ Dann persona ist

E. “To Obtain Such Faith”: Philosophical versus Scriptural Method in Theology

99

The Ernestine Saxon theologians, too, did not hesitate to contrast this simple faith to Osiander’s philosophical complexities. In the Vorlegung they stated that the righteousness of the gospel (as opposed to the death-dealing, essential righteousness of the law) was not experienced by the divine majesty but simply by imputation. But Osiander, like Origen, was too caught up in his own wisdom to pay attention to this but instead missed even Paul’s teaching on the matter by a mile.106 Stephan Bülau, speaking to his congregants, also expressed how vastly different his theological method was from Osiander’s. Faith did not mean participation in Christ’s divinity outside of Christ’s suffering, he argued. After retracing the human condition from creation through the Fall to the first promise in the Garden (Genesis 3:15), he emphasized that nowhere was human need for Christ’s righteousness better recognized than in sermon and Supper. When faced with the cross, the poor sinner needed the comfort of forgiveness and not talk about an indwelling, divine righteousness. We cannot come to know him [Christ] better than through the preached word, through which he invites us and bids us to come to him … so that a person can be tested at the Cross. For in this [crucified] form, the Apostle points to him [1 Corinthians 1] … In this form of simplicity and affability he let himself be seen on earth, he called sinners to himself and gave himself to be recognized by the weak human race, just as he also gives his holy Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine, in simplicity and ready to serve us poor sinners with comfort because of our weakness, so that we ought not be frightened in his presence or lose all hope in the presence of his glory.107

This statement, finally, brings us to the heart of the controversy. It was not simply a theological catfight easily solved by the hiss of a few refutations. For these theologians, it touched upon the very heart of the Reformation’s proclamation bey jme accidens.” By using the word “persona,” it would seem that they were making fun of Osiander’s division of Christ’s natures to such an extent that he created two persons out of them. 106 M/Ag 01 (1552): Vorlegung, Ee 2r: “Dieweil aber Origenes/ Osiander vnd dergleichen selb gewachsene meister klügling/ nicht darauff achtung geben/ ist kein wunder/ das sie hernach der gantzen meinung Pauli weit feylen.” Later the author criticized Osiander for using abstractions and dialectics, warning that when abstract things are found in Paul or the prophets they are there for emphasis in the concrete. Ee 3r: “Das aber Osiander dringet auff die Abstracta, wie die Dialectici pflegen zureden/ vnd aus denselbigen seinen trawm spinnen wil. … Es werden offt in Prophetischer vnd Apostolischer sprach die Abstracta propter Emphasin gebraucht pro concretis. Diese regel hat vnzelich Exempel in der gantzen heiligen schrifft.” A similar complaint by Menius from the preface of the Censurae, BB 1v – BB 2r, began this section. 107 Bül 01 (1552): Ein Bekenntnis, D 4v – E 1r: “Besser aber konnen wir in [Christum] nicht kennen/ dan durch das gepredigte wort/ da durch er vns locket vnd zu sich komen heist … damit ein mensch zum Creutz kan vorsucht werden/ den in dieser gestalt weiset vnd der Apostel zu im … In dieser gestalt/ einfaltigkeit vnd freuntligkeit/ hat er sich auff erden lassen ansehen/ den armen sündern zugefüget/ vnd dem schwachen menschlichen geschlecht/ also zuerkennen gegeben/ gleich wie er auch seinen heiligen leib vnd blut vnter der gestalt brot vnd weines/ in der einfaltigkeit vnd dienstbarkeit/ vns armen sündern zu trost von wegen vnser schwachheit/ auff das wir nicht solten fur im erschrecken/ vns fur seiner herligkeit furchten aber vorzagen/ alhie gelassen.”

100

Chapter 3: Debating the Basics in Lutheran Doctrine

of the gospel and celebration of the sacraments, that is, upon the very heart of the church’s life and faith. And when Osiander and his compatriots continued to publish and attack their opponents, their adversaries responded in kind, in some cases putting in print what otherwise were simply to be official opinions submitted through their princes to Duke Albrecht. Of course, one could argue that the controversialists in every sixteenth-century theological debate imagined that their attacks dealt with central things. Yet that would mean overlooking the breadth of the responses and the depth of the reaction. Only when the issue again became the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper would the overwhelming reaction of other churches reach such a fever pitch, resulting, finally, in the publication of the Formula of Concord itself. The other controversies – over original sin, free will, good works, or the law and its uses and even adiaphora – arose, in the first instance, from questions that sought to work out the conclusions of Reformation theology. But here, with Osiander, the very heart of the gospel seemed under attack. This alone explains why, with the possible exception of Johannes Brenz (see chapter 5), an overwhelming majority of Evangelical churches and their theologians in the Empire saw fit to oppose this teaching. More than this: this controversy also allowed many theologians explicitly to confess the gospel. It was not just “salvation in general” (in abstracto) or a theory about justification that they saw hanging in the balance. It was their terrified consciences and those of their people. It was their preaching, teaching and, at least in Bülau’s case, their celebration of the Lord’s Supper as means of grace and comfort that were on the line. However quickly portions of Luther’s theology of the cross may have disappeared from Lutheran theology, here it made an important curtain call, arguing for a strangely simple and yet critical point of view, against the wisdom of the world. It is true that after 450 years, theologians may make what they wish of Luther’s understanding of justification by faith alone. However, for these sixteenth theologians, the doctrine of justification revolved around a word of grace and comfort that excluded speculation and comforted the anxious conscience. It was a word spoken by the Word made flesh, a word that created faith and gave what it promised. Indwelling of Christ might for these theologians be the result of justification, but it could never be its replacement – precisely because the effect would leave those terrified by their sin and doubting their righteousness (and, hence, Christ’s indwelling) wondering how they stood before God. Osiander, in their view, rather than making life better for the Christian, had simply destroyed not only an article of the faith but the very word on which faith stood, that is, the substantia of faith.108 108 See already WA 57: 226 – ​29, Luther’s 1518 lecture on Hebrews 11:1, relying on Chrysostom.

Chapter 4

True Lutherans, All: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus against the “Prussian Gods” Of the approximately ninety published documents in this controversy against Osiander and his disciples, three people – Matthias Flacius, Nicholas Gallus and Joachim Mörlin  – wrote thirty-two of them.1 Modern interpreters have often designated these theologians Gnesio-Lutherans, a sixteenth-century nickname meaning true or natural (from the Greek γνησίος). But with the Osiandrian controversy, the old categories break down, especially if one pits Gnesio-Lutherans against their mortal enemies the Philippists. Indeed, as this chapter will demonstrate, these terms do not function at all well as historical designations for the various Lutheran parties (with the possible exception of their use in the adiaphoristic controversy). As Robert Kolb pointed out some time ago, almost all of those within the Gnesio-Lutheran camp were themselves trained in and used Melanchthon’s method and thus were also his followers.2 Moreover, the GnesioLutherans were hardly united among themselves. Indeed one of the most important controversies, over original sin, pitted Matthias Flacius against not only Philippists but also other Gnesio-Lutherans.3 The Philippists, too, were hardly single-minded, especially if one includes in their number the later contributors to the Formula of Concord, especially David Chytraeus and Nicholas Selnecker, both of whom owed enormous debts to their teacher, Philip Melanchthon. More importantly, for the Osiandrian controversy such a crude division ignores completely those who never attended the University of Wittenberg and who were far more influenced by other early reformers. This includes especially the theologians from Württemberg, who, as we will see in the next chapter, took their cues from Johannes Brenz far more than from either Luther or Melanchthon. 1 By comparison, with the exception of Alexander Alesius and Wolf Waldner, who wrote three each, and Melanchthon, who wrote ten (not all of which were narrowly aimed at Osiander), no other theologian wrote more than two tracts against Osiander. 2 See Robert Kolb, “Philipp’s Foes, but Followers Nonetheless: Late Humanism among the Gnesio-Lutherans,” in: Manfred P. Fleischer, ed., The Harvest of Humanism in Central Europe: Essays in Honor of Lewis W. Spitz (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), 159 – ​77. 3 See also Matthias Richter’s discussion of Mörlin’s role in the later “Antinomian” controversies against Otto and Poach, in his Gesetz und Heil: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte und zum Verlauf des sogenannten Zweiten Antinomistischen Streits (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 319 – ​29.

102

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Rather than relying on (often) unhelpful generalizations, one must rather ask much more specific questions about individual disputes and the particular players in them. In the Osiandrian controversy, several things set these three theologians apart from others who participated in this controversy. First, as already mentioned, they simply out-produced everyone else. To be sure, under Melanchthon’s name there are ten documents. As was typical for the Praeceptor Germaniae, however, his writings were not all, strictly speaking, Streitschriften [controversial writings], but instead included two declamations, one book of definitions, a commentary on Romans, a preface, and the German version of the Loci communes.4 By contrast, Mörlin, Gallus and Flacius produced over thirty tracts aimed directly at refuting their enemies in Königsberg and beyond. Second, these three continued combating Osiander long after most others had left the field of battle. Again, Melanchthon did write several things in the wake of events in Nuremberg in 1555. But comparing his work to the sheer number of their documents and the ferocity of their polemic makes the output of these three theological pit bulls stand out all the more. Moreover, in Melanchthon’s case, what he wrote later in the controversy arose from a direct request by the Nuremberg city fathers and with the blessing of his own ruler. Such invitations were lacking for the later writings of these three. They continued their attacks with the hope of resolving the crisis and defeating first Osiander and then, after his death, his remaining followers in Prussia. Third, these three imagined themselves far more personally involved. Of course, this was particularly true for Mörlin, whom the dispute turned from a mediator early on to Osiander’s chief opponent, who in the end lost his church position. Yet Gallus and Flacius leapt to his defense, and they continued to defend him and to attack the Königsberg Osiandrists long after the case seemed closed. They were certainly convinced that every tract produced by Osiander, his prince and his followers demanded written response, lest they ended up ceding the public square to these Prussian “heretics.” Given their central involvement in this controversy, the question then arises whether what they produced differed at all from the writings of their fellow Evangelical theologians, described in the previous two chapters. However one answers this question, the investigation into it provides yet another angle from which to view the question of theological consensus. If, on the one hand, their writings turn out to be in widespread agreement with the others, this will help to prove the consensus-building character of all the writings in this dispute. Here in a very public and published way, theologians who otherwise were at one another’s 4 To say nothing of other documents in which he detailed objections to Osiander. See Anna Briskina, Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2006), 243 – ​96, where in addition to those used in this work she analyzed Melanchthon’s De anima and the 1553 German translation of the Loci communes theologici.

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications

103

throats over questions of adiaphora, good works and the law found agreement at what they considered the most basic theological level: on the question of how human beings stand before God (coram Deo). If, on the other hand, certain distinctions and differences do appear, then the very fact that not one of Osiander’s other opponents saw fit to attack them for these differences and that, in at least Flacius’s case, two of his most sophisticated exegetical arguments rolled off Wittenberg’s presses under the noses of (and, hence, most likely with the approval of) Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and other “adiaphorists” (to use Flacius’s own term for them) demonstrate vividly the flexible nature of the consensus-building that took place throughout this controversy. This chapter will show that both observations are true. This discriminating harmony gives testimony to the core beliefs around which Evangelical theology revolved and the individuality of expression that such central understandings allowed. In this controversy, all opponents to Osiander saw themselves as genuine Lutherans; some theologians, however, were, to adapt a phrase from George Orwell, more genuine than others. Such certainly was the case with these three men.

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications I. Epistolae Quaedam (1551) Chapter 2 recounts Mörlin’s first salvo in his paper war with Osiander: the correspondence between the two from the spring of 1551. It would seem that this relatively innocent publication alerted Evangelical theologians to the seriousness of the dispute and especially to the challenge to authority that it implied. Osiander’s unguarded comments about the Augsburg Confession, coupled with his insistence on the compatibility of his theology with Luther’s and his consistency of teaching this doctrine for thirty years, set up an important aspect of this dispute (see chapter 6). Not surprisingly, their exchange focused in large part upon the question of justification itself. However, Osiander’s Christological presuppositions also came up briefly. Where Osiander insisted on maintaining a strict division (“divisio immediate”) between God and creation and therefore insisted that the indwelling of Christ’s divinity constituted the believer’s righteousness, Mörlin responded by emphasizing the unity of the two natures in Christ. I respond, my lord Osiander: Christ is our righteousness, neither [his] divinity nor humanity but God and human being in one person is our righteousness, as the Catechism teaches from the Word of God. But look, I pray, at this “immediate division.” What does it produce? I do not wish to be provoked to anger, my lord doctor, but let you be the fair judge of your own cause before God. I ask, is there an “immediate division”: creator and creature? Does it not now beautifully follow that Mary bore a creature and therefore not the Creator, in line with Nestorius? For that “immediate division” does not admit a third term. There is

104

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

an “immediate division” between finite and infinite. God is infinite; human nature is finite; therefore Christ is not a man.5

Osiander responded by asserting that he understood the communicatio idiomatum better than Mörlin and thereby ended the entire correspondence. A comment in the document’s short preface is also important, insofar as it represented a very early attempt by Mörlin to highlight Osiander’s attempts to slander Wittenberg’s teachers. It began simply “After many and various actions, which Osiander inopportunely stirred up in his calumnies, by which he publicly disgraced both the theologians of this school and our preceptors ….”6 With this, if it were not already obvious to Melanchthon and others at the University of Wittenberg, Mörlin was appealing to his teachers for assistance. This was important enough a challenge for Melanchthon that he later composed an oration, delivered at the doctoral ceremonies for Tileman Hesshus, defending Wittenberg doctorates against Osiander’s calumnies. II. Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht All previous studies of the Osiandrian controversy begin their analyses of the opposition with discussions of the epistolary exchanges between Osiander’s opponents and the court, the early utilization of Mörlin as a mediator and the early attempts by Duke Albrecht to manage the controversy. What these studies did not fully appreciate, however, was the way Osiander dominated the airways, so to speak, so that until the publication of the epistolary exchange in 1551, which may or may not have been authorized by Mörlin, no one outside of Königsberg had heard publicly from Osiander’s opponents. That all changed with the publication in 1552 of A Thorough and True Report from God’s Word concerning the Justification of Faith by Some Theologians from Königsberg in Prussia against the New, Beguiling and Anti-Christian Teaching of Andreas Osiander, in Which He Denies That Christ, in His Innocent Suffering and Death Is Our Righteousness.7 Yet, as we discovered in chapter 2, it would be 5 Mör 01 (1551): Epistolae quaedam, in GA 9: 656, 30 – ​657, 7. “Respondeo, mi domine Osiander: Christus est iusticia nostra, non divinitas nec humanitas, sed Deus et homo in una persona est iusticia nostra, sicut docet catechismus ex verbo Dei. Sed hac immediate divisione vide, obsecro, quid prodas? Noli provocari ad iracundiam, mi domine doctor, sed tuae ipsius causae esto iudex aequus propter Deum. Inquam: nunquid immediate divisio est, creator et creatura? An non pulchre iam sequitur, Maria genuit creaturam, ergo non creatorem, iuxta Nestorium? Quia divisio immediate tertium terminum non admittit. Immediata divisio est finitum et infinitum, Deus est infinitum, natura humana finitum, ergo Christus non est homo?” 6 GA 9: 619, note a. “Post multas et varias actiones, quas intempestive turbavit Osiander suis calumniis, quibus publice deformavit et theologos huius scholae et praeceptores nostros ….” 7 M/V/H 01 (1552): Joachim Mörlin, Georg von Venediger and Peter Hegemon, Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht/ auß Gottes Wort/ etlicher Theologen zu Künigsberg in Preussen: Wider die newe verfürische und Antichristische Lehr Andreae

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications

105

slightly inaccurate simply to date the appearance of this tract using the printer’s colophon, since the authors had finished their reply to Osiander’s Confession in December and sent copies of it to Magdeburg, Nuremberg and Wittenberg, publishing the latter’s imprimatur at the very time their Bericht finally appeared. At the same time, the Prussian court delayed the publication of this tract, with what Osiander would then call its “lying, roguish, honor-robbing” title, precisely because of the title with its reference to Osiander’s “anti-Christian” teaching. Nevertheless, perhaps under the growing pressure from other Evangelical courts, out the tract came with its title intact. In one way, however, permission to publish their response came from Osiander himself, at least in the minds of the authors, who wrote in their preface to Duke Albrecht (dated 27 February 1552) that Osiander’s decision to publish his Confession justified their published response.8 In the prefatory letter to the reader, dated 7 December 1551, they provided other grounds for their response, mentioning other writings of Osiander (especially the Etliche Sprüche [see chapter 6]) and the way he treated his fellow theologians (like serfs [Leibeigene]) and claiming that they had wanted to avoid writing any response but would rather have preferred a synod to settle the case (a favorite plea of Philip Melanchthon in other settings).9 The treatise proper began with a relatively brief exposition of the signers’ own faith. As we saw in chapter 3, others, too, conceived their responses as, in the first instance, confessions and clarifications of their own faith, before they went on to attack Osiander’s position. Here, of course, the stakes were much higher, since these clergymen found themselves under direct attack. Their conclusion to this section expressed the confessional nature of the tract directly. “This is briefly a summation of our faith; this is our teaching; this is our comfort and our final hope.”10 The eschatological dimension (“final hope”) and the present experience (“our comfort”) marked two important aspects of the opposition’s argument against Osiander. What did they confess? They first sketched the human condition, describing humanity before the Fall, its condition as sinners, and then the role of the Law in showing that human beings do not keep it and thus are not righteous. In a section “On the Gospel and the Kingdom of Grace,” they concentrated both on the salvation (and justification) in Christ the Son of God, quoting Athanasius, Irenaeus and Augustine as witnesses, and on the preaching of this very Christ. They concluded: “The faith, which now receives Christ in this preaching as its one worthy treasure and builds upon him with complete trust, cleanses and sanctiOsiandri, Darinnen er leugnet das Christus jn seinem vnschüldigen Leiden vnd sterben/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey (Königsberg: Lufft, 23 May 1552).   8 Bericht, * 3v.   9 Bericht, A 1r – B 2r. 10 Bericht, C 4v: “Das ist kürtzlich in einer summa vnser glaub/ das ist vnser lere/ das ist vnser trost/ vnd entliche hoffnung.”

106

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

fies the heart, as Peter says in Acts 15[:7 –​11] and Paul in chapter 26[:18].”11 This simple sentence revealed the heart of the controversy. Mörlin and his compatriots insisted upon trust in the external preaching of this Christ who suffered and died as the means by which people are righteous in God’s sight. Osiander, they argued, did not. On the basis of their confession, Osiander’s opponents proceeded to take his theology apart, proving in their eyes that it contradicted God’s Word. They first attacked his division of redemption and justification. They were, on the contrary, “one thing” (ein dinck). Using Paul’s comments in Romans 3, they expounded on, in question and answer form, what they saw as his logic. How did we become righteous? By grace. Through what? By what ways and means? “BY THE REDEMPTION.” On what was this based? “IN HIS BLOOD, Paul says.”12 If this seemed so clear to them (and, they added, to Luther), how could Osiander misunderstand? Their answer, which could be dismissed as simple name-calling, actually touched on the profound hermeneutical problem lurking for Protestants behind all theological debates: “How can the clear Scripture result in muddy theology?” Mörlin and his companions answered this question historically, arguing that there had always been those who missed the point: The Jewish interlocutors of Jesus in John 5, Arius and the Sacramentarians.13 Over against Osiander’s novelties, these three were only too glad to call themselves Wittenberg professors. But then, as was typical for Mörlin, the tract tied their faith in Christ as their righteousness to the comfort of the terrified conscience. Rather than simply arguing from the “higher” authority of Luther or Wittenberg or even the Bible, Mörlin felt constrained to bind their position to a child’s faith. “For what do we poor, wretched children have, if we abandon the article of justification? What becomes of our justification and righteousness, if it is not the redemption, the blood and death of Christ along with his resurrection according to the Scripture?”14 Here Mörlin echoed not simply the theological propositions but the pastoral tone of Luther’s theology, situated as the latter was in the theology of the cross, God revealed 11 Bericht, C 4r: “Der glaube der nu in dieser predig Christum annimpt/ als seinen einigen werden schatz/ vnd mit gantzem vertrawen auff jn bawet/ der reiniget vnd heiliget das hertz/ wie Petrus sagt/ Acto. 15. vnd Paulus cap. 26.” 12 Bericht, E 2 r–v (capitalization in the original): “Alhier nim nu die gantze meinung des heiligen Apostels fur dich/ vnd siehe wie fein bescheidlichen vnd deutlichen er von dem artickel der Rechtfertigung handelt. … Wie werden wir denn gerecht? Aus gnaden sagt Paulus/ Wo durch? Mit was arth vnd weis? DURCH DIE ERLÖSUNG … Worauff fusset er? IN SEINEM BLUET sagt Paulus.” The answers paraphrased Romans 3:24 – ​25: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” 13 Bericht, F 3v. 14 Bericht, G 2r: “Denn was haben wir armen ehlenden kinderchin/ Wenn wir den artickel der rechtfertigung verliesen? Wo bleibt aber vnser rechtfertigung vnd gerechtigkeit/ wenn es nicht die erlösung/ das blud vnd sterben Christi ist sampt seiner aufferstehung/ nach der schrifft?”

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications

107

in weakness (“poor, wretched children”) and in the cross. Small wonder that they cited against Osiander a line from the end of Luther’s exposition of the epistle for Christmas Day (Titus 3:4 – ​7), “The soul will be preserved in Christ’s wounds.”15 The theologians then turned to the question of Christ’s indwelling. Rather than dismiss Christ’s indwelling, they accepted the notion but insisted that Christ dwelt in the believer and was the believer’s life according to both natures. Thus, again, they turned the conversation toward Christology, citing in their favor (alongside Luther) a raft of patristic authorities.16 Having set up the Christological arguments, they then turned to justification and, specifically, Osiander’s definition of terms. Here they most clearly converged with Melanchthon’s own arguments in the Antwort, which was written at nearly the same time. Osiander defined justification as “to do right in deed and truth.” Mörlin and his colleagues defined it as imputare. They made fun of Osiander’s claim to have known all about this seven years before Luther started preaching it. Since Luther first published his position on this in 1518, that would have meant 1511, at which point Osiander was thirteen years old.17 On the definition of right­ eousness itself, these Königsbergers pointed to two definitions from Osiander (uprightness in which all other virtues were combined or the eternal divine nature) and contrasted that to their insistence on imputation. Here the hermeneutical divide between Osiander and his opponents became particularly transparent. How should a theologian construct definitions and proofs from Scripture? If proof now means first conceive an understanding and definition and afterwards carry that understanding into the Scripture and then from that explain the sayings of the Scripture according to one’s own pleasure, then the ravers’ approach is quickly uncovered. And from then on we could prove and confirm every faith from the Bible.18 15 Bericht, G 4r, citing WA 10/1/1: 127, 3. At this point, they also attacked Osiander’s distinction between and inner and outer Word. This is where Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. A. G. Hebert, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 123 – ​28, missed the center of Mörlin’s theology completely. He unfortunately depended upon Emanuel Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919), 240 – ​46. 16 Bericht, H 1v – J 2r, citing Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril, the Council of Ephesus, Luther (WA 10/1/1: 199, 15 –​16 [the Weihnachtspostil for the Christmas sermon on John 1] and WA 23: 203, 14 – ​20 [That These Words]), Johannes Brenz (on John 6), Cyril’s commentary on John and Augustine. 17 Bericht, J 3v. 18 Bericht, L 4r: “Wenn nun das beweisen heist/ erstlich einen verstand vnd meinung fassen/ nachmals den in die schrifft tragen/ vnd aus dem die sprüche der schrifft auslegen seines gefallens/ so ist der Schwermer sachen balt geraten. Vnd künten wir itzund allen glauben aus der Bibel beweisen vnd war machen.” They were even harder on Osiander because of his abuse of Luther’s writings. Bericht, M 2r: “Was er nu von dem Luthero nimet/ heist er von einem menschen betteln/ Er möchte es warlich wol heissen/ krüppeln/ rade brechen/ vierteilen/ oder mit zangen reissen/ so jemmerlichen verstümpelt/ verhawet/ zufleischt er dem heiligen tewren man Gottes seine lere/ zeucht viel seiner sprüch an/ wie Christus durch den glauben vnser eigen guet vnd gerechtigkeit werde/ Wenn aber Lutherus anzeiget/ wie er das wolle verstanden haben/ wor-

108

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

The question of Luther’s authority, given the way Osiander tortured him (in Mörlin’s view), became acute over the question of finding the proper definition for righteousness. In the Confession and elsewhere, Osiander had stitched together some snippets from Luther’s writings that seemed to support his point of view. Mörlin and company began their refutation of this position by pointing first to Luther’s standard translation of the Pauline phrase, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, with “die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt” (the righteousness that suffices before God).19 In no place, they continued, did Luther specifically state that God is the human being’s righteousness according to Christ’s own divine, internal essential righteousness and not according to his humanity. In fact, Luther denied it, as they attempted to prove from a two citations from Luther. Christ’s whole person was the sinner’s righteousness.20 Osiander had explained that Luther was only criticizing the papists’ referring to God’s strict righteousness but that another righteousness would be revealed on the Last Day. For Mörlin this meant little more than to twist Luther and to ignore his warnings about misinterpreting Scripture.21 Osiander divided the work from the person of Christ and then ripped the two natures of Christ apart, things that Luther never did. Osiander’s opponents then examined his short exposition of John 16:8 –​11, which appeared in September 1551.22 His lies included equating the Holy Spirit’s innen vnd welcher gestalt Christus vnser gerechtigkeit sey/ was wir in Christo haben/ darinnen wir gerecht werden/ da nimet er einen zulauff/ springt vberhin/ oder verkert jm die wort im mund. Was nu die jenigen sind/ die Lutherum bey seinem leben gehort haben/ die wissen was je vnd alzeit seine meinung von diesem handel gewesen ist. Die andern aber bitten wir vmb Gottes willen/ sie wollen eben diese örter/ so Osiander anzeucht gantz durch aus/ vnd andere darbey lesen/ so werden sie mit fingern greiffen/ mit was torst vnd freuel Osiander hirinnen handelt.” 19 See WA DB 7, at Romans 1:17, 3:21 & 22 and 10:3 [twice]. 20 Specifically, Bericht, M 4r, cited WA 1: 212, 33 – ​38 and 213, 8 – ​9 [on Psalm 143 from the Seven Penitential Psalms, 1517] and WA 10/1/2: 36, 22 – ​37, 4 [from the Postil for the gospel appointed for Advent 1 (Matthew 21:1– ​9), 1522], where the second reads: “Merck dißes stuckle mit vleyß, das, wo du ynn der schrifft findist das wortle: gottis gerechtickeytt, das du dasselb ia nit von der selbwesendenn ynnerlichen gerechtickeyt gottis vorstehist, wie die papisten, auch viel heyliger veter geyrret haben, du wirst ßonst dafur erschrecken. Sondernn wisse, das es heist nach brauch der schrifft die außgegossene gnad und barmhertzickeyt gottis durch Christum ynn unß, davon wyr fur yhm frum und gerecht warden geacht unnd heist darumb gottis gerechteckeyt odder frumkeytt, das nit wyr, ßondern gott sie wirckt ynn unß mit gnaden, gleych wie auch gotis werck, gotis weyßheytt, gottis sterck, gottis wortt, gottis mund heyßt, das er ynn unß wirckt unnd redet.” 21 Bericht, N 1r – v : “Das heist Lutherum auslegen/ vnd ein artiges gloslein machen/ ja wer auch die leuth bereden künt/ das sie der geschmuckten lügen glauben wolten/ Denn was kan doch vnuerschempter auff erden getichtet werden/ denn das ist/ das Gottes gestrenge gerechtigkeit/ damit er die sünde richtet vnd strefft im zorn/ noch nicht sol offenbaret sein? … Darumb bleibt Lutheri meinung fest/ damit er vns anzeigt/ das ers mit Osiandro die zeit seines lebens nie gehalten/ vnd nimmermehr halten wil/ warnet vnds darneben/ das wir vns vor der schwermerey auch hüten sollen/ als die der schrifft einen fremden verstand machet/ vnd damit die jenigen so jr anhangen gewislichen verfuret.” 22 GA 9: 307 –​16: Rechte, ware und christliche auslegung uber die wort des Herrn Johannis am 16. “Ich geh zu meinem Vater, und ir sehet mich fort nicht mehr.” Wider die neuen ketzerey, die die

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications

109

convicting the world about righteousness with proof that justification consisted of the indwelling of divine righteousness in the person. Second, he argued that the “going to the Father” proved that the righteousness of justification was that of the complete Trinity and thus not of Christ’s human nature. As a result, Osiander’s interpretation tore believers from the Bible, preaching, the sacraments, faith and the church, since, as they reasoned from Osiander’s position, all that now mattered was divine indwelling and not the means of grace.23 From this point they turned to the question of imputation itself. While accepting Osiander’s argument that Genesis 15:6 should read “imputare” rather than the Vulgate’s “reputare,” the Königsbergers focused instead on the meaning of the term. “Imputation does not mean to be so in truth but to be accepted, held and thus reckoned by God as such, as if it were even as it should be.”24 Since David held the same opinion in Psalm 32, where he wrote that his sins were covered, perhaps he too should be accused of being “a crude Wittenberg doctor.” Indeed, the problem of Osiander’s “distortion” of Scripture was never far from the writers’ minds. Thus, finding Osiander’s exegetical arguments were little more than a petitio petere, his opponents noted how his demand for an indwelling, divine righteousness matched his arbitrary reading of Scripture and resulted in an outof-hand rejection of all the church’s teachers, including Augustine and Luther.25 Mörlin had not forgotten Osiander’s claim to know more about the communicatio idiomatum than he did. Little wonder, then, that the last major section of the work, entitled “On the COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM and How Christ Is Our Righteousness,” dealt with this question.26 From the outset, they criticized Osiander’s definition of Christ’s attributes as those of his natures or the others of his office, that is, of his whole person. On the basis of his approach, Osiander had accused Mörlin and the others of having robbed Christ’s divinity of its righteousness. At this point, in one of the few marginal glosses in Latin, they contrasted göettlichen gerechtigkeit unsers herrn Jhesu Christi verwirft und verlestert, als sey sie nicht durch den glauben unser und in uns (Königsberg: [Lufft?], 20 September 1551). 23 Berichte, O 1r – O 2v, especially the conclusion on O 2v: “Lutherus wil nicht mit/ darumb hat er sich gewaltig von jm gerissen/ wie wir nu gehort/ vnd sich des gegen vns bedinget/ das jm Osiander vnrecht thut/ wenn er sich rümet/ mit einigem spruch/ das er mit jm eins sey.” 24 Bericht, P 2r: “Die ander meinung aber bestehet fest/ das zurechnen heist nicht mit der that also sein/ sonder von Gott darfur angenomen/ gehalten/ vnd dahin gerechnet werden/ als were es eben also wie es sein solte.” 25 Bericht, Q 1r: “Ey du grober Cuius/ sihestu nicht das Osiander im anfang dieser auslegund [sic] von Gottes wegen (der in jm wohnet) ernstlich gebeut/ also MVS MAN die wort verstehen? Vnd wenn du es denn also nach seiner meinung verstehest/ so gehen dir die augen von dem himlischen liecht auff/ das du sihest/ wie die allezumal greulich jrren (scilicet von deiner vnd Osiandri meinung) die da leren/ alles was man von Christlicher gerechtigkeit gedencken künde/ sey nichts denn vergebung der sünden.” 26 Bericht, R 4r – X 4r. One important question about these arguments, which goes beyond the scope of this work, is the degree to which Martin Chemnitz was involved in and learned from these discussions in his own pioneering work on the communicatio idiomatum.

110

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Cyril of Alexandria’s position from that of Nestorius’ and ended ominously with the words, “Such [a Nestorian], too, is our Osiander.”27 At the same time, and almost in passing, Mörlin insisted that per communicationem idiomatum God also suffered for us, perhaps the beginning point for what Martin Chemnitz would later name the genus maiestaticum. (Even Alexander Alesius would in his 1553 disputations show some discomfort with the starkness of Mörlin’s words, which indeed echoed Luther’s own massive insistence on the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ.) Say: “Devil, you lie! For, although it is no doubt true that Christ suffered and was crucified in the flesh, as St. Peter says [1 Peter 4:1], still, however, the one who dies is not only a human being but also the divinity is united with the humanity in this person and is one Christ. Therefore, when the human being, Christ, dies, God dies, too, for the person is God, and precisely the God who speaks there in the first commandment (as the godly Luther says in The Last Words of David).”28

On the basis of Osiander’s confusion, Mörlin and his allies attacked their opponent’s interpretation of Jeremiah 23:6, which claimed that this verse only applied to Christ’s divinity and not to his whole person. At the same time that he called Osiander a Nestorian, however, he also charged him with a form of Eutycheanism, since he favored Christ’s divinity over his humanity. Of course Christ suffered according to his humanity, but this would have had no meaning had it not been inseparably united to the divine nature. After quoting Athanasius and Hilary, Osiander’s accusers gave their own confession of faith. For them salvation itself depended upon the unity of the two natures in Christ and the communication of their attributes [We] confess and say that suffering, death and shedding blood, etc. are simply idiomata and characteristics of the human nature in Christ. If, however, these Proprietates [properties] were only simply human, then they would lose the idiomata, so that they could not redeem, justify us, etc. For it would not be possible for a solitary human being – no matter how innocent and godly he might be or no matter that it were possible for him to set out to do or to suffer something – to take upon himself the sins of the whole world, 27 Bericht, R 4r: “Cyrillus communcatiuas uocat quod simul habeant & Deo et homini conuenientia, Ita tamen ut de uno & eodem sint dictae, Et non sicut Nestorius, qui alias Deo uerbo separatim, alias ei qui ex muliere sit adscribit etc. Talis est & Osiander noster.” In terms of Chemnitz’s later distinctions among Christ’s attributes, they were faulting Osiander for not understanding the genus idiomaticum, the ascription of attributes of both natures (in this case righteousness) to the whole person of Christ. Osiander denied that Christ’s human nature was righteous in any other way save by the indwelling of the divine nature. 28 Bericht, S 1 v: “Sprich Teufel du leugest, den obs wol wahr, das Christus lediet vnd gecreutz­ iget wirt im fleisch, wie der heilige Petrus sagt, So ist er aber, der da stirbet, nicht allein mensch, Sondern die Gottheit ist mit der menscheit in dieser person vereiniget, vnd ein Christus. Darumb wenn der mensch Christus stirbet, so stirbet Gott/ denn die person ist Gott/ vnd eben der Gott/ der da spricht im ersten gebot (wie der frome Lutherus saget von den letzten worten Dauids).” The reference to Luther is WA 54: 40.

A. “In the Beginning”: Mörlin’s First Publications

111

to swallow up death, to destroy the entire might and power of the Devil, to lift, atone for and still God’s wrath.29

To prove their confession, they again cited a bevy of authorities: Athanasius, Luther in On the Councils and the Churches, and Epiphanius of Salamis in Contra Dimaeritas III.2, Contra Ariomanitas, II.2 and the Ancoratus.30 “Thus,” they concluded, “our righteousness is not an idioma or characteristic of the natures [of Christ] but rather of the office and the entire person of Christ.”31 This one, who was God and human being, was condemned as a godless human being. “These are the speties [sic! here: medicines] and wondrous herbs out of which our saving compress and antidotum vitae [medicine of life], as Irenaeus calls it ([Against Heresies] III.21 [=III.19.1]) calls it, is prepared.”32 Were this simply a debate over Christology, the tract could well have ended there. But, of all of the authors in this dispute, Mörlin more consistently than almost anyone else tied the Christological debate to what he viewed as Osiander’s predilection for philosophical speculation and, thus, his abandonment of the foolishness of the cross. Paraphrasing Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 1:18 – ​25, he began by stating that Jews and heathens could not imagine this. For reason cannot grasp this. Instead they are impossibilia in rerum natura [impossibilities in the nature of things] and, as it is otherwise called in the Schools, a simple opposita in adiecto [contradiction in application],33 more distant from each other than heaven and earth, namely, that God becomes a human being; Riches become poor, the Lord a servant, Righteousness sin, Blessing a curse and that Life dies. On this foolish, crazy preaching reason is strangled and must choke on it and die.34 29 Bericht, S 4v: “Bekennen vnd sagen [wir]/ das leiden/ sterben vnd blut vergissen etc. sint eitel idiomata vnd eigenschafften der menschlichen natur in Christo/ Wenn sie aber allein bloes menschlich weren diese Proprietates, so verlueren sie die idiomata, das sie nicht künten vns erlösen/ rechtfertigen etc. denn es were nicht müglich das ein einiger mensch/ wie vnschuldig vnd from er jmmer mehr sein künte/ er thet auch was zu thun vnd zu leiden müglich were/ solte die sünd der gantzen welt hinnehmen/ den tod verschlingen/ die gantze macht vnd gewalt des Teufels zerbrechen/ Gottes zorn auffheben/ versünen vnd stillen.” 30 Bericht, T 1r – T 2r. The first two are portions of book two and three of the Panarion (PG 42: 201– ​334 and 641– ​698). For the Ancoratus, see Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 25 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), 1–​149 now on-line (accessed 26 July 2009) at: http://patrologia.narod. ru/patrolog/epiphan/ancorat.htm. 31 Bericht, T 2v: “Also das vnsere gerechtigkeit nicht ist ein idioma oder eigenschafft der naturn/ Sondern des ampts vnd der gantzen person Christi.” 32 Bericht, T 3r: “Das sint die speties [sic] vnd wunderbarliche kreuter/ daraus vnser heilpflaster vnd antidotum uitae, wie es Irenaeus nennet. Lib. 3. cap. 21 ist zugerichtet.” 33 See WA 44: 79, 35 – ​37 for Luther’s use of this term. 34 Bericht, T 3v: “denn es lest sich mit vernunfft nicht fassen/ Sondern sint Impoßibilia in rerum natura, vnd wie sie es sonst in den schulen heissen/ eitel opposita in adiecto, ferner von einander denn himel vnd erden/ Das Gott ein mensch/ reichtumb arm/ herr ein knecht/ gerechtigkeit sünd/ segen/ ein fluch wirt/ vnd das leben stirbet. Vber dieser törichten tollen predigt/ würget die vernunfft/ mus daran ersticken vnd sterben.” A marginal note in Latin, expanding on these contradictions reads: “Proportio finiti ad infinitum, & Deus omnium seruus, Res simpliciter racioni incompraehensibilis & incredibilis.” [English: “A proportion of the finite

112

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

No wonder that these theologians then paraphrased 1 Corinthians 1! Precisely Luther’s theology of the cross as he expressed it in the 1530s – an attack on reason’s ability to speak about, let alone understand, the incarnation and death of Christ – came to full expression here. Calling his opponents foolish, as Osiander had, implied to Königsberg’s other theologians a complete rejection of Luther’s method of approaching not only Scripture but also the Incarnate one’s suffering and death. This silly preaching makes Osiander a fool, too, that he permits himself to think himself of superior reason and great skill: “It is a nonsensical, infelicitous thing [to say].” … For this reason, the weakness of the human nature in Christ with all of its idiomata, such as suffering, dying, shedding blood, are excluded for Osiander from this process. Thus, the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption may not be from the humanity but instead from the divinity [of Christ] alone. And in this way there is thus no foolishness, no weakness any longer, to say nothing of the foolish preaching of the gospel. Instead [there is] the teaching of the new Prophet Osiander.35

Against this new prophet, Mörlin and company placed the foolishness of preaching the crucified one, but with the understanding that this very foolish Word had the power to act (“das lebendige, tedliche [tätige] Wort”). But he also called to mind Osiander’s boast to destroy the opposition (referring specifically to attacks both on “our Preceptor Philip Melanchthon” regarding a saying in Proverbs 10 and on the Augsburg Confession) and, more ominously, to a caricature of Mörlin himself, which the pastor found in the pulpit (on 2 December 1551), depicting a little fool holding a chalice with bees swarming around it and the caption: “Let Dr. Mörlin’s Righteousness Be Placed Therein.” Others depicted the same scene surrounded by flames with words suggesting he be burned as a murderer of souls and a heretic.36 For Mörlin, at least, this controversy was not an abstract theological debate but a matter of death and life, over which he would finally lose not his life but his livelihood. in the infinite and God a servant of all [are] things simply incomprehensible and unbelievable for reason.”] The final comment arose already in Luther’s debate with Zwingli, where (in the words of later Lutherans) Luther claimed that the finite bears the infinite [finitum capax infiniti]. 35 Bericht, T 4r: “Diese törichte predig/ macht Osiandrum auch zu einem narren/ das er sich lest vor vberiger vornunnft/ vnd grosser kunst beduncken/ es sey ein vngerümbtes/ vngeschicktes ding … Scheidet derhalben Osiandro/ die schwacheit der menschlichen natur in Christo/ mit allen jren idiomatibus, als leiden/ sterben/ blutuergissen/ in diesem handel aus/ Also das weisheit/ Gerechtigkeit/ heiligung vnd erlösung/ nicht sey der menscheit/ Sondern der Gottheit allein/ vnd damit ist es denn keine torheit/ keine schwacheit mehr/ viel weniger die törichte predig des Euangelij. Sondern des heiligen newen Propheten Osiandri lere.” They repeated these sympathies at the very end of the tract, Bericht, V 2r: “Also ist dieser Jehoua vnd HERR der herligkeit vnser gerechtigkeit/ in dieser schwacheit/ welche er durch die dörichte predig des lieben Euangelij lest füer tragen/ das ist kein Gesetz/ noch todter buchstaben/ Sondern das lebendige tedliche wort/ dardurch vnsere hertzen verandert werden/ in rechtem erkentnis Gottes/ das sie mit dem glauben diesen Christum annehmen/ Gottes kinder werden vnd ewiglichen bleiben.” 36 Bericht, V 4r – X 3v.

B. Defensores fidei: The “Official” Response of Flacius and Gallus

113

B. Defensores fidei: The “Official” Response of Flacius and Gallus The first major entry into the field from the pens of the “God’s Chancellory” in Magdeburg, came off the city’s presses in March 1552.37 Whatever hopes Osiander may have had for a positive review of his Confession were dashed on the very title page: Refutation of the Confession of Osiander on the Justification of Poor Sinners through the Essential Righteousness of the High Majesty of God Alone. By Matth[ias] Fla[cius] Illyr[icus]. With Nicholas Gallus’s Subscription, in Which the Foundation of the Error of Osiander alongside His Refutation Is Written in the Briefest Form. Acts 20[:30 – ​31]: “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” Dear Christians now truly consider that God has sufficiently admonished and warned you through Dr. Martin [Luther] and other godly teachers not three but thirty-three years, with sermons, writings, pictures and songs. Who now wants to remain in the truth may do it in God’s name. But whoever does not want to but whose ears itch [2 Timothy 4:3] for something new may go there in the Devil’s name.38

Of course, Flacius was notorious for his lengthy title pages, often replete with Bible passages that identified his opponents with some biblical dispute. His quickness to assign Osiander to the Devil was matched by similar charges from other theologians. Before examining the content of the tract, it should be noted that it, like relatively few others in this dispute, was translated into Latin.39 Although Flacius professed himself not happy with the results (see chapter 8), nevertheless it demarcates how important Flacius’s own work was and how such disputes, played out for the most part in German, could become known in the broader intellectual world. This was not the only one of Flacius’s writings against Osiander to 37 For this apt name for the Magdeburg theologians, see Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgott Kanzlei” 1548 –​1551/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 38 F/G 01 (1552): Verlegung des Bekentnis Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung der armen sünder durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit der hohen Maiestet Gottes allein Durch Matth. Fla. Illyr. Mit vnterschreibung Nicolai Galj/ darin der grund des jrthums Osiandri sampt seiner verlegung auffs kürzest verfast ist. Acto. 20. Es werden aus euch selbst aufferstehen Menner die da verkerete lehre reden/ die jünger an sich zu ziehen. Darumb seid wacker vnd dencket daran/ das ich nicht abgelassen habe drey jar/ tag vnd nacht einen jglichen mit threnen zu vermanen. Ja gedencket freilich/ jr lieben Christen/ das euch Gott durch D. Martinum vnd andere fromme Lehrer nicht drey/ sondern drey vnd dreißig jar mit Predigen/ Schreiben/ Malen/ vnd singen gnugsam vermanet vnd gewarnet hat. Wer nu wil bey der warheit bleiben/ der mag es thun in Gotts namen/ Wer aber nicht wil/ sondern die ohren jucken jm nach etwas newes/ der mag ins Teuffels namen dahin fahren. (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552), a 1r. For a digital version (accessed 27 July 2009), see http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/0002/bsb00023671/images/index.html. (Biblical translation from the King James Version.) 39 The author is grateful to the staff of the “Research Project Controversia et confessio,” sponsored by the Mainz Academy of Sciences and Literature and directed by Irene Dingel, for making this connection.

114

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

be treated this way, and it indicates again just how central a figure he was in this dispute.40 The other translations, all from Latin into German, served to continue to inform the German-speaking public of developments in the dispute. Remarkably, no general overview of Flacius’s theology has appeared in recent years, despite his importance among the second generation of Lutheran theologians.41 His role in the Osiandrian controversy is noteworthy if for no other reason than that he did not simply accept Osiander’s position on the grounds that the latter opposed Melanchthon. Despite Osiander’s obvious surprise at this turn of events, it is yet another indication of the complexities of these disputes, which dare not be reduced to or analyzed as simple oppositional dyads, using shiboleths like “Gnesio-Lutheran” and “Philippist” to explain away much more complicated relationships. The preface to Duke Albrecht, dated 1 March 1552, was preceded by a short definition of righteousness – a clear indication of Flacius’s modus operandi: to move from proper definitions of a theological object and compare them to his opponents’ mistaken understandings. We are sinners, he wrote; Christ is our righteousness through his obedience; do not mix this alien righteousness with the renewal it causes. The preface proper cited Luther, claimed that Osiander had misunderstood him and pointed out Luther’s displeasure at Osiander’s 1537 sermon in Luther’s presence, citing the testimony of the deceased Veit Dietrich, Osiander’s erstwhile colleague in Nuremberg, of an unnamed city councilman and of Nicholas von Amsdorf. But the preface also gave Flacius the opportunity to express clearly his reasons for writing against Osiander: Principally because, given his controversy with some other German theologians (over adiaphora), “many are of the opinion that I am against them in all matters.”42 What followed marked a unique turn in argumentation against Osiander, but one consonant with Philip Melanchthon’s own approach to theology and history.43 Flacius first sketched a history of the world, providing examples of how good ideas quickly went awry. Thus, the good philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were destroyed by the Epicureans. Then he provided a history of believers, beginning with Adam, Abel and Seth and their devilish opponents, finally arriving at Luther 40 See, for this tract, F/G 01.T (1552). Flacius’s second major tract, F 02.T (1552) was also translated into Latin. The only other translations (all from Latin into German) were of the imprimatur for Mörlin’s work by Bugenhagen et al. (B/F 01.T [1552]), the later confutation of Sebald Heyden (Hey 01.T1 [1555] & Hey 01.T2 [1562]) and (published by Flacius) the Sendbrieff of Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg (Joh 01.T1 [1556] and Joh 01.T2 [1556]). 41 But see Luka Ilić, “Praeceptor Humanissimus et duo Illyri: Garbitius et Flacius,” in: Irene Dingel and Armin Kohnle, eds., Philipp Melanchthon – ein europäischer Reformator (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011), 65 – ​79. 42 Verlegung, a 1v – c 4v, here b 2r – v : “… viel meinen/ ich sey in allen stücken widder sie.” For Osiander’s comments about his sermon in 1537, see GA 10: 442 – ​43 in his tract from 24 January 1552. 43 See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon on Time and History in the Reformation,” Consensus 30/2 (2005): 9 – ​33.

B. Defensores fidei: The “Official” Response of Flacius and Gallus

115

and his battles with the Roman Antichrist. Despite his battles with Rome, Luther also faced enemies closer to home, including Anabaptists, iconoclasts, peasants, Sacramentarians, Antinomians, Interimists, and adiaphorists (where the last two, obviously, were Flacius’s own enemies). Like Osiander, these opponents attacked Luther’s theology, even deriding Luther’s translation of the Bible. In Flacius’s eyes, Osiander’s biggest problem lay with his deep desire to create new, unheard of theology, contradicting both Luther and the apostles and reviving old heresies.44 With this, Flacius literally put Osiander in his (historical) place: as one more heretic opposing the truth. But he also put himself and Osiander’s other opponents in their places, too, as stalward defenders of the faith. Thus, before refuting his teaching, Flacius explained how Osiander could possibly have even arisen in the Evangelical church. In the body of his work, Flacius revealed his unique approach to theological argumentation, one in which he was dependent in part on Melanchthon’s rhetorical method. As Philip Melanchthon had first pointed out in his book on rhetoric from 1531, Flacius assumed that a theological dispute would follow the rhetorical outline of judicial speech (genus iudiciale).45 Thus, he began with a statement of the central disputed point (the status argumenti seu controversiae, the definition of justification and righteousness), provided proof for his arguments (the socalled confirmatio) and then, in a final section, refuted the views of his opponent (the confutatio). Omitting discussion of Christological questions, which Gallus then took up, Flacius seized on Osiander’s own question (“Whether God does what false judges do [by declaring sinners not guilty]”) as the status controversiae and proceeded to answer it with a word study of justification. As in Melanchthon’s initial oration of 1551, for Flacius everything depended upon proper definition. Flacius argued that in Scripture, unlike in Osiander, the term justification (Rechtfertigung) meant to declare righteous and, hence, to forgive, as Luther underscored in his biblical translation. Moreover, Osiander’s definition of the term righteousness (Gerechtigkeit) was simply “a trivial philosophical invention,”46 derived from Aristotle and known also to the devil, namely (properly speaking) “what moves 44 Verlegung, b [=c] 4r: “Warlich/ so viel seine [Osianders] meinung betrifft/ dauon sag ich frey/ das sie Gotlos vnd den menschen verterblich ist/ vnd das die Aposteln vnd D. Luther/ in jhrer lehr/ nichts dauon wissen/ ja sie ist der kirche zu allen zeiten gantz vnbekant/ on allein/ das sie zum teil mit der Sophisten meinung/ vnd sonst mit einem alten Irthumb kan vergleicht werden/ wie wir darnach beweisen wollen.” 45 See Philipp Melanchthon, Elementa rhetorices: Grundbegriffe der Rhetorik [1539], ed. and trans. Volkhard Wels (Berlin: Weidler, 2001), 60. For an early example of Melanchthon’s own use of this form for theological argumentation, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon’s Last Word to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, Papal Legate at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg,” in: Johanna Loehr, ed., Dona Melanchthoniana: Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag (StuttgartBad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2001), 457 – ​83, especially 472 – ​78. 46 Verlegung, B 2r: “die Philosophische fündlein.”

116

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

us to do just, right things.” Unknown to the philosophers, he continued, was Christ’s bestowed righteousness, which then effected joining believers to Christ. Where Osiander knew of only two kinds of righteousness – divine or human – Christ brought a third kind: the obedient righteousness of one who is both divine and human. Osiander failed in Flacius’s eyes to distinguish Christ’s person from his office. The one who is God and a human being humbled himself through suffering and thereby fulfilled the law and was in that very self-emptying righteous. To prove this point (as in a confirmatio), Flacius outlined the order of salvation, arguing that Christ’s death satisfied our just punishment and fulfilled the law. Following the logic of the substitutionary atonement, but clearly treating it as a metaphor, Flacius described Christ’s death as the “money” used to buy grace and eternal life for humanity.47 As a result (and only as a result), the believer received the Holy Spirit and was united with Christ. As had other opponents of Osiander, Flacius then went after Osiander’s failure to distinguish law and gospel in this matter. Christ’s divine righteousness was simply the law that judges humanity; only in the gospel did one discover Christ taking on humanity’s curse and fulfilling the law. According to “God’s unexpected counsel” in the gospel, Christ revealed God’s mercy toward sinners.48 Flacius suspected that by tying believers’ righteousness to Christ’s divine righteousness, Osiander had actually eliminated any necessity for Christ’s atoning death, for his incarnation and, thus, for God’s grace.49 In the final major section of his work, Flacius constructed a confutatio. Taking aim at Osiander’s faulty interpretation of Jeremiahs 23, Flacius quoted Osiander (in his Harmony of the Gospels) against Osiander, deriding his misuse of Scripture.50 He also marshaled a variety of quotations from Luther, labeling this section specifically a confutation (Verlegung) of Osiander’s use of Luther. In his tract from 1518, Sermo de triplici iustitia,51 Luther used “essential righteousness” in a way that might have posed a problem for Flacius, but the latter argued that 47 Verlegung, E 3r: “Vnd mit diesem (das ich so rede) Gelde/ hat vns Christus von Gott/ der zuuor mit vns zürnete/ gnad vnd ewiges leben erkaufft.” The parenthetical remark makes clear that Flacius realized he was using a metaphor. In the summary of his arguments (p. O 3v), Flacius likened the Ten Commandments to a registry of debt to the Father, which the Son paid off on humanity’s behalf. 48 Verlegung, G 1r: “Das Euangelium aber ist eine lehr/ die allen Creaturn/ nach dem bilde Gottes erschaffen/ einen newen vnuerhoften Rat Gottes vortregt/ nemlich/ das Gott vns armen verdampten Sündern so gnedig sein wil/ das er auch seinen Eingebornen Son fur vns geben wil.” 49 Verlegung, G 4v: “Nu ist ja [nach Osiander] on alle not/ das man die gerechtigkeit keuffe/ die vns der Vater sonst freiwillig aus gnaden durch den Son geschenckt hat/ wie die schrifft offtmals zeuget.” Here Flacius indicated that his view of the substitutionary atonement was not so much a logical necessity as a necessity of God’s grace and Scriptural revelation. 50 Verlegung, H 1r: “Aber was darff man sich viel verwundern? Osiander der ist ein stoltzer frecher geist/ der durch die schrifft hin vnd her leufft/ wie eine Saw durch einen wolgebauten vnd sehr lustigen Garten/ vnd legt sie jtzt also/ jtzt anders aus/ zureist/ zustümpelt/ vnd füret sie wie es jhm gefellig ist/ vnd gut dünckt.” 51 WA 2: 41– ​47, especially 44, 26 – ​45, 33.

B. Defensores fidei: The “Official” Response of Flacius and Gallus

117

the term was simply Luther’s way of indicating that this righteousness of Christ never ended and not that it came from Christ’s divine essence. Indeed, Flacius noticed that his opponent, in quoting Luther at this point, left out the very words that proved Osiander wrong.52 In a similar way, Flacius carefully examined all of Osiander’s citations of Luther and indicated how the Königsberger either misquoted or misunderstood Luther, for example, not comprehending that Luther defined the phrase “formal righteousness” (iustitia formalis) as faith in Christ in contrast to his Roman opponents, who imagined (like Osiander!) that this was an infused habit of love.53 What Osiander consistently refused to see in Luther, Flacius argued, was the centrality of faith (as trust or assurance) in Christ and his promise of mercy. In passing, Flacius also attacked the way Osiander divided Christ’s two natures, failing to distinguish between God’s eternal righteousness, on which the believers will feast in heaven (where there will be no wine or marzipan), and God’s offer of righteousness through the means of grace (Word and sacrament).54 Turning to Osiander’s charges against his Königsberg (and Wittenberg) opponents, Flacius dismissed them one by one and closed with a peroration.55 He mentioned Osiander’s charges that his opponents divided the two natures of Christ (something that Osiander, not his opponents, did), that they made grace cheap (thereby failing to note either the role of repentance and new life or the similarities of his teaching to the Roman church’s), and that they made righteousness a mere creature. The close of the piece simply listed all the points he had made and compared Osiander to the adiaphorists. He also added a definition of Christ’s righteousness: the fulfilling of the law. To the end of Flacius’s work, Gallus added a short “subscription,” in which he attacked Osiander’s Christology (absent from Flacius’s work), calling it Nestorian for dividing Christ and not understanding the nature of the communicatio idiomatum, all points Gallus had likely borrowed from Mörlin’s refutation.56 He also 52 Verlegung, I 4r – v : “wesentlich … nemlich/ weil (wie gesagt) sie allezeit bleibt/ vnd nicht auffhöret/ wie die actual ist, das ist/ so viel dis leben betrifft/ so thun oder handeln wir zu zeiten recht/ zu zeiten vnrecht … Vnd hie were Osiander wol scheltens werd/ weil er diesen Paragraphum desselben Sermons anzeucht/ das er mit wolbedachtem mut/ diese wort/ Sie höret nicht auff, wie die actualis, welche zu erklerung dieser meinung nötig sein/ mitten aus dem Text ausgekratzet/ ausgeleschet/ vnd ausgelassen hat.” For more on the struggle over how to use Luther, see chapter 6. 53 Verlegung, K 2r – v : “Diese wort lest Osiander voersetzlich aussen/ darumb/ das sie vnterschiedlich leren/ das die zuuersicht auff Christum/ vnsere Formali iusticia, oder form vnserer gerechtigkeit sey/ Item darumb/ das sie seine meinung darinn er sagt/ Gott/ der die liebe ist/ werde in vnser hertz gegossen/ vnd wir werden durch seine gegenwertigkeit Formaliter gerecht/ öffentlich verdammen. Diesen betrug nennen die Juristen/ Crimen falsi, Laster des falsches/ Vnd ist alhie darumb so viel mehr zufliehen vnd zu verfluchen/ das solche betriegerey inn sachen vnsere Seligkeit betreffend gebraucht wird.” 54 Verlegung, M 4r. 55 Verlegung, M 4r – O 2v. 56 Verlegung, P 2v. Later in the same paragraph, Gallus called him a Eutychean.

118

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

accused Osiander of robbing believers of their chief comfort in the gospel, one of the central arguments in many other responses, too, but not at all prominent in Flacius’s work.57 A curious appendix to the entire work (most likely written by Flacius) provided the reader with a final summary of the differences between Osiander and the Magdeburgers: different understandings of the material and formal causes of the believer’s righteousness.58 Osiander defined the material cause as Christ’s divine righteousness and the formal cause its indwelling in us. Instead Flacius (and Gallus) insisted that the material cause was Christ’s merit and the formal cause faith in his obedience. In any case, they concluded, Osiander assumed that this indwelling righteousness implied a full rebirth; the Magdeburgers, like the Wittenbergers, claimed the believer only ever made a beginning in this kind of righteousness.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1​ 553 One of the interesting dilemmas noted in David Bagchi’s book on the publications of Martin Luther’s early opponents involves a curious hermeneutical circle.59 On the one hand, Luther’s popularity in the book fairs of Germany demanded some response. But, on the other, once the pope had declared Luther and his writings heretical in Exsurge, Domine, opponents no longer had to write against him: “[Roma locuta;] causa finita est” [(Rome has spoken;) the case is closed]. This Augustinian quote, the second half of which Augustine had aptly used in his struggles with the Pelagians after Rome supported him, by the sixteenth century had become a cornerstone of curial claims to power.60 A different set of restraints governed Evangelical theologians in their attempts to defend the faith and argue with opponents within their own camp. No one could effectively stop theologians, who had their government’s support (or, at least, toleration) and access to a printing press, from filling the bookstalls in Germany with their tracts. The same constraints governed those who disagreed 57 Verlegung, Q 2r: “Also haben wir nu den eigentlichen Names vnserer gerechtigkeit/ vnd trost der gewissen widder die anfechtung/ darauff wir frölich für Gott leben vnd sterben können.” 58 Verlegung, Q 3v: “Der streit ist in Summa de causa materiali & formali nostrae iustitiae.” Flacius’s use of such language, not expressly in Osiander’s arguments, mirrored his later use of substance and accidence in the fight over original sin. Here as there Flacius was not merely a biblical theologian being sucked into a philosophical debate but, more likely, was consciously using such terminology as someone accustomed to expressing himself with such Aristotelian categories. 59 David V. N. Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518 –​1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 210 –​14. 60 See Sermo 131.X.10 (MPL 38: 385).

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

119

or who found themselves under attack. In the Osiandrian dispute the request of Duke Albrecht and the encouragement of territorial rulers and city governments, as Fligge and Stupperich have shown, set the stage for the public conflict, especially after Osiander himself, having access both to his prince’s ear and Königsberg’s presses, refused to stop publishing attacks.61 Yet, for the most part, the theologians seemed to operate by a “one and done” rule, publishing an official or private opinion on the matter and letting that be the end of it. To be sure, as in the case of Melanchthon, a theologian could publish opinions on the controversy not only in official or semi-official responses (for Melanchthon there were two: the Antwort of 1552 [Mel 02 (1552)] and Das der Mensch from the Nuremberg controversy of 1555 [Mel 07 (1555)]) but also in other venues as well. These documents were more designed to support like-minded believers than to confront adversaries. Whether and how one responded to these attacks, however, always varied. For example, a published speech or open letter, delivered or written by Melanchthon in the adiaphoristic controversy, elicited hefty refutations from Flacius.62 Indeed, Flacius especially counted as one of the most zealous respondents in many of the disputes of the period, beginning with the adiaphoristic controversy of 1549. In addition to both the peculiar political situation of Magdeburg during the siege by imperial and Saxon forces, which left its printers fairly free to publish, and Flacius’s own close relation to those very printers, the Croatian theologian also seemed to grasp how important printing could be in allowing an exiled theologian access to a wider public. Thus, his many responses formed an important part of his theology – opportunities to witness to what he was convinced was the true faith against all betrayers of the gospel, as he sometimes called them. Nowhere did he broadcast his intent more clearly than in the extended title to the above-mentioned Entschuldigung for the University of Wittenberg.63 He addressed the reader directly. From this writing, dear reader, you will not only hear about the innocence of the author but also the complete origins and development of the matter regarding adiaphora and, in sum, all the causes of these adiaphoristic deceptions – and you will hear this out of 61 See

above, chapter 1. Matthias Flacius, Responsio Matthiae Flacij Illyrici ad epistolam Philippi Melanthonis (Magdeburg: Lotter, 20 October 1549) [VD 16: F 1490], an answer in the Epistola Philippi Melanthonis in qua respondetur Flacio Illyrico (Wittenberg: Klug, 1549) [VD 16: M 3192], and the Entschuldigung Matthiae Flacij Illyrici/ geschrieben an die Vniuersität zu Wittemberg (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1549) [VD 16: F 1266], in which he defended himself against a speech written by Melanchthon and delivered by Bernhard Ziegler at the University of Leipzig. For the speech, see Koehn, no. 155: Oratio de conjunctione et unitate Christianorum, contra non necessarias separationes & aemulationes perversas [VD 16: M 3749, not in CR; see: http://diglib. hab.de/drucke/465-5-1-quod/start.htm, accessed 28 July 2009]. This information comes from http://www.litdb.evtheol.uni-mainz.de/datenbank/index.php, the databank of “Controversia et confessio. Quellenedition zur Bekenntnisbildung und Konfessionalisierung (1548 –​1580),” accessed 29 July 2009. 63 See the previous footnote. 62 See

120

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

the very mouths of those who set up and encouraged such trickery. You will learn that the founders [efficient causes] of the same are in part the desire of the godless to betray and crucify Christ and to loose themselves from the Roman Barbarians and in part weak unbelief, fear and fleshly wisdom. The material [cause] is the uniting of Christ and Belial, light and darkness [2 Corinthians 6:15, 14], the sheep and the wolves [cf. Matthew 7:16], so that one wants to serve lords [Matthew 6:24] who are mortal enemies to one another: Christ and Antichrist [cf. 2 John 7]. The form[al cause] or appearance [Gestand] are the lying smears and adulterous colors of order, propriety and unity. The end [=final cause] is the establishment of the papacy and the setting up of the Antichrist in the Temple of Christ [2 Thessalonians 2:4], the strengthening of the godless (so that they may tread upon the church of Christ) and the sorrow of the God-fearing, along with their weakness, leading to doubt, division and countless trials.64

This same apocalyptic fervor and confessional passion shaped all of Flacius’s encounters with his contemporaries, but no one more so than in the struggle with Osiander. Here, too, the stark contrasts that permeated Flacius’s use of Aristotle’s categories of causation against the University of Wittenberg and Philip Melanchthon now filled his attacks against Osiander. The only thing Flacius and his companion, Nicholas Gallus, knew to employ against such apocalyptic enemies was the published truth, that is, their careful refutations of every argument that “Belial” could muster. I. De Iesu nomine Christi One of the first tracts in Flacius’s assault saw the light of day in the most unlikely of publishing centers: Wittenberg.65 Emanating from the very city that Flacius had abandoned and published with the permission (one assumes) of the very theological faculty whom he so willingly criticized, came a brief Latin tract about 64 “Aus diesen schrifften wirstu lieber Leser vernemen / nicht allein des Scribenten vnschuld / sonder auch den ga(n)tzen anfang vn(d) fortgang des handels von Mitteldingen / vnd in summa alle vrsachen dieser Mitteldingischen betrigereyen / vn(d) solchs wirstu hören aus derer eignem munde  / die solche triegerey anrichten vn(d) fördern. Du wirst lernen  / das die Stiffer der selbigen sein / zum teil die lust der Gottlosen Christum zuuerraten vnd Creutzigen / vnd den Römischen Barrabam widder loss zumachen  / zum teil der schwachen vnglauben  / furcht  / vnd fleischliche weisheit. Die materi ist  / vereinigung Christi vnd Belials  / des liechts vnd der finsternis  / der schaffe vnd der wolffe  / das mann zweien Herrn  / die einander mördlich feind sind / Christo vnd dem Antichrist / dienen will. Die form oder gestand sind / erlogenen anstreichung  / vnd ehebrecherische farben  / von ordnung  / zucht  / vnd eintrechtigkeit. Das Ende ist  / die einsetzung des Bapstumbs  / vn(d) einstellung des Antichrists inn den Tempel Christi  / sterckung der Gottlosen  / das sie vber der kirche Christi stoltziren  / betrübung der Gotfürchtigen / Item schwechung / einfürung in zweifel / Trennung / vnd vntzeliche ergerniss.” The text of this title page was taken from http://www.litdb.evtheol.uni-mainz.de/datenbank/ index.php?titel=1541&vd16=&aktion=suchen&dbsatz=0&art=detail&perpage=10&person​en​ art = Autor&suchstring1 = &suchstring2 = &suchstring3 = &suchstring4 = Verrat&suchstring5 = &suchstring6=&suchstring7=&suchtext=&jahrende=&undoder=und&sortierung=auf&druck =druck, accessed 29 July 2009. 65 For more on the connection between Flacius and Melanchthon, see Luka Ilić, “Praeceptor humanissime.”

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

121

the name of Jesus: Concerning “Jesus,” the Proper Name of Christ Our Savior, against Osiander, concerning the Name “Jehovah,” the Proper Name of the True God.66 Flacius demonstrated in this tract that Osiander’s “Judaic and cabalistic metamorphosis” tried to change the name of Jesus into the tetragrammaton (YHWH) by inserting a shin (‫ )ש‬and mutilating the ending. Flacius, opposing this, proved to his satisfaction that the verb ‫ =( ישע‬to come to save) was the same as ‫( יהשוע‬Iehosua [=Joshua]), that Osiander’s derivation was made up, that the name Joshua was not explained in the Old Testament but that the name Jesus meant savior so that the name described his office, that Paul talked about the name Lord (=YHWH) being given to Christ in Philippians 2:7 and that Joshua was a type of Christ, coming after the law and Moses.67 Flacius went on to fault Osiander for his reliance on the Talmud and for assuming that the Tetragrammaton was never spoken (which Flacius took to be the view of superstitious rabbis). What Osiander had done was to allow Christ’s death to be only for redemption but not justification, to attribute justification to Christ’s divine nature alone and then on that “rotten foundation” to dare to claim that the word Jehovah (in Jeremiah 23) only applied to Christ’s divinity (contradicting his own earlier work in the Harmony of the Gospels).68 Flacius then turned the Tetragrammaton itself. While some claimed that the name described God’s essence; others (including Flacius) understood it as a promise from God about what his being would bring about. Thus, Christ spoke in Exodus 3 and 6 and promised, “I will be who I will be,” namely the Messiah. Flacius tried to prove this with reference to the Hebrew vowel points, but admitted that it was a conjecture. Then he turned to the problem of Exodus 6 and whether this name had been revealed before Moses and the burning bush. He referred to the work of Brenz on this question, who claimed that the biblical text’s assertion was true. Flacius preferred a more historical answer, arguing that this statement conformed to Moses’ way of writing, since, as the author of the first five books of the Bible, he simply was looking back and using those words [for God] that were then in use. Given the fact that others got the worship of God wrong, God now introduced a new proper name to be used in true “Christian” worship up until the birth of Christ. He also argued that this name was not simply a title for God but “is the proper name of the Israelite God.”69 Under these circumstances, Flacius allowed that Christ’s name is the [Shem] Hamphoras, “the name of interpretation that contained some immense and mystical doctrine,” through which someone 66 Fla 02 (1552): De Iesu, nomine Christi servatoris nostri proprio, contra Osiandrum, De Iehova nomine veri Dei proprio (Wittenberg: Johann Krafft, 1552). In the HAB, the copy in S 229 Helmst. 4o (15), owned by Flacius, contains marginal notations in his hand apparently in preparation for a second printing, which seems never to have occurred. 67 De Iesu, A 2r – A 4v. 68 De Iesu, B 1r – D [=C] 1r. 69 De Iesu, D [=C] 1r – D [=C] 4v, here 4v: “non esse nomen appelatiuum, nec temere quemuis Deum significare, sed esse proprium nomen Israelitici Dei.”

122

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

could do miracles. That name was fulfilled then in Christ and his name, “since truly for the one believing in God through Christ, nothing is impossible [cf. Matthew 17:20].”70 Rather than imagining that the name was already ineffable before Christ, Flacius proved in the first section of the document that it was fulfilled at the incarnation. That the name referred to both the humanity and divinity of Christ had been proved, he concluded, in the Verlegung.71 II. Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeusisten In addition to his Confession, Osiander, too, had been filling the bookstalls of Germany with tracts. Flacius here took aim at Osiander’s explanation of John 16.72 In the first part of this tract Flacius concentrated on Osiander’s misinterpretation of John 16:8 –​11, beginning with a discussion of the forensic metaphor itself. Here, more than with any other single writer, the substitutionary theory of the atonement took center stage, as Flacius attempted to defend the righteousness of God’s judgment in declaring a sinner forgiven. Only a faint echo of the “pro nobis” [for us] remained.73 A person could be released from prison either because of true innocence or because of the decision of the judge, who had to judge a person guilty if he was. So, Flacius argued, a person had to be not guilty and the judge had to judge justly. Christ then took the guilt of sinners upon himself so that when the Trinity judged justly according to God’s own, essential righteousness (which loved what was right and hated what was not), it released the sinner. Indeed, Flacius wrote, Christ satisfied the punishment of the law through his obedience and paid for human sin, so that “Christ is in debtors’ prison” for us.74 Thus, Flacius concluded, there were two proximate, efficient causes for the sinner’s release: God’s own essential righteousness and Christ’s overwhelming satisfaction of it. Yet, just at this juncture, Flacius’s argument took an important, 70 De Iesu, D [=C] 4r – v : “Qua ratione uerissime dici posset, nomen Iehoua, esse uere nomen ‫ המפורש‬Hamephoras, nomen interpretationis, immensamque quondam & mysticam doctrinam continere, quam si quis uera firmaque fide recte teneret, sicut perfecte eam Christum tenuisse non omnino falso Iudaei nugantur, ille & miracula facere posset, & montes loco moueret, eique, utpote uere in Deum per Christum credenti, nihil esset impossibile.” 71 De Iesu, D [=C] 4v: “Quod porro Iudaei & quidam Iudaisantes Christiani, ineptiunt, hoc nomen ineffabile esse uel fuisse saltem ante Christum, ideoque pro eo, Adonai legunt, id falsum esse in praecedenti scripto, de nomine Iesu, probaui.” 72 Rechte, wahre und christliche Auslegung uber die wort des Herrn Johannis am 16 … Wider die neuen ketzerey, die die göttlichen gerechtigkeit unsers herrn Jhesu Christi verwirft und verlestert, als sey sie nicht durch den glauben unser und in uns (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 20 September 1551) [GA 9: 307 –​16]. See also Wider den Liecht flüchtigen NachtRaben/ der mit einem einigen bogen Papiers/ ein falschen schein zumachen vnterstanden hat/ als solt mein Lehr/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ Doctor Luthers seligen Lehr/ entgegen vnd gantz widerwertig sein … (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 10 January 1552) [GA 10: 398 – ​413]. For discussion of this tract, see below, chapter 6. 73 For other uses of this Anselmic approach to atonement, see chapter 3. 74 Fla 03 (1552): Wider die neue Ketzerey, A 3v: “… Christum in den schuldthurn [est].” 180

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

123

unexpected turn, simply by asking “Therefore, the question is: of these two, in which righteousness should we now take refuge?” If sinners ran to God’s essential righteousness, they would encounter the law’s judgment. “But I, a poor sinner, hear in the gospel that Christ has taken my sins upon his shoulders, as a result of which he is therefore oppressed by God’s essential righteousness.”75 By making this move toward the sinner and dividing “righteousness” according to law and gospel, Flacius avoided at the last minute turning the atonement into a problem for God and made it rather into a solution for the sinner. Armed with these definitions, Flacius was then ready to take on Osiander’s interpretation of John 16:8 –​11. The phrase, “The Holy Spirit will convict the world … of righteousness because I go to the Father,” meant to him that the Holy Spirit [through the law] punished the world, which sought righteousness from reason, wisdom, free will and its own powers. Contrary to this worldly righteousness, Christ was the ladder to heaven built by God. Thus, in the phrase, “because I go to the Father,” Christ said he and he alone would go to the Father. Were it simply a reference to Christ’s divinity, then he would never have left the Father, but what this phrase really meant was that Christ took on all the sin of the world through his suffering, death and resurrection. For Flacius the “going to the Father” was for us, because no one else could do it; it had nothing to do with Christ’s divinity, as Osiander imagined. To prove his point, Flacius quoted from Luther’s sermon on John 3 for Trinity Sunday, especially his exposition of verse 13 (“No one has ascended up to heaven but the one that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven”).76 For Flacius, this was sure proof that Luther was not talking about God’s own essential righteousness but about Christ’s merciful death for sinners. III. Wider die Götter in Preussen

Sometime after 21 April, when Osiander’s refutation of Philip Melanchthon appeared, most likely in late June or early July, Flacius published an answer. It was remarkable enough that he saw fit to defend his former teacher and colleague, given their continuing feud over adiaphora, but Flacius was far less interested in

75 Wider die neue Ketzerey, B 1r: “Darumb ist die frage/ zu welcher gerechtigkeit vnter diesen beyden wir jtzt sollen vnser zuflucht nemen … Ich armer Sünder aber höre in dem Euangelio/ das Christus meine sünde auff seine achseln geladen/ vmb welcher willen er von der wesentlichen gerechtigkeit Gottes also gedruckt ist worden/….” 76 WA 20: 429, 30 – ​34, a sermon originally preached in 1526 and published separately at that time but which also became a part of Stephan Roth’s collection of Luther’s sermons for the festivals of the year (under the festival of the Holy Cross). “Although they cannot travel into heaven, it should occur this way, that they hang onto me [Christ]. I will let myself be crucified and raised. Then those who believe in me – since I died for them – the very same, although they cannot come into heaven on their own power, I will nevertheless draw them with me.”

124

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

whom Osiander was attacking than in what Osiander was saying.77 In his reading of Osiander’s refutation of Melanchthon, Flacius became convinced that Osiander was teaching a kind of human divinization that rendered the incarnation itself useless. In Osiander’s Widerlegung of Melanchthon, which Flacius quoted, Königsberg’s primary professor had written that there were three forms of God’s presence in creatures: omnipresence in all creation, a higher presence in the angels, and the yet higher presence of the Trinity in all of those who through living faith are members of Christ. For God does not dwell simply in the flesh of Christ, as he dwells in the angels, but rather God and human being are in Christ a single, undivided person, which one cannot say about any angel …. Therefore God dwells by grace through faith also in us as in the members of Christ, as he dwells in Christ as in our head.78

Given such novel language, which equated the unity in the Trinity with the unity between God and believers, it is not hard to imagine what Flacius thought. Indeed, the title of the tract already indicated that, by using such ontologically loaded language, Osiander was in Flacius’s view making human beings into gods. Flacius rebutted aspects of Osiander’s argument by saying: that to be “flesh and blood” with Christ meant “a great relation and friendship” not a sharing of 77 Fla 03 (1552). The full title of Wider die Götter, A 1r, reads: “Wider die Götter in Preussen. Das nur eine einige wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes sey  / die nemlich  / so inn den Zehen geboten offenbaret ist. Ein kurtzer / heller vnnd klarer bericht von verdienst vnd gerechtigkeit Christi. Durch M. Fla. Illy. Aus Osiandri bekentnis am ende des quatern Q. Der grosse name Gottes Iehoua heist nichts anders / denn das blosse Göttliche wesen in Christo / also / das die meinung des Propheten klar vnnd dür ist / als sprech er / das Göttlich wesen vnsere gerechtigkeit. Aus den Harmonijs Osiandri. Iehoua ist ein sterblicher / ia ein gestorbener mensch. Beschlus. Darumb folget notwendig / das das blosse Göttliche wesen ein gestorbener mensch sey. Aus der Schrifft wider Philippum in quatern J. Die Sünde ist ia vergeben / da Christus gestorben ist / vnnd sein Blut vergossen hat / etc. Die gerechtigkeit aber empfahen wir erstlich wenn wir gleuben. Mein beschlus. Ist die Sünde fur 1500. jaren vergeben / so folget / das wir Gottes spotten / wenn wir schreien, vergib / vergib vns vnsere schuld / Denn worumb sol man das ienige bitten / das es geschehe / welches nu verlengst albereit geschehen ist.” Translation: “Against the gods in Prussia that there is a single essential righteousness of God, which is revealed in the Ten Commandments. A short, lucid and clear report about the merit and righteousness of Christ by M[atthias] Fla[cius] Illy[ricus]. From Osiander’s Confession sheet Q: ‘The great name of God, Jehovah, means nothing other than the plain divine essence in Christ. Thus, the meaning of the prophet [Jeremiah] is clear and simple, as if he said, “The divine essence is our righteousness.”’ From the Harmony of Osiander: ‘Jehovah is a mortal, yes a dead human being.’ Conclusion: Therefore it follows of necessity that the plain divine essence is a dead human being. From the tract against Philip, in sheet J: ‘Sin is certainly forgiven since Christ has died and has shed his blood, etc. However, we first receive righteousness when we believe.’ My conclusion: If sin was forgiven 1500 years ago, then it follows that we mock God when we cry, ‘Forgive, forgive our trespasses.’ For why should a person ask for something to happen that already happened long ago?” 78 GA 10: 600, 28 – ​601, 3, 7 – ​8. In all, Flacius, Wider die Götter, A 2r – v, cited GA 10: 599, 24 – ​600, 1; 600, 22 – ​25; 600, 24 – ​601, 15 to summarize Osiander’s argument.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

125

essence; that in Ephesians 5, Paul was not talking about Christ and the church sharing a single being (no more than a husband and wife did) but a mystery; that to participate in something through the Holy Spirit did not mean to become that thing; that in Galatians Paul was talking about the spiritual seed of Abraham being children of God and not about humanity’s essence as human beings.79 Flacius then returned to a theme of the Verlegung: defining the righteousness of God. Unlike some of Osiander’s other opponents, Flacius insisted that there was a single essential righteousness  – that of the Ten Commandments  – and not two (of the law and of piety [Frommigkeit]),80 as Osiander argued Luther had taught.81 This false understanding of the term created (in Flacius’s eyes) two gods. Here, it would seem, Flacius recognized the problem of pitting two characteristics of God’s essence against each other and referred the reader back to the Verlegung for specifics. In this tract he simply made the point that for the sinner righteousness and being made righteous were simply the forgiveness of sins. Wrath, he insisted, was not part of God’s essential righteousness but a consequence of it. Flacius then constructed a conversation between the righteous God and the sinner. When God demanded holiness of a sinner, the sinner through the prayer of faith pointed to Christ as mediator through whom the law was fulfilled. “For this reason, I ask that his satisfaction be imputed to me according to your promises.” This prayer, Flacius insisted, appealed to God’s essential righteousness so that God then responded, “You are speaking correctly. I impute to you the obedience of Christ or the fulfillment of the law, which he through his suffering and actions, which you were bound to do, did for you. You are righteous; you will live.”82 Then, as a first fruits of the future dwelling in God, the Holy Spirit came to the believer. Contrasting this exchange to Osiander’s theology, Flacius noted that his opponent had little or nothing to say about Christ’s suffering and its meaning for the sinner.83 As proof that Luther did not teach that God had two

die Götter, A 2v – A 3v. meaning of this German word was undergoing rapid change in the sixteenth century from uprightness to godliness or piety. In Luther and other writers of the time, it was used as a synonym for Gerechtigkeit. See, Kurt Aland, ed., Luther Deutsch, supplementary vol. 3: Lutherlexikon (Stuttgart: Klotz, 1957), 112 & 132. 81 See Wider die Nachtraben (GA 10: 407). Osiander’s other opponents, including Melanchthon (see below, chapter 7), would accept the fact that there are two kinds of righteousness but reject the notion that they were derived from God’s essence. In the refutation of Osiander in the last edition of the Institutes, John Calvin may well have followed Flacius’s lead. See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin against Andreas Osiander: Coming to Terms with Forensic Justification,” (forthcoming). 82 Wider die Götter, B 2r: “Derhalben bitt ich/ das mir seine gnugthuung nach deinen verheisungen werde zugerechnet … [God answers] Du redest recht/ Ich rechne dir zu Christi gehorsam/ oder die erfüllung des gesetzes/ welche er durch sein leiden vnnd thun/ so du schüldig warest/ fur dich gethan hatt/ Due bist gerecht/ du wirst leben.” 83 Wider die Götter, B 3r, referring to Osiander’s Beweisung (GA 10: 421– ​49). 79 Wider 80 The

126

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

different kinds of righteousness, Flacius referred readers back to his tract on John 16, Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeusisten. At this point, Flacius examined Osiander’s original disputation on justification, based upon the publication of a German translation of the theses from 12 September 1551. Over and over again, Flacius pushed the argument: believers were not God, Christ was the only mediator, and Christ paid the debt sinners owed.84 Then he presented his own view of justification in the form of fourteen propositions. God made everything; we are to obey; this is God’s image in us. In the wake of our disobedience, Christ came to pay the Handschrift [handwriting; Colossians 2:14] against us, and his satisfaction of the law sufficed. Then we were born anew through the Holy Spirit as God’s children. Still, our only righteousness was Christ’s obedience. Osiander considered neither the power of the law nor the merit of Christ and neither the debt we had to pay nor Christ’s payment. After providing scriptural proof texts and indicating that this was the message of the entire Bible (theses twelve and thirteen), Flacius concluded (thesis fourteen) that there was only one righteousness in God.85 Flacius had learned his lessons (from Melanchthon) well. He probably emphasized this satisfaction “theory” [better: metaphor] of the atonement and its dependence upon God’s single righteousness (of the law!) even more than had Melanchthon. Yet even for Flacius this was no mere theory, as the final pages of this tract indicated. For him, as for his preceptor, underneath all of the theological arguments lurked the demand for comfort. Here, as sharply as any author, Flacius contrasted Osiander’s speculative theology with the Evangelical concern to bring good news to the terrified conscience. When afflicted, sinners worried whether they had a gracious God, not whether God dwelt within them. For as often as the conscience of sinners becomes worried about justification, they begin to debate about it, because they have fallen through their sin under God’s wrath. … Here a sure teaching and comfort is more important than anything else, namely, how we poor sinners have a gracious God and may stand before him. Consciences do not worry first and foremost about whether the Lord God will give them his Holy Spirit and how much of the Spirit and how many gifts with the Spirit he may want to give to them, or even how much inner righteousness he will pour into them. On the contrary, in this situation, filled with cares, they only think about: “O that I had a gracious God!” And this very thing is indeed actually justification, reconciliation with God, God’s acceptance of the sinner as a righteous person who before was an unrighteous, condemned one, the absolution or forgiveness of sins by a gracious God. And therefore justification is often connected with redemption and forgiveness of sins. (Romans 3 & 4)86 die Götter, B 4r – C 1v. die Götter, C 1v – D 1r. 86 Wider die Götter, D 1v – D 2r: “Denn so offt des Sünders gewissen sich der rechtfertigung halben bekümmert/ so hebt er dauon an zu disputieren/ weil er durch seine Sünde inn Gottes zorn gefallen …. Hie ist vornemlich von nöten ein gewisse lehr vnnd trost/ wie nemlich wir armen Sünder/ einen gnedigen Gott haben vnd für jhm bestehen mögen. Es bekümmern sich 84 Wider 85 Wider

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

127

IV. Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier On 24 June 1552, in a last desperate attempt to meet the challenges of his many accusers, Andreas Osiander published his Schmeckbier. Some time thereafter but before 24 September, Nicholas Gallus and Matthias Flacius published their Antidote to Osiander’s Poisonous “Schmeckbier.”87 And what an antidote it was! Once again, the title page carried an important part of the argument. Referring to Romans 8:3 – ​4a in Luther’s translation, it pointed out that the law demanded righteousness, Christ fulfilled the law and therefore that fulfilling of the law was righteousness. If Christ had earned Hungarian Ducats, one would not say that they were just pennies [Rechenpfening]. The process of human salvation occurred through Christ’s actions and suffering, by which the law was fulfilled and sinners became righteous. “Why does St. Paul forget to talk about Osiander’s essential righteousness? Without a doubt, he must have studied in Wittenberg, too.”88 In the model of disputation already established in the earlier tracts, the two authors answered Osiander’s charges one by one. First, to the charge that they did not know the difference between righteousness and justification, they argued that there was as much difference between those words as between white and whiten, make white and dye. Osiander did not understand proximate causes, and as a result he would say that a wall became white not through the paint but only through the painter. Thus, he only could imagine that sinners became righteous through the essential righteousness of the eternal, divine majesty alone.89 Second, Osiander had claimed that their book rested on raving [Schwärmerei] and heresy; thereby he included Christ and Paul in his condemnation. Here the Magdeburgers concentrated on Osiander’s method, noting (in Latin) that he tried to refute them using dialectic, quality and action.90 Osiander’s claim that fulfilling the law die gewissen nicht darumb erstlich vnnd fürnemlich/ Ob jhnen Gott der Herr seinen heiligen Geist geben werde/ vnd wie viel er jhnen des geben wölle/ vnd wie viel gaben mit jhm/ oder auch wie viel jnnerliche gerechtigkeit er jhnen eingiessen werde/ Sondern da dencken sie nur sorgfeltiglich auff/ O het ich nur einen gnedigen Gott. Vnd eben dasselbige ist eigentlich die rechtfertigung/ die versünung mit Gott/ die auffnemung Gottes des Sünders als eines gerechten/ denn er zuuor als einen vngerechten verdampte/ die Absolutio oder vergebung der Sünden des gnedigen Gottes. Vnnd derhalben wird offt die rechtfertigung auff die erlösung vnd vergebung der Sünden gesatzt. Roma. iii. iiij.” He went on to say that sinners are in debtors’ prison (certainly no pleasant place in the sixteenth-century mind) and had no other ransom (Rantzion) than Christ’s satisfaction. 87 F/G 02 (1552): Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]). For specifics on the dating, see chapter 8. 88 Antidotum, A 1r: “Worumb vergisset hier S. Paulus die wesentliche gerechtigkeit Osiandri? Er wird gewislich auch zu Wittenberg studiret haben.” This was a swipe at Osiander’s criticism of Wittenberg doctorates, which Melanchthon would also answer. 89 Antidotum, A 3r: “Osiander leret/ das wir durch nichts anders/ weder verdienst/ noch gerechtigkeit/ gerecht oder gerechfertigt werden/ denn allein durch die wesentliche gerechtigkeit der ewigen Götlichen Maiestet.” 90 Antidotum, A 3r: “Dialecticam, Qualitatem vnd Actionem.”

128

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

would only be an actio and not a qualitas was false, because any lord would want not just good actions from a servant but the servant’s heart, too. Osiander also referred to Aristotle’s definition of righteousness as “a habit of virtue” (brauch der tugent), meaning of course that while people were sleeping there was no difference between the good and bad ones. While promising to write more fully about righteousness at a later date (see below), Flacius and Gallus took direct aim at Osiander’s penchant for philosophical argumentation. “But we as uneducated let dialectics and Aristotle go by the wayside in this matter and base ourselves on Christ’s word, who said, ‘Do this and you will live’ [Luke 10:28].”91 Third, they criticized Osiander’s use of John 14:10 (“the Father who dwells in me does the works”) – pointing out that the text was not talking about essential righteousness but about miracles – and his use of Romans 6:13 (“Do not yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness … but yield yourselves to God … and your members as instruments of righteousness to God”), where they noted that Osiander did not understand the nature of Paul’s parallelism (lord – implement – work; sin – members –unrighteousness versus God – members – righteousness). Fourth, they rejected Osiander’s accusation that they had falsified his arguments by accusing him of teaching that one dealt with God without means. On the contrary, they responded, they had argued in the Verlegung not that Osiander taught this directly but that it was a consequence of his teaching about indwelling righteousness and his insisting on Christ as mediator without mentioning the law and his fulfillment of it. The fifth argument centered on the interpretation of Jeremiah 23. They insisted that the phrase “the righteousness of Yhwh” signified the whole person of the Messiah “even if Osiander with all rabbis would burst from anger and tremendous cries and say that this name means only the divine nature.”92 They insisted that Jeremiah was writing about both natures of Christ and all their characteristics in concreto. Noting that the text stated that the Messiah would do righteousness, they concluded that one could not therefore prove from this text which nature was the source of righteousness. As a result, Osiander was sinning against the Holy Spirit by having knowingly distorted the Scripture. Finally, regarding Matthew 5:20 (“Except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees …”), which Osiander had cited in his tract on John 16,93 Flacius and Gallus argued that Osiander’s argument made pharisaic righteousness second only to the divine righteousness itself. 91 Antidotum, A 4r: “Aber wir als vngelerte lassen in diesen sachen die Dialecticam vnd den Aristotelem faren/ vnd gründen vns auff Christi wort/ der gesagt hat/ Thu das/ so wirstu leben.” They were referring to Osiander’s arguments in his Schmeckbier, GA 10: 781, 30 – ​782, 10. He had called them incompetent logicians. 92 Antidotum, B 3r: “wenn auch gleich Osiander mit allen Rabbinen für zorn vnd grossem geschrey zerbersten wolten/ vnd sage/ dieser name bedeute allein die Göttliche natur.” 93 GA 10: 307 –​16. Here Flacius (Antidotum, C 1r) quoted a section from GA 10: 313, 7 –​15.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

129

V. Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier Apparently not satisfied with this joint refutation of Osiander, Flacius produced another under his name alone: The Two Central Foundations of Osiander Refuted in a Schmeckbier.94 The title page again revealed Flacius’s central argument: To be sure Mr. Holyman [Flacius’s translation into German of Osiander’s Hellenized name] defines righteousness everywhere as that which drives a person to do right or the doing of the right itself. We were not able to perform such righteousness for God and his law. However, Christ, with his obedience and suffering, that is, through his complete fulfilling of the Law, has done it. Therefore this very thing is our Righteousness.95

In this brief tract, however, Flacius’s main interest was in refuting Osiander’s claims in the Schmeckbier that Augustine (in a passage from his Consentio ad quaestiones de trinitate sibi propositas)96 stood on his side in defining the Christian’s righteousness as the indwelling divinity and that his opponents had never proven that biblical or other authorities were not on his side.97 Flacius responded by citing long sections of On the Spirit and the Letter, Epistle 120, Against the Pelagians, and the Confessions,98 concluding “If one wanted to, one could assemble at least 1,000 statements from Augustine, all of which prove that the righteousness of faith is in no way the essential righteousness of God.”99 To demonstrate Osiander’s inconsistencies in his interpretation of Jeremiah 23, Flacius placed citations from Von dem einigen Mittler next to earlier references from Osiander’s Harmonies, again concluding, as he had in an earlier tract, that either the simple divine essence was mortal or Osiander was a liar. Osiander, he fumed, was simply a sycophant with both Augustine and Martin Luther against him.100 Jeremiah was thus talking about the entire Christ in both of his natures, in concreto. 04 (1552): Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier … (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]).   95 Zwo … Gründe, A 1r: “Zwar heist alhie Herr Heiligman Gerechtigkeit, das nemlich so einen recht zu thun treibt, oder das recht thun selbs. Ein solche gerechtigkeit haben wir Gott vnd seinem Gesetze nicht konne leisten. Es hat sie aber Christus mit seinem gehorsam vnnd leiden, das ist, durch seine gantze erfullung des Gesetzes gethan, darumb ist dasselbig vnsers Gerechtigkeit …” He repeated this word for word on the title page of Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum. See below.   96 Identified in GA 10: 761, n. 25 as MPL 33: 452 – ​62 and quoted in Von dem einigen Mittler (GA 10: 212, 24 – ​214, 3 (MPL 33: 461; cf. GA 10: 213, 1–​10).   97 GA 10: 783, 31– ​37, cited in Zwo … Gründe, A 2r – v.   98 Zwo … Gründe, A 2v – 3v, citing specifically De Spiritu et litera, 1, 9, 15 & 1, 9, 18; Ep., 120, 30 [=Consentio ad quaestiones de trinitate sibi propositas]; Contra Pela. 3, 7, Conf., 12, 15.   99 Zwo … Gründe, A 3v: “Wenn mann wolte könt mann wol tausent sprüch aus dem August. bringen/ welche alle bezeugten/ das die gerechtigkeit des glaubens in keinem wege die wesentliche gerechtinkeit [sic] Gottes sey.” He also pointed out that he had explained the text from Ad consentium in the Verlegung. Of course, Flacius’s argument differed from the 1531 letter to Brenz from Luther and Melanchthon, which expressly criticized Augustine, as had Luther’s 1545 preface to his Latin works. 100 At this point he cited WA 10/1/2: 36, 22 – ​25 and WA 54: 185, 19 – ​20 & 186, 7, 11–​13. The issue of Luther’s authority will be dealt with in chapter 6.   94 Fla

130

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

VI. Kurtze und klare erzelung der argument Osiandri On 1 September 1552 Flacius tried a different approach to Osiander by dedicating his Short and Clear Account of Osiander’s Arguments to the church in Königsberg. Again, the title page told an important part of the story: which authorities should one believe. It contained a quotation from Luther’s Summary of Psalm 32, Paul’s citation in Romans of the same psalm and the psalm of David itself. “Whoever does not want to believe these three chief instruments of Christ may believe Osiander and his evangelists.”101 The epistle dedicatory to Königsberg’s Christians continued the same theme, except this time challenging Osiander’s claim that all of the other theologians who attacked him were simply captive to Wittenberg’s bad theology. Flacius referred readers to his Zwo … Gründe and its table comparing Augustine and Osiander as proof (along with his three-yearlong battle with Wittenberg) that he was not a prisoner to bad theology. In the preface,102 Flacius argued that Osiander, like Gorgias in the Socratic dialogue, simply wanted to use his rhetoric to correct the skewed theology of Luther and Melanchthon. Flacius then summarized where he believed the heart of the dispute lay: Osiander claimed that God’s essential righteousness made believers righteous; Flacius and all the others insisted that it was Christ’s obedience and suffering that justified. In the body of the tract, Flacius put thirty statements of Osiander on trial to prove them wrong and then matched them against thirty true statements about his own understanding of justification.103 The first thirty summarized many of the major objections Flacius and others had brought against Osiander: Jehovah in Jeremiah 23 meant Christ’s divinity, justification meant to infuse Christ’s essential righteousness, righteousness was what makes a person do the right thing; suffering as an action could not be a quality like righteousness; Christ’s suffering as creaturely could not give life; God was a crooked judge to declare the sinner righteous; one had to distingush between justification and redemption; the law could not make alive, so its fulfilling could not be righteousness; Christ’s only righteousness was his essential, divine righteousness and thus its indwelling had to make believers righteous; Augustine and Luther were on Osiander’s side; the doctrine of imputation made people lazy and unwilling to do good works; righteousness and forgiveness were two different things. Many of these theses dealt with disputed biblical texts. None of them mentioned Christological issues. From these thirty, one can begin to discern more fully where Flacius felt most worried by Osiander’s theology. By separating Christ’s essential righteousness from the righteousness of the law, Osiander undermined both the law (as God’s single 101 F 05 (1552): Kurtze und klare erzelung, A 1r: “Wer nu diesen dreyen furnempsten werckzeugen Christi nicht wil gleuben, der gleube Osiandro vnd seinen Euangelisten.” 102 Kurtze und klare erzelung, A 2v – A 3v. The epistle dedicatory is on p. A 1v – 2r. 103 Kurtze und klare erzelung, A 4r – D 1r and D 1v – F 3r, respectively.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

131

measure of righteousness) and the ability of Christ’s obedience and suffering to fulfill that law. At this stage in his argument, Flacius passed over the role of faith in silence. Thus, he wrote in one of the theses that righteousness comes to human beings “out of the Law … through Christ Jesus.”104 At the same time, however, Flacius’s arguments underscored a relational, non-essentialist pattern in his approach to Scripture. For example, where Osiander argued: love is righteousness, God is love, therefore God is our righteousness, Flacius responded that God was called love because he loved humanity for Christ’s sake, not because it was a part of God’s essence. The thirty opposing statements, which defined Flacius’s own theology, showed how the problem of justification of the sinner arose out of the unrighteousness of the sinner and the solution rested not in Christ’s essential righteousness but in his obedience. Christ’s essential righteousness was the righteousness of the law and could only send sinners to hell. Christ “is our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6) according to his office not his person. The suffering and death of Christ acted (Flacius broke into Latin), “as a proximate efficient cause.”105 Justification and redemption were the same because there was no other way out of God’s debtor prison. Either Christ obtained righteousness and blessing for sinners, or they remained stuck in sin. Turning to the definition of justification, Flacius stated: “JUSTIFICATION means actually nothing other than to absolve, declare free or receive as righteous the sinner or unjust person.”106 As much as Flacius relied heavily on the fulfillment of the law in his arguments against Osiander’s theses, in his thirty affirmative statements Flacius showed a clear understanding of the oral, transactional nature of this event. Christ ran up to God’s essential righteousness and said, “O dear righteousness, I will advocate before you for these and will pay all that you demand from them.”107 Noting that Osiander had dealt with the problem of defining righteousness especially in his attack on Melanchthon, Flacius promised to produce another tract specifically on this question (see below). There were other important nuances in Flacius’s argument, for example, when he argued that holiness and righteousness were one and the same thing – according to Scripture and Plato! Righteousness was never simply a matter of doing righteous things (by which humans would never be perfect), but forgiveness for the sake of Christ was Christian perfection. Only with thesis twenty-five did Flacius finally turn to faith, defining it as “the outstretched hand of a beggar, so that we, just like the beggars, attain from und klare erzelung, B 3v: “aus dem Gesetz … durch Christum Jhesum.” und klare erzelung, D 3r: “… tanquam causa efficiens proxima.” This is another example of how readily Flacius used Aristotelian terminology. 106 Kurtze und klare erzelung, D 4v: “RECHTFERTIGEN heist eigentlich nichts anders/ denn den Sünder oder vngerechten Absoluirn/ Losprechen/ fürgerecht annemen etc.” Capitalization in the original. He referred readers to his fuller arguments in the Verlegung. 107 Kurtze und klare erzelung, E 1r: “Ey liebe gerechtigkeit/ ich wil dir für diese einstehen/ vnd alles bezalen/ was du nur von jhnen begerst ….” 104 Kurtze 105 Kurtze

132

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

God all kinds of alms; and it goes in no other way than this one.”108 Once having introduced faith, Flacius also argued that experience itself and not just Scripture taught this, and he again constructed a conversation in the conscience searching for God’s mercy not divine attributes. It is not only that the entire Scripture has to do with the forgiveness of sins or unrighteousness but one can also examine experience. One may ask consciences with what are they concerned – for justification – and in what they rejoice. They do not think about or concern themselves with the fact that they are not as smart as God, not as mighty, holy or righteous as God or even that they are not gods. Instead, they think, “Ach, I have an ungracious God; his unbearable wrath pushes me down into hell. O that I had a gracious God!109

As Melanchthon had been doing at least since his 1532 commentary on Romans, Flacius tied this experience to Romans 5:1 and obtaining peace with God. In thesis twenty-eight he arrived at the witnesses on the title page and a discussion of imputed righteousness.110 He concluded by suggesting that were Osiander correct, one would have to change the absolution to read, “I declare to you that you become righteous through the infusing in your flesh of God’s essential righteousness.”111 As an afterthought, Flacius also highlighted Osiander’s distinction between the inner and outer word and wondered aloud what would become of Osiander’s essential righteousness if, as he indeed had written, the gospel was actually the preaching that announced forgiveness. VII. Proba des geists Osiandri

Around 14 September 1552 Nicholas Gallus published his first and only independent attack against Osiander.112 Just as Flacius’s tract of 1 September began with und klare erzelung, E 4r: “der glaube sey ein ausgestreckte Betlers hand/ damit wir gleich/ als die Betler/ von Gott allerley Allmusen erlangen/ vnd es nicht anders/ denn also zugehe.” 109 Kurtze und klare erzelung, E 4v: “Es ist aber nicht allein der Schrifft alles vmb die vergebung der sünd/ oder vngerechtigkeit zu thun/ sonder man sehe auch die erfarung an. Man frage die gewissen/ wo mit sie sich beide bekümmern/ fur der Rechtfertigung/ vnd was sie sich darnach frewen. Sie dencken vnd bekümmern sich nicht darumb/ das sie nicht so klug/ wie Got sein/ nicht so mechtig/ nicht so heilig/ nicht so gerecht/ oder auch/ das sie nicht Götter sein/ Sonder sie dencken/ Ach/ ich habe einen vngnedigen Gott/ sein vntreglicher zorn drückt mich in die Helle hinunter. O het ich einen gnedigen Got ….” See the discussion above concerning Wider die Götter. 110 Kurtze und klare erzelung, F 1v; on F 2r he summarized his entire argument this way, returning once again to the fulfillment of the law: “Summa das gantze Gesetz vnd Euangelion bezeugen vnd leren nur diese einige Gerechtigkeit/ das nemlich die erfüllung des Gesetzes durch das Thun vnd Leiden Christi geleistet/ vns durch den glauben zugerechnet/ vnsere Gerechtigkeit sey.” 111 Kurtze und klare erzelung, F 2v: “Ich verkündige dir das du gerecht werdest durch die eingiessung der wesentlichen gerechtigkeit Gottes in dein fleisch.” 112 Gal 01 (1552): Proba des geists Osiandri von der rechtfertigung, durch die eingegossne wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes … I Joan. IIII. Ihr lieben/ gleubet nicht einem yeglichen Geist/ sondern prüfet die Geister/ ob sie von Gott sind. (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1552). 108 Kurtze

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

133

an address to Königsberg’s Christians, Gallus’s work also appealed to someone outside the circle of the disputants, in this case addressing a preface to Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, who only a few years later would become a judge in the dispute against the Osiandrists left in Königsberg.113 As the title implied (Probe of Osiander’s Spirit), Gallus objected to Osiander’s pride and his false claims about Luther’s theology. If Osiander and Luther were in agreement, why did the reformer not object to the theology of his coworkers and even to the Augsburg Confession? Osiander, as Flacius had already noted, relied far too much on his rhetorical skills (“schön geschwetz”) rather than sound theological argumentation. It was no wonder Mörlin had such difficulty getting his book (Bericht) published. Gallus’s mode of argumentation offered some nuances vis-à-vis Flacius’s. He noted, for example, that the vast preponderance of comments about God’s forgiveness, rather than God’s indwelling, in Scripture and Luther indicated the weakness of Osiander’s position. He also turned aside Osiander’s attack against the Wittenberg doctoral oaths by pointing, as Flacius had, to the struggle over adiaphora. When Osiander (especially in his Schmeckbier) complained that his opponents could not agree among themselves, Gallus took a remarkably charitable attitude and admitted that theologians approached the question of how Christ’s obedience, death and resurrection functioned to justify the sinner from different vantage points. Some saw it as the efficient cause, others as a sufficient cause, others as the instrumental cause, still others as the material or formal cause. This, he argued, was simply the way theological definitions worked. He and Flacius had focused on the material cause of Christ’s obedience and the formal cause of imputation. Were Osiander simply to admit that God’s essential righteousness was an efficient cause of the sinner’s righteousness and that indwelling was an effect, the matter could be solved. But by calling this indwelling the primary efficient cause that then brought about any and all material and formal causes, Osiander not only committed a grave error in logic but also heresy in theology. In any case, Gallus concluded: We would go our way; Osiander could go his, “And at once in Anfechtung [attack] and on that Day it will be rightly demonstrated who was true in this matter.”114 If an external examination of Osiander demonstrated his pride; an internal probe indicated just how wrong he was. First, Gallus listed the terrible results of Osiander’s position.115 To avoid saying that God’s essential righteousness judged the sinner, Osiander created two gods – a charge Flacius had already made. He also confused the persons of the Trinity, divided Christ’s natures, and robbed 113 See Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 284 – ​93. 114 Proba, B 3r: “Vnnd wird sich ein mal in der anfechtung vnd an jenem tag recht außweisen/ wer hierin war habe.” 115 Proba, B 4r – C 4r.

134

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Christ of his human nature (by not allowing him to be directly righteous for us according to that nature). He confused humanity’s relation to God with the union of the two natures in Christ, either mixing God with sin or erasing the difference between creature and Creator. Finally, by dismissing the centrality of forgiveness and imputation, Osiander’s teaching was no better than the papists’, because it caused uncertainty in the conscience afflicted by sin. Second, Gallus examined Osiander’s poor use of Scripture.116 He attacked Osiander’s interpretation of Jeremiah 23, insisting that Osiander confused the person of Christ with his two natures and confused the person of Christ with his office. Gallus again returned to the judging nature of God’s essential righteousness, which only condemned the sinner and separated righteousness and Christ’s fulfilling of the law. Osiander wanted to separate redemption and justification by 1500 years. Scripture kept the two together. Gallus summarized his internal examination of Osiander’s theology by contrasting the Königsberger’s essentialist approach over against the Scriptural relatio established by divine imputation. Here one can detect just how, in his own peculiar way, Gallus redacted Melanchthon’s approach to theology in general and justification in particular and turned it against Osiander, accusing the Königsberger of misunderstanding basic philosophical categories. And herewith [I] want to let the learned judge, as a last probe of both Osiander’s teaching and his great craftiness, how Philosophy and Dialectics agree with the Scripture, in that he places Justitia, the righteousness with which we human beings become righteous before God, in what is predicated of a substance, [that is,] he makes a distinct, essential thing out of it. Dialecticians, however, call a quality a condition. Aristotle in Book 5 of his Ethics calls an action a doing, namely a using of a virtue, a use or practice of every virtue. The Scripture calls imputation, a reckoning (Romans 4). This is truly not a substance but a Relation. Now, this Relation must have its own foundation or matter. The Scripture provides this from the qualities, actions and passion of Christ, so that it is the fulfilling of the law and the suffering and death of Christ (Romans 8). Furthermore, they must have their end point or form. Now that is the imputation itself, the reckoning that is established in God’s good pleasure, with which God will reckon to the believers Christ’s fulfilling [of righteousness] as their own.117 116 Proba,

C 4v – D 4v.

117 Proba, D 3v – D 4r (Latin italicized in the English translation): “Vnnd wil zur letzten proba

beide der Lehr vnnd der grossen kunst Osiandri hiemit den gelerten zuurteilen gegeben haben/ wie da stimme mit der Schrifft/ Philosophia vnd Dialectica, das er Iustitiam/ die gerechtigkeit/ damit wir Menschen für Gott gerecht werden/ setzt in praedicamento substantiae, macht ein selbwesend ding daraus. Die Dialectici aber nennens qualitatem, ein geschickligkeit. Arist. 5. Ethicorum nennets actionem ein thun/ usum scilicet uirtutis/ aller tugent brauch oder vbung. Die Schrifft nennets imputationen/ ein zurechnung. Romano. iiij. Das ist warlich kein substantia, sondern nur ein Relatio. Diese Relatio mus nun haben jr fundamentum oder materiale. Das gibt die Schrifft ex qualitatibus, actionibus & passionibus Christi/ das es sey die erfüllung des Gesetzes/ vnnd das leiden vnnd sterben CHRisti. Romano. viij. Sie mus weiter haben jhren terminum oder formale. Das ist nu die imputatio selbst/ das zurechen/ welches stehet in Gottes wolgefallen/ damit Gott den gleubigen Christi erfüllung wil rechen für die jhre.”

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

135

Finally, over against these errors, Gallus – as Flacius had done earlier – created his own account of the faith: “A true, basic report of our teaching from Scripture concerning the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, against Osiander.”118 Just to attack Osiander’s position and not define and defend one’s own would, in Gallus’s eyes, have meant missing an opportunity to confess the faith. While certainly compatible with Flacius’s position, even this report demonstrated Gallus’s independence. First, from creation he derived that human beings are and remain creatures and that righteousness, even before the Fall into sin, was a creaturely perfection and knowledge of God. Second, this perfection was lost in turning from God’s Word and grace toward the devil’s will. Christ, as predicted in Genesis 3:15, brought this very righteousness back through the satisfaction wrought by his life, death and resurrection. There was, thus, no difference between redemption and justification. Moreover, imputation was all about God’s grace and an action outside of us, not our own. Thus, “also nothing essential, internal goodness [is] in us.”119 Armed with these basics, Gallus then defended himself (and others) against the notion that imputation turned God into an unjust judge. Adam’s sin came to human beings both through propagation (our corrupt nature) and the imputation of an alien guilt to us. “Even so, Christ’s righteousness now comes again upon us in two different forms, so that Christ’s alien righteousness, through which he was obedient to God’s law, is imputed to us through faith and, alongside this imputation, through the Holy Spirit in the rebirth is again established in our nature that we ourselves now in deed and in truth begin to fulfill God’s law.”120 When God demanded holiness of human beings, Gallus continued, it was not an essential indwelling righteousness of Osiander’s imagination but the obedience of the whole heart, soul and powers, that is, to the Ten Commandments. First came the law with its demand for punishment. Then came the preaching of the gospel, “that God out of pure and immeasurable mercy gave his only begotten Son and for this reason allowed him to become a human being, so that he, the LORD Christ himself, might satisfy divine righteousness in both parts [i.e., actively and passively].”121 Thus, God accomplished two things in justification: imputed to us Christ’s obedient righteousness and, as a fruit of this justification, started new birth through the indwelling of the entire Trinity in the believer, which brought about righteousness, life and salvation. 118 Proba,

D 4v – G 2v, here p. D 4v. E 4r: “… auch nichts wesentlichs jnnerliches gutes/ inn vns.” 120 Proba, F 2r – v : “Eben also kömpt nu hinwider auff vns Christi gerechtigkeit/ derselben zweyerley gestalt vnterschiedlich/ das Christi frembde gerechtigkeit/ damit er Gottes Gesetz ist gehorsam gewesen/ vns auch wird zugerechnet durch den glauben/ vnnd neben der zurechnung durch den heiligen Geist inn der wirdergeburt [sic] wird inn vnser nature wider angericht/ das wir nu selbst auch mit der that vnnd inn der warheit anfahen Gottes Gesetz zuerfüllen.” 121 Proba, F 4v: “das Gott aus lauter gnaden vnnd vnmeßlicher barmhertzigkeit seinen eingebornen Son geben/ vnd darumb hab lassen Mensch werden/ das er/ der HERR Christus selbst/ Göttlicher gerechtigkeit also gnug thete inn beiden stücken.” 119 Proba,

136

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Gallus was now ready to interpret 1 John 3:2 (“We shall be like him [Christ]”) as a description of this result of justification and not, as Osiander implied, that we should be divine beings. Osiander’s “new error” was no different that the sin of our first parents (who wanted to be gods). Where papists and Interimists (a reference to supporters of the hated Augsburg Interim) put an inherent, infused righteousness, Osiander put God himself. In a move that had its roots in Melanchthon’s view of history, Gallus then encouraged those who might have been shocked at Osiander’s teaching, that “they may think back on the Scripture, where they will find that this is nothing new but instead that this has gone on almost constantly in the orthodox and best churches.”122 He finished his tract by listing examples: Cain, Esau, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, the Roman Antichrist, heretics like the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, Antinomians and, he added parenthetically, “I might also nearly mention Interimists and Adiaphorists.”123 Finally, along came Osiander. VIII. Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum

The publications streaming from Magdeburg’s presses all contrasted Osiander’s view of justification to that of the true followers of Luther and the Augsburg Confession. The Christological controversy, which figured far more in other tracts, disappeared from view. Nowhere was that clearer than in Flacius’s tract from 24 September 1552, Concerning Righteousness against Osiander, Useful to Read.124 Once again, the title page provided a synopsis of Flacius’s argument. After quoting a gaggle of Bible verses that demanded following the law as the way to righteousness and life, Flacius addressed Osiander directly. What does righteousness mean in this place, Mr. Holyman, namely, “that which drives one to do right or the doing of right itself ”? Such a righteousness we have not been able to perform for God and his Law. However, this Christ has done with his obedience and suffering, that is, through his complete fulfilling of the Law. Therefore this very thing is our Righteousness. Matthew 5, Romans 8 & 10.125

122 Proba, G 2r – v : “Welche sich auch daran [an Osianders lehre] ergern … die wollen ein wenig zurück inn die Schrifft dencken/ da werden sie finden/ das es nichts newes ist/ sondern fast alweg also inn der rechten vnnd allerbesten Kirchen ist gangen.” This was a key argument in Flacius as well. 123 Proba, G 2v: “(mag auch schier sagen Interimisten and Adiaphoristen).” 124 Fla 06 (1552): Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum, nützlich zu lesen (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 24 September 1552). 125 Von der Gerechtigkeit, A 1r: “Was heist alhie Herr Heiligmann Gerechtigkeit, das nemlich ‘so einen recht zu thun treibt,’ oder ‘das recht thun selbs’? Ein solche gerechtigkeit haben wir Gott vnd seinem Gesetze nicht konnen leisten. Es hat sie aber Christus mit seinem gehorsam vnd leiden, das ist, durch seine gantze erfullung des Gesetzes gethan, darumb ist dasselbig vnsere Gerechtigkeit, Matth. 5. Rom. 8. 10.” The material in quotations is Osiander’s standard definition.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

137

Sure enough, in the very first pages of the tract, Flacius hauled out Osiander’s definitions of righteousness from his Schmeckbier and his earlier Confession. Such definitions arose from human intellect and accorded with Aristotle; they had nothing to do with Christ’s obedience. In contrast, Flacius set out to define both righteousness in general and the righteousness received from faith in Christ specifically. Righteousness was what one did in obedience to God’s order and will because of the right. Thus, creation in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) meant to walk before God in a God-pleasing way as revealed by God. (Here especially Flacius echoed what might be seen as a more Hebraic way of speaking about the matter.) Even after the Fall, this definition remained in human hearts and was reflected in pagan philosophers, an observation that led Flacius to discuss philosophy. Thus, Plato talked about a particular righteousness (particularis iustitia) as giving to each his [or her] own. Simonides talked of a universal righteousness (universalis iustitia), which Johannes Funck, Osiander’s disciple, also used.126 Flacius turned first to Plato’s definition, which Osiander and Funck hated and had replaced instead with their own (already cited on the cover of the tract). Flacius insisted, however, that Osiander’s definition was the same as Plato’s and Simonides’s. On the basis of a legal definition, that righteousness is a firm, immovable will that was not there earlier, Flacius then defined “will” in three ways: as the very power of the soul [to act] (differing from the intellect), the movement of the soul (willing itself; the movement of the soul) and “the thing that we desire or want.” Jurists defined will in the second way. Flacius concluded by setting forth a definition with which Osiander might agree but which countered Funck’s arguments. “Righteousness is the stable, firm and consistent doing right in the heart and external works.”127 Thus, it was not what moved a person to do good (a quality) but the actual doing of the good. Flacius continued his argument by citing Plato again, Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 and Aristides: “Righteousness is that we do not allow ourselves to lust after someone else’s goods.” Socrates in Xenophon says: “Righteousness is good, honorable, fitting, yes, obedience to divine laws.” Even Aristotle said “Righteousness is 126 Perhaps a reference to Johannes Funck, Auszug vnd kurtzer bericht: von der Gerechtigkeit der Christen fur Gott/ aus einer predig/ vber die wort Johannis. 1 Johan. 5. Vnd das ist das zeugnus das vns Gott das ewige Leben hat gegeben/ vnd solches Leben ist in seinem Son/ Wer den Son Gottes nicht hat/ der hat das Leben nicht (Königsberg, 1552). Simonides was Simonides of Ceos, a lyric poet and philosopher, whose poetry was discussed in Plato’s Protagoras. 127 Von der Gerechtigkeit, B 1r – v : Righteousness is first “ipsam Potentiam animae/ der seelen macht/ krafft ….” Second, it is “dieser krafft wirckung/ oder bewegung … das wollen/ ipsum uelle selbs. … Derhalben ist diese andere bedeutung ipse motus potentiae uolentis, die wirckung/ so auch das wollen oder der wille heisset.” Third, it is “das ding/ des wir begeren/ oder wollen … Qua significatione neque potentiam, neque eius potentiae motum significat.” So Flacius concluded: “Gerechtigkeit ist das bestendige/ feste/ stete recht thun des hertzens/ vnd eusserlichen wercks.”

138

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

performing obedience to all laws” and “the use of all virtues.” And Iamblichus (a neo-Platonist) said much the same thing: “the hearty, steadfast, constant doing right.” This heavy use of philosophy may surprise today’s readers, since Flacius has sometimes been portrayed as a philosophical lightweight or (at least in his later debates with Victorin Strigel over original sin) far more confident in using scriptural terms and definitions than philosophical ones. This myth, which has arisen and been maintained over centuries, simply did not obtain in this debate, where no single author used more philosophical terminology than Flacius, who relied both on Aristotelian causation and, here, philosophical definitions. At this very place, however, Flacius also gave his readers some insight into how he viewed these philosophers, showing both a sophistication in his reading and an eagerness to employ them in the central (Melanchthonian) theological task of definition. Lastly, Aristotle, who otherwise talks about these matters most clearly and substantially of all (except that he looks to God somewhat less in his disputations than Plato and Socrates), says that Iustitia universalis, [universal] righteousness, is a use of all virtues, as, on the contrary unrighteousness is the use of all vices.128

Flacius then reviewed Scripture to prove that human beings were created with all of these powers and that their correct use was righteousness. What made human beings righteous, before and after the Fall, was not the powers themselves but their use. Having called on philosophers and a few biblical passages for help in defining righteousness, Flacius then introduced arguments from logic, demonstrating once again, to his satisfaction at least, that righteousness was not a power in human beings or a quality but the actual doing of right things. Here again he referred to arguments from Aristotle and Plato. Osiander’s definition of righteousness did not, in Flacius’s view, pass muster even with philosophers like Aristotle or Seneca, who understood that righteousness was what one did to others (including, Christians would add, to God). The parable of the good trees bearing good fruit had nothing to do with some infused quality of divine righteousness, as Osiander believed, but simply with the argument that good works are the effect of faith. At this point in his tract, Flacius examined a passel of biblical texts.129 In the midst of this analysis, which included passages from Sirach 15, Luke 10 & 18, Matthew 5 & 6, Romans 10 and Galatians 3 (all of which said nothing about 128 Von der Gerechtigkeit, B 2v: “Letzlich spricht Aristoteles/ der sonst am aller deutlichsten vnd eigentlichesten von den dingen redet (on allein das er etwas weniger auff Gott in seinem Disputiren sihet/ denn Plato vnd Socrates) Iustitia uniuersalis/ die Gerechtigkeit sey ein brauch aller tugenden/ wie dagegen die vngerechtigkeit ein brauch ist/ aller vntugenden.” 129 Von der Gerechtigkeit, C 2v – D 2r.

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

139

Osiander’s essential divine righteousness), Flacius exclaimed that it was a shame that someone in God’s church had to prove what every Jew, Turk and Heathen already knew (concerning the definition of righteousness) and what Osiander proclaimed to be heretical. “Indeed, the entire Scripture, whenever it demands fear of God and righteousness from people, cries nothing else than, ‘My dear, listen! Be obedient.’ ”130 Upon this definitional canvas, Flacius then sketched how this righteousness, missing in humanity since the Fall, came first to Christ and then to believers.131 This essential righteousness of God judged (as law) and was fulfilled through Christ’s obedience and suffering. Over Osiander’s objections, Flacius insisted, as he had in the Verlegung, that Christ’s obedience was righteousness. Christ paid our debt and gave us true obedience and righteousness in the form of forgiveness, bestowed by divine imputation. Yet, exactly where one might expect a version of the substitutionary theory of the atonement, Flacius described Christ’s death in more patristic (and Luther-esque) terms of Christ’s victory over evil. For this purpose Christ not only brought plunder and victory from [his death] … but also that they [powers and principalities] owe eternal life to them [believers] as to the holiest … As now, I say, Christ achieved this great, glorious plunder of the purchased righteousness and of the eradicated unrighteousness, he ascended into the heights and with great triumph brought this great plunder and these spiritual treasures by himself to his Father.132

The Father then heard the pleas and representation of Christ, the High Priest, and reckoned to the believing sinner Christ’s righteousness or fulfilling of the law. Over against this view, Flacius pitted Osiander’s mistaken discussion of the 1500-year gap between redemption and justification and his distinction between an inner and outer word. In a final section of the tract, Flacius dealt with a correlative problem raised by his emphasis on Christ’s obedience. If all depended on Christ’s obedience, what good was Christ’s essential righteousness? Here the Anselmic argument became much stronger. Christ was the only one who could satisfy the Father’s wrath; his humanity also had to be completely holy and thus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. This essential righteousness, however important it may have been for God, was not, Flacius insisted, the believer’s imputed righteousness. Then, using a comparison similar to one employed by Anselm in Cur Deus homo?, 130 Von der Gerechtigkeit, D 1r: “Ja die gantze schrifft/ wenn sie Gotsfürchtigkeit vnd gerechtigkeit vom menschen erfoddert/ so schreiet sie nicht anders/ denn/ Lieber höre/ Sey gehorsam ….” 131 Von der Gerechtigkeit, D 2r – E 4r. 132 Von der Gerechtigkeit, E 2r: “Hat derhalben Christus … nicht allein den raub vnd Sieg dauon gebracht/ … Sonder auch/ das sie jhnen als den allerheiligsten das ewige leben schuldig sind …. Wie nu/ spreche ich/ Christus diesen grossen Herrlichen raub der erworbenen Gerechtigkeit/ vnd vertilgten vngerechtigkeit erlanget/ ist er hinauff in die höhe gefaren/ vnd mit grossem Triumph diesen grossen raub/ vnd diese Geistliche schetze fur sich zu seinem Vater gefurt ….”

140

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Flacius argued that the service (not the person) of a lesser noble to a greater one was righteousness but that same service done by a person of higher birth received more honor, which in this case was needed.133 Moreover, this divine nature with its essential righteousness was united with Christ’s humanity, giving humankind a great advocate [Vorsprecher] before the Father. Finally, through Christ’s obedience believers became purified temples of God so that, on the Last Day, they would see God face-to-face and participate in the divinity and be like God.134 Although Flacius and other opponents of Osiander rarely engaged in such speculation, in this case the language of participation arose out of Flacius’s attempt to interpret 2 Peter 1:4 out from under Osiander by insisting upon an eschatological interpretation of such language. IX. Ermanung an alle Stende der Christlichen Kirchen in Preußen The carefully constructed arguments of Von der Gerechtigkeit, when coupled with the appeals to the Christians in Königsberg and Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, gave some indication that there was a change afoot in the approach to Osiander taken by Magdeburg’s theologians. The full extent of the shift became visible in the next tract, published at the end of September, An Admonition to All of the Estates of the Christian Churches in Prussia regarding Osiander’s Teaching.135 It was published on 29 September 1552, only a few weeks before Osiander’s death on 17 October. It was the third collaborative effort by the Magdeburgers and their last until 1555. The citation of 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test everything; hold to the good,” gave some indication of the booklet’s contents. It contained a proposal on how to resolve the division in the Prussian church. The authors began by setting the present conflict in an ecclesial context. The early church was marked by concern for others. The Magdeburgers, while insisting that they were not meddling in an office outside their jurisdiction and were not motivated by pride, likened their involvement to citizens’ response to a community fire, where everyone had to try to put it out. They characterized their previous publications as brotherly advice and help. They then listed their writings on the subject, omitting only the Latin tract published in Wittenberg and the Antidotum. They then made their proposal for solving the crisis. They praised the solicitation of various churches in the region but noted that, since the title pages of many often showed what was inside, they were not read 133 Von der Gerechtigkeit, E 4v: “Aus diesem allem kan man sehr klar sehen/ wie die Wesentliche oder Göttliche gerechtigkeit Christi sampt der reinen empfengnis seiner menscheit vns die gerechtigkeit des gehorsams/ oder erfüllung des Gesetzes zu erlangen/ nötig gewest sein.” 134 Von der Gerechtigkeit, F 1r: “[Wir] werden auch vnser masse der Gottheit teilhafftig werden vnd Gotte gleich sein/ Vnd das wird eigentlich sein das ewige leben.” 135 F/G 03 (1552): Ermanung an alle Stende der Christlichen Kirchen in Preußen Osianders lere halben … 1. Theß. 5. Den Geist dempffet nicht/ die Weissagung verachtet nicht/ prüfet aber alles/ vnd das gute behaltet/ Meidet allen bösen schein (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552).

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

141

with an open mind (a possible reference to Osiander’s sometimes cavalier responses in the Schmeckbier and his fight with Mörlin over the title of his tract). They also regretted that only the opinion from the Württemberg church had been given any credence (by Duke Albrecht), so that Osiander boasted of victory [over Mörlin] because of it, despite the fact that the document itself stressed that the theologians from Württemberg did not know enough to judge the case.136 Since this collecting of theological opinions failed to have the desired effect and had only made matters worse, Flacius and Gallus advised the Prussian churches to follow their example in their fight against the Augsburg Interim and in the Adiaphoristic controversy. They described how churches that had followed the Adiaphorists either had established the Antichrist’s gruel or were tainted by it. According to Psalm 133, unity was a gift of God. Thus, the Magdeburgers were willing to trust God to establish it in Prussia. What the authors then proposed might be considered the marching orders for gnesio-Lutheran behavior in church disputes. Emphasizing that the Prussian churches had to be earnest about holding to the truth of the divine Word, the authors suggested that a few respected members of the chief congregations (with the approval of the others) approach Duke Albrecht and humbly request that they not be forced to distort, blaspheme and suppress “the teaching of the divine Word according to the Augsburg Confession,” which they had preserved through God’s grace for so long at great risk. Furthermore, they should request that Duke Albrecht, as a Christian prince, would relent and help so that “orderly, Christian understanding in this matter might occur, concerning which Osiander himself cannot deny as a matter of equity and honor and, assuming he had a Christian character, he would desire to encourage.”137 If such flexibility in Osiander proved impossible, the authors continued, then Prussian Christians were faced with one of two options. The first called for an assembly of specially elected Prussian Christians of the highest character and Scriptural knowledge to compare, with due neutrality, courage and diligence, the opinions of the other churches to the writings of the various theologians in Prussia in order to determine “which doctrinal position  – the old one of yours and other churches or the new one of Osiander – are correctly founded on Scripture.”138 The second proposal, which the authors admitted would be 136 See GA 10: 703, 16 – ​704, 15, in Osiander’s work against Mörlin. For more on the Württ­ emberg responses, see chapter 5. 137 Ermanung, B 2r – v : “Vnd das F. D. als ein Christlicher Fürst Gnedigst wolle nachgeben vnd auch verhelffen/ das ordentliche Christliche erkentnis in der sachen möchte gescheh/ deren sich Oasinder [sic!] selbs zu billigkeit vnd ehren nicht vermag zuwegern [zu weigern]/ vnd wenn er ein Christlich gamut [Gemut] hette/ beghern vnd fordern würde.” 138 Ermanung, B 2v: “… das jr durch gemeine stimmen ewer landtschafft aus ewerm mittel Christlicher gemeinden hin vnd wider erwelet/ Gottsfürchtige vnd der schrifft verstendige/ vnuerdechtige menner/ denselben aufferleget vnd befhelet bey jhren Christlichen pflichten/ so sie Gott/ seiner Kirchen/ auch dem Vaterlande hierin schüldig sine/ beider parten ewer lerer

142

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

more difficult to bring about although by far the best solution, would be to assemble the chief teachers along with others of the highest Christian character and experience with Holy Scripture. These people would then read all of the writings from both sides in the dispute and search the God’s Word for whatever is right and clear. And we have no doubt that where God-fearing, learned, intelligent folk take up these matters in fear of God and with prayer to him, people who would weigh the chief arguments of both sides, one after the other, in a good manner, thoughtfully, meekly, and with complete sincerity, setting aside all ranting, ornamentation of fancy words and other deceits, one would with God’s help easily come to the basis of the truth.139

In part, what made this document so remarkable was that several of these proposals were in fact used in later phases of this dispute. After Osiander’s death, Johannes Funck would face a hearing before Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg and be forced to recant. Melanchthon would journey with other theologians to a conference in Nuremberg, to which even Johannes Brenz was invited, to expose and drive out the few remaining Osiandrists there. Even more importantly, this document demonstrated two important sides of this controversy. On the one hand, Osiander’s combatants clearly wanted to establish peace (albeit on their own terms) in Prussia’s churches. On the other, the problem of authority – exacerbated by Luther’s death – found its solution in a two-pronged approach: gathering representative theologians and other Christians and letting them judge the written record of their peers on the basis of Scripture. Convinced of Scripture’s clarity to the well-trained mind, these two gnesio-Lutherans also valued ecclesial peace highly, but never at the expense of the gospel. If all else failed, these authors concluded, then the time for silence had ended, and Prussian Christians, rather than quitting their posts, had to confess: “That you both together and each on his [or her] own remain with the truth of the divine Word and confess to the same publicly alongside your pastors or preachers.”140 With these words, Flacius and Gallus not only sought to describe and justify their own behavior but turned it into the proper course of action for all Christians. This penchant for confessing, which Robert Kolb so aptly described in his book schrifften/ vnd neben denselben zuforderst die eingebrachten bedencken der auswendigen Kirchen/ hindan gesetzt aller menschlichen affect/ semptlich/ einmütig vnd vleisig zulesen/ gegenander zuerwegen vnd zuurteilen/ welche meinung der lere/ die alte ewer vnd anderer Kirchen/ oder die newe Osianders/ in der schrifft rechtschaffen gegründet sey.” 139 Ermanung, B 3v: “Vnd ist bey vns kein zweiuel/ da also in der furcht vnd anruffung Gottes/ von Gotsfürchtigen/ gelerten/ verstendigen leuten die sachen fürgenomen/ vnd beiderteil fürnembste gründe/ einer nach dem andern mit gutter musse [=maße; Weise]/ mit bedacht/ sanfftmut vnd aufrichtigkeit fein blos würden erwogen/ alle geschrey/ schmuck der prechtigen wort vnd ander betrug hindan gesetzt/ man würde mit Gottes hülff leichtlich kommen zum grunde der warheit.” 140 Ermanung, B 4v: “… das jr gleichwol semptlich vnd ein jeder für sich bey der warheit Göttlichs worts bleibt/ zu derselben neben ewern Pfarhern oder predigern euch öffentlich bekennet.”

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

143

on the subject, not only provided the raison d’etre for Magdeburg’s theologians and their writings, but it also shaped an entire generation of Lutherans living between the “confessing moment” in Augsburg in 1530 and the publication of The Book of Concord fifty years later.141 X. Beweisung With Osiander’s death on 17 October 1552, the controversy did not come to an end but instead, at least in the case of Joachim Mörlin, came to a head. The Osiandrists, which included a mix of courtiers and theologians supported by the aging Duke Albrecht, continued to hold onto power and eventually rid Prussia of Osiander’s chief nemesis, Mörlin. One early result of this power struggle was the continuous discounting of Osiander’s more distant opponents. Here Flacius’s charge that Osiander’s teaching made believers into (false) gods seemed a particularly easy target. As a result, at the New Year 1553, Flacius again took to the presses with a proof that Osiander’s teaching indeed led to the divinization of human beings.142 The title of the document once again demonstrated that Flacius was hardly backing down: Proof That Osiander Holds and Teaches That the Divinity Dwells in True Believers in the Same Way As in the Humanity of Christ Itself and That It Further Follows from This That Christians Are Gods in the Same Way and Must Be Worshiped Just Like the Man Jesus Himself. The tract itself provided several new insights into Flacius’s modus operandi. First, he explained to the reader that he had already raised the issue of believers’ divinization in Wider die Götter. Although the master was dead, Flacius thought that Osiander’s followers would continue this line of thought, just not in as crass a manner. Then Flacius justified his return to this subject: “So that they [the poor Christians] may counter such gross raving and sure signs of the seductive spirit and recognize that God himself wants to warn them against Osiander’s error through such obvious fairytales.”143 After proving to his satisfaction that such divinization was indeed the consequence of Osiander’s thought, Flacius analyzed this position using rigorous, Aristotelian logic.144 He even outlined Osiander’s logic in Latin before translating it into German. Major premise: The humanity of 141 Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991). 142 Fla 07 (1553): Beweisung, das Osiander helt vnd leret, das die Gottheit eben also in den rechtgleubigen wone, wie in der menscheit Christi selbst. Vnd das weiter daraus folge, das die Christen eben also ware Götter sein, vnd angebetet müssen werden, als der mensch Jhesus selbst (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1 January 1553). 143 Beweisung, A 1v: “… damit sie [die armen Christen] sich an solche groben schwermerey vnd gewissen zeichen des verfürischen Geists stossen/ vnd erkenne/ das sie Gott selbs durch solche scheinbarliche merzeichen für des Osianders jrthumb habe wollen warnen.” 144 Beweisung, A 2r: “Vnd damit man ja klar verstehe die meinung diesses texts Osiandri … so wil ich diesen seinen text in form vnd recht gestalt eins arguments austeilen/ wie man pflecht in der Dialectica zu thun/ ween man ein argument eigentlich vnd gründtlich examinirn wil.”

144

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Christ is so indwelt by the divinity that it is one person with the divinity. Minor premise: We are members of Christ’s humanity and “bone of his bone” (Genesis 2). Conclusion: “Therefore we are indwelt by God as Christ is and we are one person with God.”145 In an expanded German version Flacius came to much the same conclusion. Yet his reason for providing this was not only a sign of his dependence on good logic, but also, given that (in Flacius’s opinion) Osiander said this everywhere in his writings, it showed that Osiander was truly an antichrist who (in line with 2 John 7) denied Christ’s coming in the flesh. John 1:14 said it all, Flacius thought, but even this text Osiander took and twisted to conform to his views. Flacius even reported having heard about a sermon in which Osiander claimed that those with thin skin would glow as a result of this indwelling. Although not sure whether such comments were genuine, Flacius, drawing an obvious contrast to his own rigorous logic, insisted “they were not unlike [Osiander’s] grand, long, four-sided, and hyperbolic words.”146 Flacius simply noted that such things were also said by Anabaptists and ravers, against which Christians needed warnings, lest they soared too high with Osiander’s essential righteousness of God and become gods themselves. What was all over the Bible, as Luther and others had proved, was that the sinner’s righteousness consisted in Christ’s suffering and obedience and in his fulfilling of the law reckoned to us through faith. In phrases faintly echoing Luther’s theology of the cross, Flacius concluded, “Whoever now will kneel in this simplicity next to the manger of the infant Jesus and sit by his cross, he who was born and given for us, … that one will in the end also go with him into heaven.”147 XI. Explicatio loci Sancti Pauli Rom. 3 At the very time Melanchthon produced a speech defending Wittenberg’s doctorates against Osiander’s calumnies, Wittenberg’s presses were printing a second Latin tract by Flacius, in which he provided an interpretation of Romans 3:21: “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God is revealed.” At one level, this fifteen-page booklet demonstrated how much Flacius owed his teacher, Philip Melanchthon. He began by insisting, like Melanchthon, that this verse of Romans was the “proposition, scopus, head and summation of the entire

145 Beweisung, A 2v: “MAIOR. Humanitas Christi ita inhabitatur a diuinitate, ut sit una persona cum diuinitate. MINOR. Nos sumus membra humanitatis Christi & os de osse eius. Conclusio. Ergo sic inhabitamur a Deo, sicut Christus & una persona sumus cum Deo.” 146 Beweisung, A 3r: “… prechtigen/ langen vnd vier schrödigen/ vnd hyperbolischen worten nicht vngemeß.” 147 Beweisung, A 3v: “… wer nu will in dieser einfalt hienyden bey der wiegen vnd bey dem Creutz sitzen des Kindleins Jesu/ so vns geborn vnd gegeben ist … der wird auch letzlich mit ihm in den himel faren.”

C. Preparing a Brew for Osiander: Flacius and Gallus on the Offensive: 1552 –1553

145

epistle.”148 He then pointed to Osiander’s faulty interpretation of this verse in his Refutatio Philippi.149 At the same time, Flacius’s response to Osiander was very much his own. He began by underscoring the importance of distinguishing law and gospel. He then set the text from Romans alongside of Paul’s fight in Galatians against the Judaizers, who confused law and gospel. In Romans, Paul opposed them first with the law (Romans 1:18 – ​3:20) and then with the gospel (Romans 3:21 ff.). He then insisted (with Melanchthon) that Paul’s understanding of righteousness was “a common Hebrew figure of speech.”150 In yet another nod to Melanchthon’s method, Flacius outlined a series of questions about iustitia that Paul answered in chapter 3 of this epistle: a) what it came out of, b) how, c) by whom it was given, through whom and by what means, d) to what end, and with what qualities. Flacius spent the next four pages detailing Paul’s answers to these questions. First, this iustitia came from the gospel, not the law. Second, it came through faith, not works. Third, it came from God and God’s grace alone. In this longer section, Flacius also explained the various causes, emphasizing that redemption of Christ was the formal cause, not simply for the acquisition of iustitia but also for its application to the sinner (thus tying together redemption and justification). “Therefore, justification or absolution is that very redemption or extraction or reconciliation and acceptance from sin or unrighteousness and God’s wrath.”151 The instrumental cause was faith and the material cause Christ’s blood. Fourth, the proximate final cause was the remitting of sin and unrighteousness. Fifth, as the last final cause Flacius named God’s glory, so that God might be worshiped.152 The last section of the tract listed a series of sophisms that Osiander (whom Flacius called here a holy man [sanctus vir] as a play on his Hellenized name) had invented.153 First, to the phrase “justified … through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” Osiander wanted to changed it to “which is acquired through the redemption,” thus separating redemption and justification and destroying Paul’s formal cause. Second, Osiander improperly understood v. 26 (“ad exhibitionem iustitiae eius”)154 to make it conform to his separation of redemption and justification, when Paul intended the very opposite, using here a Hebraism. Third, 148 Fla 09 (1553): Explicatio, A 1v: “Qui locus & totius Epistolae propositio, scopus ac caput est, & veluti summa.” For this section, the digital copy from the Universitäts‑ und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt (urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:1– ​213812) was used, accessed 27 July 2009. 149 GA 10: 613, 29 – ​626, 10. 150 Explicatio, A 2v. 151 Explicatio, A 3v: “Iustificatio ergo seu absolutio est illa ipsa ex peccato seu iniusticia & ira Dei redemptio seu extraction, seu reconciliatio & acceptatio.” 152 What was “missing” from Flacius’s exposition was any mention of comfort, which he could on occasion mention but which was hardly central to his theological argumentation. 153 Explicatio, A 5r – A 8r. 154 Vulgate: “ad ostensionem iustitiae eius” (for demonstrating his righteousness). Flacius quoted the German: “Auff das er darbiete etc.” which paraphrased the final edition of the Luther Bible: “Auff das er zu diesen zeiten darböte die Gerechtigkeit, die fur jm gilt.”

146

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Flacius explained the Greek δια with reference both to Bucer’s rendering (in his Romans commentary) as per and to Luther’s translation as “in dem das.” Both, he argued, understood righteousness as either bestowed through forgiveness or to be that very forgiveness. However, since the Greek word could also be translated as propter (on account of), this referred not only to the efficient cause but also to the final cause. Thus, the sons of Jacob went to Egypt on account of both their father’s command [efficient cause] and their search for food [final cause]. Again, Flacius argued, this destroyed Osiander’s division of redemption and justification, since forgiveness was not the cause of justification but its effect. Yet a fourth sophism arose with the phrase, “in the present time,” which did not simply mean the time Paul was writing but all times. Thus, again in Flacius’s opinion, Osiander’s division of redemption and justification collapsed. The fifth and final specious argument revolved around the word solus (alone), which Luther used in translating “in that he [God] alone is righteous.” Osiander had used Luther’s addition to the text to prove that only divine righteousness and not Christ’s redemption was the true source of believers’ justification.155 Flacius now had first to excuse Luther’s addition of the word (which was not the same as his addition of “alone” as in the phrase “faith alone”). For Flacius, Luther’s translation meant that God was the source of all goodness and righteousness, so that creation itself could be called good (Genesis 1) and Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit was the Holy One of the saints and the righteous one of the righteous. With that, Flacius argued, he had correctly interpreted Paul and refuted Osiander’s sophistic distortions of the apostle.

D. Setting the Record Straight: Mörlin’s Historia of 1554 For Joachim Mörlin, the Osiandrian controversy culminated on 14 February 1553, a full four months after Osiander’s death, when Duke Albrecht sent him into exile. Arriving in Danzig, Mörlin made several appeals to the prince, even using the offices of Duke John Frederick of Saxony and his superintendent, Justus Menius. Moreover, according to Mörlin, 400 women and children assembled in the prince’s courtyard on 27 March to present a petition for the return their beloved pastor.156 When the prince refused to receive their representatives, they sang several of Luther’s hymns before dispersing. All this was to no avail. Although the prince allowed Mörlin to take his wife and household with him, the 155 GA 10: 623, 35 – ​624, 15. Osiander simply used Luther’s translation without referring to Luther. 156 See Mör 02 (1554): Historia, a 1r – a 3r. Specifically, the women and children sang Luther’s hymned versions of Psalms 12 & 67 (WA 35: 109 – ​20; 123 – ​24) and a version of Psalm 51 by Erhart Hegenwalt, “Erbarme dich mein, O Herre Gott.”

D. Setting the Record Straight: Mörlin’s Historia of 1554

147

exiled pastor left for Braunschweig alone, unable in the short term to come up with the considerable moving costs. When word reached Mörlin early in 1554 that Johannes Funck, Osiander’s follower and now a leader of that party in Königsberg, was about to publish his own report of the situation (it appeared on 28 March 1554),157 Mörlin set about publishing his own account of the affair, producing only his third published comment on the matter, but providing historians with a raft of documents on the entire affair.158 Beyond that, Mörlin also provided a fascinating window into his own theology and his understanding of biblical and ecclesial authority. The Historia thus provided both a defense of his actions and of his faith. It also set the stage for his successful return some fourteen years later. The Historia published (in 1554!) the very first defense of Osiander’s Königsberg opponents from February 1551, the Antilogia.159 This delay contrasted to Osiander’s Bericht und Trostschrift and other documents that had quickly found their way into print. The Historia also reported some of the private goings-on among Osiander’s supporters in the early stages of the dispute and the first occurrences of some of the major points of contention. For example, on the 23 January 1551 Mörlin attended a dinner at Johannes Funck’s house, where Andreas Aurifaber, court physician and confidant to the duke (as well as Osiander’s son-in-law), was asked to speculate about whether Christ had blood after the resurrection. Mörlin was so incensed at the question, that he posed a counterquestion: Are fools like other people and will they go to heaven? At the same meal Funck complained about the Wittenberg Praeceptores and their definition of justification as the forgiveness of sins.160 The next day at 11 a.m., a greatly distraught Funck visited Mörlin and in tears questioned Osiander’s position. If the previous day Funck had struck the oftrepeated theme of Osiander’s mistrust of Wittenberg-trained teachers, Mörlin now contrasted (in his 1554 rendition of events) the simplicity of the Catechism 157 Johannes Funck, Warhafftiger vnd grundlicher Bericht wie vnd was gestalt die Ergerliche Spaltung von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sich anfenglich im Lande Preussen erhaben vnd was eigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit Christlich/ nach brauch der heiligen Schrifft/ vnd der rechtschaffnen Lehrer alter vnd vnserer zeit/ gehalten werden müge : den armen gewissen so diser Zeit durch mancherley Schreiben/ affterreden/ vnd erdicht der vnbestendigen Geister/ erirret sind zu Trost/ den andern jre jrthumb zuerkennen/ zur vermanung geschriben / durch Johan. Funck (Königsberg: Hans Weinreich, 28 March 1553). The document is 103 pages long. 158 The full title reads: Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1 April 1554). The preface is dated 27 January 1554. The entire document, the longest single document published in the entire dispute, runs 216 pages. For a splendid reconstruction of the events surrounding the controversy, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 154 – ​316. 159 Historia, F 2v – G 2v: Antilogia seu contraria doctrina, inter Lutherum & Osiandrum. For the history of this document as a response to Osiander’s Bericht und Trostschrift, see chapter 1. 160 This is the same Funck who, according to Mörlin, on 4 June 1551 at a public beer garden drew a torture wheel and gallows to show what would happen to Mörlin. (Of course, years later, it was Funck who was executed for treason.)

148

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

to the complexity of Osiander’s position (“He only wants to see our Lord God in a golden robe”).161 So Mörlin admonished Funck to stick “with the simplicity, as the dear God reveals himself in the manger in Bethlehem, in his preaching, yes, in his death, innocent, holy suffering and dying. There is where we touch him in this life and leave the high speculation alone until at last we come to him in the afterlife ….”162 Within two weeks, Funck’s apparent change of heart disappeared, and he once again became Osiander’s most dedicated supporter. Examples of Mörlin’s sensitivity to the dangers of philosophical speculation abound in the Historia. In a review of Osiander’s Confession, Mörlin opined that Osiander did not define righteousness like Christ, Paul or the prophets but more like the jurists, the Papists, and “the unbelieving, damned heathen.” This philosophical bias led Osiander to reducing Jeremiah 23 to a reference to Christ’s divinity and imagining that when 1 John 1 talked about Christ’s blood, it really meant the divinity in the blood.163 This sensitivity to the simplicity of the Christian message and its contrast with philosophy (something sometimes lacking in Flacius’s approach to Osiander, as we have seen), which first appeared in published form in Mörlin’s Bericht, also came to light in an incident involving a sermon Mörlin preached on Christmas Day 1551. At other points in the Historia, Mörlin characterized his flock as filled with all kinds of simple parish children and honest folks who held to the pure teaching of Christ.164 Throughout the controversy, it was very difficult for Osiander’s opponents to publish anything (see below), thus making Mörlin’s preaching his only reliable avenue to the Prussian public. In this sermon, he mentioned that 161 Historia, D 3r: “Ey ja/ antwort ich [Mörlin] wiederumb/ das ist recht/ jr Herrn [Osiander] wolt nicht bey dem schlechten Catechismo bleiben/ sondern nur vnsern Herrgott im gülden peltz sehen/ da gehet es denn/ wie es gehen sol/ das er euch heraberstürtzet/ in abgrundt der Hellen.” 162 Historia, D 3r: “… vnd vermanet ihn/ das er mit vns bey der einfalt wolte bleiben/ wie sich der liebe Gott offenbaret in der Krippen zu Bethlehem/ in seiner predig/ ja in seinem tod/ vnschüldigem heiligen leiden vnnd sterben/ da wolten wir jn in diesem leben handelen/ vnd der hohen speculation müssig gehen/ bis so lange wir in jenes leben zu jm kemen/ da wolten wirs denn schauwen vnd sehen etc.” 163 Historia, R 2r – v. Mörlin also recounted how one ducal counselor, Sir Caspar von Nostitz, painted on his house in protest against Osiander a saying from Ambrose, “Mors Christi est iustificatio peccatoris” along with a rhyme: “Gottes wesentliche Gerechtigkeit, Die ist nicht meine Seligkeit. Sondern das leiden Jesu Christ, Mein heil trost und rechtfertigung ist.” Funck attacked him from the pulpit, saying in part that if one wanted to trust Christ’s work, one should add the works of monks, priests, whores and scoundrels and see if they will help get a person into heaven. 164 Historia, P 3r: Speaking about Osiander’s authority to appoint assistants in Prussia’s churches: “Denn ich im Kneiphoff/ vnter den Bürgern/ wissentlich nicht mehr gehabt dieser Schurffen vnd bösen gantz halben/ den sechs grindier reudiger Schaff/ denn andern mus vnd wil ich/ so wol als einem Erbarn/ wolweisen Rad/ allen meinen … Pfarkinderlein/ … als ehrentreiche/ auffrichtige bestendige biderleut vnd from Christliche hertzen bey der reinen lehr Christi Jesu jres geliebten Heilandes gehalten haben.”

D. Setting the Record Straight: Mörlin’s Historia of 1554

149

believers do not know God in his essence, a statement to which Osiander took great exception. In defending himself in the Historia, Mörlin wrote And to this extent I confess now just as I also confessed then, that I did not only preach that we do not know what God is in God’s essence, let alone try to discuss and talk about it165 … but I said even more. The Scripture also talks very little about who God is in God’s very self, namely, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Instead, it talks for the most part about what God is for us: namely God is merciful, who lets our misery abate and moves us gently, who suffers with us and takes upon himself such misery. Thus, as from the devil, I defend myself from raving speculators, those who want to interpret absolutely words with relational meanings that refer to specific contexts. Thus, for them, the righteousness of God becomes that by which God is righteous in God’s very being. Watch out! Or, flee to the Bible, which shows our dear God wearing baby shoes and draws God out of that heavenly essence (within which God can never be understood in this life) to be among us, in that God speaks, has eyes, ears, hands, feet, which God actually does not have. Not, I say, in God’s divine essence, as God is in God’s very self from all eternity, but instead as God came into the world and walked among us. Oh my! Look at how John makes himself happy and is filled with joy about this and says, “We have also seen the glory of the only begotten Son.” Where is that, dear John, where is that? “He is lying in a manger, has hands and feet, body and soul,” that is, “The Word became flesh” [John 1:14].166

This anti-speculative edge to Mörlin’s criticisms of Osiander came to expression in a section of the Historia devoted to refuting Osiander’s arguments. On Jeremiah 23:6, Mörlin admitted that Osiander did not deny Christ’s two natures or 165 Here he cited specific texts in Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary. In the margins, an early reader (of the copy in HAB: S 230b.4o Helmst [1]) also cited Evagrius, from Bk. 6, ch. 21 of the Historia tripartita, who stated “Quod ineffabile est, ratione Silencij adoretur.” The last citation might also be the source for Philip Melanchthon’s similar comment in the first edition of his Loci communes. 166 Historia, R 3v – R 4r: “Vnd so fern bekenne ich mich darzu/ Gleich wie ich mich auch dazu bekenne/ das ich nicht allein geprediget/ wir wissen nicht was Gott sey in seinem wesen/ können es viel weniger reden vnd sagen/ wie auch schreibet Gregorius Nazianzenus lib. 2 & 3. de Theologia, Augustinus in expositione Psal. 85. Item lib. 5. de trini. Vnd lib. 1. Confeß: cap. 6. Ambrosius lib de fide contra Arianos, vnd Hilarius de unitate patris & filij &c. [Mg: Euagrius Lib. 6. trip. Cap. 21: Quod ineffabile est, ratione Silencij adoretur.] Sondern hab noch mehr gesaget/ die Schrifft rede auch wenig daruon/ wer Gott in jm selbst sey/ nemlich Gott Vater/ Son/ vnd Heiliger Geist/ Sondern rede das meiste teil daruon was er vns ist/ Nemlich Barmhertzig/ der sich vnser elend erweichen lest vnd leichtlich bewegen/ hat mit vns mitleiden/ niemet sich solchs jamers an. … Darumb hüte dich vor dem Schwermer als vor dem teuffel selbst (hab ich gesagt) der vns alle uocabula relatiue significantia & ad aliquid, wil absolute interpretiern, Iusticia dei, qua ipse iustus est &c. Hüte dich/ sag ich/ oder du must dich der Bibel begeben/ die zeucht den lieben Gott mit Kinder schuhen an/ etc. füret jn aus seinem heimlichen wehsen (darinnen er in diesem leben niemermehr zu begreiffen ist) herausser vnter vns/ da redet er/ hat augen/ ohren/ hende/ füsse etc. Wie er es denn in der warheit nat/ Nicht sag ich in seinem Göttlichem wehsen/ wie er Gott von ewigkeit in jm selbst ist/ Sondern wie er in die Welt komen/ vnter vns gegangen. Ey da macht sich Joannes lustig/ ist frölich daruber/ vnd sagt/ wir haben auch die herrligkeit Gottes des eingebornen Sons gesehen. Wo da lieber Joannes, wo da? Da leid er in der Krippen/ hat hende vnnd füß/ leib vnd seel/ das heist/ das Wort ist fleisch worden etc.”

150

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

his suffering but that he did deny that Christ’s death and resurrection were part of the believer’s righteousness, insisting instead that it consisted only in Christ’s divine nature. To uphold his interpretation, Osiander held that Jeremiah 23 was talking about three distinct things: the incarnation, redemption, and (separately) righteousness. Against this, Mörlin first argued in favor of viewing this text as a unity. “There stands an entire, full text that gives an entire, full meaning” (namely, that God incarnate is our righteousness). There is not a first saying nor a last one; rather, the first and last word give a single, full, undivided meaning, that Christ is our righteousness there, there, there, in this person and thus where he, God and Human Being, suffers and dies …. Thus our righteousness is not God absolutely but rather the crucified God, as Paul, Jeremiah and Isaiah clearly report ….167

With the possible exception of Andreas Musculus, no one besides Mörlin used such highly paradoxical language, reminiscent of Luther’s own theology of the cross. Long before Jürgen Moltmann used the phrase for the title of a book, Mörlin was already proclaiming “the crucified God.”168 But this passage also touched on another, related issue: how to interpret Scripture. Mörlin pleaded here for a simple, integrated interpretation of Scripture. He also found Osiander’s approach assumed a basic unclarity of Scripture. For example, when 1 John talks about Christ’s blood as the believer’s righteousness, Osiander assumed that what it was really talking about was Christ’s divinity. To this arbitrary interpretation, Mörlin responded: “For the gloss, ‘Scripture names many things but it is still not about [what it names],’ is the patron, source and font of all heresy.”169 Another theme of these letters revolved around the question of Luther’s (and Wittenberg’s) authority, an issue already raised by Funck at his dinner party. Mörlin also recounted a letter sent to Michael Stiffel, in which Osiander complained that Melanchthon had prejudiced Luther and that both followed an “Aristotelian Theology” more according to the flesh than the Spirit.170 Here, as in other cases, Philip Melanchthon along with his Loci communes also came under attack. Yet Mörlin, despite his “gnesio-Lutheran” label, at several places in the Historia 167 Historia, X 1v – X 2r: “… da stehet ein gantzer volliger Text/ der gibt eine gantz vollige meinung/ das vnsere Gerechtigkeit sey/ der Gott/ so aus dem … vnd ist da kein erster noch letzter Spruch/ Sondern die ersten vnd letzten wort/ geben ein einige vollige vnzergentzte meinung/ das Christus vnser Gerechtigkeit ist/ do/ do/ do/ der gestalt vnd also/ do er Gott vnd Mensch leidet vnd stirbet … So ist vnsere Gerechtigkeit GOtt/ nicht absolute, Sondern der gecreutzigte Gott/ wie Paulus/ Jeremias/ vnd Isaias klerlich melden/ dauon in meiner verantwortung mehr.” 168 See Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ As the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson & John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974). 169 Historia, Y 4v: “Denn die Glosa/ die Schrifft nennet viel ding/ ists aber darumb noch nicht/ ist ein patron/ grund vnd vrsprung aller Ketzerey.” 170 Historia, D 4v.

D. Setting the Record Straight: Mörlin’s Historia of 1554

151

specifically praised and defended Melanchthon. For example, Mörlin pointed to Luther’s preface to his Latin works from 1545, which specifically praised Melanchthon and his Loci.171 A related problem to the authority and meaning of Luther and Melanchthon’s writings was the correct construal of Osiander’s writings. Influenced in part by Brenz’s diffident opinion, later Osiandrists like Funck had insisted that their leader’s opponents had willfully misconstrued his writings, a charge also implied in the responses from Württemberg. Mörlin dismissed this charge by recounting a visit to Osiander’s classroom, where on 16 –​17 April 1551 he heard his lectures on Psalm 71 (for which Mörlin claimed to have two set of transcripts), in which Osiander repeatedly separated redemption from justification and spoke of the latter without even mentioning Christ’s death.172 Mörlin insisted that anyone who did not understand what Osiander meant, “must … be a crude, coarse blockhead and clod.”173 But then Mörlin faced the hermeneutical challenge implicit in the struggle with Funck. “Nevertheless, even today one tries to shout folks down by force, [saying] that no one took his meaning correctly, including all of those who judged his doctrine. More on that later.”174 Indeed, later in the tract, Mörlin expressed utter amazement to the prince that, from Osiander’s perspective, Osiander’s readers understood neither him nor, for that matter, Luther.175 After summarizing Brenz’s Declaration and demonstrating how it could be read in his (Mörlin’s) favor, he contrasted this unanimity to the arrogance of Osiander, who drew three “A’s” on the wall to remind him how he would win: with help of the Almighty, Duke Albrecht and Königsberg’s executioner, Adam.176 The Historia reflected still another important aspect of the dispute: the role of publication in pushing the dispute forward. For Mörlin, not only did publication of the Bericht und Trostschrift cause him to become Osiander’s biggest nightmare, but, after the opponents had prepared the Antilogia, Osiander was privy to a copy 171 Historia,

E 1r, quoting WA 54: 179, 1–​12. Osiander had also attacked Caspar Cruciger’s commentary on John in the Bericht und Trostschrift (GA 9: 526 – ​28). Upon receiving copies of Osiander’s Bericht und Trostschrift on 6 February 1551, Mörlin reported to the prince that he could no longer act as a mediator in the dispute. 172 Historia, H 3r – v. These are reproduced in GA 9: 610 – ​615 (cf. 645 f.). 173 Historia, H 3v: “der muste freilich/ wie er nochmals an mich schrieb ein grober vngeschlieffener [coarse] stock vnd klotz sein,” using words Osiander had once used for Mörlin. 174 Historia, H 3v: “Vnd dennoch wil mans nochheute zu tag die Leut mit gewalt bereden/ niemands hab seine meinung recht eingenomen/ auch der jenigen keiner nicht/ die vber seine lehr iudicirt haben/ daruon hernacher.” 175 Historia, V 4r (a letter from Mörlin to Duke Albrecht, dated 18 July 1552): “Es ist ein wunderlicher handel/ das alle welt/ auch gemeine vernunfft nun mehr verloren hat. Lutherum hat niemands verstanden/ Osiandrum verstehet nun auch niemands/ ja/ die do schreiben wider Osiandrum/ verstehen sich selbs nicht. Denn auch keiner mit jm selbs eins/ Osiander verstehet allein Lutherum/ Sich selbst/ vnd andere auch allein.” 176 For Brenz’s role in the dispute, see chapter 5.

152

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

and published excerpts of Luther’s Galatians commentary to prove his fidelity to Luther (or, more accurately, the compatibility of his theology and Luther’s); the result was a total breakdown in negotiations between the two camps.177 Other publications by Osiander had a similar effect.178 Finally, when the prince demanded that both sides write confessions of faith, those of von Hegemon, Venediger and Mörlin were not published until January 1553 – and then only included in Andreas Aurifaber’s publication of an edict by Duke Albrecht – while Osiander’s Confession was published by October 1551.179 A letter from Duke Albrecht to Mörlin (ghost-written by Osiander) also demonstrated the crucial role that the publication of Osiander’s Confession played.180 In mid-July 1551 Osiander and his prince clearly hoped that by soliciting the neutral opinions of other theologians Osiander’s position would be substantiated. A year later, they were dismissive of these opinions, vowing to use only those that agreed with Scripture, namely, the lone opinion of Johannes Brenz.181 Mörlin highlighted a final theme of the Historia in its final pages, as he turned to a defense of behavior that finally led to his banishment. Mörlin clearly saw himself faced with a moment for confession, unable to do anything but frame obedience to Duke Albrecht under his compelling need to confess the faith and care for his flock. As he explained to the prince, he was a publica persona, whose responsibility to his office meant that he dared not be innocent only in conscience but also before God and others.182 In fact, Mörlin spent the final section of the document explaining that he could not support Duke Albrecht’s Ausschreiben precisely in those places where it defended Osiander’s theology, and he called on Justus Menius and Matthias Flacius as witnesses. Of course, cognizant of his duty, he preached against the Ausschreiben on 12 February 1553 as being against all of the external judgments of Osiander’s theology and against his own position, while urging his congregation under no circumstance to foment rebellion. Two days later he was sent packing. Nevertheless, Mörlin insisted on justifying his behavior, citing biblical examples such as Daniel and Peter (Acts 5:21), the examples of the ancient church (Hilary against Constantius; Tertullian, and Ba177 Latin: Excerpta quaedam dictorum de iustificatione fidei in commentario super epistolam Pauli ad Galatas domini Martini Lutheri (GA 9: 574 – ​81); German: Etliche schöne Sprüche von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens des ehrwürdigen, hochgelehrten D. Martin Luther (GA 9: 582 – ​ 601). See Historia, H 1r – v. 178 See Osiander’s Daß unser lieber Herr Jesus Christus durch den Glauben in allen wahren Christen wohne, published at the end of May 1551 (GA 9: 688 – ​98) and Mörlin’s comments in the Historia, K 1r – L 1r. Mörlin noted that the original title was to have the words, “fur die einfeltigen verfurten Schefflein im Kneiphoff [a designation of the cathedral where Mörlin preached],” but that the last two words were removed before publication. 179 For Mörlin’s frustration, see Historia, Q 2r – v. 180 GA 9: 699 – ​704. 181 Historia, T 4v. 182 Historia, X 3v. At stake was obedience to Albrecht’s decree for peace, the Ausschreiben.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

153

sil against Valens) and Luther’s comments in On Secular Authority.183 Despite the intercession of an embassy from Duke (formerly Elector) John Frederick of Saxony, which included Justus Menius and Johann Stoltz, Mörlin was separated from his ailing wife and family. He closed this remarkable collection with both an open letter from a Königsberg city councilman testifying to what a good pastor Mörlin was (dated 5 January 1552) and with a letter from the rector and senate of the university attesting to the purity of his doctrine. With this Mörlin closed the public record of his case, pending his return thirteen years later.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1​ 559 As ties strengthened between Joachim Mörlin and Matthias Flacius, they continued their assault on the Königsberg Osiandrists and their prince, Duke Albrecht. Flacius particularly found ways to attack his opponents not only through the publication of his own works but also by publishing the works of others. In all, excluding the documents already analyzed, Mörlin, Gallus and Flacius wrote or edited another eighteen documents in this dispute. These later contributions were not simply a matter of beating a dead horse. Not only had Mörlin lost his position (see above) and the Osiandrists continued their attacks, but Duke Albrecht finally intervened to settle the matter on not only his own terms but what he considered Johannes Brenz’s as well, thus bringing the Swabian theologian into the fray. Of course, none of Osiander’s opponents, including not only Flacius and Mörlin but Philip Melanchthon as well (see chapter 5), accepted the prince’s high-handed approach, and they used every opportunity to bring Brenz far more fully into their own camp and out of Osiander’s. For the most part, these three theologians continued writing direct attacks against their opponents.184 Osiander himself may have died in 1552, but that did not prevent Flacius from continuing to excoriate Osiander’s thought, in large part because he rightly suspected that Osiander’s supporters were completely dependent on him. But the work of other theologians, especially Johannes Funck and Matthias Vogel, became fair game, with the result that Flacius engaged Funck and Mörlin engaged Vogel in a lengthy exchange of tracts. No truly new issues arose, but the motivation for such writing by Flacius and Mörlin was not to plow new theological ground and not simply to confess the faith but rather to prevent the controversy from falling into oblivion in the public’s mind and, in some small way, to continue pressuring Duke Albrecht and his advisors. These theologians 183 Historia, Z 2v. In Luther’s case, Mörlin even provided the volume and page number German edition of his works. 184 For a more detailed description of these events, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 183 – ​316. There were a series of embassies and meetings, the details of which need not detain us, given the focus here on the publications.

154

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

realized the power of the press in such theological disputes – especially in the face of the prince’s own recalcitrance. In the end, Mörlin would emerge triumphant as the leader of Prussia’s Christian churches, invited back by the very prince who had banished him. I. Das Osiandri Jrthumb mit keiner vorgessenheit zustillen, oder hinzulegen sey185 Although Mörlin published this tract later in the struggle with the Osiandrists, it also helps to elucidate his motives for continuing to stir the pot by turning out more pamphlets about this affair. In the wake of Duke Albrecht’s Mandat of 11 August 1555, which once again sought some middle ground between Osiander and his opponents by providing the Osiandrists with an amnesty and forbidding under penalty of law any more discussion of the subject, Mörlin showed, to all who cared to read it, just how deceitful his opponents were and why such compromise simply ended up cloaking their errors.186 His rhetorical sophistication is worth noting. He began with a lament to God, wondering what else could occur and how the continuing controversy was fulfilling Luther’s own prophecy of trouble after his demise. Then, focusing on what would be a consistent aspect of Mörlin’s later polemic, he noted that not only the rich Marius’s in the Holy Roman Empire but also “a poor, suffering person in a village” were affected.187 He focused his attack using the Apostles’ Creed (clearly employed as a regula fidei) and argued that his opponents’ doctrine violated all three articles of the Creed. They imagined (against the first article) that God created human beings no different from other animals, with no wisdom, righteousness or knowledge. They believed (against the second) that the divine nature indwells the human being as it indwelt Christ’s humanity, and they argued that equating Christ’s righteousness with his obedience created a make-believe Christ in the Devil’s kingdom. And, against the work of the Holy Spirit (the third article), they claimed that the oral word is “an old, worn out shoe, when a person does not believe it.”188 Bad enough that they undermined the Creed, but these Osiandrists also had nothing good to say about the Augsburg Confession, which, according to Mörlin, they called “a sworn plot, and destructive conspiracy and human tale, in which the Holy Divine Scripture is not mentioned in one single word.”189 They 185 Mör 04 (1555): Das Osiandri Jrthumb mit keiner vorgessenheit zustillen / oder hin zulegen sey. Joachimus Mörlin. D. Jere. 8. Keiner ist / dem seine bossheit leidt were /vnd spreche / was mach ich doch? ([Magdeburg]: Michael Lotther, 23 September 1555). English: That Osiander’s Error Is Not to be Silenced or Set Aside with Forgetfulness. 186 For Albrecht’s decrees, see below. 187 Das … Jrthumb, A 2r: “… ein schlechter elender mensch in einem Dorffe …” 188 Das … Jrthumb, A 3v: “… ein alter verlegener Schw/ wo man es nicht gleubet.” 189 Das … Jrthumb, A 3v: “Die Augspurgische Confession sey ein geschworner puntschuch/ schedliche Conspiration vnd menschliches gedicht/ darinnen der heiligen Göttlichen Schrifft/ nicht mit einem einigen wort gedacht werde.”

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

155

also rejected imputation on the grounds that it made God into “a crooked judge and an abettor of criminals” (“ein falscher Richter und schalcksfreund”). Their conclusion? “Thus justification does not mean to count as free, unencumbered and loosed [from sin] but rather to do righteous things in deed.”190 Having outlined his target, Mörlin then went on the offensive. He mused what a wondrous, strange faith one would end up with by following Osiander. He asked the reader to think of all the people the Osiandrists had damaged with their Judaica [Jewish notions]. Instead of being thanked for pointing out all these things, Osiander’s opponents were slandered, and Albrecht’s Mandat required no repentance, no contrition, no sorrow [for their false teaching] and no conversion by Osiander’s followers but simply a general amnesty. Think of the effect on the commoners, Mörlin continued. The Mandat admitted that a misunderstanding had occurred but refused to say where. How did this help the poor consciences? Worse yet, the Mandat was designed to silence Osiander’s opponents or, if they spoke out, to charge them with a crime against the crown (crimen laese majestatis). Only if the Osiandrists admitted their errors would Mörlin keep silent.191 For Mörlin the stakes could not have been higher. The entire affair was not about some worldly prince or emperor but about God and Christ, the redeemer. It was no joke; Mörlin and his supporters were not trying to insult anyone but were merely pleading with their opponents to come to their senses, recant blasphemy and preach pure doctrine. Because they had not done this, Mörlin was personally heartbroken but officially constrained to warn others about this poison and to hope that they do not lose heart. Instead, these true Christians in Prussia were to rejoice at the number of judgments (Judicia) by other churches against Osiander and his followers; they were not to be taken in by Osiander’s “strange glosses”; they were not to put up with Osiander’s strange theological vocabulary or his “opinions and manifest corruptions of true doctrine”; and finally, they were to demonstrate their faithfulness to God as their comfort by pointing out blasphemy, thereby saving their souls by rejecting this amnesty. When someone preached errors and spawned disagreements, it was not enough to cover it up; instead, it had to be confessed publicly and punished, “so that the confused consciences will know not only what is correct but also what was erroneous and incorrect up to now, so that they can separate themselves from it, guard themselves against it and warn others.”192 190 Das … Jrthumb, A 3v: “Darumb heisse Rechtfertigen auch nicht/ frey ledig vnd los zelen/ Sonder mit der that gerecht machen.” 191 Das … Jrthumb, B 1v: “… crimen laese maiestatis, das jhr mit executorial mandaten vnd processen vorfolgen wolt mitt hochster krafft vnd macht.” 192 Das Jrthumb, B 3v: “Auff das die verwirreten gewissen nicht allein wissen was recht ist/ Sonder was auch geirret/ vnd vnrecht bisher gewesen/ domit sie daruon abstehen/ sich daruor hüten/ vnd auch andere warnen.”

156

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

So this, in Mörlin’s own words, outlined the parameters of the ongoing controversy. He continued to feel himself constrained by his former office in Königsberg, and that entailed guarding the consciences of his endangered flock. He also saw Osiander’s teaching as a frontal assault on God and Christ, not just a war of words (as Brenz opined). Finally, he saw no other option for Prussia’s Christians than what he had practiced himself: attacking false compromises and uncovering manifest errors. Part of what encouraged him and, therefore, the Prussian church was precisely the public outpouring of Judicia from other churches. That is to say, the very tidal wave of publications against Osiander in 1552 –​1553, especially of official statements, itself became justification for his continuing the battle for the hearts, minds and souls of his coreligionists in Prussia. Whatever Duke Albrecht hoped to achieve with his amnesty, it was no palliative and more an incentive to Mörlin. II. Fighting Duke Albrecht, Comforting the Persecuted Duke Albrecht of Prussia and his advisors tried a variety of approaches to solving the crisis spawned by Osiander’s writings. First, in early 1551 Joachim Mörlin (like Francesco Stancaro before him) was asked to mediate the dispute – with catastrophic results. Second, in late 1551, the prince and Osiander turned to other evangelical churches and theological faculties for their opinions, which – with the possible exception of the Württembergers – was an unmitigated disaster. Still following a path of accommodating the Osiandrian party, Albrecht then began issuing public decrees. The first, the Ausschreiben, was promulgated on 24 January 1553 as part of a collection of documents assembled by Albrecht’s court physician and confidant, Andreas Aurifaber.193 It simply made illegal any further public disputation on this matter and, among other things, also forbade any publications, especially derisive writings and pasquilles. In part, on the basis of his attack on this document from the pulpit, Mörlin suffered banishment. Second, on 27 September 1554, Albrecht published his Abschied, which required adherence from all pastors, preachers and teachers to the Confession and Declaration of the Württemberg church. Justification was declared to occur as Paul described it in Romans: forgiveness merited through Christ’s suffering and death and received with faith. The justified then continued to be renewed by the indwelling of the Holy Trinity, “as the dearly departed D. Luther, [Urbanus] Rhegius, [Anton] Corvinus, Philip [Melanchthon], [Johannes] Brenz and others in this matters have taught faithfully and in different ways.”194 It also forbade any attacks. 193 Andreas Aurifaber, ed., Von Gottes Gnaden Vnser Alberten des Eltern … Ausschreiben (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 24 January 1553). It contained, among other things, the August 1552 confessions of faith written by Peter Hegemon, Joachim Mörlin, and Georg von Venediger, all in an attempt to show how balanced Duke Albrecht had been in giving both sides a fair hearing. Osiander had published his Confession, of course, in the Fall of 1551. 194 Albrecht, Herzog von Preussen, Abschied Des Durchlauchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern/ … darnach sich alle vnnd jedere jhrer F. G. Fürsten­

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

157

The next year, on 11 August 1555, Albrecht issued his Mandat.195 The apprehensiveness on Albrecht’s part echoed throughout the document. It talked first of the division, dispute and misunderstanding among theologians over the justification of the sinner and the indwelling of the Trinity, so that rumors had spread throughout the empire that Prussian clergy did not teach according to the Augsburg Confession. Again, Albrecht tried to follow Brenz’s proposal by stressing first forgiveness as righteousness of the believing sinner according to Romans 3 – ​5 and second that as a result God indwells believers to bring holiness and righteousness. Pastors (presumably on both sides) had attacked the Abschied when they needed to be reminded to obey. An embassy from Württemberg had besought the Prussian churches to be at peace and serve their land. The Mandat then offered an “Amnesty and overlooking of everything that had occurred before.”196 All who continued to agitate and “dispute in beer halls” would not only be stripped of their office but also banished and fined. The threat concluded with a description of what the Abschied had forbidden be preached: That the forgiveness of sins is not the sinner’s righteousness before God’s judgment seat; speaking lightly of or make fun of the precious merit of our savior and LORD Jesus Christ; or speaking scornfully and invidiously against the eternal righteousness, which is God himself and truly dwells in believers who have received the forgiveness of sins and are justified before God’s judgment seat, and that drives and moves them to good works, so that here inchoately and there perfectly they become in deed righteous and eternally blessed.197

No one outside of Albrecht’s inner circle was fully satisfied with any of these decrees. Early on, Philip Melanchthon upbraided the old duke for not simply adhering to the Württemberg statement from the beginning, without any glosses.198 As we will see below, the Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Johann Albrecht, also tried to intervene. But chiefly Albrecht’s statements became the target of attacks from Flacius and Mörlin. As we have already seen above, Mörlin attacked the thumbs Pfarherrn vnwegerlich laten sollen. Gegeben zu Königßperg den 24. Septembris im 1554. Jar. (Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 27 September 1554), A 3v: “Wie Gottselige D. Lutther/ Regius/ Coruinus/ Philippus/ Brentius/ vnd andere von solchen stücken vnderschiedlich vnd trewlich gelehret haben.” 195 Des Durchleüchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern … Mandat An jhr Fürstlichen Durchleüchtigkeyt Vnderthanen außgangen den 11 Augusti (Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1555). 196 Mandat, A 4r: “Amnistia vnd vergessung alles so verlauffen.” 197 Mandat, B 1v: “… Das Vergebung der Sünden/ nit des Sünders Gerechtigkey were für Gottes Gericht/ Oder geringschetzig vnd liederlich von dem Werden Verdienst vnsers Heilands vndd HERRN Jhesu Christi reden/ Auch hönisch vnnd ergerlich der Ewigen Gerechtigkey/ welche Gott selbst ist/ vnnd in den Glaubigen Menschen/ so Vergebung der sünden empfangen/ vnnd also für Gottes Gericht gerechtfertiget seind/ warhafftig wonet/ vnnd sie zum guten treibt vnd bewegt/ Damit sie allhie anfengklich/ dort aber volkommenlich mit der that Gerecht vnnd ewig Selig werden/ wider sprechen.” 198 See chapter 7.

158

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Abschied and defended himself in his Historia. He then rejected the call for a ceasefire in Das … Jrthumb. But he was not the only one to show contempt for Albrecht’s attempts at a political solution to a theological problem. Matthias Flacius published a steady stream of attacks on the beleaguered prince. In the wake of the Ausschreiben, he produced on 1 October 1553 an open letter, “That the Precious Blood or the Obedient Suffering of Christ Is the True, Correct and Only Righteousness through Which We Become Righteous, Pleasing and Blessed before God, Written to [His] I[llustrious] P[rince Albrecht] in Prussia.199 Here Flacius, writing to defend himself (from Funck’s attacks [see below]) but also to protect the prince from terrible errors, dismissed any diminution of Christ’s obedience and suffering as the Christian’s righteousness. He charged, as he had in the past, that Osiander deified Christians and, even worse, taught that Christ’s precious blood was not a Christian’s righteousness before God. Funck in his Bericht, published earlier in the year, had said as much. For Flacius, Christ’s blood makes the Christian whiter than snow. In one of the few instances in his writing, Flacius also refuted Osiander’s charge that the philosophy of those defending forensic justification made it impossible for them to understand Osiander’s own heavenly doctrine. Flacius answered, on the contrary, that Osiander’s philosophy was the actual culprit, since Königsberg’s primary theologian could not abide the foolishness of proclaiming Christ’s blood as righteousness.200 Only reason would charge that Christ’s three hours of suffering 1500 years ago could not be the believer’s righteousness in the present. The foolishness of Abel’s blood still crying from the ground (Hebrews 12:24) and Christ’s blood as the believer’s righteousness had finally to be left in God’s hands. In a peculiarly weak, rhetorical argument, Flacius rehearsed bibli199 Fla 11 (1554): Das das thewre Bludt oder gehorsamlich leiden Christi die ware  / rechte  / vnd einige Gerechtigkeit sey / dadurch wir fur Gott gerecht / jm wolgefellig / vnd seelig werden. Geschrieben an F. D. in Preussen (Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg, 1554). 200 Das thewre Bludt, A 8v – B 1r: “Es pfleget Osiander allenthalben in seinen Schrifften vns furzuwerffen/ die wir seine jrthume nicht können billichen/ das wir durch die Philosophia dermassen seindt bezaubert vnnd bethöret/ das wir seine geistliche himlische lehr nicht können verstehen/ vnd wil vns also bey dem gemeinen Manne gantz vnd gar verdechtig/ ja auch verhasset machen/ So doch mit der warheit seine gantze Schwermerey nur aus der Philosophia vnd Menschliche vernunfft her entspringet vnd herfleusset. Wie denn auch sein Mitschwermer Hans Funck die grundtfeste seiner meinung aus den Heidnischen Philosophis vnnd Juristen zusamen raspelt/ vnd sehr darauff bawet. Denn weil Osiander diesen Philosophischen gedancken vnd fündtlein der vernunfft feste helt/ das nemlich die Gerechtigkeit vnd alle andere tugende seindt vnd sein müssen eine inwendige gute art oder natur im Menschen/ vnd nichts anders/ so kan sichs in seinen klugen kopff nicht schicken/ finden/ noch leiden/ das das Bludt/ leiden vnd gantzer volkomener gehorsam Christi die rechte gerechtigkeit sey/ dadurch wir sollen vnd müssen fur Gott gerecht vnd seelig werden/ wie denn nicht allein die Jüden/ Sondern auch alle Philosophi vnd kluge Heiden/ als aus dem heiligen Paulo zusehen/ das fur die aller gröste thorheit haben gehalten/ das die Christen gleuben/ sie werden durch das leiden vnd sterben des gekreutzigten Christi seelig/ vnd das solches leiden vnd sterben jhre gerechtigkeit sey oder frömmigkeit fur Gott.”

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

159

cal examples of blood being spilt and remembered by God, asking in each case whether Christ’s blood would not be still more effective. He concluded the list with the case of the guilt of the Jews, who, he argued, were still being punished for Christ’s death.201 If blood could make a people who rejected Christ guilty and unrighteous for 1500 years, surely it could make people who trusted it righteous. After a concerted refutation of Osiander and Funck, which included (perhaps because it was published there) an attack on the Nuremberg theologian, Leonard Culmann (see chapter 5), Flacius closed his letter-turned-tract with an appeal for prayer against the Osiandrists, who, in addition to all their other crimes, did not attack Caspar von Schwenckfeld or the Roman party but only the truth. With the publication of the Abschied, Flacius also felt constrained to respond with Matthias Flacius’s Christian Warning and Admonition to the Church of Christ in Prussia regarding the Recent “Abschied,” a tract published on 1 January 1555.202 In this piece, Flacius named his opponents, not only Osiander but also Johannes Funck, Johannes Sciurus [Eichhorn], Nikolaus Jagenteuffel and “Hundartzt” (=Andreas Aurifaber). Funck (d. 1566), who was born in Nuremberg and received his M. A. from Wittenberg in 1539, was called in 1547 to be court preacher in Königsberg and was one of Osiander’s most ardent defenders.203 Sciurus (d. 1564) hailed from Nuremberg, received an M. A. from Wittenberg and had been teaching at the University of Königsberg since 1546, first in mathematics, then in Greek and Hebrew (by which time he was the court preacher) and from 1554 until 1558 as professor of theology.204 Jagenteuffel (d. 1584), was professor of dialectics at Königsberg from 1552 and of mathematics from 1553. Becoming a pastor in 1560, he delivered the funeral oration from Johannes Funck’s wife in 1563.205 Aurifaber (d. 1559) studied theology in Wittenberg and, after medical studies in Padua from 1544 –​1546, became court physician, privy counselor and a member of the university’s medical faculty.206 201 Das thewre Bludt, B 7v – B 8r. This, to modern ears, horrendous example simply played into the anti-Judaism of the day and especially to the suspicions regarding Osiander’s knowledge of the rabbis. See Heiko A. Oberman, The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, trans. James I. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 10, and Joy Kammerling, “Andreas Osiander, the Jews, and Judaism,” in: Dean Phillip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett, eds., Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Brill: Leiden, 2006), 219 – ​47. 202 Fla 13 (1555): Christliche warnunge vnd vermanunge Matthiae Flacij Illyrici an die Kirche Christi in Preussen den nechsten Abschied belangende ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter,] 1 January 1555). 203 In 1559 he married Andreas Aurifaber’s widow (Osiander’s daughter). In both 1556 and 1563 he was forced to renounce his Osiandrianism but was beheaded in 1566 for treason. WBIS Online, from Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., 2 (1958), s. v., and Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vol. 6 (1899), s. v. 204 WBIS Online, from Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrten Lexikon 3 (1757) and 8 (1808), s. v. 205 ADB 13: 645. 206 ADB 1: 690.

160

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Flacius first pointed out that all the other churches of the Augsburg Confession had reacted to Osiander’s teaching and confessed “that our righteousness before God is nothing other than the FORGIVENESS OF SINS according to the teaching of St. Paul in Romans 3 – ​4”207 and merited by Christ’s obedience and suffering, precisely what Osiander and Funck rejected. Second, Flacius objected to the Abschied for its reference to Brenz’s Confession and Declaration, not because they were wrong but because they left the impression that Osiander had also been right and only needed to have paid better attention to Romans 1– ​4.208 For Flacius the whole dispute centered on whether one interpreted Paul correctly or not.209 Thus, Brenz was wrong to call this a mere war of words. “It is truly not a grammatical war or a war of words but a real and indeed most real war regarding the most important part of our salvation …” It was not just a matter of a few passages in Paul but instead about “who correctly or incorrectly understands the main point in the teaching of Paul and the whole Bible or explains and interprets them according to their correct understanding.”210 Moreover, Brenz’s Confession and, even more, his Declaration were obscure and needed “some good, strong glosses and a new explanation,” something, of course that Flacius had provided when he had published them. It also accused Osiander’s opponents of not putting God’s essential righteousness in the right place when speaking of justification, which was not true. Despite the fact that the Württembergers had written with good intentions, Flacius declared that Funck was using the Declaration as the basis for defending his Osiandrianism. To those who might have been shocked at his kind words regarding the Württembergers, Flacius pointed to the importance of unity and peace in the churches.211 Third, Flacius objected to Mörlin’s banishment on trumped up charges of being guilty of crimes against the prince. Fourth, a Christian resolution of the matter would not have ignored the confessions of so many other churches and would have asked for a recantation on the part of the leaders of the Osiandrian party rather than condemning good pastors. Flacius then gave a list of actions that would resolve the crisis. Pastors were to help the weak sheep by warning about wolves, and church leaders were to avoid blasphemy by not driving out good pastors. The stumbling blocks of Osiander’s 207 Christliche warnunge, A 2r – v : “das vnser Gerechtigkeit fur Gott nicht anders sey/ denn VERGEBVNG DER SVNDEN nach der lehr des heiligen Pauli Rom. iij. iiij.” 208 For more on Brenz, see chapter 5. 209 See especially his Expositio, analyzed above.­ 210 Christliche warnunge, A 4v: “Es ist furwar nicht ein Grammaticale bellum oder wortgezenck/ Sondern reale vnd realissimum von dem aller hochwichtigsten stück vnser Seeligkeit … Sondern wer das heubstück der lehr Pauli vnd der gantzen Bibel recht oder vnrecht verstehet felschlich oder in seinem rechten verstandt füret vnd ausleget.” 211 Christliche warnunge, A 5v – A 6r: “Das wir aber bisweilen seindt etwas gelinder gewesen vnd zwar auch weniger gezürnet/ denn wol die beleidigte warheit hat gefordert/ das haben wir vmb der lieb einigkeit willen/ vnd friede der Kirchen gethan/ wie leichtlich ein jeder verstendiger hat zuerachten vnd abzunemen.”

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

161

teaching were to be removed, in part to allow for fuller evangelization of Poland. Given the Osiandrists’ open blasphemy against Christ and his blood, the church needed to name the heretics and hold them responsible. To the good preachers who remained, Flacius gave the following advice: preach the truth simply, condemn Osiander’s teaching and demand a recantation from his followers. The congregants were likewise to follow such preachers and call a synod to condemn Osiander – which his followers had already done de facto by accepting the Declaration of Brenz – and bring back the good people who had been banished. He closed by comparing the Abschied to Israel (as described by Elijah) limping off in two directions by following both the Lord and Baal and to the Arians of the fourth century, who tried to make compromises, but to no avail. He also suggested that Aurifaber should not be in control of the schools and pastors of Prussia but instead should be sent to “cloud cuckoo land or Calcutta.”212 Joachim Mörlin, too, felt compelled to respond to the Abschied. In 1555 he published his True Warning and Comfort for the Churches in Prussia.213 Having heard welcomed rumors that the Osiandrists had repented, Mörlin’s hopes were dashed with the appearance of the Abschied. In this open letter, Mörlin encouraged people who wanted to use this document as a step toward true change of heart, but he worried that the devil lurked in the details of the document. He recalled the problems the church fathers had in combating the Arians, who were always more than ready to accept compromises. Gregory of Nazianzus [actually Ambrose] was right in warning that compromise in matters of faith was like mixing gypsum with water to imitate milk.214 Throughout the tract, Mörlin took a pastoral tone with the readers, reminding them that he was their old pastor and noting that the Abschied no longer condemned him or them, as had earlier statements. They were, however, to protect themselves from the argument that Osiander’s and Mörlin’s teachings were in any way the same; indeed, Osiander had called Christ’s obedience an idol, Christ as preached by Mörlin a make-believe Christ and the Augsburg Confession nothing but a terrible conspiracy. Like Osiander, the pope also taught that Christ died for sinners and offered forgiveness and that renewal had to follow forgiveness, Mörlin argued. So why not just accept the pope under the same terms that the Osiandrists were to be accepted? Finally, for Mörlin the mixture of faith and love by the pope and the confusion of the declaration of righteousness with the doing of righteousness by Osiander were the cause of the problem – along with the fact that Osiander actually taught warnunge, B 7v. 03 (1555): Trewliche warnung vnd trost an die Kirchen in Preussen. Joachimus Mörlin D. Roma. XII. Nemet euch der heiligen nodturfft an (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1555). 214 Trewliche warnung, A 3v: Nazianzus wrote “… in tractatu de fide, Sicut gipsum aqua permixtum lactis colorem mentitur, ita hic per uerisimilem confessionem tradition inimica suggeritur, vnd baldt hernacher wie ein tödtlicher tranck mit honig vormischet/ durch den süssen geschmack die Leut betreuget vnd vmbbringet …” It is actually Ambrose, De Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos, 1 (MPL 17: 552). 212 Christliche 213 Mör

162

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

far worse than what his supporters now claimed. He likened it to the ancient Council of Sirmian, which simply provided cover for the Arians until a few orthodox fathers insisted that an explicit condemnation of Arianism be included, to which the true Arians refused to agree.215 For Mörlin, the Abschied did little more than what the Arians attempted; it cleaned up and beautified Osiander’s errors and threatened those who tried to preach against them.216 Mörlin counseled his former colleagues to stick to true teaching and, as Luther had advised, be good bishops, “For what matters here does not concern love but God and faith.”217 Thus, in this tract Mörlin based his challenge not just on biblical authority to resist bad teaching but also on the behavior of past bishops and on the interpretation of that history by Luther. Precisely his pastoral approach allowed him to describe how good pastors would behave and, without ever mentioning it, how he himself had behaved in the face of what he viewed as Osiander’s blatant heresy. Finally, with the appearance of the Mandat in August 1555, three “true Lutheran” tracts appeared from the presses, four if one includes Mörlin’s pamphlet described above. The first would seem to have been the joint effort of Nicholas Gallus and Matthias Flacius, although only Flacius’s name appeared on the title page.218 It began with twelve reasons for not accepting the Mandat, including how it simply set Osiander’s teaching over against that of his opponents without condemning the former; how it thus protected Osiander’s teaching; and how it continued to condemn Osiander’s opponents. Thus, it simply covered over the Osiandrists’ obvious errors, treating his followers as if they had recanted, and condemned the opponents’ teaching against such errors. The appeal to the published confessions of other churches played a particularly important role. The mention of these judgments in the Mandat was simply a ruse, “because the strongest and purest churches are with us, namely, churches of the young lords of Saxony, of Magdeburg, of Braunschweig, Lübeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, etc.”219 215 Trewliche warnung, B 4r. Mörlin quoted Luther’s discussion of this council in his On the Councils and Churches (WA 50: 569, 8 –​16; 573, 29 – ​574, 29). 216 Trewliche warnung, C 1v – C 2r: “sondern auff eine newe/ sondere/ wunderliche arth putzen vnd schmücken/ Ja man drewet noch heute zu tage den frommen Pfarherrn/ die sich mit predigen widder das gegenteil hören lassen/ mit executorial procession, sie damit ernstlich zuuorfolgen/ vnd sol doch die execution der Iudiciorum wider Osiandrum auff erkendtnis der Kirchen zugewarten sein …” 217 Trewliche warnung, C 2v: “So müssen wir/ wie Lutherus droben sagt/ gute Bischoffe sein/ vnd wol zusehen/ denn es gilt hie nicht der liebe Sachen/ sondern Gottes vnnd des Glaubens.” 218 F/G 04 (1555): Das das Preusische Mandat/ den XI. Augusti dieses 55. Jars ausgegeben/ Betreffende die Amnistia oder vergessung der Osiandrischen Ketzerey mit gutem gewissen nicht kan angenomen werden etc. grüntliche vrsachen. Item vom weichen oder fliehen der Prediger in verfolgung durch Matthiam Flacium Jllyricum. Ein Canon von allen stenden in Preusen verwilliget. So jemand was wider die Augspurgische Confession leren wird/ der soll entweder widerruffen/ oder aber gentzlich verbannent vnd verworffen werden ([Magdeburg?, shortly after 11 August 1555]). 219 Gründtliche Ursachen, A 4v: “… weil die bestendigste vnd reinsten Kirchen mit vns sind/ als der jungen Herrn von Sachssen/ Magdeburgk/ Braunschweig/ Lübeck/ Hamburgk Lünenburgk etc. So sind jre Kirchen so berümbt/ das sie sich derselben vor aller welt schemen müssen

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

163

One could not make peace with a snake, since Jesus came to bring the sword and not peace. The entire Mandat was against God’s word because of its two-fold definition of righteousness (one from the Augsburg Confession and the other from the Abschied), which only led consciences into doubt. The gospel proclaimed grace to the penitent; the Mandat proclaimed it to impenitent Osiandrists, who were no more than wolves in Christ’s sheepfold. The Mandat, the authors concluded, was against the Judicia of the churches, against the unity of the church and against the judgment of God, which condemned heresy. A separate section, entitled “On Bending or Fleeing because of Doctrine during a Time of Persecution” and authored by Flacius, provided a different kind of pastoral advice from that given by Mörlin. It condemned those who had a failure of heart and caved in, those who gave a good appearance of agreeing when they did not (Flacius mentioned the Adiaphorists) and those who refused publicly to oppose heresy (voiceless dogs and companions of wolves). Over against such forms of capitulation, Flacius counseled staying and fighting (up to imprisonment) as Ambrose had done or, as Athanasius had suffered in the Arian controversy, fleeing but keeping up the attacks. In the face of the enemy’s approach (strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep), the faithful pastors and leaders were not to give in but, along with their congregants were to bear the cross and pray to God for deliverance. Never one to publish a single tract when three would do, Flacius printed two more in the wake of Albrecht’s Mandat. The first, The Most Important and Crudest Errors of Osiander, Very Briefly and Clearly Taken from His Own Books and Recounted by Matthias Flacius Illyricus As a Warning for All,220 had a very specific role to play in the dispute. Flacius noted in the introduction that he was writing because the Osiandrists had not been required to recant publicly but could simply receive an amnesty, much to the devil’s delight, who was intent on murdering souls in Prussia. As a result, Flacius felt compelled to rehearse once again the basic errors of Osiander, so that people would realize what a terrible heresy this was – against God’s honor and human salvation. With that, he provided a list of thirty-one errors, backed up with specific citations from Osiander’s writings. However, when he reached the tenth error (that we are righteous through the essential righteousness of God), Flacius simply wrote: “Ubique” (everywhere). Nearly every statement (except for a few at the beginning based upon Osiander’s 1549 disputation that Christ’s would have become a human being even if Adam dann das sie so hoch N. [Funck] vnd P. [Eichorn or Aurifaber] rhumen wollen/ weis menniglich was die beide Menner vor guts/ nach absterben des heiligen Mannes Luther in relgion sachen vnd sonderlich N. Im Osiandri sache gestifftet.” Electoral Saxony and the University of Wittenberg were not included here. 220 Fla 14 (1555): Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri fein kurtz und klar jedermann zur warnung aus seinen eigenen Büchern gezogen und erzelet durch Matthias Flacius Illyricus (Eisleben: Ulrich Gaubisch, 1555). A second edition was published (probably in Magdeburg) some time later. See chapter 8.

164

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

had not fallen into sin) revolved around justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The only exception (number twenty-five) accused Osiander of dividing Christ by arguing that Christ conquered sin, death and hell only according to his divinity, which is the believer’s righteousness. The second edition of this tract included some additional polemic. In the face of such heresy, as Flacius had also indicated in his Christliche Warnunge, the amnesty of the Mandat was out of the question. Even the embassy from the church in Württemberg approved a public recantation by the Osiandrists, something which God’s Word demanded in order to help free consciences from this error. The Osiandrists, in Flacius’s view, had attacked brothers in Christ, insulted Christ’s blood, and stood condemned by a central canon of the Prussian church, namely, that anyone who taught against the Augsburg Confession was to be banished. He turned to Titus 3 and 2 Timothy 3 for defining a procedure to deal with heretics: one was to give them two or three warnings, not to be friendly afterwards out of weakness, and to force them to stop teaching. Flacius, associated with supporting political resistance in the adiaphoristic controversy, here took the opposite tack, arguing that if horse thieves can be hung, how much more should blasphemers?221 This, he concluded, would be the proper execution of the case: not only making the Osiandrists recant but forbidding them from ever teaching again. This was, he opined, a struggle between God and the devil. It was a matter of giving honor either to God or to the devil. The second tract, published in 1556, provided comfort for the persecuted Christians in Prussia.222 By this time, Johannes Funck had appeared before Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg and “recanted,” only to recant his recantation a few months later. Sermons of another Osiandrist, Otmar Epplin, published in early 1556,223 substantiated Flacius’s worst fears. He was also convinced that the Osiandrists were planning to drive out the good pastors. Christian unity, he asserted, had to be real and not just a matter of words. Now there are many among you who boast about Christian unity all the time, and always have it on their lips and in their writings: “Let us be one in the Son of God. Ah, let us be one 221 For the role of blasphemy in the cura religionis, see James Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518 –​1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 222 Fla 15 (1556): Trost vnd vnterricht M. Flac. Jllyrici/ an die verfolgten Christen in Preussen ([Magdeburg: Lotter, 1556]). 223 Otmar Epplin, Drey Predigten vber das Euangelium Johannis am Ersten Capittel/ Jm anfang war das Wort/ etc. Gepredigt zu Königsperg in Preussen auff dem Schloß Anno 1555. In den Weynacht Feiertagen. Durch M. Otthomarum Epplinum Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeyt daselbst Hoffprediger. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen durch Johann Daubman. M. D. LVI. (Königsberg: Daubmann, 1556). Epplin (ca. 1515 –​1567) had an MA and was pastor in Görlitz until 1554, when removed for marital indiscretions. In 1555 he was called as court preacher in Konigsberg. See WBIS Online, from Gottlieb Friedrich Otto, Lexikon der Oberlausizschen Schriftsteller und Künstler, 1 (1801), s. v. Throughout these sermons, Epplin implied that one was justified by forgiveness of sins obtained by Christ’s humanity and the indwelling of Christ’s divinity.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

165

in the Lord.” However, where any church is assaulted by persecutors or those who would lead them astray, as when these two groups try to exist in common next to one another and everyone of you, with all each person has, should help with prayer, comfort, instruction, advice, and help, then they are nowhere to be found.224

With echoes of his fight with the Wittenbergers over adiaphora still fresh in his mind, Flacius insisted that persecution changed the rules of the game and made true unity impossible.225 He then gave this advice. It was important to realize that everyone now admitted that Osiander’s opponents were right and that those misleading the church (he mentioned Funck and Matthias Vogel) had been forced to recant – even if it was like the repentance of Saul (here today and gone tomorrow). There was great comfort in being right, even in the face of the Mandat, the Declaration [of Brenz, used in the Abschied], and the preaching of Epplin. The amnesty had to be rejected, given its failure to achieve true recantations. Flacius then described what should happen next. First, people like Vogel and Funck needed to be completely avoided (according to Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:8 – ​9). Still, comfort could be gleaned from the fall of the Osiandrian “Goliath” (Osiander himself), especially since this dispute led to a stronger proclamation of the truth so that, even like the demons in the New Testament, the Osiandrists, too, had to confess the truth. III. Fighting Duke Albert and His Supporters in Others’ Words

As chapter 6 will show, one of the most important weapons in this dispute was Luther’s words and authority. In this particular phase of the controversy, however, Johannes Brenz also played a particularly important role, as did Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg. Thus, another kind of literature also appeared after Osiander’s death involving materials published by Flacius but written by others. The first such publication came around 1 May 1553, with the printing of the Bekenntnis [Confession] and Declaration of the Württemberg church.226 Even 224 Trost vnd vnterricht, A 3r: “Nu sind aber jr viel/ welche die Christliche einigkeit vberaus sehr rhümen/ vnd schier stets im mundt vnd feder haben. Simus unum in Filio Dei. Ah last vns eins sein in dem Herrn. Da aber irgendt eine Kirche wird von den verfolgern oder verfüreren angefochten/ wie denn diese zwey gemeinlich bey einander zu sein pflegen/ vnd jederman jr nach seinem besten/ mit gebet/ trösten/ vnterweisungen/ radt/ vnd that helffen solte/ da sein sie nicht zu haus.” 225 See Hans Christoph von Hase, Die Gestalt der Kirche Luthers: Der casus confessionis im Kampf des Matthias Flacius gegen das Interim von 1548 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1940). The author is grateful to Robert Kolb for this reference. 226 Bren 01.1 (1553): Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, eds., Des Herrn Johan Brentij vnnd anderer Virtenbergischen Theologen, Declaration vber Osianders Disputation von der Rechtfertigung, sampt ihres glaubens bekentnis. Mit einer Vorrede Matth. Fla. Jllyrici vnd Nicolai Galli/ an die Preussischen Kirchen. Daraus leicht jedem zuuernemen/ was Brentius vnd genante Theologen/ im grunde von Osianders newen lere halten (Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1553). For a discussion of the first printing of the Declaration, see chapter 5. Of course, Flacius and Gallus

166

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

though Duke Albrecht would later attempt to use these writings to bring peace to his church (thereby incurring the wrath of Flacius and Gallus), very shortly after these documents were produced (the Bekenntnis was written in April 1553), these two Magdeburgers saw to it that they were published with their own preface, dated 1 May. They already knew of Mörlin’s banishment, which clearly colored what they wrote. On the title page itself, they cite 2 Peter 1:4 and 1 John 3:1– ​2, adding the following comment. From these texts it is certainly clear that participation in the divinity [of Christ] and its essential blessings, wisdom, righteousness, life actually belong to eternal life, all of which we receive already here as first fruits. However, this is not the essence of our righteousness itself, as Osiander would have it, but only a result, merit, or reward of the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, with which he fulfilled the law, reckoned to us beforehand through faith.227

In their preface, Gallus and Flacius argued for an anti-Osiandrian reading of Brenz’s texts. First, they gave a brief history of the dispute, mentioning their Ermanung from September 1552 with its suggestions for making peace and contrasting it to what Albrecht and his Osiandrian supporters attempted to do. Then they criticized his opponents using only one of the church’s responses (namely the least unfavorable one from Württemberg) rather than all of them, especially when the Württembergers stressed that theirs was not a Judicium, since they had not heard the other side fully and only said that Osiander’s errors were not quite as bad as what the other party had charged. Moreover, Flacius and Gallus argued, the Württembergers had certainly not wanted their opinion to be used to drive out good pastors. Unity on the basis of this one document was impossible given the long list of judgments by other churches, all of which rejected Osiander completely.228 Although these churches started their work in an unbiased manner, Flacius and Gallus insisted that in religious matters, this neutral position evaporated as soon as the case became well known, when it became a matter of black or white, light or darkness, right or wrong.229 had already used this technique to great effect in their publication (with glosses) of the so-called Leipzig Interim. 227 Declaration … [und] bekentnis, A 1r: “Aus dem ist ja klar/ das das teilhafftig sein der Gottheit/ vnnd jrer wesentlichen güter/ weisheit/ gerechtigkeit/ lebens/ eigentlich gehöre ins ewige leben/ Welches alles wir doch hie auch wol die erstlinge entpfangen/ Jst aber nicht das wesen vnser gerechtigkeit selbs/ wie es Osiander haben wil/ Sondern ist nur ein volge/ verdienst oder lohn der gerechtigkeit des gehorsams Christi/ damit er das Gesetz erfüllet hat/ vns vor durch den glauben zugerechnet.” 228 Declaration … [und] bekentnis, A 3r, where they listed the churches of [duchal] Saxony, Meissen, Thuringia, Franken, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Magdeburg, and the universities of Wittenberg, Leipzig and Königsberg. 229 Declaration … [und] bekentnis, A 3v: “So sie [these other churches] doch von anfang als vnparteische/ vnd tüchtige Richter von jnen selbs dazu erwelet/ vmb erkentnis vnnd vrteil vber Osianders lengs zuuor gedruckte bekentnis ersuch sind/ vnnd sie wol wissen/ das in Religions sachen fürnemlich die lere vnd heubtstücke/ als hie/ betreffend/ niemand lenger vnparteisch

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

167

This hermeneutical sophistication allowed the preface’s authors to criticize the Württembergers for their inattention and neglect (“unachtsamkeit und nachlessigkeit”) in this very matter. In their eyes neutrality was simply a sign of a job poorly done. The Württembergers’ intentions were noble, but their approach only applied as long as one side had not published its position. Once Osiander went public, what was demanded of the respondents was confession of faith not dissembling.230 The resulting persecution caused the entire church to suffer – a turn of affairs that Flacius and Gallus hoped would soften the prince’s heart. The mention of Albrecht gave them leave to reflect upon the relation between prince and subject, an important topic for the Magdeburg theologians.231 First, they begged the Prussians not to revolt against their magistrates. Ruler and subjects had specific, God-given duties toward each other. This meant that rulers could not treat their subjects the way a butcher treated sheep. Instead, a lord may shear the sheep but leave them skin and bones and eternal life.232 They then provided the readers with ways to understand Brenz’s writings, for example, bracketing out eternal life from the discussion and focusing on righteousness. As they had emphasized in previous tracts, the conscience-stricken sinner cared first and foremost about the means for reconciling with God and secondly about the definition of this righteousness. It was here where the actual fight between the true and false churches of Christ occurred. Over against all other definitions, the churches of the Augsburg Confession insisted (with Paul) that the sinner’s righteousness was Christ’s fulfilling of the law through his actions and passion, imputed to the sinner through faith.

sein kan/ denn so lang er die sachen noch nicht gnugsam oder recht erkennet/ bald sie aber erkant ist/ so ist er schüldig auff eine seiten zutreten/ vnd so er sonderlich darumb gefragt wird/ zubekennen vnnd zubezeugen/ was schwartz oder weis/ liecht oder finsternis/ recht oder vnrecht ist.” 230 Declaration … [und] bekentnis, A 4v: “So gilts warlich nu nicht mehr mittelns/ glimpffens vnd deckens/ sondern sol ein jeder mit seinem bekentnis erfür/ reine lere Göttlichs worts vnnd Christliche gewissen zuerretten/ solchen jrthumb mit seinem bekentnis helffen verdammen vnd wider ausfegen/ gleich wie jederman sol helffen lesschen/ wenn ein fewr auffgehet.” This is splendid example of how confessing functioned for gnesio-Lutherans. Hence, Robert Kolb, throughout his book Confessing the Faith, correctly identifies the role of confessing. However, he overlooks the role that publication itself played in this process. 231 See Nathan Rein, The Chancery of God: Protestant Print, Polemic and Propaganda against the Empire, Magdeburg 1546 –​1551 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). 232 Declaration … [und] bekentnis, A 4v: “Hiemit (wie ein jeder wol zuuernemen) heissen wir ewer liebe nichts vberall vnordentlichs/ durch auffrhur oder gewalt fürnemen wider ewer Oberkeit. Leugnen aber gleichwol auch nicht/ das die vnterthanen eben so wol jr recht für Gott vnnd den Menschen haben gegen der Oberkeit/ als die Oberkeit gegen jren vnterthanen/ vnd mit nicht der Oberkeit von Gott also vnterworffen sein/ wie die Schafe dem Metzger/ der sie nach allem seinem gefallen schlactet/ das ein vnterthan in seiner vnschuld dem Herrn nimer so viel wider sagen/ vnd ordentlich dagegen dencken möchte/ wenn der Herr die wolle nimpt/ das jm dennoch haut vnd beine/ sonderlich aber das ewige leben bleiben möge.”

168

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

As in other writings, Flacius and Gallus then used Aristotelian causation to describe their perspective.233 The proximal efficient cause was Christ, true God and human being, with all of his essential properties. The material cause was the fulfilling of the law. The formal cause was imputation or forgiveness of sins. Instrumental causes were God’s word and faith. And the immediate final cause was eternal life and glorification through the indwelling of God. This indwelling, however, did not make Christians into gods, as Flacius often insisted Osiander had taught, but was simply the first fruits of a participation fulfilled in eternal life. In the meantime, Christians struggled on earth with assaults of their sins and condemnation and with false doctrine. Brenz’s statement, rightly understood, supported this view. Moreover, the Württembergers approved Osiander on things about which there was no dispute, as both Flacius and Gallus’s Verlegung and the statement by the Hamburg clergy (chiefly Johannes Aepinus) had proved. Thus, in the end, the authors concluded that Brenz’s statement stood with them against Osiander. To underscore this agreement, they offered glosses to and capitalization of certain phrases in the Declaration. Shortly thereafter, Flacius went a step further and, to prove that Brenz’s position matched his own (and not Osiander’s), he produced a compilation of citations from Brenz.234 This was a final answer to Osiander’s own compilation of Brenz’s statements that attempted to prove the opposite,235 but it also served both to refute Johannes Funck’s claims that he and Brenz agreed and to ward off Duke Albrecht’s misuse of Brenz’s Bekenntnis and Declaration. Referring to Osiander’s Bekenntnis, Flacius noted how inaccurately Osiander had quoted the Nuremberg-Ansbach Kirchenordnung and gave a lesson on the correct use of texts. This interpretive sensitivity, as noted in the previous document, demarcated Flacius’s theology. “To read a text properly and soundly, it is very necessary that one does not read it sleepily and superficially or only notes things in a piecemeal fashion. Instead one must carefully examine and get an impression of the entire form. For when one sees, so to speak, what the feet, hands and breast are, then one can just that much more easily question and calculate what the head is.”236 The especially the Expositio, described above. 08 (1553): Brentij vnd Osiandri meinung vom ampt Christi vnd rechtfertigung des Sünders, Mit einer Vorr. M. Flac. Illyr. (Magdeburg: Lotter, 1553). 235 Brentii Lehr von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens (GA 10: 450 – ​56). Flacius did not refer to this tract but to a contemporaneous one in which Osiander averred that he had taught the same doctrine for thirty years and used a work done jointly with Brenz to prove it. See Beweisung, daß ich dreißig Jahre immer einerlei Lehre von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens gelehrt habe (GA 10: 421– ​49; Flacius made reference specifically to 438 – ​41, the Nuremberg-Ansbach Kirchenordnung). 236 Brentij und Osiandri meinung, A 2v: “Eine Schrifft recht wol vnd grüntlich zuuerstehen/ ist sehr nötig/ das man dieselbige nicht schlefferig [sleepy] vnnd oben hin lese/ oder aber nur stückweis fleißig mercke/ sondern man mus die gantze form derselbigen wol betrachten vnd einbilden/ Denn wenn man sihet (so zu reden) was die füsse/ hende/ vnnd brust sey/ so kan man auch desto leichter vnd klerer vernemen vnd ausrechnen/ was auch der Kopff sey. Der233 See 234 Fla

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

169

tract itself simply reprinted sections of the 1533 Church Order, using capitalization and chapter headings, along with some glosses, to point out Flacius’s chief interpretive points. For example, in a section on the relation between the gospel and the sacraments, Flacius noted “Note that Osiander placed righteousness and justification before and the indwelling of God afterwards. Now, however, in this his new raving [Schwärmerei] it is all turned completely upside down.”237 Having set Brenz and the younger Osiander against Osiander the older Schwärmer, Flacius then posed some questions to the Osiandrists about their definitions of righteousness, proving that Osiander defined it according to neither the law nor the gospel. “Thus, they themselves do not know what they are babbling or raving about.”238 He closed the tract with a parting shot aimed at Funck who, Flacius claimed, defined two righteousnesses in God in such a way as to create two gods, the worst possible heresy (but one that Flacius had previously discovered in Osiander himself). Flacius also published a third document in this genre, a 1556 letter from Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg (in Latin) describing the recantations of Johannes Funck and Matthias Vogel.239 Two independent translations followed, one printed in Nuremberg and the other in Magdeburg, where it received a longer ending addressing the Prussian church.240 Johann Albrecht (1525 –​1576, ruled Mecklenburg-Stettin from 1547) had brought the Reformation into his lands following the death of his father, a defender of the old faith. In 1550 he entered into a defensive alliance with Margrave Johann of Brandenburg-Küstrin and Duke Albrecht of Prussia, whose daughter, Anna Sophie, he then married.241 Thus, when the church in Prussia threatened to tear itself apart, Johann Albrecht had religious, political and personal reasons for intervening. The letter simply described the situation in Prussia’s churches and the successful attempt to force Johannes Funck into recanting. The prince noted the halben soltu lieber leser vleißig mercken/ die ordnung vnd teil dieser capittel. Der titel ist vom Euangelio/ Die stücke aber oder teile des capitels sind an jren ortern angezeigt vnd erinnert.” This same admonition played a crucial role in the use of Luther by Osiander’s opponents. See below, chapter 6. 237 Brentij und Osiandri meinung, C 1v: “Merck das Osiander setzet zuuor die gerechtigkeit vnd rechtfertigung/ vnd die inwonunge der Gottheit hernach. Nu aber keretzs gantz vnnd gar vmb in dieser seiner nawen schweremerey.” 238 Brentij und Osiandri meinung, C 3v: “Also wissen sie selbs nicht/ was sie lallen oder schwermen.” 239 Joh 01 (1556): EPISTOLA ILLVSTRISSIMI Principis, Ioannis Alberti Mechelb. ad Illyricum, de Osiandrica haeresi, pie, Dei beneficio sopita. 1. Corint. 10. Fidelis est Deus, qui non sinit suos tentari, supra id, quod ferre possunt, imo facit una cum tentatione euentum, ut possint sufferre. Multas Satanae cribrationes, & horas potestatis tenebrarum, eiusque ignita tela, hoc breui tempore, a uiri Dei Luth. Morte perpessi sumus. Sed & diuinae inopinataeque liberationes consequutae sunt. Quas proh dolor ne agnoscimus quidem, nedum ut Deo serio gratias agamus (Magdeburg: Lotter, after 1 April 1556). 240 For details, see chapter 8. 241 ADB 14: 239 – ​43.

170

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

difficulties in getting Funck and others to cooperate, given the appeasement and uncertainty pushed by some of the other theologians on the basis of the Mandat. Finally, after the danger to the church was spelled out to everyone in no uncertain terms, Funck swore that “he approved the teaching of the Augsburg Confession and the Loci Communes of Philip [Melanchthon].”242 The duke concluded his letter by asking Flacius to pray for a return to purity in the Prussian church’s teaching. Flacius concluded the Latin edition by pointing out that the Mandat’s amnesty did not require Funck to reject Osiander’s error. Thus, the cloud of false witness was not yet lifted from them. One could not simply promise to uphold good teaching; one also had to refute heresy. The German version printed in Magdeburg had a further ending, an open letter to the Christian reader. Its tone was by far the most apocalyptic of Flacius’s writings in this dispute. Since Luther died, Satan has been at work, he wrote, but so has the Archangel Michael. First came terrible persecution (the Smalcald War), second the Council of Trent, then the [Augsburg] Interim, fourth the dispute over adiaphora, and “fifth came Osiander and his Sparky [Funcken, German for spark], who ignited a terrible fire in God’s house,” which God was slowly putting out.243 After mentioning yet a sixth plague (Schwenkfeld), Flacius announced his intention to write an account of what had happened since Luther’s death and counseled readers to entrust the matter to God. IV. Fighting Johannes Funck After Osiander’s death, the one Osiandrist who tried to take up his fallen comrade’s banner most fervently was Johannes Funck. This Wittenberg-trained pastor wrote a variety of tracts, beginning in 1551, defending his own and Osiander’s theology.244 Although mentioned in passing in various tracts both before and 242 Epistola, A 3r: “Nam & errores ei palam ostendimus, & eum singularibus uerbis, num poeniteret, num doctrinam Confessionis Augustanae, & Locorum Communium Philippi probaret, & in posterum probaturus esset, num idem publice in Ecclesia sua domi confessurus esset, rogauimus.” 243 Joh 01 T2 (1556): Ein sendtbrieff des durchleuchtigen vnd Hochgeboren Fursten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Johannes Albrecht/ Herzogen zu Mechelburgk etc. an Illyricum/ der Osiandrischen Ketzerey oder schwermerey halben/ wie sie Christlich durch Gottis gnade sey gedempfft vnd widerruffen ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1556]), A 6v – A 7r: “Zum funfften kam Osiander mit seinem Funcken/ vnnd zundete ein greulich fewr im hause Gottis an.” 244 Johannes Funck, Der neunde Psalm gepredigt vnd einfeltiglich ausgeleget. Ein Gebet der christlichen Kirchen in gegenwertiger Not, aus dem selben neunden Psalm gestellet … Mit e. kurtzen Bekentnis, wie wir fur Gott gerecht werden in d. Vorr. Mit eingefüret (Königsberg: Lufft?, 1551); idem, Auszug vnd kurtzer bericht: von der Gerechtigkeit der Christen fur Gott/ aus einer predig/ vber die wort Johannis. 1 Johan. 5. Vnd das ist das zeugnus das vns Gott das ewige Leben hat gegeben/ vnd solches Leben ist in seinem Son/ Wer den Son Gottes nicht hat/ der hat das Leben nicht (Königsberg: Lufft?, 1552) [a sermon preach in April 1552]; idem, Warhafftiger vnd grundlicher Bericht wie vnd was gestalt die Ergerliche Spaltung von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sich anfenglich im Lande Preussen erhaben vnd was eigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit Christlich/ nach

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

171

especially after Osiander’s death, he took center stage with the publication of his Bericht, against which (in part) Mörlin wrote his Historia. Never content with letting others fight their battles alone, Flacius also wrote a scathing attack on the Bericht, publishing it shortly after New Year 1554.245 In this response, one of the chief players in this dispute provided direct evidence for the crucial role that the printing press played. With Mörlin’s dismissal still fresh in his mind, Flacius first attacked the process, which allowed Funck and others to publish pro-Osiander tracts and sermons, as a sign that this heresy still met with approval in Prussia. Moreover, Flacius recalled the basic inequity of this dispute, in which Mörlin’s defense of his faith was not allowed to be published until one-and-a-half years into the controversy, long after Osiander had published many things. Worse yet, Osiander was allowed to publish his Stinckbier, as Flacius labeled it, in response to Mörlin. Flacius also noted that the Prussians did not send Mörlin’s confession along with Osiander’s – another indication of how flawed the process was. Then, because they knew the Württemberg position to be somewhat milder, the Prussians sent that opinions to other churches but made no attempt to send the statements of the other churches to the Württembergers, so that the latter might become better informed regarding the true issues in the dispute. Mörlin, as could be seen from the correspondence between him and Osiander, was asked to judge the matter and was obedient to his prince. As soon as he made his decision, he was declared to be prejudiced. Osiander did the same thing when Duke Albrecht asked for opinions from the other churches of the Augsburg Confession. When they came back nearly unanimously negative, Osiander condemned their teaching. With this approach, Flacius stated, a case could never be decided. Throughout the entire process the Osiandrists simply never sought the truth, otherwise they would have listened to the public truth of Christ’s church and would not have judged other Christians so carelessly nor allowed Osiander to publish his Stenckbier, in which he even condemned Andreas Musculus without ever having read what he wrote. In the second half of the tract, Flacius then went after Funck’s arguments in detail. Pointing to his Verlegung and the statement of the Hamburg church, he dismissed the notion that Osiander’s opponents had so many different definitions of righteousness that they must be divided about the truth. He rejected Funck’s brauch der heiligen Schrifft/ vnd der rechtschaffnen Lehrer alter vnd vnserer zeit/ gehalten werden müge : den armen gewissen so diser Zeit durch mancherley Schreiben/ affterreden/ vnd erdicht der vnbestendigen Geister/ erirret sind zu Trost/ den andern jre jrthumb zuerkennen/ zur vermanung geschriben / durch Johan. Funck (Königsberg: Hans Weinreich, 28 March 1553). For more on this controversy, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 183 – ​300. 245 Fla 10 (1554): Verlegung des unwahrhaftigen ungegründten berichts Hansen Funckens, von der Osiandrischen schwermerey … Die grewliche vnerhorte schwermerey der Osiandrischen Götter inn Preussen/ so im newen jarstag dieses 1554. jars ist offentlich vom Eichorn gepredigt worden (Magdeburg, Rödinger, 1554).

172

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

arguments about Daniel 9 and Jeremiah 23 as referring only to Christ’s divinity. His arguments from language, law, the medieval “sophists” and Scripture on the definition of righteousness were simply nonsense (Gewäsch). As Flacius had proven in one of his tracts, to say there are two essential righteousnesses in God is to create two gods. He alternatively accepted Funck’s arguments (when he argued that the law’s righteousness was that by which we are justified) and then used them against him. Flacius urged Christians to hold to this single definition of righteousness and reduced it to a syllogism: the law demanded true righteousness (as Funck confessed); its fulfillment came through Christ’s perfect obedience; therefore Christ’s fulfillment was true righteousness.246 Believers received this righteousness through faith in Christ. After settling this major issue, Flacius then concluded the tract with a short refutation of other errors in Funck’s interpretation of Scripture and in his logic.247 Where Funck insisted that what drove one to do right was one’s righteousness (and hence God was that righteousness), Flacius attacked his philosophical presuppositions: “Certainly, dear Funck, first prove this your philosophical foundation clearly from the divine Scripture ….”248 Finally, when Funck insisted that to overcome the monster of unrighteousness one needed a bigger whale, namely, Christ’s divinity, Flacius made fun of the image on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:56 (“The strength of sin is the law”). One did not need a big belly or sharp teeth but had to go to the source of the problem (the law) and overcome that (namely through Christ’s obedience). In a postscript, Flacius pointed out how Funck misused the church fathers and Luther in his work. Overall his point could not have been clearer: the process had allowed Osiander to misuse the press and had unfairly dismissed the unbiased judgment of the churches; Funck’s theology twisted Scripture and abused other authorities through inaccurate exegesis, faulty logic and alien philosophy. On 1 October 1554, Flacius published his defense of Christ’s blood and obedience as the sinner’s only righteousness. Sometime thereafter, Funck must have attacked this tract in a sermon and perhaps also in a single sheet or notice (Flacius 246  Verlegung des … berichts, C 2v – C 3r: “Aus dieser disputation fasse lieber Christ als in einer summa dis argument oder den syllogismum. Das Gesetze fordert die rechte vnd ware gerechtigkeit wie Funck bekennet. Die erfüllung oder volkomen gehorsam des gesetzes von Christo geschehen vnd gethan/ ist eben das/ welchs das Gesetz fordert/ vnd darumb es das ewige leben verheist/ wie Moses/ Ezechiel/ Christus vnd Paulus bezeugen. Darumb so mus notwendig Christi erfüllung des Gesetzes/ die rechte vnd ware gerechtigkeit sein.” 247 For example, in the Verlegung des … berichts, C 4r, Flacius compared Funck’s argument (God raised Jesus from the dead, therefore it was only Christ’s divine nature that was our righteousness) to a similarly foolish argument: God made Funck’s eyes and mind; they belonged to God not Funck; therefore, Funck had neither eyes nor understanding. 248 Verlegung des … berichts, C 4v – D 1r: “JA lieber Funck/ beweise erst klar/ diesen deinen Philosophischen grundt aus h. Göttlicher schrifft/ das vnser gerechtigkeit sey das/ so vns treibet recht zuthun/ vnd nicht das recht thun oder recht leben selbst/ wie wir oben vnd sonst an vielen orten beweiset haben/ Es ist auch von diesem argument gnug bishieher gesaget worden/ wider die tölpische definition der gerechtigkeit Osiandri.”

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

173

mentioned a Zettel). Not surprisingly, this drove Flacius to issue another condemnation of Funck’s theology, probably later in 1555.249 Bad enough that Funck attacked Flacius’s understanding of the atonement; he also intimated that Flacius had been bribed into attacking Osiander. Among other things, Funck argued that having Christ’s blood as our righteousness excluded Adam before the Fall. Flacius stated simply that the word “we” (capitalized WIR) meant sinful human beings. Funck’s third argument, that Paul’s statement that Christ was our righteousness precluded his blood from being our righteousness Flacius dismissed as Funck’s failure to understand Scripture’s use of synedoche. To the charge that he was bribed to attack Osiander, Flacius gladly recounted his personal history since 1547. Anyone who knew his circumstances during the seige [of Magdeburg] would surely know that he had not been bribed, since he would have been far better off in Prussia, especially given the letters that Andreas Aurifaber wrote to him, trying to convince him not to write against Osiander.250 Moreover, when he first wrote against Osiander he thought he was the only one in the field. The end of the tract examined excerpts from the new confession of faith (contained in the Abschied) and from the Formula of Revocation used by Funck, which Flacius found contradictory and heretical, since it posited a second source of forgiveness beyond Christ’s merit and the shedding of his blood, namely, in the essential righteousness of Christ that dwells in the believer. Funck’s statements before the embassy of theologians from Württemberg and Saxony (held in June 1554) were in Flacius’s opinion nothing more than writing a confession of faith [in Christ’s meritorious death] and then revoking it.251 V. Fighting Matthias Vogel The controversy between Joachim Mörlin and Matthias Vogel, who held an M. A. from Wittenberg and had earlier been a preacher in Nuremberg,252 began over a very personal matter. Vogel succeeded Mörlin as the pastor in Kneiphof and, 12 (1555): Widder drei Gottislesterische vnnd Sophistische Argumenta des Funckens/ welche er newlich in Preussen widder das tewre blut Christi vnter die Leute gestrewet hat … Ein Canon fur etlichen jaren in Preussen von den kirchen vnd Regenten geordnet. Wer etwas widder die Augssburgische Confession leren würde/ der sol excommunicirt, vnd/ wo er nicht widderrufet/ aus der Kirchen gantz verworffen werden. Das ist die rechte Execution, hat man anders lust dazu ([Magdeburg: Lotther, 1555]). 250 Widder drei … Argumenta, A 5r – v : “Denn es war kurtz vorm ende vnser Belagerung/ da es fast alles also scheinete/ das ich nirgent in Deudtschlandt nicht alleine keine zimliche vnterhaltung/ sonder auch schier keinen sichern ort haben wurde. In Preussen aber hette ich dargegen nicht alleine sicherheit des lebens/ sondern auch eine zimliche gute besoldung konnen bekommen oder erlangen/ so ichs mit Osiandro vnd seinen gesellen hette wollen halten/ jm beyfall geben vnd verteidingen.” 251 For the complexities of this embassy, which stretched on for three months, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 229 – ​56. The result was the Abschied, which was roundly rejected by opponents of Osiander. 252 For details, see chapter 8. 249 Fla

174

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

although he claimed neutrality in the controversy, was thought by Mörlin to be a firm supporter of Osiander. No wonder that when Mörlin returned in triumph in 1566, Vogel departed for Württemberg and took a position there. Their published dispute began in 1556 with a circular letter, penned by Mörlin, attacking Vogel for invading the pulpit in Kneiphof.253 The dispute itself, however, began with Vogel’s visit to Nuremberg and his unguarded comments about Mörlin to Wolf Waldner. The dispute continued until 1559, when Mörlin wrote a fourth and final attack on Kneiphof ’s pastor.254 Mörlin’s initial letter from September 1556 described Vogel’s charges: that Mörlin had wondered whether the divine righteousness was infused in the front or backside of a person; that he had never preached about the importance of the essential righteousness; that he was a disobedient rebel who had left for political not theological reasons.255 Of course, Vogel responded. He described arriving in Prussia after several years as a pastor in Nuremberg and discovering that the charges against Osiander did not conform to what Osiander actually said.256 He did not trample on Christ’s blood and suffering; he did not exclude Christ’s obedience from the believer’s righteousness; he did not teach that even the godless receive forgiveness; he did not rob consciences of comfort by teaching about the essential righteousness of God; he did not prefer the indwelling righteousness of God to the forgiveness of sins; he was not simply a Papist; believers did not become gods and equal to Christ. He then summarized his view of Osiander’s teaching. While he began describing a position similar to the Ausschreiben and Brenz’s Declaration,257 he 253 Mör 05 (1556): Joachim Mörlin, Ein Sendtbrieff D. Doctoris Joachimi Morlini an den Vogel/ eingedrungenen Prediger in der Stiftskirchen des Kniphoffs zu Künigsberg in Preussen, ([Magdeburg??: Lotter??] 1556). The letter bore the date 25 September 1556. See Fligge, Osiandrismus, 300 –​10. 254 For the literary exchanges, see chapter 8. Waldner was a close associate of Nicholas Gallus. 255 Mör 05 (1556): Joachim Mörlin, Ein Sendtbrieff D. Doctoris Joachimi Morlini an den Vogel/ eingedrungenen Prediger in der Stiftskirchen des Kniphoffs zu Künigsberg in Preussen. ([Magdeburg??: Lotter??] 1556). 256  Matthias Vogel, Dialogvs oder Gesprech eines armen Sünders mit Moyse vnnd Christo/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ auß Heyliger Schrifft gegründt vnnd gestelt … Sampt seinem Bedencken von der zugetragenen zwispalt vber solche Artickel. Vnd einer antwort auff D. Joachim Mörlein vngestümmen Sendbrieff …. ([Königsberg: Hans Daubmann], 1557). He quoted GA 10: 102, 12 –​14; 106, 14 –​18; 104, 32 –​106, 12 to prove that Osiander did not trample on Christ’s suffering and blood. 257 Dialogvs, f 2r – f 3r: “Wir waren durch Adam allezumal in Sünd gefallen/ vnd solcher Sünden halben durch das gesetz verklagt/ schuldig des fluchs/ tods/ der Hellen/ vnd ewigen verdamnus/ dorfften derhalben eines Mitlers/ welcher zugleich Gott vnd Mensch wer/ welcher ist Christus Jhesus Gottes vnd Marie Sohn/ der zwischen Gott vnnd vns Sundige Menschen/ eingetretten ist/ vnnd das Gesetz so wir solten/ vnnd nicht kunten erfüllen/ an vnser statt erfüllet/ vnnd diesweil wir es selber nicht erfüllet/ vnnd damit den fluch/ Todt/ vnnd die Hellen/ verschuldet hetten/ ist er ein fluch für vns worden/ des Tods am Creutz gestorben/ zur hellen gefahren/ vnnd am dritten tag wider vom Tod aufferstanden/ vnd gen Himmel gefahren. Solches alles wirdt vns im heiligen Euangelio geprediget/ Wenn wirs nun glauben/

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

175

also insisted, however, that such a forgiven person is not yet “in deed” [in der Tat] justified and that the indwelling essential divine righteousness finally did the trick. (Of course, these were central points of contention for both Mörlin and Flacius, since to them it turned justification into a matter of human beings fulfilling the law on their own and reduced divine righteousness simply to the condemning law.) While admitting that Osiander used language differently from the Augsburg Confession and misunderstood Paul in Romans, Vogel nevertheless tried to defend his mentor. Turning to Mörlin’s open letter, Vogel blamed the misunderstanding in part on Wolf Waldner’s inaccurate reporting. He had simply said that Mörlin attacked Osiander indiscriminately and needed to have shown the kind of balance that Melanchthon did in his Nuremberg statement from the previous year, where he allowed a place for the essential righteousness of God in the justification of the sinner.258 He took exception to some of Mörlin’s cruder attacks on Osiander and werden wir vmb solches heiligen volkömlichen Gehorsams Christi des Mitlers willen/ der vns im Glauben zugerechnet wirdt/ von Gott zu gnaden angenomen/ ihm angenem vnd wolgefellig gemacht/ vnnd empfangen vergebung der sünden/ der wir vns auch for Gott/ wider Sünd/ Tod/ Hell/ vnd Teuffel zu vertrösten haben/ Doch welche also vergebung der sünden empfangen haben/ sein vnd heissen darumb noch nicht (proprie loquendo) gerechtfertigt/ Das ist/ nach seinem verstandt/ mit der that gerecht vnd fromm gemacht/ oder vernewert/ sondern müssen allererst gerechtfertigt (das ist/ vernewert) werden. Solche aber geschicht/ durch die Wesentliche Gerechtigkeit/ welche Gott selbst ist/ vnd allein rechtfertigen/ das ist/ mit der that gerecht machen kan. Dann/ nach dem wir vmb Christi Gehorsams willen/ im glauben vor Gott/ zu gnaden angenomen/ die vergebung der sünden empfangen haben/ wohnet solche Wesentliche Gerechtigkeit/ das ist/ Gott selbst durch den Glauben/ nicht schlechter weiß/ wie die Sonn[e] im Acker/ sonder wesentlich oder warhafftig/ in vnsern hertzen/ als einem Tempel/ auß Gnaden. Vnd ist also die selbige Wesentliche Gerechtigkeit/ oder Christus wahrer Gott vnnd Mensch/ nach siner Göttlichen Natur allein/ vnser einige wahre Ewige Gerechtigkeit/ durch welche wir der vbrigen sünd in vnserm fleisch/ odern dem alten Adam/ je lenger je mehr abgetödet/ vnd dargegen zu allem guten getrieben vnd bewegt/ vnd der gestalt gerechtfertigt/ das ist/ auch mit der that/ wiewol in diesem leben nur anfenglich gerecht vnd fromm gemacht. Dann dieweil wir solcher Wesentlichen Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ so inn vns durch den Glauben wohnet/ vnd wircket/ nicht wie wir wollen/ ob wir schon nach dem geyst/ wöllen/ doch nach dem fleisch nicht können volkömlich gehorsam sein/ werden wir nimmermehr weil dieses leben wheret/ sondern allerest in jenem ewigen leben volkommen. Darumb wir vns auch nicht inn diesem leben auff solchen angefangen vnuolkommenen gehorsam/ oder vernewerung/ verlassen sollen/ sondern haben vns allein des heiligen vnd volkömlichen Gehorsams Christi/ vnd inn dem selben der vergebung der sünden/ so offt wir auß schwacheit vnsers fleischs/ vnd steter anreitzung des Sathans gefallen/ durch den Glauben zu vertrösten/ Wenn wir aber in solchem trost durch den zeitlichen tod/ der sünden gar abgestorben/ vnd am jüngsten tag wider mit verklertem leib aufferstanden sein/ werden sir durch die Wesentliche Gerechtigkeit nicht allein/ wie alhie anfenglich/ sonder auch volkömlich mit der that gerecht/ vnd ewig selig sein/ vnd in der selben/ als vnser wahren ewigen Gerechtigkeit/ welche das Leben ist/ leben vnd regieren/ mit vnaußsprechlichen Himmlischen Freuden.” 258 Dialogvs, l 1r: “Wie dan auch D. Philippus in dem scripto darunter Jhr Predicanten zu Nurmberg euch all zumal miteinander vnterschrieben habt/ solche erklerung von der Wesentlichen Gerechtigkeit nicht durchauß verwirfft/ sondern ob sie sich woll nicht reim zu den Spruchen Pauli/ Rom. 3.4.5. bekent er doch das sie die lehr des gesetzt sey/ Söndert sie also von

176

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Duke Albrecht (e.g., whether this essential righteousness were poured through a felt hat from above or below) and claimed that he had not illegally usurped Mörlin’s position in Kneiphof. Moreover, he insisted that Mörlin had not taught at all about the indwelling of God’s essential righteousness (which was a consuming fire only for unbelievers) and that Mörlin was seditious. Such an attack roused the ire of Mörlin and Flacius, who together published a reply sixty days after Vogel’s challenge rolled off the presses, with Mörlin concentrating on a response to Vogel and Flacius going after another Osiandrian publication.259 The entire tract focused on the problem of how one was to read texts. To be sure, Vogel’s account of the history and his attack on Mörlin’s person and office demanded a response, as did Mörlin’s continuing sense of pastoral responsibility for his former flock. But Vogel claimed that he himself taught according to the Apostle Paul, which implied to Mörlin a condemnation of the Judicia of the other churches. Vogel also claimed that Osiander only spoke up because people were teaching forgiveness of sins without any sanctification and because of Mörlin’s unjustified attacks. Mörlin was incensed at this reading of history, since Osiander himself admitted to having started the controversy. While Vogel cited both Melanchthon’s Loci communes and the Augsburg Confession favorably, Osiander had attacked the entire corpus doctrinae as a conspiracy.260 The idea of Osiander redefining justification just because some taught it wrongly made no more sense to Mörlin than the maid who threw a chair through the window because the manservant disobeyed the master. To say, as Vogel had said, that Osiander misunderstood Paul in Romans meant for Mörlin that all of salvation was in jeopardy. Mörlin even claimed that he was ready to take back all he had said about Osiander, if Vogel could find one place where Osiander tied forgiveness of sins directly to Christ’s suffering and death. “Can I not prove from Osiander’s books and writings that he excluded the comfort that Paul talked of den Spruchen Pauli ab darauff sie auch Osiander Improprie gezogen/ aber keines wegs wie D. Mörlein von Himel vnnd Erden/ der sie/ wie ich von vylen warhafften personen/ so noch leben/ bericht bin worden.” See below, chapter 5. 259  M/F 01 (1557): Antwort auff das Buch des Osiandrischen schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ darinnen er sein beduncken anzeiget von der fürgefallenen zwispalt/ vnd meinen Brieff an jn … Item Matth. Fl. Jllyrici von dem Gebet einer Osiandrischen Person/ vber den lxxj. Psalm ([Magdeburg: Ambrosius Kirchner, 1557]). 260 Antwort, A 4v: “Sondern er [Osiander] felt wie ein wütender hundt (also nennet Paulus aus Geistlicher bescheidenheit solche Gesellen) die Bücher vnd Schrifft an/ darinnen das gantze Corpus doctrinae gefasset ist/ verhönet/ verschimpieret sie/ als eine schedlich Conspiration vnd geschwornen Buntschuh …” For the important role that Melanchthon’s Loci communes theologici continued to play as an authority, see Irene Dingel, “Melanchthon und die Normierung des Bekenntnisses,” in: Günter Frank, ed., Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000), 195 – ​211, and Robert Kolb, “The Braunschweig Resolution: The Corpus Doctrinae Prutenicum of Joachim Mörlin and Martin Chemnitz as an Interpretation of Wittenberg Theology,” in: Confessionalization in Europe, 1555 –​1700, Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, ed. John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Papalas (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004), 67 – ​89.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

177

along with the forgiveness of sins, and that he publicly, using awful blasphemy, mocked this as an idol and devil?”261 This problem of the interpretation of (Osiander’s) texts Mörlin addressed directly, contrasting how Vogel read Osiander with equivocation in order to bring Osiander’s teaching in line with St. Paul while Osiander argued that he was interpreting Paul correctly.262 Regarding Vogel’s attack on his person, Mörlin argued that he brought no new doctrine into Prussia, approached Osiander in a friendly manner, and tried to mediate the situation. Moreover, he acted only as a shepherd defending his flock from false teaching. Then he asked what a situation like this demanded from a pastor: compromise or confession? For Mörlin, as for Flacius, an attack on justification by faith demanded confession; there was no middle ground.263 Indeed, he summarized not only his behavior in Prussia while a pastor but also his subsequent attacks and responses this way. Against such heresy, one had to confess, which in this case meant to publish. The stakes were apocalyptically high: publish or perish, confess or be condemned. Compromise in such a matter robbed Scripture itself of meaning and left the poor Christian flock with no sure comfort whatsoever. Given Vogel’s clear Osiandrian position, Mörlin could only invoke Christ, the archbishop, to warn people to stay away from him, citing Luther’s own advice regarding pastors who unjustly seized another’s office.264 261 Antwort, B 2v: “Kan ich nicht beweisen aus Osiandri Büchern vnd schrifften/ das er zu dem trost/ daruon Paulus redet … sampt der vergebung der Sünden ausschleust/ ja öffentlich mit grausamer lesterung für einen Abgott vnd Teuffel schilt …?” Note here the mention of comfort. 262 Antwort, B 3r: “Ja wirdt Vogel singen/ Jch mach aequiuocationem in uerbis, vnd sage/ Osiander heist Iusticiam, iustificari, vnd imputare anderst denn Paulus/ Antwort/ das ist war das thut dieser Vogel/ Contra sagt Osiander/ der Vogel thue jm gewaldt vnnd vnrecht/ Sondern er rede in illa significatione, do Paulus von redet ad Roma. j. iij. iiij. v. etc.” Cf. B 4r: “Vnd hilfft also mein lieber Herr Vogel vnser tempern/ kluttern vnd flicken an dem wunderlichen jrren kopff so wenig als ewere Quatuor termini, Weil jm Osiander keine amphibologiam, keine aequiuocationem wil lassen machen/ Sondern sagt vnd stehet vest darauff er rede Vniuoce von dem/ das Paulus heist iusticiam Dei.” 263 Antwort, C 4r: “Jst vnbescheidenheit/ das ich die Schefflein Christi gewarnet/ vnd sich heissen vor solchen Lehrern hüten/ jrer vnd jrer Lehr müssig gehen/ Was kan ich darzu/ das ich nicht viel lieber wie Vogel vnter dem schein vnd süssen worten des schönen friedes/ wie der falschen propheten art vnd gewonheit ist/ sie dem Wolff verraten vnd in den rachen geführt hab? Was kan ich auch darzu/ das Gott solche bescheidene Leut/ tuncher vnd schmierer … weil sie sonderlich in jrer boßheit rhümen … vnd jre Amnistiam vnd stillschweigen gar herlich/ als eine bescheidenheit wieder Gott vertheidigen/ Die andern die nicht auch stum sein vnd schweigen wollen/ verdammen vnd zum Landt hinaus stossen/ vexiren sie darnach dazu/ als weren sie selbst daruon gelauffen/ O fein/ O recht.” 264 Citing WA Br 6: 76 – ​79 (17 April 1531) and WA Br 10: 252 – ​58 (27 January 1543) from Etliche Trostschrifften vnd Predigten des Ehrwirdig, Herrn Doct. Mart. Luth. Für die/ so Todes/ vnd ander Not vnd Anfechtung sind/ Erstlich anno 1545. zusamen gebracht/ vnd in Druck gegeben/ durch D. Caspar Creutziger. Jtzt aber von newen zugericht/ vnd mit vielen schönen herrlichen Trost/ vnd andern Schrifften/ gemehret/ durch Georgium Rorarium. Allen Gottseligen nützlich vnd tröstlich zu lesen. Die Titel der Schrifften sind am folgenden blat/ in der Vorrede des Herrn Niclas von Amsdorff/ in gemein kurtzlich angezeigt. (Jena: Christian Rödiger, 1554).

178

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Vogel, not surprisingly, answered this tract with his Refutation published some time after March 1557 and before the end of the year.265 Mörlin had clearly put him on the defensive. He summarized the charges against him: that he charged some [read: Mörlin] of preaching forgiveness without sanctification; that he defended Osiander’s errors; that without cause he attacked Wolf Waldner. Again, the entire tract dealt in one way or another with the hermeneutical problem: how did one read authoritative texts properly. Thus, to the first charge, Vogel claimed simply to be describing Osiander’s statements not defending them, and he opined that Osiander would have been far better off not saying what he did in confusing justification and renewal. To the second charge, Vogel simply repeated that he had not been defending Osiander, who had interpreted Romans 3 – ​5 inaccurately. Nevertheless, Vogel added, this did not mean that Osiander had robbed all comfort from the sinner. This small admission showed that only Mörlin and not Vogel had grasped the central tenet of Wittenberg’s theology, namely, that the definition of a thing and its effect are inextricably bound together. For Mörlin, the incorrect definition of justification had to lead, ipso facto, to an elimination of comfort.266 Vogel also defended his faithfulness to the Augsburg Confession and Melanchthon’s Loci.267 In a few parting shots regarding Waldner, Vogel showed that Mörlin neglected to mention God’s essential righteousness in his confession of faith (the Bericht of 1552). He then defended the Mandat of 1555 as faithful to the Augsburg Confession and Scripture on the question of justification. To demand a recantation, as Mörlin had, meant to Vogel proving that the Osiandrists actually confessed what Mörlin accused them of, when in fact he was twisting their words. Either prove them guilty of heresy on matters of substance or admit that when the church fathers also used language different from Mörlin that they were in the same way guilty of heresy. 265 Matthias Vogel, Widerlegung der vngegründten Antwort D. Mörlins auff mein Buch/ welchs ich wider jn zuschreyben durch seinen Lesterbrieff bin gedrungen worden ([Königsberg: Daubmann], 1557). 266 Widerlegung, B 1v: “Wo er [Mörlin] aber das dar auß schliessen will/ weil Osiander auch nach meinem Iudicio offtgemelte locos Pauli nicht von dem gehorsam Christi/ vnnd von vergebung der Sünden/ … verstanden/ oder außgelegt/ hab er auch sonst gar nichts von solchem höchsten trost gehalten/ sondern denselben gantz vnnd gar den Armen Sündern auß den Augen gesetzt/ vnnd entzogen/ Bitt ich gantz freundtlich … das er Osiandrum derselben halben/ nicht allein beklag/ sondern auch mit grundt vberweis.” 267 Widerlegung, C 2v: “Weil ich sampt der Augspurgischen Confession auch die Locos communes D. Philippi stettigs gehalten/ vnd auch noch halt für gute nützliche Bücher/ vnnd compendia/ darinnen vnser gantze Christliche lehr auß grundt heiliger schrifft auffs kürtzst/ vnd ordentlichst zusamen gefast ist worden/ hab ich keines vnbeschaidene red/ wie sie im anfang dieses streits wider solche bücher mit vnterscheydt ymmer geschehen sein mügen/ doch nie verteidiget/ sondern allwegen trewlich vermanet/ vnd geraten/ das der gleichen (viel ergernuß vnd zerrüttung zuuermeiden) nicht mehr geschehen.” Here Vogel was perhaps supporting Melanchthon’s position in the Majoristic controversy: that in the tension between divine and human responsibility for good works, the human side not be neglected. The author is grateful to Robert Kolb for this insight.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

179

Mörlin was a clever enough theological shark to smell blood in the water. Thus, around 1 January 1558 he published his Apologia in the face of Vogel’s presumed refutation.268 At this point one must ask what was at stake for Mörlin and Vogel in this exchange. Why did they go into such detail? What was each trying to prove? By examing the original letter published by Mörlin with Vogel’s comments, one discovers that the exchange had to do with the Amnesty and the Mandat and (in Mörlin’s eyes) their failure to reject Osiander’s theology out-of-hand. On the other hand, it had to do with the connection between the proper meaning of Romans 1– ​5 and comfort (i.e., the effect of the definition of justification). Why did Mörlin say he was responding (again) to Vogel? For the sake of his poor flock (in Königsberg), because some (Brenz and the Mandat) had trivialized the controversy, and because Mörlin was being attacked as a blasphemer. Again, the issue came down to the history of the dispute (who attacked whom first) and the texts it generated. Vogel did not write an unbiased history but was intent from the very onset of the dispute on attacking Mörlin. Moreover, what he said about justification did not reflect Osiander’s position in the least. When Vogel tried to use Luther’s comments in On the Councils and the Churches about not attacking someone without cause, he contradicted himself because, having claimed that Osiander’s teaching did not reflect Paul’s, Vogel now tried to trivialize the difference. For these participants, this dispute was not over various interpretations of biblical texts, which did call for equity, but over manifest corruption of the central doctrine of the faith. The chief point of difference was over the very definition of righteousness and whether it was a part of renewal or justification and whether it came from Christ and his merit and was imputed to the sinner. This position, Mörlin insisted, was not some sort of philosophical construct, as Osiander had charged, but rather the heart of the gospel itself.269 Indeed, Mörlin spent most of the tract citing places where Osiander actually said the outrageous things that Mörlin claimed he said. He compared Osiander’s definition of righteousness to Paul’s discussion of God’s gracious forgiveness of sins gratis without the law and works through faith alone. “Osiander calls righteousness indwelling, infusion, that is, an in-fluttering through a little trick, Mr. Vogel.”270 Rather than focus on 268 Mör 06 (1558): Apologia Auff die vermeinte widerlegung des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels. Sampt gründlichem kurtzen bericht/ Was der Haubstreit vnd die Lere Osiandri gewesen sey/ Allen Christen nützlich zu lesen/ sich fur dem Grewel zu Hüten ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1558]). 269 Apologia, C 2v – C 3r: “Diese Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ daruon Paulus leret/ sey nicht Christus warhafftiger Gott/ in seinem verdienst/ … Sie sey auch nicht Imputatiua vnd aus Gnaden/ Ja solche meinung sey weder fleischlich noch Philosophisch/ sondern Fantastisch/ nerrisch/ Eselisch/ Büfflisch/ Kulcisch/ Viltzisch/ vnd was man nur dergleichen mehr von jr sagen kan/ Denn weder die Philosophi/ noch fleisch vnd blut/ das seine rechte vernunfft hat/ narren also von der Gerechtigkeit/ etc.” 270 Apologia, D 2v: “Osiander heist es Gerechtigkeit eingiessen/ einflössen/ scilicet eingöckeln [eingaukeln: to flutter in] durch ein trichterlein/ Her Vogel.” A play on Vogel’s name, “bird.”

180

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

the fulfillment of the law and Christ’s obedience, as Flacius often did, Mörlin emphasized grace and, above all, comfort. It was precisely this connection that, Mörlin argued, was completely lacking in Osiander’s work.271 For Mörlin, this also meant that Osiander rejected the very foolishness of God’s work in Christ. Once again, Mörlin centered his rejection of Osiander (and especially his division of redemption and justification, as well as his obsession with the infusion of Christ’s divine righteousness) in the theology of the cross. Now, however, the [forgiveness through Christ’s obedience and the shedding of his blood] is the central doctrine not of human reason and earthly wisdom (concerning which a person in such high matters cannot easily grasp with blustery speech because it is indeed foolishness), but is instead of the holy Gospel and the eternal wisdom of God and in which are the honor of the precious, worthy blood of Christ and his entire obedience, yes, the single, complete, only holy comfort of all poor, saddened sinners. Outside of this no one is saved but instead is completely lost, as [has been] heard, and no one can deny at any time without the deformation and wounding of his conscience, God’s honor and his gospel.272 271 Apologia, D 3r – D 4r: “Wie bößlich aber Osiander auch in diesen Brunnen vnnd Quelle des trosts aller Welt gegriffen/ vnd den verkeret habe/ damit wir ja desselbigen vns nicht haben zu trösten/ sonderlichen im kampff vnd streit/ [Mörlin refered to Conf. S 3v to Z; Widerlegung H–K; Nachtraben, John 16], … mit wunderlichen visierlichen grillen/ So wirstu finden/ wie der feindselige Mensch/ die aller schönesten Sprüch/ lieblichsten trost vnd frölichsten örter der heiligen Schrifft/ zu eitel bitterer Wermet/ gifft vnd gallen gemacht hat/ vnd also nichts gesundes an dem heilwertigen trost der armen Kirchen/ vnd betrübten/ beengstigen hertzen gelassen/ sondern alles darnieder gerissen/ verfelscht vnd zu schanden gemacht/ wie ein Teuffel. Denn was kan doch vnser trost sein zu seligkeit/ wenn er nicht grösser ist denn der/ das wir armen betrübten hertzen vns der Gerechtigkeit ferner nicht zu trösten haben/ denn nach dem wir fülen/ das Gott in vns wonet vnd die vernewerung anrichtet/ Ach herr Gott/ wie wil da der fürnemsten Christen hertz Zappeln/ die doch ja den schaden im fleisch jmer mehr vnd hefftiger fülen/ denn andere gemeine Pursa [Bursche]/ wie Dauid/ Paulus/ vnd dergleichen. Wil geschweigen/ die anfechtung vnd das grosse Creutz/ das damit zuschlecht/ vnd die angst offt so gros machet/ das das hertz fur jamer schmeltzen möchte. Vnd da sol ich nun sagen/ Tröste dich Gott/ du arme Seele/ nach dem du fülest das Gott in dir wircket. Ach lieber Vogel/ tröst euch Gott ja nicht also an ewerm letzten ende/ das wünsch ich von gantzem hertzen/ jr seid zu jung/ zu jung vmb den schnabel gewachsen/ sag ich abermals/ wenn jr gleich der Jar halber so alt weret/ als diese welt/ vnd seid noch fur dem rechten garne nicht gewesen/ noch dahin gerochen [gekrochen?]/ da ein Christ hin komen mus/ sonst liest jr euch viel lieber den leib/ ja die seele nemen/ denn die aller schönesten lieblichsten Sprüch droben so jemmerlichen verkeren. Vnd sage noch/ wenn Osiander gleich nicht mehr gethan/ denn allein dieselbigen heiligen receptacula vnd asyla afflictarum conscientiarum so schentlich beschmeist/ verkeret vnd verstellet/ So wer er werdt/ das man alle seine Bücher/ als eines schedlichen Schwermers/ wie er denn leider darfür gestorben/ ist one Buß/ zu pulffer vnd asschen machete.” 272 Apologia, E 1v: “Nun ist aber das [forgiveness through the obedience and innocent blood of Christ] die Heubtlehr/ nicht Menschlicher vernunfft vnd weißheit auff Erden/ an der man sich in so hohen sachen mit schimpffreden nicht leichtlich vergreiffen kan/ weil sie doch torheit ist/ Sondern des heiligen Euangelij/ der ewigen weißheit Gottes/ vnd darinnen die ehre des tewren werden bluts Christi/ vnnd seines gantzen gehorsams/ ja der einige gantz vnd gar allein selige trost aller armen betrübten Sünder/ ausser welchem keiner selig sondern allzumal verloren sind/ wie gehört/ vnd kein mensch one verserung [Verzerrung] vnd verletzung seines gewissen/ der ehre Gottes vnd seines Euangelij nimmermehr leugnen kan.” Although the term (theology of the cross) may have disappeared from Luther’s vocabulary after the 1520s, the con-

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

181

Mörlin also attacked Vogel’s use of the Augsburg Confession, again charging that through such equivocation it ceased to function as a confession at all and became a wax nose (a favorite phrase describing bad interpretations of Scripture).273 Similarly, he attacked Vogel’s use of Luther, insisting instead on his own “faithful” interpretation of the reformer.274 Vogel, of course, could not leave well enough alone or, rather, could not leave this massive attack on him go unanswered. In the spring of 1558 he authored a reply.275 Here he tried to take the rhetorical high road (given that Mörlin had made fun of his name, which means bird, at every possible opportunity). He complained that he had never taught errors and favorably compared his teaching with Mörlin’s. He always had attacked sectarians and the papacy. He had been rightly called to his office in Königsberg. Indeed, he described himself as a true disciple of Wittenberg’s theology, having been trained and ordained there.276 He had not cept did not. See Robert Kolb, “Luther’s Theology of the Cross Fifteen Years after Heidelberg: Lectures on the Psalms of Ascent,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010): 69 – ​85. 273 Apologia, F 4r – v : “Was Vogel von der Augspurgischen Confession rhümet/ da mag ich dismal nicht viel von schreiben/ mir thuts zu weh/ wenn ich hör die greuliche schmach vnd schand/ die solche vnsers teils/ wie sie sich rhüment/ Theologen dem edlen tewren schatz anlegen. Es ist ja die Augustana Confessio biß daher ein schon Ornamentum gewesen/ der waren Kirchen zu vnser zeit/ darbey man die reine Lehr/ vnd rechte Volck Gottes von allerley Rotten hat können entscheiden/ Vnd bald wissen/ wenn man der Augspurgischen Confession gedacht/ wer damit ist gemeinet worden. Aber vnsers liebe Herrichin/ haben das gar schöne kleinodt eine zeit her also verehret/ das man schier nicht mehr weis/ was Augustana Confessio heist/ denn du lerest was du wollest/ wenn du auch der Augspurgischen Confession so spinne bitter feind werest/ das du sie eine Conspiration vnd Bundschuch öffentlichen schultest/ wie Osiander gethan/ Dennoch schadet es nicht/ dein meinung vnd lehr ist der Augspurgischen Confession nicht entgegen/ vnd trotz der anders saget/ Jch weis was ich schreibe/ las es aber dißmal darbey beruhen/ biß auff ein andere zeit/ Denn ich hoff/ wir wollen ein mal sehen/ was Augustana Confessio/ oder was sie nicht sey/ vnd wer die jenigen sind/ die sich mit warheit der Augspurgischen Confession rhümen/ darbey redlich vnd trewlich/ zu frölicher vnnd betrübter zeit gehalten haben/ dißmal sag ich genug.” 274 Apologia, G 2r – v : “Jch wil dem Vogel weiter mein vrsach anzeigen/ warumb ich auch Luthero hierin müsse zufallen/ Denn wenn ausser der einigen Lehr/ wares erkentnis Gottes were/ So were auch ausser der Lehr ware Seligkeit vnnd ewiges Leben/ Oder aber das ewige Leben vnd Seligkeit were nicht solches erkentnis wider Jesaiam Cap. liij. vnd Christum Johan. xvij. Das hiesse auff einen bissen Christum vnd die Shrifft [sic!]/ mit der gantzen Religion gar auffheben/ denn es were genug/ vnd gulte gleichviel was ein jeder von Gott treumete. Darumb halt ichs auch ferner mit Luthero (denn ich bin Lutherisch/ vnd wil es ob Gott wil ersterben) das die heilige Kirche kan vnd mag keine lügen noch falsche lehr leiden/ Sondern mus eitel (Her Vogel eitel) heiliges warhafftiges/ das ist allein (Her Vogel allein) Gottes wort leren/ Vnd wo sie eine lügen (Her Vogel eine lügen) leret/ ist sie schon Abgöttisch vnnd des Teuffels Huren Kirch/ Her Vogel leset es im siebenden Deutschen Tomo zu Wittenberg gedruckt/ fol. ccccclxj. fac. ij.” 275 Matthias Vogel, Antwort M. Matthei Vogels auff Joachim Mörlins zu Braunschweig nechst außgegangene Apologiam/ 1558 (Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 1558). For the publication history, see chapter 8. 276 Antwort, B 1r: “… doch kan ich mit warheit schreiben/ das ich nicht den wenigsten Buchstaben in meiner Lehr/ welche ich auß warem grundt der heiligen Schrifft von D. Luther seliger gedechtnuß/ D. Philippo/ vnd andren meinen geliebten Herren/ vnd Praeceptoribus zu Wittenberg geschöpfft/ vnd hernachmals in meiner Ordination in der Pfarrkirchen daselbst trewlich

182

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

gotten mixed up in the Osiandrian controversy but worried that some preachers were only speaking about forgiveness and not sanctification. Again, Mörlin seemed to have put Vogel squarely on the defensive, so that the latter again felt constrained to list all of the places where Osiander made mistakes in his theology. Yet, with all of that Vogel still imagined that this was a dispute over words and, to that end, cited the example of the bishop Spyridion who, when he heard a priest preach on Mark 2 and not use the [crude] Greek word for bed, asked the man why he did not use the proper word and with that left the building.277 He also included a section attacking Mörlin for drawing false conclusions from Osiander’s teaching, highlighting among other things Mörlin’s charge that Osiander’s teaching lacked the comfort of the gospel. He replied by pointing, for example, to places where Osiander claimed that he had not neglected the comfort of the gospel.278 What Vogel (and Osiander) failed to understand was the close connection between the two for the other theologians. Indeed, what Vogel seemed to have missed was that, except in answering Melanchthon’s charge that his teaching lacked comfort, Osiander never addressed the topic, which proved far more clearly Melanchthon’s (and Mörlin’s) point. Vogel actually demonstrated this lack of connection later in the tract when talking about Christ’s death in relation to comfort. “I can still not see how Osiander with the name of righteousness [i.e., with his definition] would have wanted to take away from Christ’s blood and merit the power to comfort before God’s judgment, too.”279 Like Mörlin, Vogel appealed to Luther’s example of dealing with inconsistent theologians, praising Tauler one moment while condemning him the next. Thus, Mörlin had not proven to Vogel’s satisfaction that Osiander was a heretic; he simply had taught incorrectly at some places. Indeed, all Vogel could see in Mörlin’s writings was sheer libel, reason enough that Mörlin should think more about his own conscience and consider more seriously the peace of the churches in Prussia. At the end of the tract, Vogel promised to follow Luther’s advice in comments on Matthew 12 and not say another word about the matter, no matter what Mörlin might do.280 Having signaled an end to the dispute, Vogel had to put up in silence with Mörlin’s last word on the matter. Around New Year 1559, a final attack on Vogel, the very last tract in the entire Osiandrian controversy, rolled off Magdeburg’s zu leren offentlich zugesagt/ vnd solcher zusag nach auch inn meinem Vatterlandt/ dahin ich zum Kirchenampt anfengklich beruffen gewest bin/ diß in das fünffte Jar nach meiner von Gott verliehenen gnad geleret hat …” 277 Antwort, C 3r, citing a story from Sozomen, Ecclesiastica Historia, book 1, chapter 2. 278 Antwort, D 3r, citing GA 10: 638, 33 – ​639, 4. 279 Antwort, F 4r: “… kan ich [Vogel] noch nicht sehen wie Osiander dem blut/ vnd verdienst Christi mit dem namen der gerechtigkeyt auch die krafft vor Gottes gericht zutrösten/ hab wöllen entziehen.” 280 Antwort, H 1v, quoting WA 38: 538, 12 –​18.

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

183

presses.281 Mörlin felt constrained to ward off the accusations, first, that Osiander’s opponents had failed to teach about the renewal that followed justification and, second, that their attacks caused Osiander’s raving (Schwärmerei). On the question of comfort, the issue was not that Osiander denied that sinners were comforted through the forgiveness of sins but rather that this comfort could be had “without the righteousness that Paul talked about.”282 The debate was also not about varying interpretations of texts but about the central proposition of faith: that one stood righteous before God only on the basis of forgiveness won through the blood and innocent obedience of Christ. Osiander had rejected Paul’s understanding of the righteousness of faith and confused that righteousness with renewal. This was not a war of words, as if the debate were over whether to call a horse a cow. For Vogel and Mörlin to reach agreement meant not only admitting that Christ’s death comforts the sinner, “But rather that this very death alone is the righteousness of faith, in which we are righteous and blessed before God for eternal life. This is what is means to teach the thing itself and not to swoon with one’s own thoughts.”283 Mörlin realized that what was at stake was how one does theology and the danger of teaching directly against God’s Word.284 Moreover, Vogel (whom Mörlin nicknamed “the bat”) had made the very meaning of words so uncertain as to reduce theology to an absurdity.285 After a thoroughgoing attack on Vogel’s theological method (or lack of it) in dealing properly with Osiander, 281 Mör 07 (1559): Wieder [Wider] die Antwort des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ Auff meine APOLOGIAM. Sampt gründlichem Bericht/ das zwisschen vns vnd Osiandro kein Grammaticale, sondern reale certamen gewesen sey ([Magdeburg: Lotter], 1559). Later statements about Osiander, including those by John Calvin, published the same year, treated the controversy as a historical artifact, much like the classical heresies of the ancient church, something to be warned against. 282 Wieder die Antwort, A 3v – 4r: “Vnangesehen/ das dennoch auch diese Lehr falsch ist/ das ein Mensch vor Gottes Gericht solte können trost haben one die Gerechtigkeit/ die paulus heist/ vnd auch allein ist/ die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ wie ich das den Osiandrischen Schwermern in nechster meiner Apologia fürgehalten vnd bewiesen habe.” 283  Wieder die Antwort, B 3r: “Sondern das eben dieselibge warhafftige allein die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sey/ darinnen wir vor Gott allein gerecht vnd selig sind zum ewigen Leben/ Das hiesse rem ipsam docere, vnd nicht mt eigenen gedancken schwermen.” 284 Wieder die Antwort, B 3v: “Vnd in Summa/ Was sind omnes res Theologicae, wenn sie gelehret werden/ nicht allein ausser/ sondern auch wider Gottes Wort/ ja mit verleugung vnd lesterung Gottes Worts vnd der rechten meinung/ wie sie in Gottes Wort gegründet ist? Heists gleichwol res ipsas docere, ah so thut Gottes Wort vnd die Bibel hinweg/ etc. Da da wil gewißlich dieser Teuffel hinaus/ Gott aber wehre jm/ Amen.” 285 Wieder die Antwort, B 3v: “Ich wil der Fledermaus noch einen weg fürschlahen/ auff das er zu schwermen raum genug habe/ Er beweise/ das die Gereichtigkeit des Glaubens/ bey dem heiligen Apostel Paulo wörter seyen ad placitum sine rebus, [for a principle without proofs or conditions] oder das Osiander vergebung der Sünden nicht fur vergebung der Sünden/ vnd die vernewerung nicht fur die vernewerung/ oder Gerchtigkeit nicht fur die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ Sondern fur seltzame Wunderthier/ vnd wunderliche Metamorphoses verstanden habe/ wollen aber daruon hernacher in den quatuor terminis mehr hören.”

184

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

Mörlin then addressed his one-time congregants, warning them not to listen to Vogel or believe what he wrote. If one followed Vogel’s plea to understand Osiander in context, one would realize immediately the depth of his errors and Vogel’s disingenuousness. For Mörlin, the exiled pastor, Vogel was merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, willing to throw overboard the judgments of the other churches of the Augsburg Confession and claiming the whole thing was a mere word of words. Vogel’s equivocation about Osiander’s theology, Mörlin concluded, led only back to Rome, for believers are either righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or by the indwelling of his divinity that made them do righteous things.286 Always with an eye on Brenz’s Declaration and the way the Osiandrists had used it, Mörlin concluded by arguing that the entire controversy was never simply a war of words but rather a struggle over the center of the gospel itself.287 This concluding shot in the Osiandrian controversy precisely summed up Mörlin’s biggest concerns. On the personal side, he was being accused of starting a war of words. Theologically, he feared not being taken seriously on the central dogma of the church. There also lurked the political accusation of being a troublemaker. Then again, for Mörlin the whole notion of Theologia itself was under attack. These concerns, along with his pastoral concern and the role of the gospel’s comfort and its condemnation of speculation, undergirded his entire approach – not just to Vogel but also to Osiander himself. 286 Wieder die Antwort, D 2r: “Heist jr aber aequiuocationem, alium, Ja & contrarium a Scripturis sensum, Als da paulus sagt/ die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ derhalben wir Gott angenem sind zum ewigen Leben/ ist vergebung der Sünden im Blut Christi/ vnd nicht die vernewerung. Osiander Contra, Die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ derhalben wir Gott angenem sind zum ewigen Leben/ Jst nicht vergebung der Sünden im blut Christi/ sondern die vernewerung/ etc. Heist jr/ sag ich/ das aequiuocationem, So dancke es euch niemands/ denn der leidige Teuffel/ aus des eingeben jr solch ding dichtet/ vnd vnuerschampt/ vnter dem vnschüldigen heiligen name der warheit/ vnd als weret jr der Augspurgischen Confession verwandte/ dere schandfleck jr seid/ etc. ausspeiet in die arme betrübte Kirchen/ Denn also ist kein streit mehr auff Erden in einiger Religion/ Sondern alles eitel aequiuocationes, Vnd volget fein/ Paulus heist Iustitiam Dei & fidei welcher seligkeit vnd ewiges Leben volget/ die vergebung der Sünden im blut Christi. Der Pfaff heist es seine Meß/ Der münich seine Kappen/ Die Nonne jre Horas beten/ Der Türck die obseruantz seines Alcorans/ der Jüd seinen Pharisaismum, &c. Jst aber alles bald entscheiden vnd concilijrt, durch vnsern andechtigen lieben Herren den Vogel in Preussen/ Der sagt/ das seien eitel aequiuocationes, vnd allein der streit/ vber dem wörtlein/ Iustitia Dei, das hat bey einer jeden Sect also mancherley bedeutung/ so mancherley grillen ein jeder Kopff hat.” Here, as in other places in this dispute, the spectre of Georg Major’s famous statement, “good works are necessary for salvation,” might also have been playing a role in Mörlin’s arguments. 287 Wieder die Antwort, D 3r: “Dieß ding aber (Rem illam) hat er der vergebung der Sünden/ dem Gehorsam vnd Blut Christi genomen/ auch mit greßlicher grewlicher lesterung/ der es doch die heilige Schrifft allein gibet/ Vnd hat es der vernewerung gegeben/ der es doch die Schrifft niemet. In summa/ Er hat der Vernewerung gegeben Rem iustitiae fidei, vnnd nicht Vocabulum sine re, Jst derhalben Certamen reale, nicht Grammaticale & uerbale, viel weniger/ wie etliche wider vns vngütlich tichten Personale certamen.”

E. Combatting Prussia’s Duke and Königsberg’s Osiandrists, 1553 –1559

185

VI. A Concluding Word from Nicholas Gallus Chapter 8 will show that as the controversy wound down, it became enshrined in a variety of general works that warned students, pastors and educated laypersons to avoid Osiander like the plague. Thus, rather than slip into oblivion, as Mörlin worried might happen, this fight became the bête noir of theological morality tales. One of these warnings came from Nicholas Gallus, who in 1558 produced a massive work naming and refuting all manner of theological ghosties and beasties.288 Gallus wrote this work in the aftermath of the breakdown of talks at the 1557 Colloquy at Worms both to demonstrate to their Roman opponents what the Evangelicals believed and to help simple Christians. Staphylus, who by this time had returned to Rome, challenged the Evangelicals to explain their disunity. Gallus answered by reminding the readers that Christ had said there would be sects and that the Evangelicals were thus no exception. Before the Augsburg Confession there had been the Anabaptists and Zwinglians; afterwards there were Antinomians, Interimists, Adiaphorists, Majorists, Osiandrists and Calvinists. When he finally came to describing the Osiandrists, Gallus focused not on the Christological problem (whether one is justified by the divine nature or human nature), as did the later Formula of Concord, but rather on the question of justification itself. Osiander had claimed that righteousness consisted of the indwelling of Christ’s divinity; “On the contrary, we say on the certain basis of Scripture that our righteousness … is nothing essential or real in us but rather the gracious forgiveness outside of us to cover and not to reckon our sins [against us], as God himself does for Christ’s sake to those who believe.”289 The entire life, sufferings and death of Christ were reckoned to the believer, something that did not exclude divine indwelling but made it a result of imputation. Gallus then compared Osiander’s position, which placed righteousness in the divine essence, to the Papists, who placed it in a quality or action that brought forth new virtues through the work of the Holy Spirit in people. By contrast, the Evangelicals placed it in relation and passivity as a reckoning that happened to the person, a passiva iustitia, as Luther called it.290 Indeed, on this basis, Osiander was further from the Evangeli288 Gal 02 (1558): Vonn Irthummen vnnd Secten Theses vnd Hypotheses/ das ist/ gemeine erwiesene Sprüche/ auff gegenwertige zeit vnd hendel gezogen/ zu erhaltung wares verstands vnser Christlichen Augpurgischen Confession/ vnd absonderung der Secten/ Dieser zeit nötig (Jena: Thomas Rewart, 1558). 289 Theses vnd Hypotheses, F 2r: “Dagegen sagen wir aus gewissem grund H. Schrifft/ Vnser gerechtigkeit … sey nichts wesentlichs oder wircklichs in vns/ sonder ausser vns das gnedige vergeben/ zudecken vnd nicht zu rechen vnser Sünde/ so Gott selbs thut vmb Christi willen/ denen die da gleuben.” 290 Theses vnd Hypotheses, F 2r: Osiander placed righteousness “in praedicamento Substantiae/sie sey das Göttlich wesen selbs in vns. Die Papisten setzens in praedicamento qualitatis et actionis/ es sein die newen tugent vnd wercke des H. Geistes in vns. Wir setzens nach der schrifft/ in praedicamento Relationis et passionis/ es sey ein zurechnung nichts des/ das in vns oder von vns ist/ sonder alles in Christo/ darzu wir nichts thun/ sonder leiden das vns Got guts

186

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

cals than the Papists, who at least did not insult the blood of Christ. Gallus made no mention here at all of Flacius’s Anselmic worry about Christ fulfilling the law. For him, it would seem, the issue revolved only around the proper definition of righteousness in saving the sinner by grace through faith alone.

F. Epilogue: Morlinus Triumphans In 1566, Duke Albrecht, by this time infirm and no longer in complete control of his political destiny, betrayed by Johannes Funck, who had been executed for treason, recalled Joachim Mörlin to Prussia.291 To reaffirm the orthodoxy of this Evangelical outpost on the Baltic Sea, Mörlin, with the collaboration of Martin Chemnitz, prepared a corpus doctrinae for his church.292 Although the section dealing with Osiander took up only a few pages, it marked the culmination of the entire published controversy, which ran from Osiander’s original university disputations, through Osiander’s many publications, to Osiander’s death and Mörlin’s banishment and finally, years later, to his return. Mörlin began this section by admitting that this controversy was particularly a problem of the Prussian church caused by the novelty of Osiander’s teaching on justification. Overcoming Osiander was a matter of God’s gracious sending of the “Iudicia Ecclesiarum Confessionis Augustanae” (the judgments of the churches of the Augsburg Confession). Thus, in the very first lines Mörlin highlighted the public nature of this dispute and peculiar role that the published opinions of other Evangelicals played in settling it.293 The very pleas he had early made for thut/ Christi werck und leiden sampt jrem verdienst zu eigen schenckt/ Passiua iustitia/ wie es Luth. nennet.” 291 For the details, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 522 – ​25, and Jürgen Diestelmann, Joachim Mörlin, Luthers Kaplan – “Papst der Lutheraner”: ein Zeit‑ und Lebensbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert (Neundettelsau: Freimund, 2003), 301– ​48. 292 M/C 01 (1567): Joachim Mörlin and Martin Chemnitz, Repetitio Corporis Doctrinae Ecclesiasticae. Oder Widerholung der Summa vnd jnhalt/ der rechten/ allgemeynen/ Christlichen Kirche Lehre/ wie die selbige aus Gottes wort/ in der Augspurgischen Confession/ Apologia/ vnd Schmalkaldischen artickeln begriffen/ Vnd von Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeit zu Preussen/ etc. Auch allen derselbigen getrewen Landtstenden vnd Vnderthanen/ Geistlichen vnd Weltlichen/ im Hertzogthumb Preussen/ einhellig/ vnd bestendiglichen/ gewilliget vnd angenommen/ Kürtzlich zusammen verfasset. Zum Zeugnis eintrechtiger/ bestendiger Bekentnus reiner Lehr/ Wider allerley Corruptelen, Rotten/ vnd Secten/ so hin vnnd wider/ vnter dem Scheindeckel der Augspurgischen Confession/ die Kirchen zurütten. Psalm: CXIX. Jch hasse die Fladdergeister/ vnd allen falschen weg/ Lügen bin ich gram/ vnd liebe dein Gesetze. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen/ bey Johann Daubman/ Anno 1567 (Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1567). The material on Osiander runs from 20r – 24v. 293 Repetitio, 20r: “Alß nun vnsere Kirchen vber diesem artickel dermassen von allen orthen jnnen vnd aussen/ von freunden vnd feinden gestürmet vnd geengstiget worden seindt. Jst Osiander mit darein kommen/ all sein krafft vnnd vermügen daran gesetzt/ das er seiner/ vnnd gar newer arth/ den selbigen artickel verkeren möchte/ Ob nun wol solch sein verkerter sin

F. Epilogue: Morlinus Triumphans

187

recognition of the churches’ Judicia became the basis for the final disposition of this matter. Mörlin contrasted the near unanimity of these churches’ statements to the earlier attempts, outlined above, to solve this dispute by compromise or silence, thus pretending that it was a mere war of words.294 But the pastoral side of this struggle was never far from Mörlin’s mind, so that he expressed deep regret over the “thousands of poor hearts” that were led astray, the church that was distressed and the clear testimonies to the truth that were condemned. The purpose of this section, then, was to reunite the church not by compromise but by confession of faith. “And all of us indeed before God and the whole world truly confess and witness that we, too, from our hearts are enemies of such erroneous teaching ‘with a perfect hatred’ (according to God’s word in Psalm 139) and that according to the proper mode of Christ’s sheep (John 10) we flee this same strange voice.”295 Then, as in his dispute with Vogel and perhaps because of it, Mörlin had to define what the controversy was not about: whether believers needed God’s grace in Christ’s merit for forgiveness; whether God was the essential righteousness; whether God dwelt and worked in believers so that they could begin to do good; whether it was necessary that some change occurred in people who had been justified. Even Osiander agreed with these things, as Mörlin indicated by (positive!) references to his works.296 Instead, for Mörlin (and henceforth for the Prussian church) the issue and discord revolved around the nature of true, eternal righteousness of the poor sinner before God, which the Bible but particularly St. Paul in Romans 3 – ​4 spoke about. Osiander taught that this righteousness was not Christ’s merit and that any claim that it was could not be proved in Scripture. He vnnd furnemen/ auß Gottes sonderlicher schickung vnnd gnade durch die Iudicia Ecclesiarum Confessionis Augustanae mit gutem festem grundt der schrifft widerleget/ vnd verdammet ist.” 294 Repetitio, 20r: “So hat man doch dasselbige anfengklichen mit wenig danck/ von Got angenommen/ sondern immer gesucht/ wie man den eingefurten schedlichen jrthumb/ nicht zwar als verdammet/ möchte abschaffen/ den armen gewissen verleidigen/ vnnd sie darfur warnen wie man schuldig war/ Sondern viel mehr das man denselbigen möchte schmucken/ durch ein stilleschweigen/ rechtschaffener diener [corrected to rechtschaffenen dienen] Christi/ das straffampt niderlegen/ vnd nemen/ oder doch/ das man es fur ein schlecht wort gezencke vnd geringschetzigen hader/ da einer den andern nicht genugsam verstunde oder verstehen wolte/ achten/ vnnd verechtliche halten solte.” 295 Repetitio, 20v: “… vnd wir alle mit der that fur Gott vnnd aller Welt warhafftig bekennen vnnd bezeugen/ das wir von hertzen auch solcher jrriger lehr nach Gottes wort Psalm: 139 perfecto odio, &c. feindt seindt/ vnnd nach rechter arth der schefflein Christi Johan: 10. dieselbige frembde stimme fliehen.” 296 Repetitio, 20v: “Vnd ist nicht das der handel/ dauon Osiander gelehret/ daruber er auch angefochten worden/ vnnd endtlich gestrafft ist von allen wolgereformirten Kirchen/ als ein jrrender falscher Lehrer/ ob wir zu der vergebung der sünden/ der gnaden Gottes in dem verdienst Christi bedürffen: Ob Gott die wesentliche gerechtigkeit sey: Ob er in den gleubigen damit wohne vnd würcke/ das sie nun anfangen guts zuthun: Oder obs von nöthen sey das einige verenderung in dem menschen volgen solle nach dem er gerecht worden ist/ Diß habe wir zu beiden theilen gelehret/ bekennet Osiander selbst in seiner widerlegung fol: D. 3. fac: 2. E. 2. L. 2. fac. 2. M. 2.”

188

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

taught that it was not imputed and claimed that such imputation was not only philosophical or carnal but “fantastical, foolish, asinine, bullish, mean, suited for the mob and dogs.”297 He insisted that it made God a crooked judge and did not fulfill the law. Righteousness was also not simply forgiveness and gracious acceptance of the sinner, which notion Osiander called “a philosophical, carnal and madcap way of speaking … philosophical sleight-of-hand … a dream and rhyme of carnal reason.”298 Christ proclaimed in this way was only a painted Christ. Osiander taught that righteousness was a piety in which all virtues were contained and that moved the righteous to do right. This was God himself, that is, Christ’s divine nature. Justification then meant simply in deed to make someone right and infused righteousness meant to kill, extinguish and eliminate sin completely. Over against Osiander’s position (and that of the Pope and the [Augsburg] Interim), Mörlin sketched with catechetical simplicity the Evangelical position he represented. God created human beings righteous vis-à-vis the law. With Adam’s fall, human beings sin naturally. Out of heart-felt love and faithfulness God had mercy on this poor, lost world, giving not merely a human being (who could not carry sin’s burden) nor the divine nature (which could not carry an alien guilt) but God’s Son in the flesh, without sin, on whom God laid the sin of the world and who fulfilled the law through his obedience. The application of this innocent righteousness of the whole person of Christ came not through nature but through faith. “And the believer is upright and righteous before God not because of prior or subsequent works, even those done according to God’s Law … but without any works alone from pure, unadulterated grace, not through the supplying of new powers or the ensuing indwelling of the divine nature, but rather through the redemption that took place through Christ.”299 A single sentence in the conclusion to this recitation of the order of salvation indicated the centrality of the hermeneutical struggle, highlighted in the exchange of tracts with Vogel: “This is not only the undoubted meaning of God’s Word but it is also the ‘form of sound words.’ ”300 Then, foreshadowing the later discussion in the Formula of Concord, Mörlin added that the word “Christ” referred neither to Christ’s humanity alone (a la Stancaro) or his divinity alone (a la Osiander) but to both natures united in one person. As further proof just how 297 Repetitio,

21r: “… ja solche meinung sey weder fleischlich noch Philosophisch/ sondern fantastisch/ Nerrisch/ Eselisch/ Püflisch [pöbelisch]/ Külzisch [hündisch]/ Filzisch [geizig]…” 298 Repetitio, 21r – v : “eine Philosophische/ Fleischliche vnd vnbedachte Rede … Philosophische Geucklerey … Ein Traum vnd Gedicht der Fleischlichen Vernunnfft …” 299 Repetitio, 23r – v : “Diese Applicatio geschicht durch den Glauben. Vnd wird nu der Gleubig From vnd Gerecht für Gott/ nicht von wegen vorgehender oder nachfolgender Wercke/ die er auch nach Gottes Gesetz gethan/ … Sondern ohn alle Werck pur lauter allein aus Gnaden/ nicht durch eingeben newer Krefften oder folgende einwonung Göttlicher Natur/ Sondern durch die Erlösung/ so durch Christum geschehen ist …” 300 Repetitio, 23v: “Das ist nicht allein die vngezweiffelte Meinung Gottes Worts/ Sondern ist auch forma sanorum verborum …” The Latin is from 2 Timothy 2:13.

G. The Heart of the Matter

189

passé this controversy had become even for Mörlin, the end of this short chapter attacked the Tridentine understanding of justification – a far livelier threat. He concluded, however, with what for Mörlin was the single most important subtheme of the controversy, one that he held in common with a wide range of theologians: comfort. “Against such false doctrine, which simply takes away all comfort from poor consciences and puts them in a crisis of faith and finally complete despair, we should hold fast to what Paul says [cf. Romans 4:16]: For precisely this reason righteousness must not come from the Law and Works but instead through faith so that the promise may be firm ….”301

G. The Heart of the Matter This painstaking reconstruction of the specifics of the dispute between Osiander and these gnesio-Lutherans demonstrates several important aspects of this book’s major thesis. Most importantly, this careful look at the arguments provided in these tracts demonstrates a kind of “unity in diversity.” Flacius was far more dependent upon a revised Anselmian view of the atonement to make his case and often neglected Christological aspects of the dispute. Gallus stressed in early writings some of the Christological problems. Mörlin, whose work dealt with the entire gamut of issues, often introduced aspects of what scholars now label the theology of the cross: the revelation of God under the appearance of the opposite, that is, in foolishness and weakness. This contrasted sharply to Flacius’s consistent use of philosophical terminology and arguments to make his point. Indeed, if Mörlin had any grounds on which to object to Flacius, it could well have been that the Croat, like Osiander, was far too dependent on philosophical categories in this debate. Other important aspects of the controversy also have emerged in this chapter. For one thing, especially in his struggle against Matthias Vogel, Joachim Mörlin brought the pastoral side of the struggle to the fore. Just as Melanchthon felt constrained to defend Wittenberg’s theological doctorate in the face of Osiander’s attacks on it, so Mörlin defended his position as pastor of the flock in Königsberg against a man that he viewed as a usurper. Yet, the pastoral theology implicit in Mörlin’s concern was not lacking in the other disputants, as they moved from the definition of justification to its comforting effect. Indeed, more than almost 301 Repetitio,

24r: “Wider solche falsche Lehre/ so den armen Gewissen allen Trost rein hinwegnimpt/ vnd sie in zweiffelmut vnd entliche Verzweiffelung setzet/ sollen wir fest behalten/ das paulus saget: Eben darumb müsse die Gerechtigkeit nicht aus dem Gesetze vnd Wercken/ Sondern durch den glauben kommen/ auff das die Verheissung fest sey …” To this the authors added proofs from the church fathers, a typical interest of Chemnitz, including Origen, Hilary and Augustine.

190

Chapter 4: Joachim Mörlin, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus

anything else, this concern marked one of the unifying aspects of the dispute – next to the insistence on forensic justification itself. A third factor in the dispute also emerged from these documents. Both Flacius and Mörlin noted explicitly what this study has argued all along: that the publications themselves (and the difficulties faced by Mörlin in publicizing his views) played a crucial role in the development of this dispute. By delaying Mörlin’s defense and refusing to acknowledge the opinions of any other church save Württemberg, Duke Albrecht had attempted to short-circuit the very consensusbuilding that both Mörlin and Flacius saw as fundamental to building true unity. This dispute was in large measure a struggle over the hearts and minds of the Evangelical people. It underscored the importance of the public and the central role these documents played in shaping public opinion – at least among the reading elites, but perhaps much more broadly.

Chapter 5

Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander: Differentiated Consensus in the Sixteenth Century? The notion of “differentiate consensus” surfaced as an important concept in late-twentieth-century ecumenical discussions. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation, for example, attempts to navigate between the very different approaches to justification in those two communions on the basis of just such a method. In some ways, however, such documents bespeak the artificiality of modern accords over against the much more difficult task that faced sixteenthcentury theologians. Figures like Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz were living into confessional arrangements and into a form of church that had never before existed. The territorial churches and their universities were not beholden to one another in any direct way. To be sure, their princes were working out political and dynastic agendas, and their theologians (pastors and teachers) had personal commitments that they tried to honor. All believed, taught and confessed something. Nevertheless, the fluidity of the relationships and the indistinctness of confessional identity led to a remarkable process of theological (and political) clarification that began in the 1520s and continued among Evangelicals well beyond the 1580 publication of The Book of Concord. As we have seen, the Osiandrian controversy provides rich resources by which to define the birthing of Evangelical, confessional churches. In this chapter we will trace the behavior of two of the most influential teachers of the 1550s, Philip Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, and show not only how differently they approached Osiander’s challenge to the theological status quo but also how they strove to prevent their own differences in theological language and teaching from causing even deeper divisions in the Evangelical ranks. In this they were assisted by other participants in this controversy as well, especially Matthias Flacius Illyricus, who in his publications also worked to bring Brenz’s views into line with his own (and, thus, Melanchthon’s!).1 Johannes Brenz and Andreas Osiander had developed an important working relationship stretching back to the 1520s. They had lived in close proximity to 1 See

above, chapter 4.

192

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

one another when the former was reformer of Schwäbisch-Hall and advisor to Margrave Georg of Brandenburg-Ansbach and the latter was pastor and reformer of Nuremberg. They collaborated on the Nuremberg church order of 1533, having been together (with Melanchthon!) in Augsburg in 1530 for the Diet and thus having worked with Master Philip on the Augsburg Confession itself. Their understanding of justification probably had a lot in common as well. We know from the correspondence of Melanchthon, Luther and Brenz that the Swabian reformer had strong misgivings about Melanchthon’s forensic understanding of justification and preferred Augustine’s approach, which stated that a person is declared righteous before God in view of the inchoate work of the Holy Spirit that made one truly righteous. In a joint letter from 1531, Luther and Melanchthon explained their objections to this view, apparently to Brenz’s satisfaction.2 In any case, Melanchthon, by his own admission, went on to buttress his arguments in the second edition of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession so that it expressed even more clearly a forensic understanding of justification. It was to this version of the Apology that both Brenz and Osiander subscribed in 1537. In his 1532 Commentaries on Romans, Melanchthon stated the identification of justification and forgiveness (acceptation) in stronger language than ever.3 In the struggle over Osiander’s understanding of justification in the 1550s, it therefore comes as no surprise that both his prince Duke Albrecht and Osiander expected Brenz to support his former next-door neighbor. Indeed, when letters arrived in 1552 in Prussia that seemed to indicate Brenz’s support, Osiander was quick to proclaim victory over his opponents (ignoring the scores of theologians lined up against him). No wonder that Duke Albrecht had earlier expressed the wish that Brenz might reside in Königsberg and had even offered him the bishopric of Samland. Understanding where Brenz stood vis-à-vis Osiander, however, was and is no easy task. Indeed, unlike Melanchthon, Brenz pursued a course of theological diplomacy to end the affair – one that, in the eyes of other participants, only strengthened first Osiander and then, after his death, the Osiandrists. Granted, Brenz’s position made Württemberg the refuge of choice for Osiandrists 2 See

above, chapter 3.

3 See Timothy J. Wengert, “Melanchthon and Luther/Luther and Melanchthon,” Luther-Jahr-

buch 66 (1999): 68 – ​70, now in: idem, Philip Melanchthon, Speaker of the Reformation: Wittenberg’s Other Reformer (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010), essay X; Martin Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther: Studien zur Gestalt der Rechtfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537 (Witten: Luther Verlag, 1965), 110 – ​65; and Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5:15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s,” in: Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, eds., Philip Melanchthon (1497 –1​ 560) and the Commentary (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79 –​104, where he builds upon his “Melanchthons Hermeneutik im Römerbriefkommentar von 1532,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 60 (1963): 216 – ​35. For the 1557 Worms Colloquy, see, most recently, Bjorn Slenczka, Das Wormser Schisma der Augsburger Konfessionsverwandten von 1557: Protestantische Konfessionspolitik und Theologie im Zusammenhang des zweiten Wormser Religionsgesprächs (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). The author is grateful to Robert Kolb for this reference.

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

193

in the later stages of the controversy, but many of Osiander’s opponents in the sixteenth century believed that Brenz’s statements emboldened those who followed the Nuremberg preacher turned Königsberg professor precisely because Osiander’s disciples had misconstrued Brenz’s actual position. This led in 1553 to direct, public expressions of support for the Swabian reformer first from Philip Melanchthon and then from Matthias Flacius, even though both were less than satisfied with Brenz’s attempts at treading lightly. Only one theologian, a disgruntled pastor in Nuremberg, attacked Brenz directly in print during this time. Over against Brenz’s position, Melanchthon’s approach to the Osiandrists may well come as a surprise to those used to believing the psychogram, as Heinz Scheible aptly named it, of Melanchthon’s contemporaries and more recent scholars, namely, that the Praeceptor Germaniae was incapable of taking a firm theological stand.4 On the contrary, when the opportunity presented itself in Nuremberg to take decisive action, Melanchthon left no stone unturned to remove suspected Osiandrists from office and to defend their opponents. As if wanting to demonstrate to Brenz another, more effective way of dealing with heterodox teaching, Melanchthon’s intervened among Nuremberg’s Lutherans more decisively than Luther had ever involved himself in intra-Evangelical disputes during his lifetime. Here one discovers Melanchthon’s modus operandi that insisted on unity in proclamation and clarity in teaching. At the same time, however, despite noticeable tension between Melanchthon and Brenz over the former’s intervention on the latter’s old stomping ground, both men went to great lengths to avoid public confrontation, an approach that bore fruit two years later at the colloquy of Worms.5 As much as the following analysis of the relation between Melanchthon and Brenz depends upon the work of earlier scholars, it breaks new ground by not simply emphasizing the contrasts between the two thinkers. Already Karl Holl’s foremost student, Emmanuel Hirsch, insisted that there was a part of Osiander’s view of justification that merited a place in the church’s teaching on the subject, a part that Johannes Brenz then elucidated more fully.6 This critique of MelanScheible, “Luther and Melanchthon,” Lutheran Quarterly, 4 (1990): 317 – ​339. for example, MBW 8340 (CR 9: 276 – ​77), a joint memorandum of Brenz and Melanchthon on the Lord’s Supper, written for Margrave Georg Friedrich von Brandenburg-Ansbach and dated from Worms 12 September 1557. See also MBW 8363 (manuscript), Melanchthon’s memorandum for Brenz and Jakob Andreae on the Osiandrian controversy, dated after 22 September 1557. Melanchthon’s refusal to take Erhard Schnepf ’s side in the latter’s debate with Brenz at Worms over expressly condemning Osiander contributed to the collapse of the talks. See Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –1​ 568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 371– ​432. Yet, on 11 November 1557 at Worms, Brenz wrote his own confession in which he expressly condemned Osiander and Johannes Funck. See MBW 8425 (CR 9: 365 – ​72, here 367 – ​69). 6 Emanuel Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919), 267, cited in Fligge, Osiandrismus, 152 with 665. 4 Heinz 5 See,

194

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

chthon from Germany’s school of theological Liberalism has cast a long shadow over the interpretation of the sources. Jörg Rainer Fligge follows this argument quite closely and then must explain both Brenz’s insistence that the controversy was only a war of words and Melanchthon’s apparent shift in defending Brenz at the colloquy of Worms colloquy in 1557, when he refused to join Erhard Schnepf in attacking Brenz’s “Osiandrist” position.7 Fligge’s conclusion? “From the vantage point of history, Brenz must have erred, in the event that he really held this opinion.”8 Martin Stupperich is not much kinder in his assessment of Brenz’s behavior. “The lack of insight into the character of the controversy must have been a major reason for the attempt of Brenz and the Württembergers to bring about a compromise.”9 Anna Briskina, who at this point in her study depends upon both Fligge and Stupperich, agrees with Stupperich’s assessment, “because, despite all the points of contact, the cause of this controversy was for Brenz not completely clear; for Osiander on the contrary the controversy was by no means a bellum grammaticale [war of words].”10 While Brenz clearly tried to play the mediator in this controversy, he always insisted on his own point of view, one that differed from Osiander’s to such a degree that Melanchthon suggested to Duke Albrecht that Brenz’s position be used to bring peace in Prussia and Flacius tried to show how the Württemberg church’s final position agreed with his own. Moreover, Brenz’s approach to building confessional unity finally came a cropper because it failed to appreciate the crucial role that consensus played in the process. By ignoring the near unanimity among Osiander’s opponents (outlined in the previous chapters) and treating their positions as equal and opposite to Osiander’s, Brenz’s work undermined the very goal of unity toward which he was so tirelessly working. Yet, especially in Brenz’s early statements during the controversy, we see that it was Osiander and his prince, Duke Albrecht, who tried in vain to bring the Württembergers’ statements in line with their position. Moreover, when it comes to Melanchthon, the primary sources paint a picture not of indecision and compromise but, surprisingly, of single-minded commitment to what he viewed as the truth of the gospel. This, however, allowed him both to tolerate Brenz’s somewhat different view (without ever making it his own) and to continue to defend his own position while working to remove Osiandrists from their posts. Osiandrismus, 145 – ​53. Osiandrismus, 153: “Historisch gesehen, hätte sich Brenz, falls er wirklich dieser Ansicht war, geirrt.”   9 Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​1552 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 266: “Die mangelnde Einsicht in den Charakter des Streits muß ein Hauptgrund gewesen sein für das Bestreben Brenzens und der Württemberger, einen Vergleich zustandezubringen.” 10 Anna Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2006), 300: “Dies [Stupperich’s argument] mag stimmen, denn trotz aller Berührungspunkte war für Brenz die Ursache des Streites nicht ganz klar, für Osiander wiederum war der Streit keinesfalls ein ‘bellum grammaticale.’ ”   7 Fligge,   8 Fligge,

A. Melanchthon and Brenz’s Early Opinions in the Osiandrian Controversy

195

A. Melanchthon and Brenz’s Early Opinions in the Osiandrian Controversy On 1 May 1551, Philip Melanchthon wrote three letters to Königsberg, two to Andreas Osiander and one to Friedrich Staphylus. Taken together, they provide a glimpse at Melanchthon’s earliest attempts at preventing schism in the Evangelical ranks over the doctrine of justification. At the same time, they show where Melanchthon’s own sympathies lay. The first, a personal note to Osiander, gave Melanchthon opportunity to remind Osiander of their friendship (privata amicitia) and to deflect the charge that he (Melanchthon) had encouraged others to attack Osiander.11 The second, a semi-official memorandum, stated Melan­ chthon’s position on the indwelling of God in the saints, while scarcely touching on the question of justification.12 In sanctification, the Holy Spirit and, with the Holy Spirit, the Trinity dwelt in the saints. As already Augustine had argued, however, God’s omnipresence was not to be confused with this indwelling. Indeed, Melanchthon argued that the ancient Church had always distinguished between the person of Christ being everywhere and Christ being everywhere bodily, since each nature must retain its characteristics. Similarly, Melanchthon recounted how, when he had asked Luther about Romans 8:10 (“If Christ is in you …”), the older man pointed to the previous verse (“If the Spirit of Christ is in you”). Indeed, Melanchthon resolved the supposed contradiction between Christ’s body being in a specific place and Christ seated at the right hand of God by admitting that the one person of Christ was everywhere by virtue of the hypostatic union, since his ascent to the right hand of God designated something beyond all places and in the hidden exaltation of God. Turning to Osiander’s own position, Melanchthon warned him that when he claimed that human beings were righteous by the “essential righteousness of Christ,” he was only speaking “about the effective cause” (“ad effectionem”).13 Christ’s essential righteousness effected newness in us. The church, however, said both that Christ’s divine righteousness effected righteousness in us and that “by the blood and death of the Son of God the wrath of God is placated … therefore, on account of this merit we have forgiveness and are reputed righteous.”14 On the same day, however, Melanchthon wrote a more negative letter to his former student, Friedrich Staphylus, a professor in Königsberg locked in a

11 MBW 6075 (CR 7: 778 – ​79; GA 9: 670 – ​72). While he was dismayed at Osiander’s statements, there is no evidence (pace GA 9) that he actually encouraged attacks. 12 MBW 6076 (CR 7: 779 – ​81, through line 8; GA 9: 672 – ​74 with 670). 13 Here MBW 6: 158 misunderstands the word “effectio” to mean “die Wirkung” (effect), which is the very opposite of its true meaning: that which effects something. See Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, q.v., and the reference to Cicero, Academica 1, 2, 6. 14 CR 7: 781.

196

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

struggle with Osiander.15 He more clearly criticized Osiander for not including a discussion of Christ’s meritorious death when mentioning Christ’s essential righteousness. The former brought forgiveness and the latter effected righteousness in the person. Melanchthon understood that the extra nos, mentioned in the written exchange between Luther and Melanchthon in 1536, referred to the basis of our justification not being in human qualities.16 Osiander wasted no time in using Melanchthon’s letter against his opponents in print. On 27 May 1551, Joachim Mörlin attacked Osiander from the pulpit. On Sunday, 31 May, Osiander responded from his own pulpit with a series of witnesses to the indwelling of Christ, turning them into a brief pamphlet shortly thereafter.17 Alongside a host of biblical passages, he included several citations of Luther but then also two translated excerpts from Melanchthon’s letter. Ignoring the negative comments, he cited the following: “That God dwells in the saints is understood in the following manner: that there God the Father and Son breathe into the hearts of the believers the Holy Spirit and make them holy with their light and righteousness. This is certain.” Osiander then cited this Latin phrase from the letter: “Essentialem iusticiam Christi nobis efficacem esse” (the essential righteousness of Christ in us is efficacious), translating it as “that the essential righteousness of Christ works in us.”18 This final citation was curiously inaccurate. Melanchthon wrote: “Essentiali iusticia Christi efficitur in nobis novitas” (newness is caused in us by the essential righteousness of Christ). The very heart of their difference (whether novitas or iustificatio is caused by Christ’s indwelling) was thus cleverly papered over by Osiander’s citation. Moreover, Melanchthon’s concession (that Christ’s essential righteousness was, of course, the efficient cause of our righteousness) and his insistence on giving central place to Christ’s meritorious suffering and death found no mention in Osiander’s pamphlet. Osiander’s later testimony in his Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons, described how he tried to use his letter to defeat his opponents (probably Staphylus), who immediately showed him their letter from Melanchthon, in which the Wittenberger insisted on distinguishing created from uncreated righteousness.19 In his earlier confession of faith, Von dem einigen Mittler, Osiander referred only to Melanchthon’s “positive” letter.20 15 MBW 6077 (Manuscript; digest in MBW 6: 159), dated [1] May 1551. The digest in MBW 6: 159 is corrected in MBW 9: 253. 16 For a discussion of this text, see below, chapters 6 and 7. 17 Entitled: Daß unser lieber Herr Jesus Christus durch den Glauben in allen wahren Christen wohne, GA 9: 688 – ​98. 18 GA 9: 697, 13 –​18. The German reads: “Das Gott in den heiligen wonet, wird also verstanden, das daselbst der Vater und Son den heiligen Gest blasen in die hertzen der gleubigen und sie mit irem liecht und irer gerechtigkeit heiligen. Das ist gewis.” This translates, “Nam hoc habitare sic intelligitur, quod, ibi Pater et Filius Spiritum sanctum spirent in corda sanctorum, et luce et iusticia sanctificet eos. Haec certa sunt.” 19 GA 10: 602, 7 – ​20. 20 GA 10: 266, 4 – ​6.

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

197

On 23 August 1551, Johannes Brenz, who was still residing in Sindelfingen and without an ecclesiastical appointment, also wrote to Osiander in response to letters from the Königsberg professor and Duke Albrecht, who had offered him a position as bishop of Samland to replace the recently deceased Georg von Polentz.21 In comparison to Melanchthon’s more forthright approach to the issue, Brenz pleaded ignorance of the controversy and urged Osiander to avoid causing division among the Evangelicals at this dangerous time. Apparently, all Brenz had read were some “bare propositions,” probably a reference to Osiander’s theses from 24 October 1550. The distress in the churches of Württemberg and environs (“quanta sint suspiria, quanti gemitus, quantae lacrymae”) made it all the more urgent to avoid such disputes.22 Of course, chances are that Brenz knew more about the controversy than he was letting on. However, as became clear in chapter 2, there would have been relatively few published documents from Osiander’s opponents available at this time, so that his reticence is understandable. Plainly, even at this early stage in the controversy Melanchthon was taking far more risks, was being far more direct, and was engaging the theological issues in far more detail than Brenz. Yet, as was his wont, Osiander immediately put Melanchthon’s positive comments to use not to moderate his own position but to defend it, proving (from Melanchthon’s standpoint) that Osiander was unteachable.

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg By the end of January 1552, Osiander had received many pieces of bad news regarding his confession of faith, none more devastating than Melanchthon’s Antwort of January 1552 and a letter from Württemberg’s theologians, dated 5 December 1551. The former, published with even more strongly worded rejections of Osiander’s teaching by Forster and Bugenhagen, resulted in the Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons, in which Osiander went line by line through the Wittenberger’s writing, recounting Melanchthon’s disingenuous behavior and his poor theology.23 The latter resulted in a flurry of backroom negotiations involving Brenz, his prince Duke Christoph, Osiander and the Prussian court. Osiander’s first published reaction to Brenz’s statement, however, came already at the end of January, when he published a single printed sheet (four leaves) under the title Brentii lehr von der rechtfertigung des glaubens (Brenz’s teaching 21 GA 10:

754 – ​57. 755, 17: “O the number of sighs; O the number of groans; O the number of tears!” For the effect of the Interim on Württemberg, see Armin Kohnle, “Die Folgen des Interims am Beispiel Württembergs,” in: Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg, eds., Politik und Bekenntnis. Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 83 – ​96. 23 GA 10: 561– ​670. For a full discussion of the Antwort, see below, chapter 7. 22 GA 10:

198

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

on justification by faith), which consisted of Brenz’s exposition of John 5:25.24 In this passage, Brenz discussed how, by hearing Christ’s voice, one became a member of Christ and participated in his nature. “Thus, although human beings are unrighteous in their nature, nevertheless, in that they hear the voice of the Son of God and become a member of him through faith, thus they are considered before God as righteous.”25 Not surprisingly, in quoting this passage Osiander left out the phrase “propter filium,” on account of the Son. I. The First Memorandum from Württemberg (5 December 1551) Why would Osiander publish such a thing? For one thing, given that he was under a publishing ban, printing the words of an accepted theologian gave him opportunity to publicize something that he imagined matched his own position. For another, however, the letter from Württemberg was less than supportive of his position than he had hoped. Although not published until 1553 and then by Duke Albrecht and his closest advisor, Andreas Aurifaber, this letter demonstrated Brenz’s attempt to find a compromise between the two parties while at the same time trying to restrain Osiander.26 It was clearly not the imprimatur for which Osiander had hoped. As with the earlier letter from August 1551, this December missive began and ended with what would be a constant refrain for these south German pastors, who were still struggling directly with the Augsburg Interim: an admonition to keep the peace. It then summarized the charges and countercharges in this dispute.27 Osiander’s attackers claimed that he taught a two-fold Christ, did not believe in the incarnation because he said one should not trust it, and trampled on Christ’s death. Osiander accused his opponents of teaching that God considered even evil rascals (bös buben) righteous, that Christ was not eternally righteous but righteous only according to his human nature (so that Osiander’s opponents were enemies of Christ’s divine nature), that faith was in and of itself God’s righteousness, and that Christ’s indwelling of believers was unimportant.28 Although the Württembergers did not want to speak against Osiander’s opponents, whose arguments they had not heard directly, they found it shocking 24 GA 10:

450 – ​56. 455, 23 – ​25. 26 In Albrecht’s Ausschreiben, F 3v – H 1r, it bears the title: Der wirdigen Achtbarn vnd Hochgelerten/ Herrn Johannis Brentij/ vnd im zugeordenten Theologen/ Erkantnus/ von der Lere Herrn Andreae Osiandri etc. seligen. The seligen was of course added later, since they wrote this while Osiander was very much alive. The letter was dated 5 December 1551 and was directed to Duke Christoph. 27 Ausschreiben, F 3v – G 1r. 28 Ausschreiben, F 4v – G 1r. The following summary differs markedly from the synopsis in GA 10: 511–​12, where the editors do not seem fully aware of just how damning this letter was for Osiander. 25 GA 10:

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

199

that one Evangelical should accuse another of heresy. Instead, their goal was to reestablish unity among these parties.29 The letter then turned to what the Württemberg theologians saw as the task at hand: to interpret both sides in the best possible light so as to restore peace. They first summarized their view of Osiander’s position. Christ, true God and true human being, was our righteousness according to his divine nature but through both natures redeemed us so that God forgave us and did not impute our failure to fulfill the law to us, because Christ had fulfilled it.30 Osiander did not reject faith but said, “ ‘If we hold to such with a upright and firm faith, we will thus be justified.”31 Faith for Osiander was not simply an empty virtue; instead he held that Christ was our righteousness according to both natures. With these statements, of course, the Württembergers were consciously rewriting Osiander’s theology to match his opponents’. The “such” (solchs) no longer referred simply to Christ’s divine righteousness but, as Brenz taught, included Christ’s suffering, that is, both natures.32 The opponents, they argued, simply did not understand Osiander’s novel (ungewöhnlich) way of speaking and thus, understandably, emphasized the role Christ’s human nature played in his righteousness in order to include the whole Christ. Although this rebuke (leveled more at Osiander than his opponents) finally led Brenz to argue that the dispute was merely a war of words, it pointed to a crucial aspect in the construction of a confessional church: agreement in language.33 Turning to Osiander’s opponents, not only did the letter exonerate them for emphasizing the role Christ’s humanity played in justification, but it also went on to explain how, while Christ’s human righteousness might not be the same as his divine righteousness, it still could be called righteousness, as Paul did in Romans 5 and Galatians 5.34 While it was true that, because faith ceased after this life, it could not be in itself our righteousness [a statement with which Osiander agreed], yet because Paul said in Romans 4 that faith was reckoned to us as righteousness, we could not condemn people who said that “we through 29  Ausschreiben, G 1r: “Das wir gerne helffen wolten/ billiche vnd geburliche mittel/ vnd weg zu suchen/ das beide parteien mit einander Christlich vereiniget/ vergliechen vnd vertragen würden.” 30 Ausschreiben, G 1v. 31 Ausschreiben, G 2r: “wenn wir solchs mit rechtgeschaffnem vnd festem Glauben fassen/ so werden wir gerechtfertiget.” 32 Thus (Ausschreiben, G 2r), they summarized: “Das ist nu [corr.: uu] vnsers verstands/ die gemeine Christliche lere/ so bis anher in der rechten Christlichen Kirchen/ aus Gottes gnaden/ auff solche kurtze weise getrieben worden ist/ Nemlich/ das wir gerechtfertiget werden/ nicht durch den verdienst vnserer werck/ sonder durch den Glauben allein/ von wegen Jesu Christi/ vnsers einigen Heilands.” 33 The emphasis on the unity of the two natures finally reflected itself in the sections of the Formula of Concord written by Jakob Andreae, who also signed the letters to Osiander discussed here. 34 Ausschreiben, G 2v – 3r.

200

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

faith receive Jesus Christ as our salvation and righteousness.” The same could be said of forgiveness, but again because Paul in Romans 4 (citing Psalm 51) called it righteousness the Württembergers refused to condemn anyone who did the same.35 Thus, Brenz and his compatriots overturned Osiander’s condemnation of Mörlin. They argued the same way with respect to Christ’s blood, suffering and death. Although they were not in and of themselves God’s essential righteousness, which had to be in us, yet because of the Pauline statements in Romans 3 and 4 and John’s statements in 1 John 1 and Revelation 1, no one could condemn such expressions.36 As if this were not enough, the letter included a further attack on Osiander’s position. Like Melanchthon’s comments throughout this dispute, it, too, emphasized the role of comfort. When the conscience in direst need felt itself condemned before God’s judgment throne, its only refuge was in Christ, God and human being, whose suffering and death fulfilled the law and offered forgiveness for our justification.37 We could not understand, they wrote, why this consolation in our greatest need should not be called our righteousness. In the face of true heretics in Trent and among the Turks, their letter concluded, they also could not imagine how either party could truthfully call the other heretical. Osiander, who had been hoping for an imprimatur from Brenz, did not get it in this letter, and he knew it! Not only did he publish excerpts from Brenz’s lectures to shore up his position, but he also pleaded with Johannes Brenz in a letter, complaining bitterly about his enemies, especially Joachim Mörlin, whom he compared to the Anabaptist leader, Balthasar Hubmaier.38 Although Osiander stated his approval of Brenz’s attempt at “putting the best construction” on the opposition’s arguments (“quod mihi non displicet”),39 in a subsequent memorandum to Duke Albrecht, he expressed far more skepticism about the Württembergers’ effort.40 In the last half of their letter, Osiander complained, “a 35 Ausschreiben,

G 3r – v. G 3v – 4r: “So künnen wir widerumb solche leut nicht verwerffen/ die nach der meinung Pauli/ vnd Johannis/ das blut vnd das leiden Jesu Christi/ vnser Gerechtigkeit heissen.” 37 Ausschreiben, G 4r: “Denn so wir in vnser grösten not/ für dem Richtstul Gottes/ in vnserm gewissen/ von wegen vnserer Sünden/ verklagt werden/ vnd hören das grawsam vrteil Gottes/ das wir von wegen der Sünde sollen ewiglich verdampt sein/ da haben wir je keine ander zuflucht/ denn das wir vnserm HERREN Christo/ dem waren Gott vnd Menschen/ durch den Glauben zulauffen/ vnd vertrösten vns des/ das er Gottes Gesetz volkomenlich erfüllet/ sein blut für vns vergossen/ mit seinem leiden vnd sterben vnser Sünde gebüsset/ vnd vom Tod erstanden ist zu vnserer Rechtfertigung/ Ist auch vns mit allen diesen seinen gütern von Gott zum Eigenthumb geschenckt vnd gegeben.” 38 GA 10: 457 – ​62, dated 30 January 1552. 39 GA 10: 458, 4. 40 GA 10: 511–​17, dated 26 February 1552. In a letter to Duke Albrecht from 9 February 1552, Mörlin, who had also been given a copy of Brenz’s opinion, argued that Brenz fully agreed with him and his associates. He referred to several passages from Brenz’s commentary on Isaiah 36 Ausschreiben,

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

201

forced and labored exculpation of my opponents was attempted.”41 According to Osiander, the opponents (and, hence, Brenz) confused a fruit of righteousness with righteousness itself. It was the fault of Brenz’s coworkers and their desire for peace and Brenz’s ignorance of Mörlin’s position that gave rise to this unsatisfactory opinion. Whatever “spin” Osiander wanted to put on the letter, it clearly represented in his eyes a triumph for his opponents (who accepted it almost without reservation). As a result of Osiander’s complaints, however, Duke Albrecht decided that Mörlin and company were twisting Brenz’s words in their favor, and thus he requested a second opinion from Württemberg. II. A Second Memorandum from Württemberg (1 June 1552) What the theologians sent on 1 June 1552 to Albrecht (via Duke Christopher of Württemberg), for all of its peace-loving intentions, did not solve anything and seemed to make matters worse. What Melanchthon had learned through Osiander’s manipulation of his 1 May 1551 letter, Brenz failed to grasp (despite his four unsuccessful attempts to broker a peace deal between the warring factions): mediating positions simply became ammunition for each side to use against the other. Contrariwise, Melanchthon demonstrated in Nuremberg in 1555 that effective theological peace came instead through consensus and decisive action against dissenters. Nevertheless, Brenz’s position actually underwent little if any change in the intervening months. Only their knowledge of Mörlin’s position increased with the publication of his Bericht in May 1552. The Württembergers began their lengthier response by stating their intention (to seek peace) and by clarifying their method: to define where the main point of difference lay (thus echoing Osiander’s complaint to Brenz).42 They then employed a similar method as in the previous letter: warning Osiander not to take his ideas to an extreme. If, they glowered, Osiander’s position was that we became natural gods (something Flacius had of course claimed), that Christ’s death was not reckoned to us and that, thus, we had no comfort in affliction but rather that we should look only to the divine, essential [selbswesend] righteousness, then they could not approve his position at all.43 We were adopted as God’s children and had no other grace or redemption than Christ. To show some balance, they then used the same method on Osiander’s opponents, except here they built a straw man that hardly represented the extremes in Mörlin’s position. They would also reject anyone who thought that faith was a mere virtue, and concluded (Ausschreiben, J 1r), “So kan ir [die Württembergers] scriptum fur kein mittel angezogen werden/ sonder mus fur vns vnd wider Osiandrum sein vnd bleiben.” 41 GA 10: 515, 9 –​10. 42 Ausschreiben, K 2v – M 3v. 43 Ausschreiben, K 3v: “nichts vertrösten/ vnd in vnsern grossen schweren anfechtungen/ nicht darauff bawen …”

202

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

that the Trinity did not work in us to make us new, and that in the future life we would not be completely, intrinsically righteous but rather would retain our sinful nature and merely be regarded as righteous. As they had said in the first letter, faith was not righteous in itself but because of Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us as righteousness; through this faith we also became participants in his divine nature.44 After having stated what they imagined were the extremes that corresponded to the charges each party made against the other, the Württembergers then tried to show where the parties agreed regarding Christ’s atoning death and the righteousness of faith45 and regarding the divine righteousness.46 They then reduced the question to what Brenz called a grammatical one: the meaning of iustitia in Romans 3.47 Was iustitia here the essential righteousness of God and was iustificare not to be understood as absolving the unjust but as re ipsa facere [to act in reality (and not just appear to act)]? Moreover, could Christ’s obedience be called a righteousness? Both parties agreed that sin was not reckoned to believers and that through the indwelling of the Trinity people were in reality made righteous.48 What followed was a discussion of hermeneutics: how one rightly interpreted biblical texts.49 This allowed the Württembergers to excuse Osiander’s mistaken interpretation of texts without their having to condemn him as a heretic. They contended that, while it was crucial in the central points of Scripture to interpret texts according to their proper, basic understanding, “some sayings [in Scripture], because of their circumstances and also propter tropos and schemata [on account of tropes and figures of speech] that are more recognizable to one [reader] than to another, may be interpreted in several ways.”50 This meant for 44 Ausschreiben,

K 3v – 4r. K 4r – v. They stated that Christ’s obedience arose out of the righteousness of his divine nature; that Christ atones for our sins (here they listed five different ways of talking about atonement); that this proclamation should be received by faith and that it comforted us so that God reckoned Christ’s obedience for forgiveness of sin. 46  Ausschreiben, K 4v – L 1r. God alone in his essence was eternal righteousness; through faith in Christ the Trinity dwelt in us; God forgave us because of Christ’s merit and also did not neglect to make us new, upright [fromm] and righteous “mit der that” (in reality) until, in the future, we would be completely freed from sin. 47 Of course, for those who held that God’s declaration imputed righteousness to the believer, words could never be reduced to “mere” grammar. If the meaning of iustitia were mere grammar, then ipso facto (no matter how one construed the grammar) the declaration of righteousness would have meant that God regarded us “as if ” we were righteous. Then the Word itself would have lost its meaning and depend on whatever signification human beings deigned to give it. 48 Ausschreiben, L 1r – v. 49 They were not the only ones to recognize the hermeneutical gulf separating Osiander and his opponents. For the way this played out in their use of Luther, see chapter 6. 50 Ausschreiben, L 1v: “Aber es kan sich wol zutragen/ das etlich sprüch jrer vmbstend halben/ auch propter tropos vnd schemata, so einem mehr bekant/ denn dem andern/ auff mancherley weis mögen ausgelegt werden.” 45 Ausschreiben,

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

203

the Württembergers that “if the interpreters possess Christian opinions, which are grounded in other clear sayings of Holy Scripture, they are not for this reason to be condemned as heretics and antichrists, even though they may have overlooked something in the Grammatica [grammar] or do not hit the mark quite as precisely as another person.”51 They then included several instances of such disputes.52 Such grammatical wars, they concluded, belonged in the lecture hall but not in the pulpit. They were not theological but grammatical issues for which defense of the Christian faith was not deemed necessary. One found not only different but even contradictory interpretations of the Scripture among the church fathers. The Christian church had always put up with such differences out of love. Finally, Brenz and his cosigners arrived at what they thought was the heart of this particular grammatical controversy: the meaning of the righteousness of God in Romans 1:16 –​17 and Romans 3. What is quite astounding – given the way scholars have construed Brenz’s position – was just how closely this letter supported Mörlin’s position. First, it gave pride of place to the (standard) interpretation of Romans 1, stating that the “righteousness of God” meant forgiveness of sins and the non-imputation of those sins to believers for the sake of Christ by faith alone, for which they provided a host of proof texts, including Psalm 32:1 and Romans 4, and referred back to their first letter.53 From this forgiveness, they added, one obtained comfort in all attacks. Then, they focused on Osiander’s position, glossing it in such a way as to make it compatible with the former. For him, righteousness was the essential righteousness of God, which was God himself. This did not exclude forgiveness. Indeed, where forgiveness was received through faith, “at that point [als denn] God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit truly have their dwelling place in them and make them participants in the divine nature (as Peter [2 Peter 1:4] says).”54 Thus, it was never that a person had forgiveness but would never in reality be righteous but that God made believers his property, 51 Ausschreiben, L 1v: “So nun die interpretes Christliche meinung/ die in andern klaren sprüchen/ der heiligen Schrifft gegründet sind/ haben/ seien sie nicht darumb als etzer vnd Antichrist zuuerdammen/ ob sie schon in der Grammatica etwas vbersehen/ oder nicht so gar genawe/ als die andern/ treffen.” 52 Did Matthew 11:13 have to do with the external office of the law and the prophets? Was Luke 17:21 a reference to the nearness of God’s rule or an indication that God dwells internally in us through faith? Did Romans 1:16 refer to the proclamation of the gospel or to the eternal Word of God that is God himself? On this question, Ausschreiben, L 3r, Duke Albrecht (or his ghostwriter, Aurifaber) summarized Osiander’s position this way: “Etliche aber deuten DAS WORT (EVANGELJVM) AVFF DAS EWIJGE WORT GOTTES DAS GOTT SELBST JST/ vnd haben diese meinung/ DAS EWJG WORT GOTTEG [sic!]/ JST GOTTES KRAFFT/ JA GOTT SELBST/ DER VNS SELIJG MACHT DVRCH DEN GLAVBEN. Das ist auch eine gute warhafftige meinung.” Finally, did 1 John 4:2 mean that one should only look to Christ as Messiah, or did it mean that Christ, true God and human being, dwells in us by faith? 53 Ausschreiben, L 4r‑ M 1r. 54 Ausschreiben, M 1r (capitalization in the original): “DAS ALS DENN GOTT DER V ­ ATER/ SON/ VND HEJLJGER GEJST/ JRE WONVNG BEY DEM GLEVBJGEN HABEN WAR­HAFFTJG­ LJCH/ VND MACHEN JN DER GOTTLJCHEN NATVR (wie Petrus sagt) TEJLHAFFTJG.”

204

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

not only bestowing mercy, righteousness and blessedness on them for Christ’s sake but also beginning to sweep out sins [“anfahe die Sünde auszufegen”].55 The Württembergers concluded by stating that they could not condemn anyone who held to this position. Turning to Romans 3, the letter not only described Mörlin’s (and Melanchthon’s) position but also insisted that “this is a Christian opinion and the central plank of our Christian faith; it is also grounded in many other clear and lucid passages of Holy Scripture, already mentioned above.”56 The other explanation, they continued, “is somewhat more farfetched.” Again, they immediately assumed that in this second interpretation forgiveness was implied, the indwelling of the Trinity followed faith in forgiveness, and such righteousness began here and was first completed in the next life. They seemed to have less clarity on the dispute over “to justify,” since Paul used the word for absolving sin, for not imputing unrighteousness or for being made righteous in reality. Although the final phrase allowed for Osiander’s position and may indeed have reflected Brenz’s longstanding objection to forensic justification, expressed in 1531 to Luther and Melanchthon,57 what followed gave special place to Melanchthon’s interpretation, in that he had insisted (at least since 1532) that Paul was using a Hebraism.58 Here, as later in his direct correspondence with Melanchthon, Brenz was simply warning against turning an exegete’s inability to recognize this Hebraism into a federal case. Paul would not have wanted it that way. A final section of the letter dealt with Romans 5:19 and the reference to Christ’s obedience. Again, the Württemberg theologians clearly favored those who argued that Christ’s obedience won for us the non-imputation of sin. “This opinion, in and of itself, no one can refute.”59 Osiander’s opinion (as always placed in capital letters in the Ausschreiben of 1553) – that God bestowed himself upon us with his divine blessings and was himself our righteousness that began here and was to be perfected in heaven – was also pronounced Christian. The question, according to the memorandum, became simply which was the better interpretation. Although they granted that in some Scripture passages (1 John 2:29) the word righteousness was used for the fruits of righteousness, it was also clear to them that Christ’s obedience provided comfort in all attacks by sin, death and hell because through it believers became certain that they had a gracious God 55 Ausschreiben,

M 1v. M 1v: “Das ist eine Christliche meinung/ vnd das hauptstück vnsers Glaubens/ ist auch gegründet/ in viel andern klaren vnd hellen sprüchen/ der heiligen Schrifft/ wie derselbigen etliche vorhin erzelet sind.” 57 See Wengert, “Melanchthon and Luther,” 68 – ​70. 58 Ausschreiben, M 2v, referring to Paul’s words, “die er mehr nach seiner Hebreischen/ denn anderer sprachen art gebraucht.” 59 Ausschreiben, M 2v: “Diese meinung fur sich selbs/ kan niemand Christlichs gemüts verwerffen.” 56 Ausschreiben,

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

205

in heaven who made them eternally righteous and blessed. In this light, faith in Christ was called God’s and the believer’s righteousness. On this note, having turned aside one of Osiander’s most consistent objections to his opponents, the letter came to a close. III. Reactions to Brenz’s Second Memorandum

This more one-sided reading of Brenz’s letters gains credence in the light of the various reactions to this second opinion, expressed by Osiander and his opponents in August and September 1552, and in the light of Brenz’s letter to Osiander, penned only a few days after the memorandum was written. Brenz characterized the first letter by Württemberg’s theologians (which Osiander had approved in writing to Brenz but rejected in negotiations with Duke Albrecht), as “most respectful and friendly,” reminding Osiander of his acceptance and admonishing him to detest disagreements.60 It was in this same light of peacemaking that the second memorandum was to be taken, as a ratio conciliationis [grounds for reconciliation], and Brenz begged Osiander to make room for his opponents’ position. Instead of calling one another heretics or worse, the parties should behave more charitably, according to Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 13:7. While admitting not knowing Osiander’s immediate opponents, Brenz did put in a good word for Philip Melanchthon, who “not only loves you greatly but also … commends you more than any other to the whole church of Christ with great praise.”61 Osiander’s attacks had no real basis in fact and could only make matters worse. Brenz clearly aimed this letter, like the memorandum, at the egregious charges and farfetched expressions of Osiander. Having been shown the second memorandum from Württemberg, Joachim Mörlin, Peter Hegemon, and Georg von Venediger prepared responses in August.62 Von Venediger noted in his first response that the Swabian theologians had supported his point of view completely and rejected Osiander’s attempt to rob souls of comfort in the forgiveness of sins. Mörlin in his first letter to the prince rejected out-of-hand that he had ever taught that faith was a virtue or that the Trinity’s indwelling did not improve the believer. He questioned whether Osiander really taught what Brenz and Paul did (namely that forgiveness was righteousness and that renewal followed). If he would concede these points, Mörlin would refrain from any more attacks. Hegemon’s first reply contained basically the same points. 60 GA 10:

718 – ​24, dated 3 June 1552. 720, 6 – ​8. 62 Ausschreiben, N 1v – Z 2v. A first set of responses was dated 14 August 1552 (von Venediger), 11 August 1552 (Mörlin) and 13 August 1552 (Hegemon). A second set was sent on 17 August 1552 (Mörlin), 23 August 1552 (von Venediger) and 27 August 1552 (Hegemon, who sent a third response on 1 September 1552). 61 GA 10:

206

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

Completely dissatisfied with these responses, Albrecht (probably at the direction of Osiander) formulated several questions that were intent on overturning the purpose of Brenz’s memorandum and transforming it into a cover for Osiander’s teaching. (No wonder Melanchthon was so critical of Duke Albrecht’s prosecution of this case, claiming that had the old duke only stayed with Brenz’s later letter, peace could have been restored!) Could Osiander’s opponents concede that this was a bellum grammaticale [grammatical war]? Could they agree that in Romans 3 righteousness meant either forgiveness or divine righteousness? Could Christ’s obedience be called righteousness (Mörlin’s position), as long as one realized that his redemption was the reason for the non-imputation of sin but that the indwelling of the Trinity was the believer’s righteousness? If the Duke’s intent was to force Osiander’s opponents to confess their faith and thus reject Osiander’s theology, he succeeded. Mörlin, hearkening back to Brenz’s first memorandum, challenged Osiander’s Christology, which employed both natures when discussing redemption but only Christ’s divine nature when explaining justification, especially in his refutation of Melanchthon.63 Where was the comfort in that, Mörlin wondered. “I, however, confess herewith even more: that all of those who mix together without distinction the righteousness of faith and the resultant renewal in this life and do not ascribe the righteousness of God or of faith purely and alone to the alien innocence and to the way of Christ to the Father or to his death teach de facto the Christ died in vain (Galatians 2).”64 With this statement the die was cast, and the Duke’s letter, far from bringing peace actually forced the warring parties further apart. Von Venediger’s second response called upon the Wittenberg theologians for support and insisted on the unity of the two natures in justification, while at the same time accepting the main points (listed in order) of Brenz’s second memorandum. Of course the Trinity indwelt us, he wrote, but one was not to confuse this with the poor sinner standing before God unsure of his or her fate. Calling upon the notion that the justified was still a sinner, he argued that even the indwelling of the Trinity in this life did not mean that a person was not still a sinner citing both Bernard (actually pseudo-Augustine) and Luther in his defense.65 Hegemon’s second response was perhaps the most telling. He argued that Osiander was teaching a new doctrine and wondered why he was not willing to repent for it, as had other Christians in the past. The Württembergers were on Ausschreiben, S 1v, cited the Widerlegung, O 4r (GA 10: 651, 8 – ​23). S 2r: “Ich bekenn aber auch noch mehr darbey/ das alle die jenigen/ so die Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ vnd angehende renouation/ in diesem leben on vnterscheid zusamen mengen/ vnd nicht die Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ oder des Glaubens/ pur lauter allein geben/ der frembden Vnschuld/ vnd dem Gang Christi vnsers Heilands zum Vater/ oder seinem Tod/ die leren de facto/ das Christus vmb sonst gestorben sey/ Gal. 2.” 65 Ausschreiben, V 2v, citing pseudo-Augustine, Manual divi Augustini, ch. 22, and Luther on the Song of Songs (WA 101,1: 127, 1– ​4 [in the Christmas Postil, sermon on Titus 3 for Christmas]). 63 Mörlin,

64 Ausschreiben,

B. 1552: Bad News from Württemberg

207

Hegemon’s side because they were not arguing “categorically or judgmentally” (categorice oder iudicirn) but instead “suggested a way and manner through which one might have cause to and might, as occasioned by the process, search for and find an opportunity from God’s word to conclude an eternal and firm unity.”66 Not satisfied with this letter, Hegemon wrote yet another, dated 1 September 1552, in which he defended his understanding of righteousness, calling upon not only the witness of all the churches but also Luther himself and, at the same, criticizing Osiander’s misuse of the reformer.67 By the time Osiander responded on 1 September 1552, he had already suffered one bout of severe illness.68 His answer was the mirror image of his opponents. He stated that he agreed with both of Brenz’s memoranda and would not take issue with either one. While insisting that they presented his position accurately, he also argued that both made a basic distinction between true, essential righteousness and the fruits of righteousness (which could also be called righteousness). (Even the modern editor of this letter realized how idiosyncratic a view this was.)69 However, Osiander objected to the exaggerations of his teaching that the memoranda had condemned and was astonished “with what alacrity these highly well-educated men came to the conclusion” that he taught such terrible things.70 A portion of his letter dealt with the hermeneutical issue raised in the second memorandum. Here Osiander completely missed the clear warning (obviously not clear enough for him) to avoid tropes and schemas. Instead, he assumed the correctness of his interpretation (quoting in this letter from his earlier response to the first memorandum: “that the divine nature of Christ is in us and is our true, eternal righteousness”).71 Finally, Osiander stated that he would be only too willing to call this dispute a bellum grammaticale, if the other side would confess “that Jesus Christ, true God and human being, is, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, our only true and eternal righteousness.’72 The trouble was that they condemned this position and did not accept the common points of doctrine outlined by Brenz, except by using “sophistry and obvious lies,” a claim that Osiander proved by citing Mörlin’s letter from 17 August.73 There, Osiander claimed, Mörlin denied the agency of both natures of Christ in favor of his (human) innocence. At 66 Ausschreiben, X 4r: “… sondern weg vnd weis fürschlagen/ dardurch man möchte vrsach haben/ vnd nach gelegenheit des handels aus Gottes wort/ ewige vnd bestendige einigkeit zumach/ gelegenheit suchen vnd finden möchte.” 67 See chapter 6 for this portion of Hegemon’s letter. 68 GA 10: 855 – ​67. 69 See GA 10: 861, n. 17. 70 GA 10: 862, 7 – ​8. 71 GA 10: 865, 18 –​19. 72 GA 10: 866, 1– ​3. 73 GA 10: 866, 9 –​10 & 11–​14 (for the citation of Mörlin’s letter). Of course, the fact that Osiander had access to and was, hence, responding to his opponents’ opinions to the memoranda, demonstrated that Brenz’s position had no independent authority but was subsumed under Osiander’s own.

208

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

the same time, Osiander rejected Mörlin’s notion that the participation in Christ’s divine nature and righteousness occurred after death, pointing to 1 Corinthians 6:11 and glossing the reference to the Lord Jesus there with Jeremiah 23:6 so that it applied to a present indwelling of Christ’s divine nature in the believer.

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553 These memoranda and the responses of Osiander, Mörlin and the other Königsberg theologians were not published until 24 January 1553, three months after Osiander’s death. At nearly the same time, however, on 30 January, another statement from Württemberg saw the light of day, published at the behest of Philip Melanchthon and entitled Des ernwirdigen Herrn Johannis Brentij Declaratio von Osiandri Disputatio. Darin er klar enzeigt was er strefflich urteilt [The Declaration by the Honorable Mister Johannes Brenz concerning Osiander’s Dispute, in Which He Clearly Shows What He Judges Worthy of Condemnation]. This document, along with Brenz’s Confession on the matter, would be printed a few months later in Magdeburg by Matthias Flacius with his glosses (see below) and in 1554 in Königsberg without them. As we have seen, the secondary literature almost universally represents Johannes Brenz as the one major “holdout” regarding Osiander.74 The two men had gotten to know each other when Osiander was a pastor in Nuremberg and Brenz was the pastor/reformer in nearby Schwäbisch Hall and theological advisor to the princes of Brandenburg-Ansbach. Moreover, as the correspondence in the early 1530s between Brenz and the Wittenbergers demonstrates, Brenz himself held a much more Augustinian view of justification. Whereas Luther and Melanchthon insisted that our certainty of righteousness rested in God’s unconditional promise, Brenz, similar to Augustine, posited that our being declared righteous in the present rested upon the continual work of the Holy Spirit to transform us into righteous people. Before one makes Brenz into a supporter of Osiander, however, it is important to remember that Melanchthon, too, seemed early on to have tolerated Osiander’s position. Brenz surely realized the consequences of Osiander’s teaching and the seriousness of the opposition. As with Luther’s or Melanchthon’s reactions in earlier disputes, Brenz and his theologians in Württemberg, as we have seen, seemed more ready to tolerate and discuss serious differences before condemning a fellow confessor of the faith. This way of arguing was well learned by Jakob Andreae, who carried it into his work on the Formula of Concord.75 In fact, the 74 See, especially, Stupperich, Osiander, 342 – ​46. He misconstrues a comment of Brenz in a letter to Melanchthon (MBW 6630). See below. 75 See Robert Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977).

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

209

way the Württembergers approached the subject could be seen as the origins of the Formula and its way of proceeding. One named extremes, which were condemned, assumed a middle ground, and as much as possible reduced disputes to problems of language and definition. I. Brenz’s Declaratio The close reading of the 1552 memoranda has demonstrated that Brenz’s real problem was with the extremes in Osiander, which Brenz tried to rein in by showing both where the dangerous limits were in this matter and where the center lay. In any case, a more carefully worked out condemnation by the Württemberg theologians first saw the light of day on 30 January 1553, several months after Osiander’s death. In October or November 1552, Duke Albrecht, having decided to end the controversy by decree, asked Duke Christopher for one more opinion from his theologians.76 This response was, so to speak, leaked to the press and printed in Wittenberg in order to indicate publicly that these two centers of Evangelical theology were in agreement. It was once again framed as a letter to Duke Christoph. We know about Melanchthon’s involvement in the publishing of this piece from two references in his correspondence. First, Melanchthon oversaw its publication, as he wrote to Brenz in a letter from 4 October 1555.77 Thus, its initial publication in Wittenberg was not simply a matter of toleration on Melanchthon’s part but rather part of careful plans to defeat the Osiandrists in Prussia. We learn this second point from a letter Melanchthon sent to Duke Albrecht, in which he refused to give an official opinion of the Duke’s Confession of 1554. Writing over a year after Mörlin’s dismissal from Königsberg, Melanchthon stated: “I am sending your excellency’s Confession back, concerning which – because I fear it will generate new fights – I write only this: If your Excellency had been content to publish the Declaratio of Brenz before, the concord with the churches would have quickly been restored.”78 This blunt assessment not only puts the lie to the old saw about Melanchthon’s lack of backbone, it also indicated Melanchthon’s approval for the Declaratio. Brenz and his fellow Württembergers began by admitting that they did not set out to write a iudicium (as had other churches) but only sought “suitable ways and means toward Christian unity.”79 They were not (as some clearly had alleged) timid about sharing their positions, but they simply did not want to prejudge the matter. Because some had interpreted their position in a very unfriendly way, Stupperich, Osiander, 356 – ​59. Stupperich seems unaware that Brenz answered the Duke’s request with the Declaratio. 77 MBW 7601 (CR 8: 588 f., here 589): “existimo autem, congruere nostram diiudicationem cum tua declaratione, quam ego edidi.” For the irony of Melanchthon’s assessment, see below. 78 MBW 7268 (CR 8: 332 f.), received 27 September 1554, dated 24 August 1554. 79 Declaratio, A 2r. 76 See

210

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

they feared that the same would happen to this letter. Here, Brenz was perhaps responding to a report from Joachim Camerarius, the professor in Leipzig and Melanchthon’s close friend, or to complaints by Joachim Mörlin.80 Yet, perhaps Brenz had learned of Osiander’s or even Albrecht’s peculiar ways of reading the Württemberg memoranda. Although somewhat uncertain about what Osiander taught, the theologians began by acknowledging, “God alone is the true, eternal, essential righteousness (if one wants to speak properly [proprie] and actually about righteousness), from whom all righteousness comes.” This was no different than speaking of God as the source of all wisdom, strength, life and blessedness.81 Osiander was also right in saying that “our Lord Jesus Christ earned through his suffering and death our reconciliation to God, dwells along with all of his blessings in us by faith, grants us an eternal inheritance and therefore, just as his life, wisdom and blessedness are ours, so also his righteousness is ours.”82 Of course, although Osiander might occasionally have taught such things, these matters were not actually disputed and would have been accepted by all sides. In the opinion of these theologians, however, Osiander went too far when he defined the words iustitia Dei [righteousness of God] and iustificatio [justification] in Romans 1 and 3 “otherwise than the main point of Paul’s argument allowed.” Worse yet, he wanted to support his opinion with this errant interpretation.83 What he wanted to say about the indwelling of Christ (as they explained it) was not wrong, just not proven from these texts. In this, his opponents were correct in holding that iustitia Dei meant the righteousness that God reckoned [so vor Gott gilt], that is, the forgiveness of sins purchased by Christ. Similarly, iustificare in Romans did not mean God’s essential righteousness but rather being absolved of sins and reckoned free [ledig gezellt].84 Moreover, Osiander’s Stupperich, Osiander, 356 – ​57. A 2v: “Dann Osiander hat vnsers bedenckens/ vnd souiel wir noch seiner maynung erlangt haben in diesem stück recht/ das er leret/ Gott sey allein (so man proprie vnd aigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit reden wil) Die recht ewig wesentlich Gerechtigkeit/ von dem alle Gerechtigkeit herkumpt/ Wie auch Gott allein die recht ewig Weißheit/ stercke/ leben/ vnd seligkeit ist.” 82 Declaratio, A 3r: “So leret Er auch darinnen nicht vnrecht (habe wir anderst sein maynung recht verstanden) Das vnser Herr Jhesus Christus habe mit seinem leiden vnd todt verdienet/ das Gott mit vns versönet/ selbs inn vns durch den Glauben wohne/ sich sampt allen seinen gütern/ vns zum ewigen Erbtayl schencke/ Vnd demnach/ gleich wie sein leben/ weißheit vnd seligkeit vnser ist/ also ist auch sein Gerechtigkeit vnser.” 83 Declaratio, A 3r – v : “Aber darinn thut Osiander vnsers bedenckens der sachen zuuiel/ das Er die schrifft des hayligen Apostels Pauli zu den Römern vnd fürnemlich die wort iustitia Dei, & iustificari/ in dem ersten vnd dritten Capittel anderst deutet/ dann die Haubtsach der disputation Pauli vff jme tregt/ vnd wil mit denselben sprüchen vnd der gleichen/ sein mainung bestetigen.” 84 Declaratio, A 3v: “Dann iusticia Dei/ haist an den bemelten orten Pauli/ nicht die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ Sondern die Gerechtigkeit/ so vor Gott gilt (das ist) die verzeihung der sünden/ die der Herr Christus mit seinem gehorsam erworben hat. Vnd iustificari haist da80 See

81 Declaratio,

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

211

opponents were correct in insisting that Christ’s obedience earned God’s eternal righteousness and blessedness. In Brenz’s view, however, the opponents also went too far, in that they did not simply exclude Osiander’s definition from the interpretation of Romans (which was proper) but also did not allow “such righteousness of God in the justification of the sinner its proper place.”85 Everything depended on the phrase “become righteous” (Gerecht werden). Understood in the light of the heavenly inheritance, “which we will also have and enjoy eternally and which Christ earned through his obedience, so it is true that we become righteous alone through the essential righteousness of God here on earth in hope, as first fruits and incompletely, but there in the life to come in reality, ten-fold and perfectly.”86 Yet, as if unwilling to condemn Osiander’s opponents, the Württembergers immediately returned to Paul, arguing that what Paul cared about was not the essential righteousness of God but forgiveness. “And on the basis of this understanding the teaching of Paul in Romans and other similar places defended by Osiander’s opponents is a proper Christian approach.”87 They then summarized their position by describing the way both natures of Christ worked justification of the sinner, so that Christ’s obedience was imputed to us for forgiveness and that through the indwelling of the Trinity, we participated in God’s eternal righteousness and blessedness.88 Christ’s death earned two blessings from the Father: forgiveness and eternal life. Regarding forgiveness, Osiander’s opponents were correct in saying that selbst nicht wesentlich gerecht werden/ Sondern von den sünden absoluiert vnd ledig gezellt/ Auch für gerecht/ von wegen des gehorsams Christi vor Gott gehalten werden.” 85 Declaratio, A 4r: “Aber darinn thuen sie der sach/ vnsers bedunckens zuuiel/ das sie des Osianders mainung von der wesentlichen gerechtigkeit Gottes/ nicht allein von den sprüchen Pauli absondern (daran sie dann recht haben) sonder wöllen auch solche Gerechtigkeit Gottes in iustificatione peccatoris/ an jrem gebürenden ort nicht sein raum lassen haben.” 86 Declaratio, A 4r – v : “So man nu sagt/ Der Mensch wird gerecht durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ die Gott selbst ist/ So ist es alles gelegen an dem verstand dieses worts (Gerecht werden) Dann/ wann es verstanden wird/ nach der Gerechtigkeit/ so vnser himelisch Erbteil ist/ die wir auch ewiglich haben vnd geniessen werden/ Vnd die vns Christus mit seinem gehorsam verdient hat/ So ist es war/ das wir allein durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ hie auff Erden/ Spe, primicijs, & inchoatione, dort in jenem leben/ re, decimis & perfectione, gerecht werden.” 87 Declaratio, A 4v: “Vnd vff diesen verstandt wird die lere Pauli zu den Römern/ vnd dergleichen Locis von den Widersachern Osiandri recht vnd christlich vertaidingt.” 88 Declaratio, A 4v – 5r: “Also hat Jhesus Christus/ vnser lieber HErr vnd Hayland/ warer Gott vnd Mensch/ in einer Person/ nach baiden naturen sein vnderschidliche würckung/ in iustificatione peccatoris/ Nemlich/ das Christus nach menschlicher Natur/ doch inn einiger Person mit Gott/ den tod für vnsere sünd gelidten/ vns mit dem Vater versönet/ vnd vns erworben/ das wir/ so an jn glueben/ haben von seinet wegen verzeihung der sünden/ vnd das sein Gerechtigkeit vnd gehorsam vns vor Gott zugerechnet werde/ Das auch der war ewig Gott Vater/ Son vnd hailiger Gaist/ in vns wohne/ vnd mach vns seiner ewigen Gerechtigkeit vnd Seligkeit tailhafftig.” Later in the Declaratio, A 5v, they made clear that the discussion of Christ’s two natures was added against those who denied the humanity of Christ, perhaps a reference to Caspar Schwenckfeld or to the controversy between Andreas Musculus and Stancaro.

212

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

this forgiveness, received through faith, meant a person’s sins were not reckoned to him or her and that, even though unjust, the sinner was presumed free from God’s judgment. Regarding eternal life, as soon as a person received it through faith, that person was then understood to be righteous in that “God himself, who is their eternal Life, dwells in the believer and grants as an inheritance God’s eternal righteousness and blessedness, which begins to have an effect in the believer here on earth, that is, the bestowed righteousness leads the believer to obey God’s commandments, etc. and the anticipated blessedness comforts the believer in the midst of all cares and adversity.”89 Perhaps the most remarkable comments of all came at the end of this document, where the Württemberg theologians and pastors concluded with a prayer to God to keep them in the “pure simple teaching of the Gospel of Christ about the justification of the human being and about all other articles of our religion, as the Holy Scripture, and principally St. Paul and also our teachers, Dr. Luther and Philip were able to explain God’s Word before this controversy arose.”90 Whatever harm the mediating position of the Württemberg church may have done, Brenz and his associates clearly wanted to put themselves squarely on Wittenberg’s side in this dispute. In this document, their position came close enough to that of Wittenberg and the other churches that it might have looked like the entire dispute was winding down. II. Approval of Brenz by Matthias Flacius Duke Albrecht and his primary theologian had been outflanked and rejected at every turn. Yet, as Melanchthon pointed out eighteen months later in no uncertain terms, the last emergency exit from the controversy, Brenz’s Declaratio, was barred shut by Duke Albrecht’s own attempt to meddle in theology. Despite the fact that even his own advisor, Wolfgang von Köteritz, urged the prince to use neutral judges, Albrecht doggedly stuck with Andreas Aurifaber and Johannes Funck. The resulting Ausschreiben, put forth as a “compromise,” was of course unacceptable to Joachim Mörlin (a fact that Duke Albrecht knew in advance, according to Martin Stupperich’s analysis), who, after preaching against it, was accused of subversive behavior and deported  – the order for his banishment 89 Declaratio,

A 5r – v : “So man aber das ewig Leben/ durch den glauben empfahet/ als dann wird man vff folgenden verstand gerecht/ Das Gott selbst/ der da ist das ewige Leben/ inn dem glaubigen wohne/ vnd schencke jm zu einem erbtail/ sein ewige Gerechtigkeit vnd seligkeit/ Also das dieselbige hie vff Erden inn dem glaubigen anfahe jr wirckung zuhaben/ Nemlich/ das die geschenckte Gerechtigkeit führe den glaubigen in den gehorsam Gottes gebot etc. vnd die verhoffte seligkeit/ tröste den glaubigen in aller bekümmernis vnd widerwertigkeit.” 90 Declaratio, A 6r [emphasis added]: “[Gott möge uns in] … rainen/ einfaltigen Lere des hailigen Euangelij Christi/ von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen/ vnd von allen andern Artickeln vnserer Religion/ wie es die hailige Schrifft/ vnd fürnemlich S. Paulus/ auch vnsere Preceptores D. D. Lutherus/ vnd Philippus vor diesem zancken/ vermög Gottes wort verkleret haben/ gnediglich erhalten.”

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

213

coming on 14 February 1553.91 This was the way princes would settle such disputes, a fact not lost on Mörlin, who took refuge first in Danzig, then in Magdeburg with the “Lord God’s chancellery,” and finally in Braunschweig. Such direct intervention into formulating doctrine did not work and was unacceptable to all of Osiander’s opponents. Osiander’s other chief opponent, Matthias Flacius did not ignore these developments. In May 1553, he published Brenz’s Declaratio along with another document from Württemberg, the Bekenntnis [Confession].92 The title itself explained Flacius’s intention: The Declaration of Mr. Johannes Brenz and Other Württemberg Theologians concerning Osiander’s Dispute regarding Justification, Together with Their Confession of Faith, with a Preface by Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus to the Prussian Churches, from Which Anyone Can Clearly Deduce What Brenz and the Aforementioned Theologians Fundamentally Hold concerning Osiander’s Novel Teaching. The subscribers represented a Who’s Who of Württemberg’s theologians, including Brenz, Matthias Alber, Jakob Herrbrand, Martin Frecht, and, of course, Jakob Andreae.93 Arising at nearly the same time as the Declaratio, the Bekenntnis outlined the course of salvation history, beginning with a description of humanity before the Fall and the results of the Fall (including the loss of original righteousness; art. 1 & 2),94 before turning to the promises of a savior made in the Old Testament (art. 3) and asserting that Old Testament believers were also saved by faith in the Son before his coming (art. 4). After describing Christ’s incarnation and his work on earth (art. 5), it turned to the article on justification (art. 6). “Thus, [we confess] that whoever believes in Jesus Christ, should receive for himself and comfort himself before God’s judgment in the midst of attacks by sin, death and hell with the obedience and righteousness of Christ in no other way than that he himself has fulfilled God’s commands and all of God’s will.”95 Here there was no Stupperich, Osiander, 356 – ​62. Brenz et al., Des Herrn Johan Brentij vnnd anderer Virtenbergischen Theologen, Declaration vber Osianders Disputation von der Rechtfertigung, sampt ihres glaubens bekentnis. Mit einer Vorrede Matth. Fla. Jllyrici vnd Nicolai Galli/ an die Preussischen Kirchen. Daraus leicht jedem zuuernemen/ was Brentius vnd genante Theologen/ im grunde von Osianders newen lere halten. (Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1 May 1553). (Henceforth: Bekenntnis.) 93 The entire list is, in order, Johannes Brenz; Matthias Alber, doctor and pastor in Stuttgart; Jakob Herrbrand, doctor and pastor in Herrenberg; Martin Frecht, Licentiate & Professor in Tübingen; Johann Isemann, Pastor in Tübingen; Caspar Greter, court preacher; Valentin Vannius, pastor in Cannstatt; Jakob Andreae, pastor in Göppingen; Jakob Engelman, court preacher; Andreas Cellarius, Pastor in Wildberg; Johannes Othmar Meglander, Pastor in Nürtingen. 94 The articles were numbered only in the version published in 1554: Der Ehrnwirdigenn … Herren Johannis Brentij und anderer jm zugeordenten Theologen vonn der Rechtfertigung des Menschen, Confession und Declaration, Wie sie dem … Fürsten … Albrechten dem Eltern, Marggraffen zu Brandenburg, inn Preussen … Hertzogen … zugeschickt seind worden. Anno 1553. Mense Aprili (Königsberg: Daubmann, 1554). 95 Bekenntnis (Magdeburg), D 1v – D 2r [Königsberg: A 3v – A 4r]: “Also/ das welcher in Jhesum Christum glaubt/ sich des gehorsams vnd der Gerechtigkeit Christi/ in anfechtung 91 See

92 Johannes

214

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

talk of Christ’s essential righteousness but only the obedience of Christ and its imputation to the believer. True to form, at this point in the document the verb changed from “we confess” to “we hold,” as article seven specifically discussed the Württemberg interpretation of Romans. Thus, it allowed some small opening for Osiander’s peculiar interpretation of the text. What they held, however, explicitly rejected Osiander. “[Romans 1 & 3] are to be understood not concerning the essential righteousness of God, which is God himself, but concerning the forgiveness of sins and concerning the obedience and righteousness of Christ, with which he satisfied the law and God’s will and which God also reckons to us who believe in Christ, so that we may comfort ourselves with this righteousness as our property given by God.”96 Article 8, the final article, returned to the language of confession and outlined the Württembergers’ position on the indwelling and enjoyment [Geniessung] of the divine nature. This indwelling of the Trinity was in addition to the righteousness of faith and a result of it. Through it, the believer became God’s child and heir to eternal life. This participation began here on earth, where the believer remained sinner, and was consummated in heaven. As proof, the article cited Romans 8:17a, a paraphrase of Romans 8:32, and 2 Peter 1:4. This, their confession, Brenz and his coworkers concluded, matched that of the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Württemberg Confession of 1552.97 Again, given later scholarly theories about the antagonism between Melanchthon and Brenz (to say nothing of that between Melanchthon and Flacius), the Magdeburg printing of the Bekenntnis takes on new meaning. For Flacius, who by May knew of Mörlin’s banishment from Königsberg and made reference to it,98 it was clear that the Württembergers’ mediating position had severely limited Mörlin’s effectiveness and perhaps contributed to Albrecht’s actions and the Osiandrists’ intransigence. Thus, the Magdeburg printing contained not only the Declaration and the Bekenntnis but also excerpts from the two earlier memoranda with glosses and capitalization for those parts Flacius found particularly to his liking. It was also graced with a lengthy preface, signed by Flacius and Gallus. The title page alone revealed Flacius’s sentiment, not only quoting 2 Peter 1:4 (referred to in the Bekenntnis) and 1 John 3:1– ​2 but also including this comment. [D 2r] der Sünden/ Todt vnd Hell/ vor dem Gericht Gottes nit anders annehmen vnd vertrösten sol/ Dann als/ so er selbs Gottes Gebot vnd allen willen Gottes volbracht hat.” 96 Bekenntnis (Magdeburg), D 2r – v [Königsberg: A 4v]: “[Romans 1 & 3] Zuuerstehen sey/ nicht von der Wesentlichen Gerechtigkeit Gottes/ die Gott selbs ist/ Sonder von der verzeihung der Sünden/ vnd von dem Gehorsam vnd Gerechtigkeyt Christi/ mit welcher er das Gesetz vnd Gottes willen genug gethan/ Welche auch Gott/ so wir an Christum gleuben/ vns zurechnet/ das wir vns der selben/ als vnsers von Gott geschenckten eigenthumbs/ vor Gottes Gericht/ vertrösten sollen.” 97 For this confession see Confessio Virtembergica 1552, ed. Martin Brecht and Hermann Ehmer (Holzgerlingen: Hänssler, 1999). 98 Bekenntnis, A 3r.

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

215

From this it is certainly clear that the participation in the Divinity and its essential benefits (wisdom, righteousness, life) actually belongs to eternal life, all of which, to be sure, we truly receive as the first fruits here, too. However, it is not the essence of our righteousness itself, as Osiander wants it, but is only a consequence, earnest or payment from the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, through which he has fulfilled the law [and which is] imputed to us beforehand through faith.99

This eliminated all doubt in the reader’s mind as to how to approach the Württembergers’ statements. Whatever the nuances of their position were, both Melanchthon and Flacius found ways to steer these documents toward their own position. Comments in 2 Peter and 1 John (and even Romans 8) had to be read through the lens of Romans 1 and 3, where the Wittenberg, Magdeburg and Württemberg churches were in agreement. The preface, addressed to the Prussian church, was a scathing condemnation of the Osiandrists’ and Albrecht’s approach to this crisis. After reviewing what the Magdeburgers had written in this dispute, they reminded the Prussians of their proposals, contained in the Ermanung of 29 September 1552: to follow the censures and judgments of the other churches, or, if that was unacceptable, to call together God-fearing teachers (the very thing Melanchthon would do in Nuremberg in 1555). Instead, Osiander was given free rein and published his own confession, which – to Osiander’s surprise (so the Magdeburgers thought) – was rejected by all the churches, with one exception. This exception (namely, the statement of the theologians in Württemberg) never claimed to be more grounded in God’s Word than the judgments of other churches, never claimed to be a judgment, and only said that Osiander’s errors were not as clear cut as his immediate opponents had claimed. In looking for a via media, however, the Württembergers had not intended to place their position over against the judgment of other churches or to allow it to become the basis on which people were punished “an gut und an blut” (in property and body), removed from office and driven out of Prussia. Such a use of this statement, as any Christian could understand, did not serve Christian unity. How could one memorandum be set against all the other churches (which Flacius and Gallus then listed) as if these churches’ judgments arose from an evil spirit and partiality?100 Flacius and Gallus then put their finger on underlying problem: the myth that one could remain impartial in religious matters that matter. What they (rightly   99 Bekenntnis, A 1r: “Aus dem ist ja klar/ das das teilhafftig sein der Gottheit/ vnnd jrer wesentlichen güter/ weisheit/ gerechtigkeit/ lebens/ eigentlich gehöre ins ewige leben/ Welches alles wir doch hie auch wol die erstlinge entpfangen/ Jst aber nicht das wesen vnser gerechtigkeit selbs/ wie es Osiander haben wil/ Sondern ist nur ein volge/ verdienst oder lohn der gerechtigkeit des gehorsams Christi/ damit er das Gesetz erfüllet hat/ vns vor durch den glauben zugerechnet.” For more on this document, see chapter 4. 100 Bekenntnis, A 3r. They included the churches of Saxony, Meissen, Thuringia, Franken, Mark Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Leipzig and the University of Königsberg itself.

216

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

or wrongly) accused Melanchthon of doing in the adiaphoristic controversy, they saw not so much in the Württembergers’ position but in its use: as if the Prussians could simply place a variety of opinions alongside one another and choose the one they liked best. Thus, [these other churches] were chosen from the beginning as impartial and diligent judges by [the Prussians] themselves for this purpose: that they were sought out to provide insight and judgment concerning Osiander’s long-since published confession. And they doubtless know that in matters of religion, especially regarding teaching and the central matters as in this case, one can remain impartial only as long as one does not understand the matter completely or correctly. But as soon as it is understood, then one is responsible to take a stand on one side or the other and, if specifically asked about it, to confess and to witness what is black or white, light or dark, correct or incorrect.101

Although this statement implied a certain criticism of the Württemberg theologians, Flacius and Gallus hastened to exonerate them and to blame instead the Prussian church leaders for their “inattentiveness and neglect” (“unachtsamkeit und nachlessigkeit”). Beyond this, the Magdeburgers did not know what to advise, except perhaps that the few remaining true believers ask the prince to be allowed to remain with the teaching that they professed before Luther died and Osiander darkened the doors of their churches. It was no longer enough to search for a golden mean, but everyone had to confess “the pure doctrine of the divine Word” and thereby rescue Christian consciences, condemning and purging out what is harmful.102 What Robert Kolb noted more broadly about GnesioLutherans throughout this period came to clear expression here: to be Christian meant to confess the faith.103 Flacius and Gallus expressed the faint hope that the “good prince,” seeing what suffering was being caused, would relent and allow these faithful confessors to stay. Of course, for the Magdeburgers this raised the question of the relation between the prince and the church. Their position, describing the interdependent relationship of sovereign and subject, turned out to be far more sophisticated than some of the latest scholarship depicts. They wrote that obedience had both demands and limits. Without mentioning him, it would seem they had specifi101 Bekenntnis, A 3v: “So sie [these other churches] doch von anfang als vnparteische/ vnd tüchtige Richter von jnen selbs dazu erwelet/ vmb erkentnis vnnd vrteil vber Osianders lengs zuuor gedruckte bekentnis ersuch sind/ vnnd sie wol wissen/ das in Religions sachen fürnemlich die lere vnd heubtstücke/ als hie/ betreffend/ niemand lenger vnparteisch sein kan/ denn so lang er die sachen noch nicht gnugsam oder recht erkennet/ bald sie aber erkant ist/ so ist er schüldig auff eine seiten zutreten/ vnd so er sonderlich darumb gefragt wird/ zubekennen vnnd zubezeugen/ was schwartz oder weis/ liecht oder finsternis/ recht oder vnrecht ist.” 102 Bekenntnis, A 4v: “So gilts warlich nu nicht nehr mittelns/ glimpffens vnd deckens/ sondern sol ein jeder mit seinem bekentnis erfür/ reine lere Göttlichs worts vnnd Christliche gewissen zuerretten/ solchen jrthumb mit seinem bekentnis helffen verdammen vnd wider ausfegen/ gleich wie jederman sol helffen lesschen/ wenn ein fewr auffgehet.” 103 Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), 63 – ​98.

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

217

cally in mind the defense by Mörlin, who claimed he was not seditious but only conscientious. Addressing the Prussian subjects directly, they wrote: Herewith (as everyone may doubtless attest), we are not suggesting that your hearts undertake anything at all rebellious against your authorities through revolt or brute force. At the same time, we also do not deny that the subjects have their rights before God and human beings vis-à-vis the authorities (even as the authorities have theirs vis-à-vis their subjects) and thereby are not subject by God to the authorities as sheep to a butcher, who slaughters them merely according to his pleasure, so that a subject in his innocence may not say one wit to his lord and may not rightly think anything against him, whenever the lord takes the wool so that skin and bones but especially eternal life may nevertheless be left for him.104

Flacius also judged the Württembergers’ latest writings differently from their previous letters. He stated that what could be surmised from their earlier letters became clear in the Declaratio, recently published in Wittenberg – an offhand reference that showed Flacius understood the importance of that university’s tacit approval of publications there. Righteousness and life were connected the same way as unrighteousness and death: the former was a consequence of the latter in each term. What was being argued about here was not eternal life but righteousness. For Flacius and Gallus, as for Melanchthon, the sinner’s experience played a crucial role. Thus, they wrote that this distinction between eternal life and righteousness was corroborated by the experience of every Christian conscience. When confronted by the law, the conscience did not ask about eternal life but first about the proper way to such life (namely, righteousness) – a question posed by Christian, Muslim and Jew (and Osiander and his opponents) – and second inquired about the nature of this righteousness.105 It was here, Flacius and Gallus 104 Bekenntnis,

A 4v: “Hiemit (wie ein jeder wol zuuernemen) heissen wir ewer liebe nichts vberall vnordentlichs/ durch auffrhur oder gewalt fürnemen wider ewer Oberkeit. Leugnen aber gliechwol auch nicht/ das die vnterthanen eben so wol jr recht für Gott vnnd den Menschen haben gegen der Oberkeit/ als die Oberkeit gegen jren vnterthanen/ vnd mit nicht der Oberkeit von Gott also vnterworffen sein/ wie die Schafe dem Metzger/ der sie nach allem seinem gefallen schlachtet/ das ein vnterthan in seiner vnschuld dem Herrn nimer so viel wider sagen/ vnd ordentlich dagegen dencken möchte/ wenn der Herr die wolle nimpt/ das jm dennoch haut vnd beine/ sonderlich aber das ewige leben bleiben möge.” 105 Bekenntnis, B 1v (emphasis in the original): “Vnd das diese vnterscheid der sache vnnd der fragen ja wol verstanden vnd eingenomen werde/ so last auch hernemen die erfarung aller Christlichen gewissen. Wenn ein mensch durchs ampt des gesetzes jtzt so weit ist komen/ das er seine sunde warhafftig erkennet/ vnd ernstlich dafür erschrickt/ die vnterscheid der sünden vnnd straffe der verdamnis des ewigen tods/ durch das gericht Göttlicher gerechtigkeit mit der that beginnet im gewissen zu fülen/ vnd gern wolte aus dem verdamnis des ewigen TODS zu Gott in das ewige LEBEN komen/ aus der Helle gen Himel steigen. So ist denn die ERSTE HEVBTFRAGE eins solchen gwissens/ was für ein weg/ mittel vnd leiter jm darzu von nöten/ vnnd findet sich da auffs aller klerest beide die antwort/ nemlich das GERECHTIGKEIT darzu von nöten sey/ vnnd zugleich mit die vnterscheid der gerechtigkeit vnd lebens. Vnnd ist dis stück der ersten Heubtfrage so gar nicht streittig/ das neben der schrifft vnd Christlichen gewissen/ auch Heiden/ Türcken/ Jüden/ Papisten vnnd Vnchristen/ Osiander selbs auch nicht leugnet oder leugnen kan/ Denn das gerechtigkeit sey nötig zu ewigem leben/ vnnd sey von dem

218

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

argued, that the difference lay between Osiander and his opponents. Moreover, they compared Osiander’s view with that of the universally hated Augsburg Interim, arguing that the infused good works of the Holy Spirit talked about there were similar to Osiander’s perspective. The Magdeburgers’ confession? “Against this and all other similar positions we supporters [literally: relatives] of the Augsburg Confession declare with St. Paul and the entire Holy Scripture that it [this righteousness] is the extravagant and overwhelming fulfilling of God’s law, which took place through the obedience and suffering of Christ and is imputed to us by faith.”106 At this point Flacius and Gallus examined this dispute using Aristotelian categories of causation, where the final cause was Christ’s indwelling in heaven.107 This indwelling, however, dared not be compared to the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity (a suggestion Osiander had made at one stage in the dispute) but was an inexpressible and incomprehensible full participation in God’s nature and his essential benefits, the first fruits of which believers enjoyed here on earth. Here Flacius, often depicted as having an answer for everything, drew a line that echoed Melanchthon’s refusal to investigate the Trinity in the 1521/22 Loci communes: “At this time, with all humility and simplicity, we ought more believe than investigate or be able to understand.”108 Christian teachers were duty bound to fight for this teaching, especially in view of all those struggling consciences. Gallus and Flacius then turned to the Württembergers’ statements themselves. They stated that the sinner’s righteousness was the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and agreed that Romans 1 and 3 referred to this imputed righteousness and not to Osiander’s viewpoint. Furthermore, it made the indwelling of God a result of such righteousness not a cause. As far as the things that the statement identified as Osiander’s correct teaching, Gallus and Flacius not only agreed but cited chapter and verse in their own writing from 1 March 1552 and in the writing by the church in Hamburg (drafted by Johannes Aepinus in 1552 but first published in January 1553).109 Never one to avoid a metaphor, Flacius concluded that Osiander had put the cart before the horse “and wants to drive us into heaven. But that would be a strange way to travel, so that we have to be careful leben gemelter ordnung nach vnterscheiden. … Darauff volget nu die ANDER ­HEVBTFRAGE, nemlich diese/ was solche gerechigkeit eigentlich sey/ dadurch oder damit ein armer sündiger verdampter mensch gerechtfertiget/ aus dem verdamnis des ewigen tods ins ewig leben kome. Da ist nu der gantze Heubtstreit der waren Kirchen Christi vnd falschen Kirchen …” 106 Bekenntnis, B 2r: “Wider diese vnnd alle andere dergleichen/ sprechen wir der Augspurgischen Confession verwandte/ mit S. Paulo vnd der gantzen heilign Schrifft/ Es sey die vberreiche vnnd vberschwengliche erfüllung des gesetz Gottes/ durch den gehorsam vnd leiden Christi geschehen/ vnd vns durch den glauben zugerechnet.” 107 See above, chapter 4. 108 Bekenntnis, B 2v: “Vnnd jetzt mit aller demut vnd einfelgitkeit mehr gleuben/ denn forschen sollen/ vnd verstehen können.” 109 See the bibliography, F/G 01 (1552) and A/W 01 (1553).

C. Post mortem Osiandri: Brenz’s Statements of 1553

219

that we do not arrive too late and be shut out of heaven and with Osiander, our driver, end up in an evil inn.”110 Their conclusion? The Württemberg theologians were on their side not Osiander’s. Yet Flacius and Gallus realized that this agreement did not in itself carry any authority, so they closed by confessing that they were all in agreement with St. Paul’s writings, “which are the Scripture’s true font and source, from which we ought to make our Theologia, especially regarding the justification of the sinner.”111 To be sure, this connection marked these theologians as true disciples of Melanchthon and Luther. Nevertheless, their own argument, however Melanchthonian, must not be lost: Paul was their authority in this matter, especially in Romans. They stated this in glosses on the text of the Declaratio, especially when they described Romans 1, 3 and 4 as the “Proposition [a Latin term], main theme, and basis of the entire matter” that Osiander did not understand.112 The other glosses read much the same way, although at least one seemed to warn the Württembergers not to confuse the cause of righteousness (Christ’s obedience) with the effect (eternal life). On the Bekenntnis, which Flacius labeled “short and well organized” (“wiewol kürtzlich/ jedoch fein ordentlich”), he supplied only a single gloss to their use of Romans 1 and 3: Here you hear clearly, dear reader, what the righteousness of Christ is by which a poor sinner by faith is or will be righteous or justified, namely, it is the obedience or active righteousness of Christ through which he fulfilled perfectly the will of his Father and the divine law. [The Württembergers], however, will place the essential righteousness afterwards in eternal life or the heavenly inheritance.113 110 Bekenntnis, B 4v: “[Osiander] spannet die pferde hinter den wagen/ vnd wil vns also gen Himel führen. Das wird zumal ein wunderlich fahren werden/ Ist zubesorgen/ wir komen so alzu spat ins Himelreich/ vnnd möchten draussen verschlossen/ mit Osiandro vnserm furhman ein böse Herberg bekomen.” 111 Bekenntnis, B 4v: St. Paul’s writings “des schrifften der rechte brun vnnd quell sind/ daraus wir vnser Theologia (sonderlich von rechtfertigung des Sünders) schepffen sollen.” 112 Bekenntnis, C 2r – v. The entire gloss reads: “Mercke/ Hie [in the Declaratio] ist etwas viel mehr gesagt/ denn ein jeder bald verstehen werde/ Weil sie bekennen/ das paulus der auserwelte werckzeug Gottes/ da er handelt von der gerechtigkeit vnnd rechtfertigung des armen Sünders Roma. j. iij. ja da er eben die Proposition, Heubtspruch vnd grund des gantzen handels setzet/ in keinen weg es mit Osiandro helt/ sondern mit seinem widerpart/ auch gantz vnnd gar von der wesentlichen gerechtigkeit Gottes da nicht redet etc. So haben sie mehr denn gnug von der sache geurteilet. Denn mit wem es Paulus helt/ der hats gar gewunnen/ vnnd mit wem es Paulus nicht helt/ der hats gar verloren. Summa/ wenn die Kirche Christi von des Sünders gerechtigkeit für Gott oder rechtfertigung handelt/ so handelt sie eben von der gerechtigkeit vnnd rechtfertigung/ dauon Paulus schreibet Roma. j. iij. vnd iiij. vnd von keiner andern/ denn sie nimpts vnnd lernets von jm. Derhalben so Osiander ein ander gerechtigkeit vnnd rechtfertigung oder ein ander Euangelion bringet denn Paulus/ so sey er ANATHEMA Maranatha.” 113 Bekenntnis, D 2r: “Hie hörestu lieber Leser ja klar/ was die gerechtigkeit Christi sey/ damit ein armer Sünder durch den glauben gerecht oder gerechtfertiget wird vnnd ist/ nemlich/ das es sey der gehorsam/ oder gethane gerechtigkeit Christi/ damit er den willen seines Vaters/ vnnd das Göttliche Gesetz volkömlich erfüllet hat. Die wesentliche gerechtigkeit aber werden sie hernach ins ewige leben oder Himlische erbteil setzen.”

220

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

To underscore Brenz’s place on the Magdeburgers’ side, Flacius also published a second piece shortly after the appearance of the Bekenntnis, consisting of excerpts from the Nuremberg church order of 1533.114 By publishing this, Flacius hoped to prove just how far Osiander had strayed in his later writings.115 Flacius then offered one of the most sophisticated reflections on the reading and use of written texts to come out of this entire affair. In understanding a text properly and fundamentally it is extremely necessary that one not read it in a sleepy manner or superficially or only diligently noting things in a piecemeal fashion. On the contrary, one must consider and envisage the entire shape of it. For if one sees (so to speak) what the feet, hands and breast are, then one can so much more easily and clearly realize and figure out what the head is. Thus, dear reader, you ought to note diligently the order and parts of this chapter [of the Kirchenordnung]. The title is “Concerning the Gospel.” But the sections or parts of the chapter are indicated and recalled at their [proper] place.116

Here again Flacius provided glosses to the text especially aimed at Funck’s mistaken interpretations of the Bible. Despite what later scholars imagine, for Melanchthon and Flacius the Württembergers’ statements did not add up to support for the Prussian Osiandrists and their duke in the least. These theologians were instead bound and determined to bring these statements into line with their own. Melanchthon’s later rebuke of Duke Albrecht implied that the duke himself – or at least his advisors – did not see fit to use Brenz’s Declaratio because it actually did not support their position.

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555 In 1554, a controversy involving supporters of Osiander broke out in Nuremberg, the most powerful Evangelical city in the Holy Roman Empire. In some ways, this came as no surprise. Osiander had been an Evangelical pastor there for over twenty years. Over that time he had gathered many friends and supporters 114 Fla 08 (1553): Matthias Flacius, ed., Brentij vnd Osiandri meinung vom ampt Christi vnd rechtfertigung des Sünders, Mit einer Vorr. M. Flac. Illyr. (Magdeburg: Lotter, 1553). For a more detailed analysis, see chapter 4. 115 Brentii und Osiandri meinung, A 2r, with reference to Osiander’s Beweisung (GA 10:421– ​ 29). 116 Brentii und Osiandri meinung, A 2v: “Eine Schrifft recht wol vnd grüntlich zuuerstehen/ ist sehr nötig/ das man dieselbige nicht schlefferig vnnd oben hin lese/ oder aber nur stückweis fleißig mercke/ sondern man mus die gantze form derselbigen wol betrachten vnd einbilden/ Denn wenn man sihet (so zu reden) was die füsse/ hende/ vnnd brust sey/ so kan man auch desto leichter vnd klerer vernemen vnd ausrechnen/ was auch der Kopff sey. Derhalbeu [sic!] soltu lieber leser vleißig mercken/ die ordnung vnd teil dieser capittel. Der titel ist vom Euangelio/ Die stücke aber oder teile des capitels sind an jren ortern angezeigt vnd erinnert.”

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

221

among the clerical and political leaders of the city. The very first anti-Osiandrian tract, published there in 1551, landed both the printer and editor in jail. Yet, what made this later controversy so important for the Evangelicals was its origin – in the publication of Osiandrian and anti-Osiandrian tracts by the town’s theologians – and its resolution – through a special intervention from other Evangelical theologians of the Empire, including Philip Melanchthon, who wrote and published several documents aimed at resolving the dispute. In his book on Osiandrianism, Jörg Rainer Fligge has provided a fine overview of the political intrigue surrounding this dispute.117 It revolved around Leonhard Culmann, the newly appointed preacher at St. Sebald’s, and first involved a hearing in September 1554 before some city councilmen including, among others, Melanchthon’s former student and long-time correspondent, Jerome Baumgartner. Culmann was opposed by Jerome Besold, Wolf Waldner and Sebald Heyden.118 By the following July, with Culmann claiming to adhere to Brenz’s mediating position, his accusers were faced with public attacks and threats by members of Culmann’s congregation. With the unity of the Nuremberg church now in doubt, the city council arranged a hearing that included participation by Joachim Camerarius (the former rector at Nuremberg’s St. Aegidian School, a close friend of Melanchthon, and now teacher in Leipzig) and Michael Roting (author of the very first attack on Osiander). For the first time Johannes Vetter was also included among the accused Osiandrists. Culmann and his cohorts were told to refrain from teaching and preaching until the entire matter could be reviewed by an impartial group of teachers. Culmann was also provided with a pastoral counselor. Vetter, a chaplain at the St. Lorenz church, was suspended with pay. By the end of July the entire matter was referred to the Elector of Saxony and his two universities, Wittenberg and Leipzig. By mid-September the Elector decided to send Melanchthon and Camerarius in person to settle the dispute. I. The Literary Controversy: Pro and Con In these Nuremberg writings, Melanchthon named three theologians whose work was examined: Jerome Besold, Leonhard Culmann and Johannes Vetter. Besold, whose writing we will examine below, was found to be orthodox. Culmann and Vetter, however, were rebuked, forced to offer their resignations, and finally had to find positions elsewhere. Leonhard Culmann (1497/98 –1​ 562) was born in Crailsheim (Ansbach) and attended the University of Erfurt, where he received his bachelor’s degree, and the University of Leipzig. By 1523 he was the schoolmaster of the Heilig-Geist Spital Schule in Nuremberg and an early leader of the Evangelicals in Nuremberg. After Veit Dietrich’s death in 1549, he became pastor at St. Sebald’s church 117 Fligge,

Osiandrismus, 324 – ​39. the latter, see below.

118 Concerning

222

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

in Nuremberg. After resigning his position in Nuremberg, in 1556 he received a call to Württemberg as pastor and in 1558 moved to Bernstadt, controlled by the imperial city of Ulm.119 Already in 1545 he had joined the ranks of published theologians with his Godly and Religious Conversation or Disputation between an Evangelical and a Papist concerning the Articles of the True Religion.120 As the title suggests, it dealt exclusively with a comparison of Evangelical and Roman theological positions. The fact that it was republished in Königsberg in 1555 may be one indication of the favorable reading Culmann received from that Osiandrian stronghold or at least from the printer Johannes Daubmann, formerly of Nuremberg. In addition to editing Brenz’s work and writing admonitions to peace, instructions on how to provide pastoral comfort, a tract on the art of dying, sermons and a guide to preaching, in 1551 Culmann commenced his magnum opus, entitled A Treasury of Theological Common Places from the Old and New Testaments, an alphabetic explanation of all manner of theological topics beginning with angels in volume one and continuing through the letter “F” in volume six.121 Culmann’s approach was Erasmian, in that the loci were simply nestlets, in which to assemble the texts on a given theme. He did not so much expound on the Bible as give proof texts and, in some ways, left those texts far behind in his own discussion of the doctrine. Driven to say as many things as possible about a topic, he thus often seemed to contradict himself – a charge that would figure in the 1555 dispute. Despite the fact that certain loci in the Treasury also implied an Osiandrian position,122 Culmann’s troubles really began with his attempt to publish in Nuremberg a tract on justification.123 It would subsequently see the light of day in Basel at the offices of Johannes Oporinus. His descriptive, Erasmian (one could almost say Abelardian) method got him into trouble. After describing justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness,124 Culmann proceeded to de119 WBIS Online from Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexikon, pt. 1 (1755), s. v. and MBW 11: 324. 120  Leonhard Culmann, Confabvlatio sev dispvtatio pia et religiosa hominis euangelici et papistici de verae religionis articulis, utilissima ijs qui novo iam dogmate, ut uocant, offenduntur (Nuremberg: Wachter, 1545). It was also published in Königsberg by Daubmann in 1555. 121 Leonhard Culmann, Thesaurus locorum communium Copiossimus ex Vetero et Novo Testamento cum fideli ac perspicua interpretatione … quo argumenta, de quocunque rerum proposito in facultate Theologica prae manibus esse solent (Nuremberg: Daubmann, 1551). Daubmann published volume two (letter B) in 1551 and volume three (letter C) in 1553. In 1554 Gabriel Hayn continued the work with the publication of volumes four through six (letters D–F). 122 See, for example, vol. 3, p. B 4v, on the infusion of the divine nature of Christ in humanity; vol. 4: 39r, on the indwelling of Christ in us as God in Christ; but, a more orthodox position, in the entry on faith, in which Culmann mentioned that the believer receives Christ’s imputed righteousness (vol. 6: 28r & 45r). 123 De sola fide iustificante, seu iustificatione hominis, quid de ea sit purè sentiendum atque docendum, aliquot formulae, collectae/ (Basel: [Oporinus, ca. 1555]). 124 De sola fide iustificante .. aliquot formulae collectae, 15 –​18.

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

223

scribe what he simply labeled “Another Form of Teaching about Justification.”125 The use of the word “form” here was not arbitrary but represented his epistemology, that is, the conviction that there were various forms or pictures of the truth. Thus, unlike Melanchthon or Flacius, he did not hold to a single expression of the truth as itself true but rather to a variety of expressions that pointed to an overarching truth. No wonder he could call on Brenz for support! For Culmann, the Son was perfect righteousness because he was true God and therefore believing in him bestowed that righteousness on the believer. “Thus it follows that the righteousness of Christians is an alien righteousness and is infused from without, that is by which Christ is righteous.”126 He defined justification as the indwelling of Christ’s righteousness throughout the tract. The only possible reference to his Nuremberg opponents occurred at the very end of the tract, when he reminded his readers that “Assertors of righteousness have enemies. Therefore Christ promises the kingdom of heaven to assertors of righteousness, and he call them blessed, whom the world curses as scoundrels and wicked.”127 The closest thing to Culmann’s self-defense came in a tract written in German and published in 1558 without reference to its place of origin or its printer, but actually printed in Augsburg by Hans Gregler. It bore the title Witness Taken from God’s Word and the Writings of Christian Teachers (Dr. Martin Luther, Urbanus Rhegius, Johannes Bugenhagen, Georg Major, Philip Melanchthon) Concerning What the Righteousness of Man Is and How the Godless Ought to Become Upright and Righteous: Produced for the Teaching and Support of All Upright Christians.128 Culmann clearly wanted to distance himself from the charge of Osiandrianism and even quoted Philip Melanchthon’s attack on Osiander from 1552 in his defense.129 The conclusion indicated in large part that Culmann had “learned his lesson,” so to speak.130 He stressed that justification occurred because of Christ’s human and divine natures, that it was not to be confused with renewal, and that it was a matter of trust in Christ, even when one did not experience any faith or love. In this account, however, he made no mention of imputation and seemed to imply that this righteousness arose through the indwelling of Christ in the 125 De sola fide iustificante .. aliquot formulae collectae, 19 – ​52. He presented at least eight other “forms” later in the work. 126 De sola fide iustificante .. aliquot formulae collectae, 40: “Vnde sequitur, iusticiam Christianorum esse iusticiam alienam, & ab extra infusam: hoc est, qua Christus iustus est.” 127 De sola fide iustificante .. aliquot formulae collectae, 108: “Iusticiae assertores, hostes habent. Promittit ergo Christus assertoribus iusticiae, regnum coelorum: & uocat eos beatos, quos mundus ut nebulones & sceleratos execratur.” 128 Leonhard Culmann, Zeugknuß. Auß Gottes wort vnd Schrifften der Christenlichen lehrern – D. Martin Luthers/ Vrban Regij/ Johann Bugenhagen/ Georgen Maiors/ Philippen Melanchtons gezogen/ Was des Menschen gerechtigkeit sey/ vnnd wie der Gotloß für Gott soll fromm vnnd gerecht werden: Allen frommen Christen zur Lehr vnnd nutz gestellet ([Augsburg: Han Gregler], 1558). 129 Zeugknuß, F 1v – F 2r. 130 Zeugknuß, J 3r – J 4v.

224

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

believer. Whereas one might imagine that his position would be acceptable to Brenz, it still did not completely harmonize with the Nuremberg memorandum that Culmann had refused to sign. In fact, its publication landed Culmann in trouble with Duke Christoph of Württemberg, whose chief theologian Johannes Brenz condemned the printing, and in 1558 the preacher left Württemberg for the neighborhood of Ulm.131 The other Osiandrist named in the Nuremberg documents was Johannes Vetter, the deacon at St. Lorenz church. It is not at all clear what he might have written to deserve condemnation, since it was never printed. Yet, the visiting theologians seemed to deem his position more Osiandrian than even Culmann’s, and he, too, resigned his post under pressure. The cause of this controversy in Nuremberg, however, was not simply due to an outbreak of Osiander’s teaching among his supporters but may also be traced to two fierce anti-Osiandrian attacks that appeared in print during this period, one in 1554 and one in 1555, written by Jerome Besold and Sebald Heyden, respectively. Both signed the Nuremberg memorandum. Indeed, the team from Wittenberg and Leipzig exonerated Besold, Osiander’s son-in-law. It would appear that he had been accused (with Jerome Baumgartner) of altering Luther’s words in the recently published final installment of Luther’s lectures on Genesis. Of course, examining theologians on both sides of the dispute gave the proceedings some semblance of objectivity. Most likely, however, the complaint against Besold arose not simply from the Genesis lectures themselves but from Besold’s own fiery, anti-Osiandrian preface. Jerome Besold (1522 –1​ 562) was born in Nuremberg and, beginning in 1537, studied in Wittenberg where he received his Master of Arts in 1544. He returned to Nuremberg where, after a brief stint at the St. Sebald school, he became preacher at the Spitalkirche and Superintendent in 1547. He married Osiander’s daughter, Catharina, the following year but, unlike his father-in-law remained in Nuremberg despite the Interim.132 As recounted above, he opposed Osiander in Nuremberg early on. His preface to Luther’s Genesis lectures, however, first published in 1554, contained a far more devastating criticism, attacking both Osiander’s theology and his misuse of Luther. In fact, the wording of the Nuremberg memorandum indicated that it was this preface (along with the charge of distorting Luther’s positions in the Genesis lectures themselves) that the visiting theologians had to address. We ourselves think that the sense and form of teaching received in our churches, which refute Osiander, are true and we judge that the writing of Besold and his allies [probably including Baumgartner] to conform with this teaching. Wherefore, we approve this writ-

131 For

details, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 338 – ​39. Online from Jöcher/Adelung, v. 1 (1784), s. v. See also MBW 11: 149 – ​50.

132 WBIS

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

225

ing and are of the opinion that it is godly and judge that it is useful to retain this form of speaking for the sake of concord.133

What had Besold written there?134 He accused Osiander of having distorted manifold texts not only in the apostolic and prophetic writings themselves but also in the witness of Luther. He then provided an example where, using a portion of Luther’s De triplici iustitia, Osiander “ripped a word out” of context, not understanding that it was written early in Luther’s career and that it was not addressing the question of the infused righteousness of Christ’s divinity but rather extolling the righteousness of faith over works. Moreover, as the immediate context proved, Luther was not talking about the indwelling of the Trinity or Christ’s divinity but about all that Christ did for us. As a corrective for this misuse of Luther, Besold cited a contrary passage from the later De duplici iustitia,135 defying his opponents (one assumes he had Culmann in mind) to explain away such a clear passage in favor of an understanding of justification based not upon Christ’s indwelling divinity but on his incarnation, suffering and death. Besold then went even further. “But whenever in Luther’s expositions they cut up texts of this kind (the clarity of which can easily refute [them]), they imagine that he speaks using figurative language. They mix schemas [figures of speech] and tropes, as if it pleased Luther in this chief topic of our salvation to make figures and plays on words.”136 On the contrary, Luther’s intent was always to provide comfort not to confuse people with unclear figures of speech. Unlike Osiander, Luther and Besold did not divorce Christ’s atoning sacrifice from justification. Of course, Christ brought about reconciliation with God on the cross but its effect continued in the present through faith, “which knows nothing of counting the years.” To prove his point, Besold referred to the very Genesis lectures he was publishing, where Luther said things not in the heat of the moment but in the calmness of the lecture hall.137 Moreover, at the end of his life, Luther cited John 3:16, another clear proof that his confidence was in Christ’s death on the cross and not in his infused divine righteousness. Besold then excused himself for going after his opponents. But, he asked, what was the result of dividing the two natures of Christ and separating Christ’s person 133 CR 8: 558 [sic! =585]: “Nos sententiam et formam doctrinae, receptam in nostris Ecclesiis, quae refutarunt Osiandrum, sentimus esse veram, et cum hac congruere iudicamus scriptum Besoldi et ipsi coniunctorum. Quare id scriptum approbamus et pium esse censemus, et iudicamus, utile esse concordiae eam formam loquendi retinere.” 134 The preface is reprinted in WA 44: xxx–xxxvii, especially xxxiv–xxxvii. 135 He cited WA 2: 145, 14 –​18 and 146, 2 – ​7. He omitted an intervening passage about the unity with Christ, the bridegroom, and the joyous exchange. 136 WA 44: xxxiv: “Si quando autem in eiusmodi locos incidunt in Enarrationibus Lutheri, quorum perspicuitate facile refelli possunt, fingunt figurate dicta esse, comminiscuntur Schemata et Tropos, quasi libuisset ei in hoc praecipuo Capite salutis nostrae ludere figuris et praestigiis verborum.” 137 WA 44: xxxv, referring to WA 44: 819, 17 – ​20.

226

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

and work? One lost the very things the Mediator provided. Separate justification from Christ’s obedient suffering and death and one contradicted an expressed Word of God and, in opposition to the consensus of the churches, separated the term righteousness, by which sinners are justified, from that very obedience.138 Yet it was for this very message – now rejected by Osiander and his followers – that God raised up that special man of God, Martin Luther. With such a preface to the conclusion of such an important work, it is no small wonder that Culmann and his compatriots became so incensed! If anyone had publicly expressed his disappointment with the Württemberg theologians’ response to Osiander, it was Sebald Heyden, rector of the St. Sebald School in Nuremberg.139 In the midst of the controversy in 1555, he published, in Latin and German, a stinging attack on the Nuremberg Osiandrists in the form of sixty-two theses purporting to prove that Christ’s obedient righteousness and not his essential righteousness formed the basis of Christian justification.140 It seemed that Heyden was coming to Besold’s defense. A letter to the reader appended to the end, however, also included an extremely harsh condemnation of Brenz’s Declaratio.141 II. The Nuremberg Decision It was in this highly charged situation that the Nurembergers appealed to the Elector of Saxony for help. As a result, on 24 September 1555, a delegation of theologians arrived in Nuremberg. Melanchthon had started out from Wittenberg on 13 September, stopping in Leipzig to pick up his dear friend Joachim Camerarius. Included in the entourage was also Jakob Runge, then superintendent in Greifswald, who had arrived in Wittenberg earlier in the month from Pomerania to seek Melanchthon’s help with the tempest over Petrus Artopoeus, a disciple of Osiander.142 Runge’s presence in the delegation was no accident but part of a carefully worked out show of unity among a variety of churches.143 Runge (1527 –1​ 595), born in Stargard, came to the University of Wittenberg in  WA 44: xxxvi. was born in Bruck near Erlangen in 1499, attended school in Nuremberg and later at the University of Ingolstadt. In 1519 he was hired as cantor at the Spitalschule [infirmary school] of the Holy Spirit, becoming rector in 1521 before moving to the St. Sebald school as rector, where he remained until his death in 1561. 140 See Hey 01 (1555), Hey 01.1 (1555) [German], and Hey 01.2 (1562), the latter published by Nicholas Gallus in a larger work. 141 See below. 142 See MBW 7585 (ms.; dated before 13 September 1555) and the notes in MBW 7: 343, as well as MBW 7612 (CR 7: 782 – ​83.; dated in MBW to before 26 October 1555) and 7613 (CR 8:592 f.; dated 26 October 1555). 143 MBW 7584 (CR 8: 535 – ​36), dated [10 September 1555], to Camerarius from Dessau, stated that Melanchthon was returning first to Wittenberg to pick up Runge. In his letter to Runge’s prince, Duke Philip of Pomerania (MBW 7613 [CR 8: 592 – ​93], dated 26 October 1555, Melanchthon excused Runge’s delayed return and gave him his unqualified endorsement. 138

139 Heyden

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

227

1544 and then moved to Greifswald in 1547, where he received his Master of Arts in 1548 (to be professor of rhetoric). In 1552 he became a professor of theology; by 1553 he was pastor and city superintendent and finally, in 1557 at the death of Johann Knipstro, general superintendent for western Pomerania. He received his doctorate in 1558.144 He had signed the Pomeranian response to Osiander, published in April 1552.145 He arrived with a response to Artopoeus, which Melanchthon slightly corrected but, in the main, supported. We will discuss his Nuremberg sermon in detail below. Along with Runge and Camerarius, another Leipzig theologian Alexander Alesius, the author of three tracts against Osiander between 1552 and 1554, also came. The final companion was Moritz Heling (1522 –​1595), another Wittenberg student (Master of Arts in 1551) who most recently had held a position as schoolmaster in Eisleben, where he was dismissed early in 1554 accused of being a Majorist. After a brief stay in Wittenberg as a teacher (during which time he lost his first wife and married his second), he became on 17 November 1555 Culmann’s successor at St. Sebald, where he remained until 1575, when he was dismissed for his (crypto-Philippist) views on the Lord’s Supper.146 Melanchthon had already been campaigning for him as Culmann’s replacement in a letter to Jerome Baumgartner dated 24 July.147 As late as 18 August 1555, Melanchthon had expressed the hope to Joachim Camerarius that there was no pressing need for him to travel to Nuremberg. However, on 27 August, the elector himself wrote to Melanchthon asking him to choose two companions from Wittenberg and journey to Nuremberg.148 Having picked up Camerarius and Alesius in Leipzig on 14 September, the five theologians arrived in Nuremberg on 24 September. Once there, one of the first things that Melanchthon did was to write to Johannes Brenz, inviting him to participate in the negotiations.149 Why would Melanchthon do such a thing? It would seem that he was far better off keeping Brenz out of the negotiations. Did he think that he could convince the Swabian that the controversy was more than simply a war of words? Was he hoping to undermine the last of Osiander’s supporters by including the other major contributor to the Nuremberg church order? If his later behavior at Worms Online from RGG3 vol. 5 (1961), s. v., and Amandus Carolus Vanselow, Gelehrtes Pommern (1728), s. v., and Christian Gottlieb Jöcher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexikon, 3 (1751), s. v. 145 See Kni 01 (1552). 146 See MBW 12: 260 – ​61. 147 MBW 7537 (CR 8: 511). Melanchthon emphasized that although Heling had been born in Prussia, he was long gone before Osiander had arrived. In a letter dated 22 August 1555 to Jerome Weller, Melanchthon revealed that he was still hopeful about Heling’s chances, although the Nuremberg city council had not made an official decision. 148 MBW 7568 (ms.). For a summary of the letter, see MBW 7: 337. 149 MBW 7590 (CR 8: 540 – ​41), the only letter dated 24 September. 144 WBIS

228

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

(where he defended Brenz against charges by Erhard Schnepff that Brenz was soft on Osiander) gave any indication, then at very least Melanchthon was not interested in ambushing his opponent. Yet Brenz knew that Melanchthon, who had gone on record early and often against Osiander, was not about to give up his hard line, so it is not surprising that Brenz used the absence of his prince, Duke Christoph of Württemberg, as an excuse to stay home.150 1. The Memorandum of 27 September Having “fulfilled all righteousness” vis-à-vis Brenz, Melanchthon then took full charge of the process. Around 27 September he wrote a joint memorandum on behalf of his companions addressed to Jerome Baumgartner.151 It included criticisms of Osiander’s definition of iustitia (that “which causes us to do just things”) as contradicting the apostle Paul, of his dividing forgiveness and righteousness, and of confusing the persons of the Trinity. Using Romans 5:12 to distinguish gratia (God’s gratuitous forgiveness) from donum (gifts conjoined with God’s presence here and in eternity), the memorandum also rejected any definition of faith divorced from God’s gracious work through the Word.152 After examining biblical texts to define God’s indwelling, the memorandum accused Osiander of corrupting justification by making it dependent on God’s indwelling, which was no different from the papal claim that one is righteous by renewal and which robbed the person of consolation. “Since, therefore, this dogma of Osiander is false and pernicious for consciences, it must be shunned and condemned.”153 Only then did Melanchthon reveal the real reason for such a careful refutation: to prove that this controversy was more than merely a war of words but “a controversy about the greatest matters: concerning the honor and office of the Mediator, concerning the true consolation of the godly, concerning the distinction of the divine persons, concerning the distinction of Law and Gospel, concerning the understanding of the proposition that we are justified by faith.”154 Thus, any attempt to reconcile such antithetical positions 150 For more on the later conflict with Schnepff, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 371– ​432. Brenz’s response, MBW 7595 (Bds. 567 – ​69) was dated 29 September 1555 and arrived after the major decisions had been reached. 151 MBW 7591 (CR 8: 579 – ​87). For dating and recipient, see the arguments in MBW 7: 345 f. This document was translated into German and published by an Augsburg printer probably in early 1556. See Mel 08 (1556?). 152 CR 8: 581: “Nec fides illa, qua accipimus consolationem, est cogitatio picta humanis viribus sine actione divina; sed verum est, in illa consolatione, cum corda fide eriguntur, Filium Dei logon efficacem esse cum externo verbo.” 153 CR 8: 583: “Cum igitur et falsum sit hoc Osiandri dogma, et conscientiis perniciosum, fugiendum et damnandum est.” 154 CR 8: 584: “… controversiam de rebus magnis, de proprio honore et officio mediatoris, de vera consolatione piorum, de discrimine personarum divinarum, de discrimine Legis et Evangelii, de intellectu propositionis: fide iustificamur.”

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

229

must be rejected. With these words Melanchthon and his colleagues dismissed Brenz’s attempts at compromise. The document then addressed the specific cases. It found no fault with Besold but accused Culmann of defining iustitia in a confused, Osiandrian way. Vetter, the document continued, argued more cleverly but finally concluded that iustitia in justification was that essential righteousness of the Trinity. Given this state of affairs, it was up to both theologians to state publicly whether they approved the teaching of “our churches” and agreed to abide by it. 2. The Tract of 10 November 1555 On the basis of this memorandum, the theologians then produced (between 27 and 29 September) a similar document, written in German for public distribution, then published from the relative safety of Wittenberg on 10 November 1555 and reprinted in Nuremberg in early 1556.155 On 28 November, Melanchthon sent a copy to Baumgartner, which the latter received on 9 December 1555.156 The publication included four separate documents. The first, written by Melanchthon and signed (around 28 September) not only by the other visiting theologians but also by Nuremberg’s Evangelical leaders, said everything in its title: That the Human Being in Conversion to God in this Life Becomes Righteous because of the Obedience of the MEDIATOR through Faith and Not because of the Essential Righteousness, Written in Nuremberg in 1555 and Subscribed by the Persons Listed by Name at the End.157 The next two documents were written by Jacob Runge: a sermon that he delivered in Nuremberg (on 29 September, the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels) and its dedicatory letter to Duchess Anna of Pomerania, dated 4 October. Finally, at Baumgartner’s urging, Melanchthon appended his exhortation to Nuremberg’s clergy, delivered on 2 October but probably edited before its publication to respond to some of Brenz’s objections.158 The combination of Melanchthon’s work and Runge’s meant that it 155 See Mel 07 (1555) and 07.1 (1556). We know from their correspondence that Melan­chthon

and Baumgartner had decided that publication in Wittenberg was far safer. In MBW 7623 (CR 7: 1128 f.), written to Paul Eber and dated 4 November [1555], Melanchthon announced that he planned to publish it. In MBW 7627 (CR 8: 602 f.), from Melanchthon in Leipzig to Baumgartner, dated 10 November [1555], Melanchthon announced that he had given it to the printers. “Itaque … tradidi scriptum nostrum typographis [in Wittenberg], et addo Iacobi [Rungii] concionem [which Runge had promised to publish already on 4 October], et nostram adhortationem, quam flagitasti [demanded earnestly]. Haec minore periculo a nobis eduntur, quam a vobis.” 156 MBW 7646 (CR 8: 618 –​19), where Melanchthon mentioned that he had added the Adhortatio to accede to Baumgartner’s demands. 157 Hereafter referred to as the Statement. 158 The Statement is MBW 7592 (CR 8: 555 – ​64); Runge’s preface to the Duchess is not in CR but his sermon, most likely not written by Melanchthon, is MBW 7593 (CR 8: 564 – ​78); the Adhortatio is MBW 7600 (CR 8: 546 – ​55). For the authorship of MBW 7593, see MBW 7: 347. See also MBW 7612 (CR 7: 782 f.), Melanchthon to Jakob Runge, a memorandum for Duke

230

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

served a double purpose, to settle matters in both Nuremberg and Pomerania. Its possible influence in Königsberg is reflected in a copy in the Herzog August Bibliothek, inscribed by Melanchthon to “D. Hermanno Vechelo Doctori Iuris,” a citizen of Braunschweig who at some point in the 1550s came into the employ of Duke Albrecht.159 a. The “Statement” of 28 September 1555 What did the Statement say?160 It began with a reference to Joseph (a topic dealt with in the portion of Luther’s Genesis lectures recently edited by Besold), asking whether he was righteous because of God’s indwelling or by mercy through faith because of the promised mediator and arguing that it was through the latter. It then distinguished law (God’s wrath against sin) and the comforting gospel. Christ alone (not the Holy Spirit or the Father) was humanity’s only mediator, whether one spoke of his obedience, his blood or his suffering. While it was true that the Father through the Holy Spirit worked comfort in believers’ hearts, among other things, nevertheless “this foundation must remain that faith and trust are built on the Lord Christ and look to the obedience of Christ as the cause for why God declares you righteous and not to consequent effects.”161 Any other way of speaking was confusing, since even the heathens talked about God as the highest virtue. Such talk was not sufficient, Melanchthon argued, because the Christian church distinguished between the divine persons and between the righteousness before God through the Mediator and the subsequent effects. At least in this statement, Melanchthon emphasized two problems with the Osiandrists: Christology and soteriology. The description of human salvation that followed also conjoined these two things, while also emphasizing the role of Christ’s preaching as the means for this salvation.162 Philip of Pomerania, dated before 26 October 1555 and MBW 7613 (CR 8: 592 f.), Melanchthon to Duke Philip, dated 26 October 1555, where he sends via Runge not only the memorandum (MBW 7612) but also the Nuremberg statement (MBW 7592). He also sent a copy to Georg Buchholzer in Berlin (MBW 7617 [CR 8: 594], dated 31 October 1555). 159 According to information provided on 26 July 2006 by the director of the Melanchthon Forschungsstelle, Dr. Christina Mundhenk, this is Hermann X von Vechelde (1524 –​1572), who studied in Wittenberg and received in Ferrara his doctorate in law. Afterwards, he seemed to be active at the court of Duke Albrecht of Prussia. See Werner Spiess, Von Vechelde: Die Geschichte einer Braunschweiger Patrizierfamilie 1332 –​1864 (Braunschweig: Waisenhaus-Buchdruckerei, 1951), 98 f. 160 MBW 7592 (CR 8: 555 – ​64). 161 CR 8: 556. 162 CR 8: 557: “Der Son ist zum Prediger vnd Versöner gesand/ vnd ist das Heubt der Kirchen/ durch welchen one mittel das Predigampt erstlich angericht/ vnd fur vnd fur erhalten wird/ vnd der selbs im Predigampte krefftig ist/ vnd samlet ein ewige Kirchen/ vnd zeiget den Vater/ vnd wird durch jn der heilige Geist in die hertzen mit der Predigt gesand etc. Vnd also ewiges Lebe gegeben/.…”

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

231

With this foundation, Melanchthon then turned to specific issues in the conflict, first defining the phrase, “Christ is our righteousness” in terms of Christ’s obedience through which one obtained forgiveness of sins and comfort. He concluded with a sentence that used bold-faced type in the original: “One must not let this comfort out of sight and not imagine that we are righteous before God because God has effected such virtues in us, but instead the obedience of Christ should be held immeasurably higher than the effects in us. ‘We are loved in the Beloved’ [Ephesians 1:6]”163 Again, Melanchthon tied this to the comfort effected by this teaching.164 On the basis of Isaiah 53, “We ought to place ourselves in his wounds and thus be pleasing to God.”165 On the basis of the same text, Melanchthon then explained the text in Jeremiah (“The LORD is our righteousness”). The only reason one would refer only to Christ’s divinity here and not to his obedience was a desire to obscure that very obedience and to point people to the effect and the virtues God works in them. For Melanchthon, uniting Christ’s person and work and not confusing it with the Trinity were central Christological principles. Christ’s office and obedience were not simply an external suffering but linked to his “most holy will and deep humility,” which could not be divided from his person. The Statement also took after those who distinguish per (here meaning “through” as an instrumental cause) and propter (because of).166 If it were merely through Christ’s obedience, then it would become a door or praeparatio or, as the Papists say, a merit: as if one built a bridge and, after getting across a river, then abandoned it. Again, such an approach completely missed the dire need of the sinner, so that the Statement went on to describe how Moses, David and Joseph stood before God in great need. Neither indwelling nor mercy simply shown to them by the mediator through his obedience sufficed. Thus, it was “propter Christum,” which “thus brings the thing itself.”167 In a similar way, the document examined Paul’s use of “in” and “per,” reinterpreted Daniel’s reference to “eternal righteousness” as referring to the consummation of God’s blessings (hence, eschatologically), and rejected “the sophistry” of the Osiandrian argument that since mercy justified and mercy was the essence of God, therefore God’s essence had to indwell the 163 CR 8: 557, where the sentence is not in boldface type. “Diesen Trost mus man nicht aus den augen thun/ vnd nicht gedencken/ wir sind gerecht fur Gott/ darumb/ das in vns Gott solche Tugenden gewirckt hat/ Sondern der Gehorsam Christi sol vnermeslich höher gehalten werden/ denn die wirckungen in vns. Sumus dilecti in Dilecto.” The Latin version of Ephesians 1:6 is unique to Melanchthon and used several times in his writings. 164 CR 8: 557 – ​58: “Diese wunderbarliche vnd gnedige offenbarung sol man nicht in wind schlagen/ vnd den Glauben vnd vertrawen/ auff den Herrn CHRISTVM ausleschen/ mit diesen gedancken/ Darumb bistu gerecht/ das Gott viel schöner Tugenden in dir wircket.” 165 CR 8: 558: “Mit diesem erkentnis vnd Glauben/ sollen wir vns in seine Wunden legen/ Also werden wir Gott gefellig.” 166 In his Expositio of Romans 3, Flacius made a similar distinction. See chapter 4. 167 CR 8: 559: “Also bringt die Sach selbst.”

232

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

believer. Instead, mercy justified as the causa efficiens (efficient cause), which was then applied through obedience. It also rejected the notion that iustitia (righteousness) made human beings do right because of its divine origin by noting that in such an argument iustitia was defined merely in legal terms and not as forgiveness. In the light of these arguments, Melanchthon then listed nine condemnations of statements that should not be used in preaching, teaching or anywhere else: a) that a person is righteous 1) because of essential righteousness 2) because of the essential righteousness of the Trinity, or 3) because of the indwelling of God; and b) that one is justified 4) by the indwelling of Christ (which excluded his obedience), 5) by various things (faith, indwelling and good works) without distinguishing faith from its effects (new obedience), or 6) in the same way Adam was before the Fall (namely, by indwelling or original righteousness). Further, the document rejected the notions 7) that iustitia was that which made us do right; 8) that faith made us righteous preparatively, so that afterwards we might be righteous essentially (which was papistic); and 9) that the obedience of Christ should be called a iustitia tropice [a moral righteousness] that justified per accidens (only as an accident not a substance).168 The Statement concluded with a warning about Casper Schwenckfeld and arguments for why Christian magistrates were responsible for pure teaching of the gospel.169 b. Jakob Runge’s Sermon of 29 September 1555 On 29 September, before Brenz had been sent the Statement or fashioned his response, Jakob Runge preached in Nuremberg. From the date of the preface, it is clear that by 4 October someone had decided to publish the sermon. Although scholars now doubt whether Melanchthon had a direct hand in writing the sermon, at several turns Runge depended upon arguments from Melanchthon’s 1553 lectures on Romans, first published in 1556. In the preface to Duchess Anna von Pommern, however, Runge admitted that this sermon, delivered on Sunday, 29 September in Nuremberg, was the same as that delivered in her presence on Palm Sunday of that year (7 April). After giving a synopsis of the main points in Romans 3, he reduced its thrust to three things: the doctrine’s centrality, its comfort and its contradiction to human reason. “Now it is obvious that this is the chief article of our Christian teaching and the highest comfort, which 168 CR 8:

561– ​62. 563: “Und nachdem alle Gott zu Ehren und der Menschen Seligkeit zu dienen, reine christliche Lehre zu pflanzen, und Jrrthum, Abgötterei und Gotteslästerung abzuschaffen, bitten wir aus treuer christlicher Pflicht, sie wollen ihr Ampt hierin ordentlich brauchen, Gott zu Ehren und ihnen und andern christen und den Nachkommen zu Gute, und wollen christliche Einigkeit in ihren Kirchen, darinnen rechte Lehre geprediget wird, nicht lassen zerrütten.” See James Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518 –​1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 135 – ​77. 169 CR 8:

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

233

is completely hidden from nature.”170 The sermon dealt with three topics: the righteousness of the law, the righteousness of the gospel, and the renewal and gifts of the Holy Spirit. While reason comprehended the righteousness of the law (the basis of monastic teaching), the church oriented itself around God’s Word instead. In Romans 3:20 Paul’s definition of the law included not only good works and virtues, “but even all kinds of infused, created new effects and gifts, even the indwelling of God’s essential righteousness.”171 There was essentially no difference between monastic teaching about infused grace and inherent righteousness and the new teaching “about the efficient cause of these effects.” According to Paul, the Fall itself brought about the loss of original righteousness, so that even the Holy Spirit only restored this partially in believers. God’s essential righteousness brought only judgment on sinners, who all stood before God like Daniel (“yours the righteousness; ours the confusion”), the tax collector (Luke 18), the centurion (Matthew 9) or David (Psalm 51). Paul’s approach did not undermine the law but confirmed it as God’s eternal judgment against sin. The gospel, hidden to reason, was to be preached so that the terrified conscience might know where to get comfort. At this point in the sermon, Runge inextricably bound God’s imputed righteousness to comfort. In the gospel God promises that he – out of grace, freely, alone because of Jesus Christ his dear Son our Mediator, wants to forgive us all our sins, graciously receive us and impute righteousness to us, and in addition give us through his Son comfort and life, tear us out of hell, and bestow the Holy Spirit and eternal life upon all who turn themselves to him and receive such a comforting promise and God’s grace in Christ with faith.172

After having contrasted works of the law and essential righteousness to forgiveness of sin and imputation of Christ’s merit out of sheer grace and mercy, Runge addressed the listeners directly, asking them how they stood before God: whether by their own righteousness or because of the Lamb of God. This was the righteousness of the gospel, because it was not from the law; it was the righteousness of God not because it was God’s essence but rather because it counted before God; it was the very righteousness received by the thief on the cross. Daniel 170 CR 8:

565: “Nun ist offenbar, daß dieß der fürnehmste Artikel unsrer christlichen Lehre, und der höheste Trost ist, welcher der ganzen Natur verborgen ist.” 171 CR 8: 567: “Man soll aber fleißig merken, wo Paulus das Gesetz nennet, daß er damit begreift nicht allein gute Werk und Tugend, sondern auch allerlei eingegossene, eingeschaffene und neue Wirkung und Gaben.” 172 CR 8: 570: “darin Gott verheiset, daß er aus Gnaden, umsonst, allein um Jesu christi seines lieben Sohns unsers Mittlers willen, will uns alle unsre Sünde vergeben, und uns gnädiglich annehmen, und Gerechtigkeit zurechnen, und dazu uns durch seinen Sohn Trost und Leben geben und aus der Hölle reißen, und heiligen Geist und ewiges Leben schenken allen, die sich bekehren, und solche tröstliche Verheisung und Gnade Gottes in Christo mit Glauben annehmen.”

234

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

called it eternal not because it was God’s essence but because God had decided from all eternity to forgive sin and because Christ’s death was powerful in time and in eternity. Runge then defined the main terms of this righteousness of the gospel. Grace was not a created virtue or inner gift but God’s mercy and love toward unworthy sinners. The word “gratis” eliminated all merit and gifts. Although faith and virtues were present in the Christian, they were not the cause of righteousness, but “instead the comfort remains certain, that we are righteous and accepted purely out of God’s grace, gratis.”173 Similarly, justification did not mean inwardly upright [fromm] or inwardly divinized [vergöttet], as the monks and Osiander imagined, but according to Paul it meant to make an innocent person out of a guilty one (ex reo non reum fieri). This meant that Paul’s words, “present to us this absolute highest comfort, that we are accepted by God only out of grace and mercy.”174 Again and again, Runge emphasized just what comfort this gospel contained.175 Faith Runge then defined as the causa instrumentalis and gave a personal example: “that you can say in your heart against the devil and death, ‘I know that because of Christ my sins are forgiven me, me.”176 Thus faith was not knowledge of the story but a hearty and firm trust in the gospel’s promises. Finally, Runge investigated how God indwelt the believer. Renewal had to be distinguished from the righteousness that counts before God, all on the basis of Romans 5:12 and the (Melanchthonian) distinction between grace and gift. Runge then described the order of this renewal and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. First the Son was sent as the Word of the Father who revealed God’s gracious will toward us through preaching. Then the Son showed us the Father and revealed him in our hearts, giving at the same time the Holy Spirit, the down payment of grace, “who seals mind and heart and makes joyful and alive.”177 The sermon closed with a peroration, in which Runge professed his fidelity to this confession of faith, as taught throughout Germany in all churches and revealed in these last days through Martin Luther. 173 CR 8: 573: “sondern bleibet der Trost gewiß, daß wir lauter aus Gnaden Gottes, gratis, gerecht und angenehm sind.” 174 CR 8: 573: “hält uns diesen allerhöchsten Trost für, daß wir allein aus Gnaden und Barmherzigkeit von Gott angenommen werden.” At this point Runge called this the causa impulsiva iustitiae, echoing Melanchthon’s 1553 lectures on Romans, published as the Enarrationes in 1556 (CR 15:862). 175 For example, see CR 8: 574: This is “ein beständiger lebendiger Trost, darauf ein betrübt Herz mit Freuden bestehen kann … Solchen großen Trost sollen wir uns vom Teufel nicht nehmen oder verdunkeln lassen … Bei diesem Trost sollen die Christen bleiben, und sich mit solchen enthusiastischen unchristlichen Gedanken und Schreien nicht lassen in Jrrthum führen.” 176 CR 8: 575: “Als: daß du kannst im Herzen sprechen wider Teufel und Tod: ich weiß daß mir, mir meine Sünde um Christi willen vergeben sind.” 177 CR 8: 577: “der Sinn und Herz versiegelt, fröhlich und lebendig machet …”

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

235

c. Melanchthon’s Exhortation of 2 October 1555 The final piece in this collection was an address by Melanchthon to the assembled Nuremberg clergy and teachers. Although there is no doubt that Melanchthon delivered this address, probably on 2 October, what he finally published (at Jerome Baumgartner’s insistence) included some important additions: responses to Johannes Brenz’s criticisms of the actions taken in Nuremberg.178 Thus, to appreciate Melanchthon’s argument, an analysis of Brenz’s letter must come first. 4 October 1555, Melanchthon had sent a copy of the Statement to Brenz, asking for his opinion and noting the correlation between this statement and Brenz’s Declaratio.179 Melanchthon’s letter was an exercise in diplomacy, in that he wished Brenz could have been there, while insisting that the writings of Culmann and Vetter were interspersed with “by no means minor errors” (non levia errata), which necessitated reproach. He insisted that his approach lacked any “subtle disputations” and even mentioned that there would have been more discussion of the distinction of the persons of the Trinity had Brenz been there. The Senate rejected the appeal of the accused, “chiefly because, had they remained, the dissimilar form of teaching would have inflamed more discord.” At the same time, the Nuremberg city council did not want the statement published without Brenz’s response, which Melanchthon hoped would be positive. Such consensus would mean a lot to Melanchthon. Melanchthon then criticized “ambiguous statements” (ambigua dicta): “On account of this I widely retain customary form of speech in our churches.” Brenz’s pointed response, which he sent on 15 October but which arrived in Wittenberg on 4 November, left enough of an opening for Melanchthon to publish the Statement: Brenz approved it but wished to exonerate the Osiandrists.180 Brenz divided the Nuremberg statement into two parts, judging the first to conform to prophetic and apostolic teaching on justification and agreeing with Melanchthon’s interpretation of texts from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel. Nevertheless he found the statement’s distinction between “through” (per) and “because of ” (propter) too subtle – something that could give the “papists” occasion to make fun of the Evangelicals. In introducing his comments about part two, Brenz worried about whether the “ἀντιδίκοι” (the anti-righteousness group) truly held the positions being attributed to them. Regarding the second part,181 Brenz fretted whether the condemnations were not too stringent, since some of what the opposition said could be interpreted in a godly fashion. For example, 178 Adhortatio ad eos, qui docent in Ecclesia Norinbergensi, habita a Philippo Melanthone Norimbergae; = MBW 7600 (CR 8: 546 – ​55), from ca. 2 October 1555. 179 MBW 7601 (CR 8: 588 f.), sent from Nuremberg. 180 MBW 7608 (Bds. 569 – ​72), dated 15 October 1555 from Stuttgart. Cf. MBW 7623 (CR 7: 1128 f.), dated 4 November [1555] to Paul Eber [in Brück]. 181 Brenz divided the document with the words in CR 8:561: “Derhalben sollen diese Reden ….”

236

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

the essential righteousness of God could be explained in a godly manner as the efficient cause of Christian righteousness (something that Melanchthon would take up at length in his Romans commentary of 1556).182 In the context of Brenz’s (private) objections, Melanchthon’s very public admonition to Nuremberg’s clergy and teachers is best understood. Melanchthon, who was very sensitive to the question of authority, began by noting that the (anti-Osiandrian!) teachers gathered in fear of God and love of the truth and that, thus, the Logos himself was reigning in their hearts. After admitting to his own weakness, Melanchthon criticized Osiander for his “wandering disputes” that raised so many unanswered questions. Either his nature bridled at using good logic or he wanted to impress the unlearned with his rhetorical tricks. In contrast, Melanchthon wished to speak “the plain meaning [nuda sententia] concerning this material clearly, without any attempt at contention.”183 And then, as if he had Brenz’s letter on his desk (which he did), Melanchthon added that godly folk knew that this was no debate over subtleties but concerned “the naked truth [nuda veritas] about the glory of the Son of God and the salvation of human beings that must be retained.”184 The purpose behind the Statement, Melanchthon went on to say, was to demonstrate what was necessary for concord. With this, Melanchthon introduced one of the main themes of his writing: that God desired concord and rejected human ambition and hatred, as the examples of Saul and others demonstrated. As an example of such bad behavior, Melanchthon introduced an anonymous publication defending rebellion. Such a foolish, false and seditious thing was the head of Gorgon, which killed with a single glance and contrasted starkly to Jesus’ plea for humility in the church. It was not clear whether Melanchthon knew that Andreas Osiander himself had penned this “anonymous” tract.185 In contrast to this rebellious spirit, Melan182 See

chapter 7. 549: “sine ullo studio contentionis perspicue nudam sententiam de ea materia.” 184 CR 8: 549: “sed nudam veritatem, propter gloriam filii Dei, et propter salutem hominum retinendam esse.” 185  MBW 7608 does not identify this tract (GA 9: 710 – ​43, here 723 – ​35); Seebaß, Bibliographia Osiandrica: Bibliographie der gedruckten Schriften Andreas Osianders d. Ä. (1496 –1​ 552) (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1971), no. 54 (p. 163). Unbeknownst to GA 9, it was printed not simply in Königsberg (by Hans Lufft) with Etliche schöne Gebete in 1551 but also as Grüntdlicher [sic!] Bericht aus heiliger schrifft/ wie ferne man den Oberherrn/ gehorsam schüldig/ auch wer/ wie/ vnnd in welcherley fellen/ man den verderblichen Tyrannen/ möge widerstand thun. Allen Christen/ sonderlich den Kriegsleuten nützlich vnnd tröstlich zuwissen. Mit einer schönen Vorrede/ darin der spruch Matthei am fünfften/ ihr solt dem vbel nicht widerstreben recht erkleret wird ([Magdeburg: Lotter], 1552). For this printing see Kaufmann, Bibliographie, 550 (“Gründlicher”). In 1620, Melchior Adam, in his book VITAE GERMANORUM THEOLOGORUM, QUI SUPERIORI SECULO ECCLESIAM CHRISTI VOCE SCRIPTISQUE PROPAGARUNT ET PROPUGNARUNT. CONGESTAE et Ad annum usque MDCXVIII (Heidelberg: Jonas Rosa & Johann Georg Geyder, 1620), 238, made a direct reference to this writing in a description of Osiander. The text of Osiander reads (GA 9: 723, 7 –​10): “Ich hab mich etwa eine lange zeit sehr verwundert, dieweil fast alle theologi den gehorsam der obrigkeit so hoch gescherft 183 CR 8:

D. The Nuremberg Osiandrists: Melanchthon’s Decisive Intervention in 1555

237

chthon counseled peaceful admonishment as occurred in the church from the beginning. One had to listen to Christ alone. Then Melanchthon responded directly to Brenz. Despite Melanchthon’s desire to avoid public disputation, “nevertheless, because we hear that our counsel seems too hard to some, who say that ambiguities are not to be condemned but to be more straightforward and to demand explanation, we will respond with a few things.”186 Melanchthon admitted that teachers made mistakes and spoke improperly. Such deviation from the sources resulted in false opinions and horrible idols. After providing some examples (using the “mutilated” meanings of the word “sin”), he insisted on the integrity of the ministry of teaching, instituted by Christ. Teachers were not to spawn new dogma but to remain disciples of God and guardians of the divine word. Nothing could be more unworthy of the office than to revel in contradictions and wordplays in order to “capture the applause of the crowd.” Instead, teachers had to speak in harmony with God’s voice: properly, clearly, and without ambiguity.187 To Brenz’s further objection that no one could do this and that it was tyrannical to demand that everyone would use the same language,188 Melanchthon answered that, regarding struggles over definitions (in this case, of course, over justification), this was not merely a war of words. Funck’s inept confusion over definition was no better than Malvenda, the Roman Catholic polemicist. “An error in definition is then the source of many errors,” Melanchthon fumed – and thereby revealed the fundamental difference between his theological method (which moved from proper definition to effect) and Brenz’s, which (in Melanchthon’s opinion) paved the way for uncertainty (and thus destroyed the proper [=betont] haben, als hetten die unterthanen schlechts nicht recht noch macht, iren tirannen, ob sie gleich von denselben an leib und seel verderbt würden, widerstand zu thun, sonder müstens alles leiden und stille dazu schweigen, was doch Gott mit solchen scharfen und gantz beschwerlichen rechten meinete.” Then there follows on GA 9: 724, 20 – ​23: “Darumb kam ich in den argwon/ als verstünden entweder die Theologi die schrifft nicht recht/ oder aber dürsten die warheit/ aus furcht der menschen/ sonderlich der grossen Herrn inn der welt/ nicht frölich vnnd vnerschrocken herauß sagen/” The Magdeburg printing begins (cf. GA 9: 718), “Es hat eine hohe Fürstliche Person/ welche im geist gleich zuuor gesehen/ was künfftig inn diesen letzten gefehrlichen zeiten/ sich zutragen möchte/ diesen hernach geschriebenen vnterricht gestellet/ in sonderheit für die jenigen/ welche von ampts vnd Gottes befehls wegen/ sich/ ihre vnterthanen vnnd verwandten/ für den verfolgern Göttliches worts zuschützen/ zur notwehr Kriegsrüstung fürnehmen müsten. Hat auch daneben den spruch Matth. Am 5. Da Christus spricht/ Jch sage euch/ das jhr nicht widerstreben solt dem vbel/ dieweil derselbige ein groß vnd schwer nachdencken macht/ trewlich vnnd vleißig inn der Vorrede erwogen/ wie folget.” What follows is GA 9: 719, 7 – ​734, 20. The last lines about the “fürstliche Person” [Duchess Elizabeth of Braunschweig-Calenberg] are left out. 186 CR 8: 551– ​52. 187 CR 8: 552: “Sit igitur oratio docentis congruens divinae voci, propria, perspicua, sine ambiguitate, verecunda, plena veris doloribus.” 188 CR 8: 552: “Tyrannidem, inquiuunt, in Grammatica exercetis, si vultis omnes vestris verbis et syllabus uti.”

238

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

effect of definitions: to provide sure comfort).189 To be sure, it was impossible to avoid ambiguity in sermons, “nevertheless in matters of dogma it is a necessary concern to avoid ambiguities, insidious comments, conflicting opinions and discord.”190 To Brenz’s objection concerning the homoousias, Melanchthon reminded the reader that the Council of Sirmium tried to use the compromise word homoios, but that only caused more strife because of the word’s ambiguity. Calling on Paul’s own rules for constructing theology (in Ephesians 4:14), Melanchthon argued for sure modes of discourse (certi loquendi modi), to make the ratio docendi [basis of teaching] clear. In this connection, Melanchthon contrasted the clarity of the creeds, which prescribed certain modes of speaking, to the pontifical canons. Both Demosthenes and Plato demonstrated how important clarity of speech could be. Melanchthon closed his speech with this description of the theologian’s task: “for God’s glory, for the salvation of souls and for the public concord of the Church, we learn rightly to understand the divine word, and as a worthy ambassador we place that word before the Church with bona fide, clear type of speech, without corruption, without imposture, and without trickery.”191 The decisiveness of Melanchthon’s position over against Brenz’s more moderating, ambiguous stance clearly arose from the marriage of a theological method grounded in definition with the conviction that justification by faith would collapse if uncertainty of language undermined assurance in God’s mercy.

E. A Nuremberger Takes Brenz to Task In 1555, Sebald Heyden (1499 –1​ 561), a widely respected Nuremberg Evangelical, added his voice to those attacking the Osiandrists. The rector of the Sebald School in Nuremberg from 1524, he first gained fame in 1523 when, as a musician at the Diet of Nuremberg, he changed the words of a Salve, Regina to Salve, Jesu, engendering no small fracas there. In 1525 he was the stenographer for Nuremberg’s religious colloquies and, thirty years later, in 1554, at talks involving the Osiandrists. He was most well known for his evangelical hymnody.192 In 1555, he published a frontal attack on the Nuremberg Osiandrists, which appeared almost simultaneously in Latin and in German: A Christian Assertion that All Believers Are Justified through the Blood, Death and Obedience of Christ Jesus, Son of Man, against the New and Anti-Christian Sect of Osiandrists, Who So Thoroughly Attribute Justification for Sinners to the Essential and Eternal Righteousness of God 189 CR 8:

553: “Error autem in definitione fons est deinde multorum errorum.” 553: “… tamen necessaria cura est in dogmatibus vitare ambigua, insidiosa, et paritura dissimiles opiniones, et discordias.” 191 CR 8: 554. 192 See ADB 12: 352 – ​53. 190 CR 8:

E. A Nuremberger Takes Brenz to Task

239

that They Completely Take It away from Christ the Man.193 It consisted of 62 theses attacking Osiander’s theology, followed by a concluding letter to the reader. In the theses he particularly attacked the notion of Christ’s essential righteousness as judging law, arguing that basing justification on this undermined Christ’s suffering and death for us. Human beings were saved instead by another righteousness that opposed God’s essential righteousness.194 God forgave because Christ had satisfied God’s essential righteousness through his sufferings and death as fully human and divine and imputed this righteousness to those who believed and were baptized (Mark 16). Indeed, Heyden was so convinced of this legal (Anselmian) structure that he insisted as well that God did not forgive gratuitously but only because the debt had been paid by Christ.195 Thus, Christ’s righteousness was not his essential righteousness but rather a righteousness purchased through his gracious fulfilling of the law for us. After describing the errors of his Osiandrian opponents, his conclusion showed that he wanted to talk about Christ’s mercy but that at the same time his method made God’s mercy dependent on the logical conclusion to a theological syllogism.196 In the closing letter to the reader, Heyden attacked Brenz and his use by Osi­ andrists in a surprisingly direct manner. Now despite the fact that that teaching of Osiander is manifestly godless and contrary to Evangelical truth, nevertheless it is said that a Patron [of theirs, Albrecht] found some theologian [Brenz], who defends it [Osiander’s teaching] through some compendious exposition in such a way that it affirms that it finds nothing plainly in Osiander’s confession that ought to be condemned or reproved and because of this nothing should be written against him. However, that the Osiandrists themselves boast that D. Johannes Brenz is the author of this exposition, to me does not seem truthful at all. For I neither can nor want to suspect that such an insipid, counterfeit exposition was produced by such a man and such a respected theologian. For in the past it was by this kind of exposition and by such patrons that even Arius and Eutyches could be defended as orthodox. And if such theologizing is allowed, certainly all truth and certainty of Sacred Scripture will perish in the Church. But we, who have sworn an oath to the Gospel of Saint Paul and to sound doctrine, judge all those people plainly unworthy of the title of Theologian who in this obvious and crass Osiandrian heresy think so wildly that they do not understand what is contained in it that 193 See the Bibliography: Hey 01 (1555), Hey 01.1 (1555) and Hey 01.2 (1562). The reprint of the German appeared in Nicholas Gallus’s Confutationes Etzlicher gegenwertiger Secten … (Jena: [Donat Richtzenhan], 1562). 194 Heyden, Assertio Christiana, A 4r: “Altera iusticia est, qua Christus filius Dei, Deus & homo, seipsum mediatorem & satisfactorem illi essentiali, & aeternae Dei iusticiae opponit, & peccatorem in se credentem, & baptisatum, contra legis accusationem defendit, & suae mortis, & sanguinis abundantissima satisfactione illi imputata, ab omni damnatione legis integre exolutum & liberatum, Deo patri perfecte reconcilatum & iustificatum sistit.” 195 Heyden, Assertio Christiana, A 7r: “Nullo modo gratuita, sed maximo precio, & carissime empta ac parta esse credi debet.” 196 Heyden, Assertio Christiana, A 8r – v : “Recte ergo praedicatur & creditur nos gratuita Dei misericordia in morte, sanguine, & satisfactione filij Dei Iesu Christi, omnium peccatorum remissionem habere, & propterea nos iustos coram Deo reputari.”

240

Chapter 5: Johannes Brenz and Philip Melanchthon against Osiander

is contrary to the Evangelical truth, what is novel, what is foreign to the Holy Spirit or what is plainly unheard of among the early Church and ancient Theologians. For since they are so lacking in any judgment that they cannot discern the difference between Evangelical truth and human lies, they certainly ought not be considered theologians. And there is no doubt, that if those had been compelled to respond under oath, whether they had heard, read, or even thought about that new doctrine of Osiander ten years ago, it would have been denied. From this it can be discerned how much insanity would be fostered by them when they make the new word of Osiander such that they so prefer it to the clearest and most certain teaching of St. Paul concerning justification, in that they would more quickly deviate from the position of St. Paul than from Osiander. Then, too, this blind dementia in Osiandrists is a horrible example, because they have more faith in the agreement of one or another expositor and they offer more authority [to such] than to thirty other Theologians of the tested orthodox faith, whose books of confutation against the ungodly and Antichristian new word of Osiander are now read and approved throughout Germany.197

Here Heyden said aloud what others in Melanchthon’s circle only intimated. Brenz’s mistake was in trying to mollify Osiander and to prevent division among evangelical theologians by compromise, that is, by putting the best construction of Osiander’s statements. For Heyden this approach not only abandoned Pauline Assertio Christiana, B 5r – B 6v: “Ea uero doctrina Osiandri, quanquam manifeste impia, & ueritati Euangelicae contraria est, tamen quendam Theologum Patronum [Albert of Prussia; German: versprecher] inuenisse dicitur, qui eam per compendiariam quandam expositionem ita defendit, ut affirmet [German: ausschreiben], se in Osiandri confessione nihil plane inuenire, quod reprehendi aut argui debeat, & propterea se contra illum nihil scripturum esse. Quod autem ipsi Osiandristae, D. Ioannem Brentium, illius expositionis authorem esse iactant, id mihi nequaquam uerissimile fit. Nam a tanto uiro, & tam spectato Theologo tam insulsam, & fuctatam expositionem esse proditam, istuc suspicari ego neque possum neque uolo. [German: Es ist aber leicht zusehen/ das die selben vertheydiger vil mehr auff des Osianders person vnnd name/ Denn auff die Göttliche warheyt/ des Euangelions sehen/ Sonst würden sie nit so geferbte vnd ärgerlich Exposition von sich außlassen/] Hoc enim expositionis genere, & talibus patronis olim etiam Arrius & Eutyches, ut orthodoxi, potuissent defendi. Et si sic licet θεολογεῖν, certe omnis ueritas & certitudo sacrae scripturae in Ecclesia perierit. [German adds: vnd würde abermals auß der rechten Theologia/ ein lautere Sophisterey] Nos uero, qui in Diui Pauli Euangelium, & sanam doctrinam sumus iurati, omnes eos Theologiae titulo plane indignos aestimemus, qui in tam manifesta & crassa haeresi Osiandrina, ita hallucinantur, ut non intelligant, quid ueritati Euangelicae in ea contrarium, quid nouum, quid spiritui sancto inusitatum, quid primaeue Ecclesiae, & priscis Theologis plane inauditum, contineat. Cum enim omni iudicio illi ita carent, ut inter Euangelicam ueritatem, & humana mendacia discernere nequeant, certe Theologi haberi non debent. Et dubium non est, si illi iurati respondere cogerentur, an ante decennium, de noua illa Osiandri doctrina aliquid audiuissent, legissent, aut ipsi saltem cogitassent, utique negaturos esse. Ex quo cognosci potest, quanta dementia illos coeperit, dum Osiandri καινολογίαν tanti faciunt, ut eam Diui Pauli clarissimae ac certissimae doctrinae de iustificatione ita anteponant, ut citius a Diui Pauli, quam ab Osiandri sententia discedere uelint. Est & hoc caecae dementiae horrendum exemplum in Osiandristis, quod unius atque alterius expositoris assensui plus fidei habent, & plus authoritatis deferunt, quam trecentis alijs spectaratae fidei orthodoxis Theologis, quorum libelli confutatorij, aduersus impiam & Antichristianam Osiandri καινολογίαν nunc in tota Germania leguntur & approbantur. Sed quo minus Christianis haec tanta Osiandristarum dementia admirationi sit, euidentissima causa in promptu est, uidelicet ea, quod illi, Christi saluatoris nostri humanam naturam ita uilipendunt, ut eam a iustificatione totam excludant.” 197 Heyden,

E. A Nuremberger Takes Brenz to Task

241

truths but also gave comfort to the enemy by allowing Osiander’s followers to remain hardened in their positions. Far from ending the dispute, such compromise ignored the published record itself, where thirty different voices of condemnation were ignored in favor of some imagined middle ground. Here the published consensus ecclesiarum clearly outweighed in Heyden’s mind any compromise and instead proved how untenable Osiander’s position really was. The example of those who tried to accommodate Arius and Eutyches proved just how misguided Brenz’s approach was. This final attack against Nuremberg’s Osiandrists, while certainly not part of Melanchthon’s statement that led to their dismissal in 1555, did appear in Nicholas Gallus’s collection of refutations of false teachings by evangelical theologians.198 By 1562, the Osiandrists had disappeared from the scene but the memory of their errors remained fresh and continued to shape Evangelical approaches to justification by faith throughout the last half of the sixteenth century. Whatever twentieth‑ and twenty-first-century Lutheran theologians may imagine, their sixteenth-century predecessors had no doubt about just how dangerous Osiander’s position was. Whether using Brenz’s approach of preventing direct attacks, or employing Melanchthon’s approach of reaching theological consensus and removing those who refused to conform, or, like Heyden, simply dismissing any attempts at finding middle ground and refusing to tolerate those who tried, all of these theologians understood not only the centrality of this Evangelical doctrine but also its basic incompatibility with Osiander’s approach. At the same time, they “took to the airways,” so to speak, to argue their cases, trusting that the published word had the power to convince and unite Lutherans. Individual churches, such as Nuremberg, might enforce the decisions of its clergy through local laws and governmental authority, but the printing press remained the court of last resort and was used and appealed to in different ways by Brenz and his supporters, by Melanchthon or by Heyden but to the same end: to insure the support of the gospel and unity of the church.

198 Gallus, Nicholas. Confutationes Etzlicher gegewertiger Secten vnd Corruptelen/ Magistri Nicolai Galli, Pfarrherr vnd Superintendenten/ der Stad Regespurg. Jtem Widerlegung des Jrrthum Osiandri/ durch einen trewen guthertzigen Christen geschehen. Jtem bekantnus von dem Nachtmal des HErrn Jhesu Christi/ Tilemani Heßhusij/ der Heiligen Schrifft Doctoris (Jena: [Donat Richtzenhan], 1562), A 5v – C 6r.

Chapter 6

The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander Concern for authoritative sources and their interpretation in theology is nothing new. Already in the earliest days of the church, the Gnostic Heracleon and the church father Origen produced competing commentaries on the Gospel of John. The same thing happened in the sixteenth century. However, in 1800, for one of the first times ever, Georg Friedrich Seiler wrote a book about this struggle with authoritative texts, entitled Biblische Hermeneutik oder Grundsätze und Regeln zur Erklärung der heiligen Schrift.1 Hermeneutics is so to speak the methodological approach to texts in vogue since that time. Whether talking about Seiler, Schleiermacher, Hegel, or Gadamer – to say nothing of post-modern thinkers – the past two centuries in the church’s history have demonstrated a remarkable interest in how Christians approach authoritative texts. In the sixteenth century there was among the Evangelical theologians suddenly a new authority: Martin Luther. And, although there was much less reflection then on biblical hermeneutics and authority as would develop in the Enlightenment and beyond, Luther was fair game, and his relatively new authoritative position allowed theologians to reflect directly on hermeneutical questions his authority evoked. Should Evangelical thinkers use Luther to construct their theologies and if so, how? The Osiandrian controversy provided some sophisticated considerations of this question. Careful researchers can detect how, far from using his writings as simply a treasury of pithy quotes to hurl against the enemy, thinkers of the early modern era in their own inimitable way and yet expressis verbis dealt with and argued over what we now call hermeneutics. How was Luther an authority? Of course, scholars have examined this question from several other points of view. In his excellent monograph on Luther’s reception among later Lutherans, Robert Kolb identifies three basic approaches to the reformer as prophet, teacher and saint.2 In a chapter of his book, Konfession und Kultur, Thomas Kaufmann provides a careful examination of a single tract by Joachim Mörlin on how to 1 Georg Friedrich Seiler, Biblische Hermeneutik oder Grundsätze und Regeln zur Erklärung der heiligen Schrift (Erlangen: Bibelanstalt, 1800). See pp. XXI–XXII for a list of eighteenth-century books using the term. 2 Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520 –​ 1620 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine”

243

use Luther and demonstrates its connection to the Osiandrian controversy.3 It seems that almost from the beginning this controversy stimulated theologians to use Luther’s own writings as a source for refuting their opponents’ positions and defending their own. Thus, we find that both sides of the dispute published a number of documents culled from Luther’s own works, defending or undermining Osiander’s position. In some ways, this was to be expected, since already in the slightly earlier controversy over adiaphora, Luther’s position also came to play a major role, leading in 1550 to two separate publications of Luther’s works in Wittenberg and Jena.4 In the case of the Osiandrian controversy, not only the richness of sources but also the topic, justification, make this a particularly fertile field of investigation, especially given the number of Luther’s own tracts, sermons and sayings that were published during this dispute. Luther became an object and, at the same time, source and authority in this dispute and, thus, depending on one’s point of view, friend or enemy.

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine” I. The Antilogia of Osiander’s Opponents: First Shot in the War over Luther or a Return of Fire? According to the modern editor of Osiander’s collected works, the first salvo in this Lutherkrieg came on 17 February 1551, when Duke Albrecht demanded both sides present their positions before him, after it was clear that they could not come to a peaceful agreement. Osiander’s opponents instead produced a short manuscript, the Antilogia, in which Osiander’s teachings were set in opposition to Luther’s.5 In simple form, Joachim Mörlin and the other theologians outlined Luther’s view over against Osiander’s on five different topics, and then brought 3 Thomas Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur: Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 67 –​111, on Mörlin’s Wie die Bücher und Schrifften … Lutheri nützlich zu lesen of 1565. 4 See also the work of Joachim Westphal (newly analyzed by Irene Dingel, “Strukturen der Lutherrezeption am Beispiel einer Lutherzitatensammlung von Joachim Westphal,” in: Wolfgang Sommer, ed., Kommunikationsstrukturen im europäischen Luthertum der Frühen Neuzeit [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005], 32 – ​50), Sententia reverendi viri D. M. Luther. Sanctae memoriae de Adiaphoris ex scriptis illius collecta per M. Ioachimum Vvestphalum, Pastorem in Ecclesia Hamburg (Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1549). See also Eike Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Luther-Ausgabe: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Werke Luthers im 16. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964). 5 See GA 9: 574. The editor of GA 9 seems unaware of a sixteenth-century copy of this work, included by Joachim Mörlin in his defense (Mör 02 [1553]), Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben (Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1554). It includes the Antilogia on pp. F 2v – G iiv. Mörlin’s unfettered use of this document seems to indicate that, pace GA 9, this was not just the work of Staphylus.

244

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

very small excerpts from the two men’s works to demonstrate the differences. The topics included whether the human being was righteous by the essential righteousness of God or not; whether Christ was our righteousness because of his death and resurrection or because of his divine righteousness; whether there were two forms of righteousness in God (that righteousness within God’s very self and that by which human beings are made righteous) or only one; whether the righteousness of faith was imputed to the sinner or not; and whether such righteousness of faith came from outside of us or was in us.6 II. Osiander’s Pre-Emptive Strike: The Bericht und Trostschrift Although Duke Albrecht rejected the Antilogia out-of-hand as an incorrect response to his request for the writers’ own position on justification, Osiander received a copy and immediately produced two replies. The first, in Latin, strung together a set of texts from Luther’s second Galatians commentary.7 The second, printed on 21 March 1551, provided a much wider selection of citations, this time in German and not only from the Galatians commentary but also from other sources.8 In the prefaces to both works and in a postscript to the German one, Osiander defended himself and revealed his particular approach to Luther – more on that below. However, even before this time and prior to the writing of his opponents’ Antilogia, Osiander had already started using Luther in his public defense. In a letter dated 24 December 1550, he learned from his son-in-law Jerome Besold that many in Nuremberg (where Osiander had been a pastor until driven out by the Augsburg Interim and where Besold still lived and worked as a preacher) suspected Osiander of teaching incorrectly about the doctrine of justification. Although an opponent from Königsberg, Friedrich Staphylus, had already confronted Osiander with some Luther citations in the Summer of 1550, the first 6 See Mör 02 (1554): Mörlin, Historia, F 2v – F 4v [where this particular sheet is numbered: F, F ii, E 3]. What follows in the Historia, F 4v – G iiv is Mörlin’s translation into German, “Damit aber einfeltige frome hertzen auch verstehen/ wie gar bescheiden vnd deutlich Osiandro der jrthumb seiner lehr/ aus dem Luthero seliger (des er sich doch mit grossem geschrey stetigs rhümete) von den Herrn Theologen in denselbigen antilogijs fur die augen gemalet ist/ so wil ich sie verdeutschen/ vnd wird nachmals ein jeder gemeines vorstands leichtlich können vrteilen/ wie grundlich Osiander darauff sein antwort gestellet.” These appeals to “simple, upright hearts” and to the obvious correctness of the opposing theologians’ use of Luther (“fur die augen gemalet ist”) were two of the key ingredients in the hermeneutical argument against Osiander. See below, especially the arguments of Andreas Musculus. Handwritten copies from the Prussia archives may be found in GStAPK, XX. HA StA Konigsberg, HBA J2 K961, Nr. 153, pp. 122r – 123r. 7 GA 9: 574 – ​581. For an analysis, see below. 8 Notably from Sermo de triplici iustitia, Sermo de duplici iustitia, Das 14. und 15. Kapitel S. Johannes durch D. M. Luther gepredigt und ausgelegt, Das (16. und) 17. Kapitel Johannes von dem Gebet Christi, Die andere Epistel S. Petri und eine S. Judas gepredigt und ausgelegt, die Kirchenpostille, and a citation from Augustine (Consentio ad quaestiones de Trinitate sibi propositas [=Ep. 120]).

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine”

245

full-fledged public use of Luther in this dispute came in Osiander’s reply to his Nuremberg critics: Bericht vnd Trostschrifft: an alle die: so durch das falsch/ Heimlich schreiben/ schreien vnd affterreden/ etlicher meiner feinde/ als solt ich von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ nicht recht halten vnd leren/ geergert/ oder betrübet worden sein.9 Thus, the Antilogia of his opponents should actually be understood as a response to Osiander’s open letter to Besold. In it, Osiander made reference to rumors that he had departed from the teaching on justification by the current (itzigen) teachers in Wittenberg and from Luther’s.10 Not only did Osiander insist that he had remained faithful to Christ’s teaching for over twenty-eight years, but “For another thing I believe firmly and do not doubt at all and am able to prove convincingly if needs be, that Luther’s teaching on justification is mine and conversely my teaching is Luther’s teaching.”11 Yet this was not simply Luther’s or Osiander’s teaching but that of Christ, which both learned from the Scriptures. Thus, to attack Osiander meant attacking Luther and, by extension, Christ. In the same tract, Osiander noted that his opponents were almost all students of Melanchthon and that, rather than refer to Scripture, they simply pointed to Melanchthon and his Loci communes, which they called “sacrosanctum.”12 To find out what Melanchthon thought about the key Scripture passages in the dispute (John 14:20, 23, and 17:22 f.), Osiander turned to Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s commentary on John, “which many Wittenbergers claimed that Philip himself had written.”13 However, Osiander discovered that (in typically Melanchthonian   9 Königsberg: Johannes Lufft, 1551. Now published in GA 9: 519 – ​30. GA 9: 520 notes that Mörlin had a copy by 6 February 1551. English: Report and Consolation to All Those Who Were Angered or Saddened Because of the Secret Writings, Cries and Slander of Some of My Enemies – As If I Did Not Rightly Hold and Teach about the Justification of Faith. 10 GA 9: 522, 4. Osiander could well have been reacting to Melanchthon’s correspondence with Besold (MBW 5985, dated 22 January 1551, to Besold; MBW 5963, dated 15 December 1550, to Melanchthon), in which the two men discussed problems with Osiander’s theology and behavior. But already in MBW 5866 (1 August 1550 from Friedrich Staphylus to Melanchthon) there was a reference to Luther and Melanchthon’s discussion from 1536 (WAB 12: 189 –​195; see below). (Cf. MBW 6294, dated ca. 1 January 1552, Antwort auff das Buch Herrn Andreae Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen; CR 7:892 – ​902; MSA 6:452 – ​61.) In MBW 6075 (GA 9: 670 – ​74, here 673, 5 – ​7), dated 1 May 1551, Melanchthon referred to a conversation with Luther over Romans 8:10. Thus, the relation of Luther and Melanchthon was a part of the debate from the very beginning. 11 GA 9: 523, 24 – ​26: “Zum andern gleub ich festiglich und zweivel auch nichts daran, weis es auch im fal der not gewaltiglich zu beweisen, das des Luthers lere von der rechtfertigung sey eben mein lere und widerumb mein lere sey eben des Luthers lere.” 12 GA 9: 525, 11. 13 GA 9: 526, 2: “von der viel Witteberger sagen, Philippus hab sie selbs geschrieben.” See Cruciger’s In Evangelium Ioannis Apostoli enarratio … recens edita (Strasbourg: Kraft Müller, 1546), also in CR 15: 1– ​440. For questions of authorship, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Caspar Cruciger (1504 –​1548): The Case of the Disappearing Reformer,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 20 (1989): 417 – ​441, and idem, “Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s 1546 ‘Enarratio’ on John’s Gospel: An Experiment in Ecclesiological Exegesis,” Church History 61 (1992): 60 – ​74.

246

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

style) these very texts, which he took as central to his argument, were not even commented upon and that the commentary only contained attacks on Cardinals Campeggio, Contarini, and Sadoleto. By contrast, in comments on one of these texts, Luther had warned against those who skipped over such verses.14 What Osiander did find in comments of Cruciger on John 6 was a reference to the Lord’s Supper as a “müssige ceremonia” (an idle ceremony), a phrase that Osiander labeled Zwinglian, since the Supper could hardly be labeled “idle” given that the unbeliever received damnation when not discerning Christ’s body.15 He also attacked the commentary’s ecclesiology as Anabaptist, since it insisted that some in the church were not born again (despite having been baptized).16 This objection touched on Osiander’s own understanding of baptism and the indwelling of Christ. In the end, all Osiander could say was that either Melanchthon’s students had misunderstood him, “or that Philip himself has fallen away from the correct, pure, divine doctrine that Luther offered and that I still offer – misled and blinded through his carnal thoughts and philosophy.”17 It was thus not the citing of Luther itself (here only one time) but the claim to have Luther on his side that encouraged his Königsberg opponents to respond as they did in the Antilogia. At the same time, and very early in this dispute, Osiander tried to drive a wedge between Luther and Melanchthon on the basis of what he labeled Melanchthon’s carnal and philosophical thoughts. III. Osiander’s Antidotum to the Antilogia

As already mentioned, Osiander’s prefaces and postscript to the Excerpta and to the Etliche schöne Sprüche confirmed what he himself made clear in his peculiar use of Luther: that to cite a single proof text sufficed to show their convergence.18 14 WA 28:

185, 34 – ​35 & 186, 20 – ​22, comments on John 17:21 in Luther’s sermon from 1528. 527, 19. As we will see, this later influences Melanchthon’s stubborn position visà-vis other Lutherans in later controversies over the Lord’s Supper. See CR 15: 148, where the entire text reads: “Nam usus coenae Domini sine exercitio fidei, qua et beneficia Christi agnoscimus, et vera invocatio excitatur, otiose ceremonia est.” 16 Perhaps a reference to CR 15: 99. 17 GA 9: 529, 27 – ​30: “oder aber das Philippus selbs, durch sein fleischliche gedancken und philosophia verfüret und geblendet, von der rechten, reinen, göttlichen lere, die Luther gefüret und ich noch füre, abgefallen sey ….” 18 The titles of these publications were Excerpta quaedam dilucide et perspicue dictorum, de iustificatione fidei, in commentario, super Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas domini Martini Lutheri, quae instar lucernae luentis, in loco caliginoso esse possunt theologiae Studiosis (Königsberg: [Hans Lufft], 1551) and Etlich schöne Sprüche, von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens, Des Ehrwirdgen, Hochgelerten D. Martini Luther heiliger gedechtnis Welche aus den vornemisten vnd besten desselben Büchern zusamen gezogen, vnd verdetuscht hat, Andreas Osiander. Nütz vnd gut wider allerley jrthum vnd verfürung/ Auch tröstlich in allerley Anfechtung vnd Verfolgungen Mit einer kurtzen Vorrede (Königsberg: [Hans Lufft], 21 March 1551). What may have been an earlier handwritten version of the Excerpta quaedam may be found in the writing: “Breves annotationes quorundam locorum de Justificatione in quibus Philippus Melanchton cum doctrina Martini 15 GA 9:

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine”

247

Anyone who had listened to Osiander and read Luther diligently (“non oscitanter”) would realize that the two men taught the same thing.19 As an “antidote” to his opponents (perhaps a clever allusion to their Antilogia), Osiander wanted to quote Luther’s “brief, lucid and circumspect sayings” (breviter, dilucide et perspicue dicta) on justification. Those who were not convinced by these citations were fighting with not just against Osiander but against the late Luther (“Luthero mortuo”) and accusing Luther, not just Osiander, of blasphemies and lies.20 Osiander’s Latin tract collected a series of brief excerpts, never more than a few sentences each, from throughout Luther’s second Galatians commentary.21 What Osiander left out makes for very interesting reading. Thus, he made sure to quote Luther’s saying that Christ was the object of faith, “nay, rather, not the object but, if I may say, in that faith Christ is present.” However, while also allowing Luther to describe this faith as darkness, Osiander left out this sentence: “Therefore our formal righteousness is not ‘charity giving form to faith’ but faith itself and the darkness [nebula] of the heart, that is, trust in a thing that we do not see, namely, in Christ, who, as much as he may not be seen, is present.”22 Thus, Osiander omitted two things others might have considered harmful to his argument: first that Luther’s own language arose out of a struggle with late-medieval understandings Lutheri mire concordat, ut in perlisque alijs, quo ad Aedificandam Ecclesiam Dei” (GStAPK, XX.HA StA Königsberg, HBA J2, K. 956: [A. Z. 3.35.175]). 19 GA 9: 576, 10. 20 GA 9: 577, 2 & 6 – ​7. 21 This consisted of WA 401: 228, 33 – ​34 & 229, 15 –​18; 229, 22 – ​25; 229, 27 – ​30; 233, 17 –​19; 282, 17 –​18 & 21; 283, 13 –​16; 283, 26 – ​32; 283, 33 – ​34 & 284, 13 –​16; 284, 20 – ​28; [reading w/ CDE “fides pure docenda est”] 285, 24 – ​27 & 286, 15 –​17; 290, 23 – ​31; 306, 13 –​15; 336, 30 – ​31; 369, 24 – ​25; 540, 17 –​19; 540, 33 – ​34 & 541, 16 – ​20; 541, 24–[following CDE to tesseram] & 29 [stopping before id est] & 30 [from Ideo non] – 33 [esse]; 545, 24 – ​30; 546, 21– ​28; 574, 23 – ​28; 602, 12 –​17 [reading w/ CDE]; 605, 19 – ​22; 610, 26 – ​30 & 611, 16 – ​21. 22 WA 401: 229, 18 – ​21. “Est ergo formalis nostra iustitia non charitas informans fidem, sed ipsa fides et nebula cordis, hoc est, fiducia in rem quam non videmus, hoc est, in Christum qui, ut maxime non videatur, tamen praesens est.” That this is not simply a twenty-first century observation is proven by the comment of Matthias Flacius in Verlegung des Bekentnis Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung der armen sünder durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit der hohen Maiestet Gottes allein. Durch Matth. Fla. Illyr. Mit vnterschreibung Nicolai Galj/ darin der grund des jrthums Osiandri sampt seiner verlegung auffs kürzest verfast ist (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552), K iir – v: “Diese wort lest Osiander voersetzlich aussen/ darumb/ das sie vnterschiedlich leren/ das die zuuersicht auff Christum/ vnsere Formali iusticia, oder form vnserer gerechtigkeit sey/ Item darumb/ das sie seine meinung darinn er sagt/ Gott/ der die liebe ist/ werde in vnser hertz gegossen/ vnd wir werden durch seine gegenwertigkeit Formaliter gerecht/ öffentlich verdammen. Diesen betrug nennen die Juristen/ Crimen falsi, Laster des falsches/ Vnd ist alhie darumb so viel mehr zufliehen vnd zu verfluchen/ das solche betriegerey inn sachen vnsere Seligkeit betreffend gebraucht wird.” Flacius probably got the idea to check these citations from Joachim Mörlin and his co-workers in Prussia. See Joachim Mörlin, Georg von Venediger, and Peter ­Hegemon, Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht/ auß Gottes Wort/ etlicher Theologen zu Künigsberg in Preussen: Wider die newe verfürische und Antichristische Lehr Andreae Osiandri, Darinnen er leugnet das Christus jn seinem vnschüldigen Leiden vnd sterben/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey (Königsberg: Lufft, 23 May 1552), M iir.

248

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

of justification as an infused habit of charity that transformed “unformed” faith into “formed” faith, and second that Luther subsumed Christ’s presence under what modern scholars recognize as his theology of the cross, that is, it was not seen or experienced by the believer but could only be believed as a promise (the very imputation to which Osiander objected). Even the next two citations,23 which contained passing references to the darkness of faith and Luther’s sophistic adversaries, conveniently skipped the line that showed Luther was defining iustitia formalis over against scholastic usage.24 Luther’s point was to contrast faith and charitas, not to discuss a theory of Christ’s indwelling. Moreover, as the comments of Luther immediately following Osiander’s citation made clear, the real point was to contrast works of the law to the righteousness of faith (in line with the text on which Luther was commenting, Galatians 2:16). This same careful editing continued throughout the Excerpta quaedam. From the perspective of his later adversaries, Osiander insisted on reading Luther, hermeneutically speaking, through Plato’s eyes and on interpreting Luther’s comments about Christ indwelling believers as simply proving Osiander’s own theory that Christian righteousness consisted of Christ’s divine indwelling, received by faith alone.25 But, similarly, Osiander also used (whether he was aware of it or not) a (Platonic) theory of language that found reality, truth and meaning not in the argument or circumstances of an author but in the words themselves, severed from all vestiges of literary or historical context. Thus, Osiander’s deconstructed Luther matched his own best ideas. It was as if Luther had Osiander’s best interests in mind, in nuce, and hence only Osiander could extract meaning from him or, rather, could weave Luther’s disparate comments into a meaningful whole.26 It would also seem that Osiander ignored the fact (cited by Osiander himself in only one case of many) that Luther viewed faith as connected to a remarkable way of speaking (“mirabilis est haec loquendi ratio”), the very 23 WA 401:

229, 22 – ​25, and 27 – ​30. 229, 25 – ​26: “Eaque est formalis iustitia propter quam homo iustificatur, non propter charitatem, ut Sophistae loquuntur.” 25 See, above all, M/A 01 (1552): Andreas Musculus and other Brandenburg theologians, Grüntliche anzeigung was die theologen des Churfürstenthumbs der Marck zu Brandenburgk von der Christlichen Euangelischen Lehr halten, lerhen vnnd bekennen. Auch warinne Andreas Osiander wider solche Lehr vnrecht lerhet, Welchs auch in diesem Buch aus Heiliger schrift nottürfftiglich gestrafft, vnd widerleget wird Roma. I. Reuelatur ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem & iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem Dei in iniustitia detinent (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552), N ivv. 26 Another fine example of Osiander’s careful editing came in WA 401: 283, 18 – ​25, precisely where Luther interpreted Galatians 2:18 (“Therefore it is not I who live but Christ who lives in me”) against the righteousness of the law or in WA 401: 284, 16 –​19, where Luther equated being “in Christ” with being in his kingdom, “a kingdom of grace, righteousness, peace, joy, life, salvation, and eternal glory.” Later on, Osiander omitted a section (WA 401: 284, 28 – ​33) where Luther summarized his argument about Christ’s indwelling by distinguishing it from the works of the law. 24 WA 401:

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine”

249

speaking that lay at the heart of a forensic understanding of justification by faith and that bought the believer comfort.27 Finally, as many of the other quotations demonstrated, Osiander could easily leap through the commentary, looking for the smallest vestiges of his own arguments in Luther.28 That Luther was interpreting Paul and, hence, used Pauline language mattered little to Osiander. The preface and postscript to the German collection of Luther’s comments also provided insight into Osiander’s way of approaching Luther. Again, he attacked the Wittenbergers for abandoning Luther so soon after his death and for dismissing his (Osiander’s) theology as raving heresy (“schwermerisch und ketzerisch”).29 Osiander claimed to teach what was clearly in the Scripture and “has been clearly and thoroughly treated and explained in Doctor Martin Luther’s books” (“in doctor Martin Luthers büchern aber klerlich und reichlich gehandelt und ausgelegt ist worden”). After hearing rumors of attacks against him, Osiander recounted, he held a disputation (on 24 October 1550) on justification, subsequently published in both Latin and German.30 He was now preparing these passages from Luther for the simple folk and for his attackers, so that they could recognize how Osiander’s enemies had misused not only Luther but also the prophets and apostles.31 (Of course, many Lutherans by now counted Luther among the apostles and prophets.)32 In the postscript, Osiander claimed to have proven his point against those “who boast about Luther’s teaching and the school in Wittenberg and scold me for being a raver and a heretic because I teach that Christ dwells in us through faith and that his righteousness and life are our righteousness and life.33 In the collection of citations, unlike the material from Luther’s Galatians commentary, Osiander offered larger, mostly connected sections of texts from the sermons on the three-fold and two-fold righteousness.34 Not surprisingly, even 27 WA 401: 284, 22. No wonder that Osiander skipped over a far more extensive discussion of Paul’s modus loquendi in WA 401: 285, 8 – ​23. Mörlin and his co-workers, Bericht, M iir, also noted the importance of reading Luther in context. 28 Cf. GA 9: 579, where he jumped from WA 401: 286, 17 to 290: 22 – ​31, to 306, 13 –​15, to 336, 30 – ​31, to 369, 24 – ​25, before finally settling on the discussion of Galatians 3:27 (“As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ”) in 540, 17 –​19, 33 – ​34; 541, 16 – ​20, 24 – ​26, 30 – ​33. He seemed incapable of noticing, as may seem obvious to modern readers, that Luther used the language of union most often precisely where the Pauline text would seem to suggest its use and not because of some underlying ontological principle. 29 GA 9: 584, 3. 30 GA 9: 422 – ​47. 31 GA 9: 584, 17 –​19: “Wil inen auch, ob Gott wil, bald hernach beweisen, wie greulich sie wider Christum, seine aposteln und propheten anlauffen.” 32 See Kolb, Luther as Prophet, 17 –​120. 33 GA 9: 600, 25 – ​28: “die sich des Luthers lere und der schuel zu Wittemberg rhümen und mich doch ein schwermer und ketzer schelten, darumb das ich lere, Christus wone durch den glauben in uns und sein gerechtigkeit und leben sey unser gerechtigkeit und leben.” 34 Osiander copied this collection, almost word for word, into his Confession (GA 10: 170, 30 –​190, 16).

250

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

here he omitted material unfavorable to his viewpoint.35 Despite the fact that he could simply have quoted a single longer passage, he preferred to break the text up into smaller sections, introduced with “Item daselbst.”36 His way of reading Luther eliminated the need for him (or the reader) to examine fuller comments of the reformer in context. Citations of Luther’s sermons on John 14 –​15 followed even more closely the pick-and-choose method used with the Galatians commentary and presented thirteen separate excerpts. In contrast, references to John 17 were concentrated in one section of Luther’s work.37 Here again, the omissions involved comments of Luther particularly damaging to Osiander’s position. Thus, while citing Luther’s comments that believers were “baked into one cake with Christ,” he left out how Luther contrasted the union of the Father and the Son to that of the believer and God and how the point of such union was to provide comfort against the attacks of the devil.38 Osiander overlooked the difference between the union between the persons of the Trinity and the union of believers with Christ. He bypassed statements about comfort (Trost) and the defeat of the devil by means of Christ’s declaration of union with him (and with the Father!). Instead, his interest lay with the essential truth that, he thought, lurked behind such comments of Luther. Later, in quoting the same sermon, Osiander stopped immediately before Luther explained the 35 This is not only the observation of a twenty-first century reader. See F/G 01 (1552): Matthias Flacius (with Nicholas Gallus), Verlegung, I ivr – v: “Vnd hie were Osiander wol scheltens werd/ weil er diesen Paragraphum desselben Sermons anzeucht/ das er mit wolbedachtem mut/ diese wort/ Sie höret nicht auff, wie die actualis, welche zu erklerung dieser meinung nötig sein/ mitten aus dem Text ausgekratzet/ ausgeleschet/ vnd ausgelassen hat.” He was referring especially to Osiander leaving out Luther’s words defining what he meant by “essential righteousness,” namely, that it does not end. 36 For example, in the Sermo de triplici iustitia Osiander quoted WA 2: 44, 32 – ​45, 26, with very little left out, but in five different sections. In the Sermo de duplici iustitia, he quoted WA 2: 145, 9 –​146, 28 with a few more omissions but still in three sections. The final section consists of four separate quotes, where the reader would not have been aware of the (to be sure, small) omissions. 37 WA 28: 183, 32 – ​35; 184: 30 – ​34; 185, 23 – ​35 & 186, 20 – ​22; 187, 31– ​36 & 188: 17 f. 38  WA 28: 183, 35 – ​36 & 184, 16 – ​30: “Denn ob wol der Vater und Christus auff ein ander hoher unbegreifliche weise eines sind des goettlichen wesens halben so haben wir doch solchs alles, das es unser ist und sein geniessen. Das ist nu abermal gesetzt zu unserm trost und trotz widder der wellt und des Teuffels gewallt. Denn ob er gleich ein einzelen schwach gelied der Christenheit angreiffet und meinet er habs gefressen, ja ob er auch dazu die gantze Christenheit wolt angreiffen und verachten und sprechen: Was ligt mir an der Christenheit, was sind sie mehr denn fleisch und blut? mus er widderumb hoeren und fuelen, das er nicht uns, sondern Christum jnn uns angreiffet, ja auch nicht Christum allein, sondern den Vater, das ist die allmechtige ewige Maiestet, dafur er erzittern und zu boden fallen mus. Sihe, so ist hie alles eine folge, das wer ein stueck rueret, der rueret himel und erden und alle Creatur. Summa, du kanst keinen Christen verachten, schmehen, verfolgen odder gewallt thun, noch widderumb ehren und wolthun, du hasts gott selbs gethan. Daher wird Christus selbs jnn seiner maiestet am juengsten tage das urteil sprechen beide zu den fromen und Gottlosen: ‘Was jhr einem unter meinem geringsten bruedern gethan habt, das habt jhr mir gethan.’ ” Flacius and others faulted Osiander precisely for confusing these two types of union.

A. Osiander: “My Teaching Is Luther’s; Luther’s Is Mine”

251

nature of faith’s union with Christ, that is, where Luther underscored that this union occurred apart from works and only through the Word.39 Osiander was also not beneath making additions to Luther’s words, not simply to make them more understandable (for example, that the term “angeborn” referred to rebirth)40 but also to expand Luther’s citation of Scripture expressly to state Osiander’s own opinion. Thus, where Luther in the Latin of Sermo de duplici iustitia cited only a portion of 2 Peter 1:4 (“Blessed be the God and Father of mercies, who gave to us the most precious and greatest things in Christ”), Osiander provided a different part of the text: “as is reported in 2 Peter 1:4, ‘the most precious and greatest promises are given us, that we thereby become participants in the divine nature.’ ”41 IV. Osiander’s Gezeugnis der heiligen Schrifft As the dispute in Königsberg continued to heat up, Osiander published – in the face of attacks by the cathedral preacher, Joachim Mörlin – a small collection of Bible passages that proved, according to its title, That Our Dear Lord Jesus Christ, True God and Human Being, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Dwells in All True Christians through Faith and Is Their Righteousness: Proof Gathered Together from the Holy Scripture, for the Simple, Misled Sheep ….42 It contained several quotes from Luther and Melanchthon. On the question of Jeremiah 23:6 and 33:16, “‫ יחוח‬is our righteousness,” Osiander looked to Luther for support, using both Von den letzten Worten Davids (WA 54: 71, 35 – ​37) and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (WA 53: 608, 7 –​12). To these he added a small excerpt from Stephan Roth’s version of Luther’s postil on the text for the feast of St. Peter and Paul (June 29), which in Osiander’s view proved that “God 39 WA 28: 188, 19 – ​21: “Wo her koempt aber solche herrligkeit, das sie alle eines werden jnn Christo und dem Vater? Nicht aus unsern wercken odder wirdigkeit, sondern durch das wort, das er uns gegeben hat.” 40 GA 9: 585, 4 – ​5. In other places he expanded biblical citations. 41  GA 9: 586, 28 – ​30: “… als 2. Petri 1 [4] gemeldet ist, ‘die theuristen und allergrösten verheissung geschenckt, das wir dadurch teilhafftig werden der göttlichen natur.” Cf. WABi 7: 317 (with changes or omissions noted in italics): “durch welche vns die thewre vnd aller groessesten Verheissung geschenk sind, nemlich, das jr durch dasselbige teilhafftig werdet der gottlichen natur, ßo yhr fliehet die vergenglichen lust der welt.” He also left out a description of the bride and bridegroom, “that they are one flesh.” A contemporary translation, Eyn sehr gute Predig Doct. Martinus Luther August. Von czweyerley Gerechtickeyt (Wittenberg: Johann Grünenberg, 1520), A iiv, translated the passage: “Alßo hatt der gebenedeyeth gott vnd vatter der erbarmung/ gnaden vnd barmhertzickeit/ wie sant Peter sagt/ die aller grosten vnd kostbaren ding vns in dem hern Christo geschenckt.” 42 Das vnser lieber HERR Jhesus Christus/ Warer Gott vnd Mensch/ sampt dem Vater vnd heiligen Geist/ durch den Glauben in allen waren Christen wone/ Vnd jr Gerechtigkeit sey. Gezeugnis der heiligen Schrifft/ zusamen gelesen … Für die einfletigen/ Verfürten Schefflin. Johannis am 6. Von dem an gingen seiner Jünger viel hindersich/ vnd wandelten fort nicht mehr mit jm (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 1551). According to GA 9:690, the tract was published by 15 June 1551.

252

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

is our righteousness.”43 He also included two excerpts from Melanchthon’s more or less favorable letter of 1 May 1551.44 As mentioned in chapter 5, these citations also carefully excised Melanchthon’s criticisms. As the conclusion to the piece made clear, Osiander understood the entire argument philosophically. “Were God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit not our righteousness, then our righteousness must of necessity be a creature.”45 As in his 1550 attack on Bernhard Ziegler (see below), Osiander was most keenly worried about attributing creatureliness to God or to salvation. Thus he added, “If the righteousness of faith is not of God and is not God himself but a creature, then a person can have the righteousness of faith and still not have God and thus be damned with this imagined righteousness. For whoever does not have God does not belong to Christ.”46 For Osiander, the word of forgiveness could not simply be a word to be believed but had first to be imbedded in the essence of the human being. Participation in the divine nature was an ontological and soteriological necessity.

B. First Responders, 1551 I. Nuremberg’s Michael Roting Next to theologians in Königsberg and Prussia, those most directly affected by Osiander’s theology were the Nurembergers, who had been colleagues of Osiander for years. In fact, the very first response to Osiander outside of Prussia came from Michael Roting, a teacher in Nuremberg at their famous Latin school.47 Although Roting did not include any direct citations of Luther, he did address Osiander’s use of Luther at several places. He insisted that Luther’s statements had to be understood in their historical context, namely, that Luther defended the forgiveness of sins against papal claims. Osiander was using his new doctrine to undermine that very forgiveness of sins. Roting made repeated reference to Osiander’s self-designation (on the title page of several of his works) as “primarius” and argued that this claim to superiority was no different than the pope’s and, as 43 WA 172:

450, 26 – ​33. (CR 7: 778 – ​81; GA 9: 670 – ​74). 45 GA 9: 697, 20 – ​21: “Wenn Gott vater, son und heiliger geist nicht unser gerechtigkeit ist, so mus vonnöten unser gerechtigkeit ein creatur sein.” 46 GA 9: 698, 4 – ​7: “Wenn die gerechtigkeit des glaubens nicht Gottes und Gott selbs, sonder nur ein creatur ist, so kan ein mensch die gerechtigkeit des glaubens haben und doch Gott nicht haben und also mit der gedichten gerechtigkeit verdampt werden. Dann wer Gott nicht hat, ist nicht Christi.” In a final comment (8 –​12), Osiander corrected Luther’s German New Testament, insisting that when Luther translated the Greek “Gottes gerechtigkeit” as “die gerechtigkeit, die fur Gott gilt,” he only did it to avoid equating God’s righteousness with God’s wrath, as Luther himself indicated (probably in his preface to the Latin works, WA 54: 185, 17 – ​20). 47 See above, chapters 1 and 2. His son was a student in Wittenberg at the time. 44 MBW 6075

B. First Responders, 1551

253

in the pope’s case, an indication of the anti-Christ. If Luther were alive, Osiander would never have dared to say such things as he now defended. As if to prove his case for Osiander’s anti-Christian perspective, Roting referred the reader to Luther’s comments at Smalcald about the anti-Christ (more likely, Melanchthon’s in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope).48 Abandonment of Luther and von Amsdorf by Evangelicals, which had already occurred in the Interimist controversies, now came to full bloom with Osiander, Roting argued. Roting admitted that Luther talked of Christian righteousness in essentialist terms. However, he explained this historically and contextually. Luther used such terms precisely to emphasize the difference between Roman claims to merit justification and the free mercy and grace of God in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.49 He also criticized Osiander’s (Platonic) notion that Luther spoke differently to his associates than to Osiander himself and thus left them with a false impression about what he really taught. This was the height of folly to imagine that Luther’s theology was only for those “in the know.”50 Moreover, it simply contradicted the historical facts that Luther would have disingenuously accepted the Augsburg Confession and its companion documents (especially the Apology).51 A year later, Osiander included Roting in his omnibus defense, the Schmeckbier. He did not address the question of his use of Luther but instead criticized the fact that Roting wrote in poor, untranslateable Latin, that he mixed in Greek words, and that he did not understand the chief doctrine of justification. In a single reference to Luther, Osiander simply noted that had Roting read Luther’s 48 Rot 01 (1551): Roting, Testimonium, “E 1v – E 2r: “Is haud dubie non tam humano consilio, quam Spiritus gubernatione sententiam ex prima Ioannis de Euangelio Apostolico per hunc uirum nunc iterum uindicato, & de officio proprio contra spiritum Antichristi sibi enarrandam in Ecclesia delegit: ‘Et omnis spiritus qui non confitetur Iesum Christum in carne uenisse ex Deo non est. Et hic est spiritus Antichristi, quem audiuistis quod ueniat & nunc est in mundo.’ [1 John] In hac sententia cum sanctus uir Euangelium Iesu Christi docuisset, ac de Antichristo coram Ecclesia Dei & abominationibus papisticis contra Euangelium proposuisset, est ueluti sequens ταξισ [sic!] Osiandro facta.” See also Luther’s Smalcald Articles, II.iv. 49 Roting, Testimonium, C 1v : “Nam Lutherus eam tum iustitiam essentialem [in his tract on the three-fold righteousness] esse statuit, in qua scilicet sola salus & remissio peccatorum Ecclesiae continetur, contra figmenta uaria de iusticia in obseruationibus traditionum & bonorum operum.” He repeats this later in the tract (C 2v): “Essentialis igitur iusticia Lutheri contra Monachorum doctrinam de iusticia in traditionibus haec est, quam postea per explicationem definiuit, ex symbolo Apostolico de remissione peccatorum., cum Ecclesia dicit: Credo remissionem peccatorum.” 50 Roting, Testimonium, C 1v – C 2r: “Quomodo igitur hoc commentum de iustitia essentiali ualuerit, quasi Lutherus primum uerae iusticiae meminerit, ac postea cum socios in doctrina inuenit, non eam doctrinam explicauerit, sed se ad nouos magistros contulerit, ac Mysterium prius missum fecerit.” 51 Roting, Testimonium, C 2r: “Verum cum postea confessionem Augustanam et reliquas explicationes de iusticia fidei approbauerit, et pro sua et apostolica doctrina receperit, quid nunc iste impostor Lutheri auctoritatem pro se allegat [i.e., in the Excerpta or Sprüche]? Quasi aliam iusticiam docuerit, quam quae est ex Euangelicis monumentis cum uera sententia in confessione et Ecclesijs Saxonicis passim cum magna approbatione Ecclesiae Dei tradita.”

254

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

commentary on Galatians more carefully, he would have realized that Luther spoke of the indwelling of God’s essential righteousness in us. In fact, Osiander simply quoted back to Roting (whom he called a foolish Frank) a selection from Luther already found in his Etliche Sprüche.52 II. A Voice from Leipzig: Bernhard Ziegler Not surprisingly, given Osiander’s harsh and unwarranted attack on him already in 1550, one of the first to enter the lists against Osiander with citations from Luther was Bernhard Ziegler. Ziegler was an unassuming professor of Hebrew at the University of Leipzig who occasionally functioned as Melanchthon’s mouthpiece in the struggles with Matthias Flacius and others immediately after the Smalcald War.53 When in 1551 Osiander claimed to have Luther on his side, Ziegler was among the first to react. He published what he claimed were two sermons of Luther stating, on the title page that they were, “in these terrible Last Days, very necessary and comforting to read.”54 The “sermons” consisted in fact of three sermons on the Creed, first published in 1533, and a translated excerpt from Luther’s second commentary on Galatians, already published separately in 1538 by the translator of the commentary, Justus Menius.55 Without naming names, Ziegler connected the “terrible end times” to Osiander’s theology, as the preface itself indicated. Ziegler was reprinting these “sermons” because of some “snooty wiseacres and educated, ingenious people, or rather, those who wanted to be recognized as particularly well-versed and experienced in the Scripture.” It was not that their teaching was openly and obviously against pure Christian teaching, “where they cannot do particular damage, but rather [it came out] under the most beautiful 52 See GA 10: 770, 27 – ​32: “Ja, hett er doctor Luthern fleyßig gelesen, er wurd die wort in seiner lateinischen außlegung uber die epistel zun Galatern am 79. blat haben gefunden: ‘Christus, durch den glauben ergriffen und in unsern hertzen wonend, ist die christlich gerechtigkeit, umb dero willen uns Got fur gerecht helt und ewigs leben gibt.’ Er aber und seinsgleychen glauben der heyligen schrift nicht, wie solten sie dann dem Luther oder mir glauben.” [WA 401: 229, 28 – ​30; =GA 9: 592, 19 – ​21.] “Roting ist ein Franck, die haben weins genug, lernen derhalben kein gut pier preuen.” (GA 10: 772, 23 – ​24) 53 See especially, Koehn, no. 155. 54 Zie 03 (1551): Zwo Predigten des Ehrwirdigen Herren Doctoris Martini Lutheri. Die Erste von Jhesu Christo/ darin der heubt artickel vnsers heiligen Christlichen glaubens (Ich gleube an Jhesum Christum etc.) gehandelt vnd erkleret wird. Die Andere vber den Spruch S. Pauli zun Galatern am Ersten/ Christus hat sich selbs fur vnser sunde gegeben/ darinn der Apostel den Haubtartickel des Christlichen glaubens von Jhesu Christo/ (das der Mensch gerecht werde/ ohne des Gesetzs werck/ allein durch den glauben an jhn) handelt. Mit einer Vorred/ Zu diesen grewlichen letzten zeiten sehr nützlich vnd tröstlich zulesen (Leipzig: Georg Hantzsch, 1551). 55 WA 45: 678, 33 – ​679, 12; WA 37: (xxi–xxiii) 35 – ​72; WA 401: 82, 30 –​100, 15. For more on the sermons on the Creed, which were preached in 1532, see Erich Vogelsang, “Luthers Torgauer Predigt von Jesu Christo vom Jahre 1532,” Luther-Jahrbuch 13 (1931): 114 –​130. I am grateful to Robert Kolb for this reference.

B. First Responders, 1551

255

appearance of true earnestness and true Christian commitment.”56 They made it seem as if others did not understand the truths hidden in Scripture or did not express themselves clearly or were simply Christian hypocrites.57 After paraphrasing Paul’s prayer in Ephesians (1:17 – ​23), Ziegler insisted that Christians had enough to learn in the simple text of Scripture and had no cause “out of boredom using lofty thoughts to come up with something superheavenly or more than divine and also to burden us with unnecessary, widely sought after and strange methods, actions or objects.”58 Ziegler contrasted this speculation to the simplicity of divine wisdom and comforted himself with the fact that people had also made fun of Christ on the cross. The point of divine revelation was in fact that Christ made atonement for us through his blood, something taught from the beginning of the world through the patriarchs, prophets, Christ himself, the apostles and the holy teachers of the church. Ziegler contrasted this simple message to that of a person captivated “by his own soaring ideas or other strange, clever and enlightened opinions.”59 Ziegler vowed only to search for the Good Shepherd in the Scripture and confessed that there is no other Word of God revealed there. This same confession motivated the work of Luther, especially evident in these two sermons. Having said this, Ziegler returned to the attack. Here he finally named the specific doctrine, namely justification, which his enemies thought they derived from Luther. And because at present some strange proceedings go awry from time to time and because some may accuse the faithful teacher, Dr. Martin, as if he, too, passed on and taught an angelic, obscure wisdom about our justification, I hoped that many good-hearted and Christian folk will be served by my diligence at this time.60

With these words, Ziegler outlined the basic criticisms of Osiander’s approach to Luther. First, it was based upon (Platonic) speculation. Second, it assumed that 56 Preface, A iir: They claimed to be “hochweise vnd gelerte/ sinnreiche leute/ oder die ja fur sunderliche/ wolkündige vnnd erfarne der Schrifft geachtet sein wollen … (dann do kunten sie nicht sunderlichen schaden thun) sondern vnter dem allerschönesten schein des rechten ernsts vnd eins Christlichen eiuers.” 57 Preface, A iir – v : “vnd verdruckten im munde die rede der Götlichen weisheit.” For this use of “verdruckt” in Early New High German, see Grimm, Wörterbuch, 25: 252. This would seem to match Ziegler’s impression of Osiander’s attack on him. 58 Preface, A iiir: “aus vberdruss etwas vberhimlisch oder mehr dann Göttlich mit hohen gedancken zu forschen/ auch nicht vns mit vnnötigen weitgesuchten vnd frembden hendeln/ thun vnd sachen zubekümmern.” 59 Preface, A iiiv : “durch sein eigene hochfliegende gedancken/ oder andere seltzame scharffsinnige vnd erleuchte meinunge.” 60 Preface, A ivv – B ir: “Vnd dieweil mancherley seltzame teidigung jtzund hin vnd wider jrrgehen/ vnnd etliche dürffen den getrewen lere D. Martinum beschüldigen/ als hette er auch Englische vnuerstendlich weisheit von vnser rechtfertigung furgegeben vnd gelert/ habe ich gehoffet/ es werde viel guthertzigen vnd Christlichen menschen mit meinem vleis zu dieser zeit gedienet sein.”

256

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Luther also taught such an “angelic, obscure wisdom about justification.” At the same time, Ziegler expressed his understanding of Luther’s authority: he sought out, explained, and spread the eternal, inconvertible, saving Word of God.61 Ziegler then contrasted Luther’s authority, based on Scripture, to Osiander’s way of citing Luther, which corresponded in large measure to the discussion above. “Often his public opponents say the same thing about this – or also those who, to support their wondrously sharp and confused thoughts and conduct, pluck out and squeeze something from his writing, as is their wont, in order to substantiate or adorn their little discoveries.”62 The “rupffen und zwacken” (pluck out and squeeze [with the further meaning of torment]) described in Ziegler’s mind Osiander’s approach to Luther, as the latter tried to substantiate and decorate his wondrous thoughts using Luther. Ziegler was not surprised that in these last days, the simple promises of God’s Word, witnessed to by Luther, would be stomped on by folks interested in the latest novelty (“newen/ frembden/ vnerhorten merlin”). God’s kingdom consists not of high-sounding words (“schwatzen”) but in power (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1– ​5).63 Having accused Osiander of “rupffen und zwacken,” it was somewhat ironic that, before providing the material from these “sermons,” Ziegler began with an (unidentified) snippet from Luther’s sermon on John 15:7.64 In it, Luther interpreted Christ’s command to “remain in him” as meaning sticking with the simple “Kinderglaube” (Children’s faith: Luther’s favorite word for the Apostles’ Creed). Thus, the very simplicity of faith that Ziegler pleaded for in the preface came to expression in Luther’s preaching and gave the Leipzig professor leave to publish Luther’s sermons. This introductory excerpt, therefore, was merely illustrative and did not undermine Ziegler’s overall approach to publishing whole sermons of Luther rather than snippets. III. An Anonymous Tract and Its Aftermath

1. Raven (or: Rabbi) Osiander versus the Honorable, Highly Educated Mr. Doctor Martin Luther of Blessed Memory The other early tract pitting Luther against Osiander was probably published in Prussia in November 1551. On a single sheet of paper, the author claimed to show 61 Preface, B ir. “Das ist aber war/ das aus Gottes gnaden inn seines des Gottseligen mannes D. Martini Luthers Lehrbüchern das ewige/ vnwidersprechliche/ seligmachende wort Gottes/ vnd die himlische warheit getrewlich/ vleissig/ reichlich vnd gründlich/ ersuchet/ erkleret/ vnd ausgebreitet worden.” 62 Preface, B ir – v : “… es sagen gleich dazu seine offentliche widerwertigen/ odder die jenigen/ welche zu jhren wünderlichen verschlagenen vnd vngereimbten gedancken vnd furnemen/ etwas aus seiner Schrifft/ domit jre fündlein gegründet oder gezieret/ rupffen vnd zwacken/ was vnd sie jmmer wollen.” 63 Preface, B iir. 64 WA 45: 678, 33 – ​679, 12. These sermons on John were also preached in 1533.

B. First Responders, 1551

257

just what kind of theology Osiander really taught. The title told the whole story: “How well the Raven [or: Rabbi] Osiander, the Primary [Professor],65 agrees in the article on justification with the honorable, highly educated, Dr. Martin Luther of blessed memory, after he again boasts that his teaching is Luther’s.”66 Here was someone who had been paying attention to Osiander’s demeanor and arguments! His reference to “his teaching is Luther’s” referred directly to the Bericht vnd Trostschrifft of February 1551. His mention of Osiander as “primarius” echoed the titles for two of the disputations that got Osiander into trouble in the first place.67 Calling Osiander a Rabbi arose out of his reputation as a Hebrew scholar. The tract itself contained a series of citations from Osiander’s writings,68 matched in an opposing column by comments from Luther: from two sermons of his Church Postil, from his sermons on 2 Peter, from the fourth article of the Augsburg Confession, from two prefaces to the German Bible, from his letter on translating, and from his House Postil.69 The broadside began with a citation from Luther’s commentary on the seven penitential psalms of 1525 concerning faith and justification.70 Over against Luther’s comments were those from Osiander’s disputation on justification from 24 October 1550.71 The pamphleteer also cited Osiander’s statement about Luther’s use of the term “die gerechtigkeit, die fur Gott gilt” (the righteousness that avails before God). According to Osiander, 65 A title Osiander used on some of his publications. The use of the word “Rabe” was not only a play on the word Rabbi but on the bad reputation of ravens. See Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander, ed., Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1873), 3: 1445 – ​49. 66 Ano 01 (1551): A single copy has survived in the Prussian archives in Berlin: GStAPK, XX. HA StA Königsberg, HBA J2, K. 976 (A. Z. 3.43.102 [II]): Wie fein der rabe Osiander primarius mit dem ehrwirdigen, hochgelarten herrn doctor Martino Luther seliger gedechtnis ubereinstimmet im artickel von der rechtfertigung, nach dem er rhümet widerumb seine lere sey des Luthers. 67 See, especially, Disputatio de iustificatione. Praesidente D. Andrea Osiandro Theologiae primario Professore. Regiomonte Prussiae. Die XXIIII Octobris. Anno 1550 (Königsberg, 1550) and D. Andreae Osiandri Sacrae Theologiae in Schola Regiomontana Primarij Professoris. An Filius Dei fuerit incarnandus, si peccatum non introiuisset in mundum. Item De Imagine Dei Quid sit. Ex certis et evidentibus sacrae scripturae testimonijs & non ex philosophicis & humanae rationis cogitationibus, deprompta explicatio. (Königsberg: Heirs of Johannes Lufft, 18 December 1550). 68  The material from Osiander’s writings includes the following from the Disputatio de iustificatione: GA 9: 439, 20; and from his Confession [in the order given]: GA 10: 242, 1– ​5; 150, 20 – ​26; 152, 1–​10; 110, 1– ​6; 110, 8 – ​9; 110, 31 & 112, 1– ​3; 254, 4 – ​8; 256, 26 – ​28. 69 WA 101,2: 36, 22 – ​24 & 25 – ​37, 2, WA 22: 316, 15 – ​21; WA 14: 15, 22 – ​24; CA IV (BSLK 56, 5 – ​7); WA DB 7: 11, 27 – ​30; WA DB 6: 8, 5 & 7 –​10; WA 302: 642, 15 –​19; WA 52: 293, 34 – ​35 & 294: 13 –​16 & 295, 5 – ​6. See GA 10: 399, n. 5 for this information. 70 WA 18: 522, 27 – ​32, 39 – ​40 (in the tract mistakenly dated to 1526). See GA 10: 398, n. 4, which does not provide the entire quotation. “Hie ist zu mercken, das das wörtlin ‘dein glaube’ und ‘deine gerechtigkeit’ nicht heisst die, da Gott mit gleubet und gerecht ist, als etliche viel meinen, sondern die gnade, damit uns Gott gleubig und gerecht macht durch Christum. Wie denn der Apostel Paulus Rom. 1.2.3 nennet die Gerechtigkeit vnd Glauben Gottes/ die vns durch die Gnade Christi gegeben wird etc. … Gottes ist sie/ der die rechte grunt gute Gerechtigkeit gibet/ welche ist der GLAVbe Christi.” 71 Quoted in GA 10: 399: “Daher sein wir mit seiner (Gottes) wesentliche[n] gerechtigkeit gerecht.” (=GA 9: 439, 20.)

258

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Luther actually meant “die wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes, die Gott selbs ist” (the essential righteousness of God, which is God himself).72 The pamphlet concluded Osiander’s column with a citation of Luther taken from a Latin (!) gloss to Jonah 2:5 in the German Bible, “In interpreting Scripture, Hebraist grammarians are rabbinists, that is, animals without intellect.”73 Far from having been attributed to Luther and simply containing “anti-Semitic overtones,” as GA 10: 399 claims, this Latin citation of Luther from his German (!) translation of the Bible also went to the heart of the hermeneutical difference between Osiander and his opponents, who taught that the meaning of Scripture was determined not simply by its grammar but by its use and purpose. Thus, this closing comment was actually challenging Osiander’s philosophical assumptions, which drove his exegetical method and his use of Luther. This broadside was to a certain extent written with the same assumptions found in Osiander’s own use of Luther. The point was to find those excerpts that undercut the opponent’s claim and thus to overthrow his theology. Like Osiander, the author reduced Luther to a treasury of pithy quotes, a rather cumbersome source for Evangelical Adages, not unlike what Erasmus constructed from authors of ancient Greece and Rome. However, because the anonymous writer had only one goal in mind – to prove that in some cases Luther did not agree with Osiander – Luther functioned less as an independent authority and more as a mirror for reflecting Osiander’s theological hubris. Moreover, the author used the citations of both Luther and Osiander to define the contours of the year-old controversy.74 The citations revolved around questions of the essential righteousness of God and completely omitted any discussion of the indwelling of Christ in the believer (something which Melanchthon had tried to gloss over in his letter to Osiander and Staphylus on 1 May 1551).75 They rejected Osiander’s historicizing of Christ’s death, used some of Mörlin’s favorite categories of thought (especially Christ’s “going to the Father”) and expressed a strictly forensic understanding of justification by faith.

72 Quoted

in GA 10: 399 (= GA 10: 242, 1– ​5). grammatistae sunt in sensu scripturae rabinistae, id est animal sine intellectu.” WA DB 112: 265, gloss to Jonah 2:5, which reads: “Ebraice est quesitiuum, Num uel an uidebo Templum? Hoc debet uerti negatiue. Nec cures hic Ebraistas grammatistas, qui in sensu Scripturae sunt Rabinistae, id est, animal sine intellectu. Ipsi in affectibus propheticis de rebus tam arduis nihil experti sunt, Ideo nec uerba intelligere possunt.” For other notes critical of “Hebraists” (i.e., Sebastian Münster), see WA DB 112: 265, the note to this gloss. This is not (pace GA 10: 399 and Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​1552 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973], 239) an “angebliches Lutherzitat” but a real one, which this researcher, using the search engine from Luthers Werke im WWW (London: Proquest Information and Learning Company, 2000 – ​2005) tracked down. 74 See the helpful summary in GA 10:401– ​402. 75 MBW 6075 and 6076. 73 “Ebraistae

B. First Responders, 1551

259

2. Osiander Attacks His “Fly by Night” Opponent Osiander’s response, published on 10 January 1552, revealed just how sensitive he was to the charge of betraying Luther.76 A single-leaf tract printed on one side received two-and-a-half leaves in response. The title page alone told the story: Against the Light-Fleeing Night Raven Who, with a Single Sheet of Paper, Intended to Give the False Impression That My Teaching on Justification of Faith Contradicted and Opposed Doctor Luther’s Blessed Teaching. Whoever Does Evil Hates the Light.77 First, the quote from John 3:20 (“Who does evil hates the light”) pronounced Christ’s judgment upon the anonymous writing: written by a “Night Raven who flees the light.” The issue at hand was clear: the author with one single leaf of paper intended to give the false impression that Osiander’s teaching opposed and was completely inimicable to Luther’s. This was no small charge, and Osiander therefore had to respond. That response began with an ironic apology by Osiander for having given his opponent such a strange name. He realized that the page was printed directly after the appearance of his Confession. Instead of trying to prove Osiander false using Scripture – “were he able” – the anonymous author gathered together “etliche trümmer und lumpen” (some debris and rags) from Luther’s and Osiander’s works, which were falsified in the very way he treated the texts (“by tearing them apart”). He identified the author (incorrectly) with a pseudonymous opponent, “D Martini Rheni zu Lübeck,”78 and reminded readers of the imperial and ducal mandate (to say nothing of Christ’s command in John 3:20) that all writings had to include the name of the printer, the author, and the city in which it was printed. More than that, the author was guilty of libel against Osiander.

76 See GA 10: 398 – ​413. As indicated above, the editors of GA do not fairly describe the tract that roused Osiander ire. The point of any confutatio in the arguments of the day was not to prove the counter-argument (Luther and Osiander never agreed) but rather simply to show that there were places of disagreement, over against what the author considered Osiander’s exaggerated claims. 77 Wider den Liecht flüchtigen NachtRaben/ der mit einem einigen bogen Papiers/ ein alschen schein zumachen vnterstanden hat/ als solt mein Lehr/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ Doctor Luthers seligen Lehr/ entgegen vnd gantz widerwertig sein … Wer arges thus, der hast das liecht. 78 See the comments in GA 10: 405, n. 13. Taken in this order (M. R. L.), one could almost imagine a clever connection to MöRLin. GA 10: 773, n. 109, gives another possible author of the tract, namely Wolfgang Waldner. The single-leaf tract identified by Wilhelm Möller, Andreas Osiander: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften (Elberfeld, 1870), 559, n. 61, as Nycticorax Rabi Osiandro Primario, refers this one, since Nycticorax means simply night raven. The manuscript is found in two different copies in the Prussian archives as “Wider Andream Osiandrum Zwinglische schwermer der Statt Konigsperg vnnd gantz Christenheit Scorpion, ein schender gottlich ehre, ein liegaber der luge vnnd ein getreuer diener des Teuffels durch Marthinum Rhenum Doctor zu Lüb[e]ke” (GStAPK, XX. HA StA Königsberg, HBA J2, K. 968 [Lästerbrief gegen Andreas Osiander, dated 1551 Aug. 5] and K. 970, pp. 31v – 33v. There is no similarity between these two sources, especially since the latter never mentioned Luther.

260

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Osiander then offered the reader (and his opponent) a short course in Luther’s theology of justification. Luther distinguished between God’s inner righteousness, by which God judged and which would be revealed only on the Last Day, from a “righteousness effused, revealed and infused in us,”79 given and reveal in Christ through the gospel. Both, however, were essential (“selbwesentlich”)80 or, as Luther wrote in his book, On the Two-Fold Righteousness, “essentialis.”81 Why? “For everything that is in the divine nature is essential, because in God accidence does not occur.”82 This, of course, reflected the central philosophical orientation in Osiander’s thought, to which his opponents refused to agree. Once again, the philosophical structure of Osiander’s thought comes through in his reading of Luther. In this connection, Osiander made reference to, but did not quote, Luther’s comments in his Church Postil, to which he also had referred in his Confession.83 His opponent (“this light-fleeing night raven and ragpicker” [“diser liechtfluchtig nachtrabe und lumpenflicker”]) had also quoted a portion of the same, probably as a result of the fact that Osiander had mentioned it earlier.84 In light of this use of Luther, Osiander gave his opponent a lesson in argumentation. In issues not under dispute one could use all kinds of fancy words, but here, when debating over the truth, he argued, one could only use the clearest statements. Osiander imagined that had he ever called Luther the pope’s devil, a papist might have responded that Osiander was calling Luther the devil.85 Then came a startling turn in which Osiander labeled his opponents’ favorite terms for justification (which indeed Luther himself had used) metaphorical and foreign terms not suitable for proper theological discourse. Then, too, when Luther in a very sweet and dear way says, “The death of Christ is our life, the forgiveness of sin,” or “The way to the Father is our righteousness,” so he is not speaking simply, rightly and plainly with natural words, properly, but instead these are flowery, muddled, strange words and tropes, spoken out of a joy-filled heart. They must be understood completely differently than they sound.86

79 GA 10:

407, 13 –​14: “aussgegosne, geoffenbarte und uns eingegosne gerechtigkeit.” 407, 16. 81 GA 10: 407, 17 –​18 and n. 27, where Luther tract, “Von dreierley gerechtigkeit,” is mentioned. See above for the source. 82 “Dann alles, was in der göttlichen natur ist, das ist wesentlich, quia in Deum non cadit accidens.” In WA 392: 111, 3 –​16, the Disputatio … de divinitate et humanitate Christi of 28 February 1540, Luther actually takes after this notion, calling it true in philosophy but not in theology. 83 WA 101,2: 36, 2 – ​37, 22. See GA 10: 164, 11–​13 with 407, 27. 84 WA 101,2: 36, 22 – ​24 & 25 – ​37, 2. For the name of his opponent, see GA 10: 407, 31– ​408, 1. 85 See GA 10: 408, 13 – ​25. 86 GA 10: 408, 26 – ​409, 3: “Also auch, wenn D. Luther auff ein vil leidlichere und lieblichere weis spricht: ‘Der todt Christi ist unser leben, vergebung der sünd,’ oder ‘Der gang zum Vater ist unser gerechtigkeit,’ so redet er nicht einfeltig [einfach], recht und schlecht mit natürlichen worten proprie, sonder es sind verblümbte, verwechselte, frembde wort und ‘tropi’ auss freu80 GA 10:

B. First Responders, 1551

261

Of course, upon this approach to Luther’s writings the entire hermeneutical dispute turned: what should one make of Luther’s (and, by extension, the Bible’s) language regarding justification and the two natures of Christ. In a way, Osiander’s very approach to Luther could not take Luther’s language seriously. Its very shocking, wrenching nature was designed to do what the words said. That is to say, the “linguistics of the cross,” forces Luther to speak about God with the last words we would reasonably expect from God: namely, “You are forgiven because of the crucified Christ.” In Osiander’s view, however, his anonymous opponent knew nothing of such things as grammar, rhetoric, or dialectic.87 Even a child knew that death could not be our life. Yet, it was just this “reasonable” argument that revealed Osiander’s own dependence on philosophy and his systematic deconstruction of Luther. Luther’s response in the Wittenberg disputations of the 1530s and 40s was always to argue that the Holy Spirit speaks a different language and that what was true in philosophy could not be true in theology.88 Thus, without fully realizing it, Osiander got as close to the heart of the disagreement in these few paragraphs as anywhere in his work. He did not realize it, because he argued on the assumption that there was a basic agreement between philosophy and theology, whereas both Luther and Melanchthon assumed, each in his own way, that there was a caesura between the two and that the language and arguments of the one dared not be brought willy-nilly into the other. Nowhere did Osiander express this more clearly than in his description of the phrase “der gang Christi zum Vater” (the return to the Father; cf. John 16:10). If one were to speak of the thing itself and not its metaphorical use, Osiander opined, “the return of Christ to the Father … is not our righteousness.”89 For such a “going” is a work, and no work can be our righteousness but rather works flow from righteousness. No, Osiander insisted, Dr. Luther’s opinion was rather “that the divine nature in Christ – in the power of which he defeated and opposed sin, death and hell and which has gone to the Father – is our righteousness and is in us and will also lead us into heaven to the Father.” For such plain talk in Luther, Osiander cited a small section from the Church Postil, this time from the sermon

denreichem hertzen geredet und müssen vil anderst verstanden werden, denn sie lauten.” See also n. 43, where the editors point out that Osiander is paraphrasing some of the citations in the anonymous tract. 87 GA 10: 409, 4. 88 See Vittor Westhelle, “Communication and the Transgression of Language in Martin Luther,” Lutheran Quarterly 17 (2003): 1– ​27. For Luther’s unique approach to the disputations of the 1530s, see Gerhard Ebeling, Lutherstudien, vol. 2: Disputatio de homine (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1982). Georg Major’s disputation is in WA 39/2: 284 – ​336. See especially 316, 23 – ​25: “Hanc distinctionem non invenit dialectica. Res ergo ipsa aequivocatur. Esse Deum absolutum est, sed generare est relativum; tale in rerum natura nihil simile etc.” 89 GA 10: 409, 15 –​17: “der gang Christi zum Vater [ist] … nicht unser gerechtigkeit.”

262

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

for Trinity Sunday on John 3:13.90 In a passage where Luther insisted that Christ’s return to heaven did good not in itself but only as he brought believers along with him, Osiander read “that Christ descends and ascends does not help us in the least.”91 Instead, what helped was the alien power that, according to Osiander’s logic, had to be Christ’s divine righteousness. In a concluding paragraph to this argument, Osiander listed several scriptural texts that his opponents misread by mistaking the literal (metaphorical) meaning for the actual meaning. All of these figured in his Confession and in his disputes in Königsberg.92 He finally returned to a single line from Luther’s sermon on 2 Peter, “I am grounded in the righteousness that is God himself, which God cannot deny lest he would have to deny himself. That is … the simple, correct understanding; do not let yourself be led away from that.”93 Osiander insisted that Luther “agreed in all these things with me and I with him,” adding that any places where there appeared to be differences could all be traced to Luther’s use of “tropes.”94 If one kept to a literalistic interpretation of Luther as Osiander found in his anonymous opponent, the result would be five different meanings for righteousness that could never harmonize with one another. In the final lines of the tract, Osiander turned his attention to the gloss from Jonah. Far from disagreeing with its “anti-Semitic” language, as someone today well might, Osiander used it instead as a final threat against his opponent: “Whoever the Hebraists, grammarians, rabbinists, and ‘animals without understanding’ (yea even ‘beasts of the field’) may be, I will show right well, God willing, to this night raven.”95 Osiander was implying that the true mindless animal and “beast of the field” (Genesis 1) consisted of anyone who approached language without understanding its deeper meanings. 3. Matthias Flacius Is Joined to the Dialogue between Luther and Osiander Sometime after 1 April and before 26 June 1552, the anonymous writer of Wie fein der Rabe answered Osiander with another, larger collection of Luther quotes that also included statements of Matthias Flacius and Nicholas von Amsdorf, two 90 WA 21: 548, 7 –​16, cited in GA 10: 409, 27 – ​410, 3: “das die göttlich nature in Christo – in dero krafft er sünd, todt und hell uberwunden, widererstanden und zum Vater gangen ist – sey unser gerechtigkeit und in uns und werd uns auch in himel zum Vater führen.” 91 GA 10: 410, 5: “das Christus herab‑ und hinauffehret, das hilft uns noch nichts.” 92 GA 10: 410, 12 – ​412, 7, and the references in notes 57 – ​85. 93 GA 10: 412, 22 – ​24, quoting WA 172: 45, 29 – ​32, a passage that he also cited in his Confession (GA 10: 164, 15 –​17): “Ich bin gegrundet auff die gerechtigkeit, die Gott selbs ist, die kan er nicht verwerfen, er must sonst sich selbs verwerfen. Das ist … der einfeltig, richtig verstand, darvon lass dich nicht füren.” 94 GA 10: 412, 27 – ​28 & 29: “stymmet in inen allen mit mir und ich mit im ….” 95 GA 10: 413, 15 –​17: “Wer aber die hebraisten, grammatisten, rabinisten und ‘animalia sine intellectu,’ ja auch ‘pecora campi’ seien, will ich solchen nachtraben, ob Gott will, bald fein zeigen.”

B. First Responders, 1551

263

of the most well known “gnesio-Lutherans.” He used excerpts from Osiander’s Wider den Liecht flüchtigen Nachtraben as a foil to examine Luther’s statements on justification more closely. This tract, Comforting Sayings of the Honorable Sirs Martin Luther and Matthias [Flacius] Illyricus against the Raven [Rabbi] Osiander, Primarius. A Saying from 2 John 1: “Many Deceivers Have Come into the World Who Do Not Confess That Jesus Christ Has Come into the Flesh. This Is the Deceiver and Anti-Christ. Watch that We Do Not Lose What We have Acquired,”96 revealed to what degree the participants in this dispute themselves grasped the hermeneutical differences between the parties. Moreover, at least one printing of this tract included its place of origin: Wittenberg!97 The tract began with a very short introduction (and no preface) in which the author or, better, Zitatensammler (quotation collector) simply mentioned Osiander’s response, including its size and date, and bemoaned the fact that it spit out Osiander’s Jewish and devilish gruel.98 There followed a “dialogue,” comprised of quotations from Osiander, answers from Luther, and marginal “scholia” that identified the origin of Luther’s citations. The author realized the interpretive problem from the start and began with Osiander’s conclusion about the difference between metaphorical and essential language in Scripture and Luther.99 His (very short) answer, lifted from Luther, got to the very heart of the hermeneutical dispute: “The World, nature, reason and the like do not know that unbelief is sin and faith is righteousness.”100 This citation at first may appear only vaguely connected to the debate, but in fact this single sentence, unlike the ones that followed,101 sum  96 Ano 02 (1552): Tröstliche Gegensprüch des Ernwirdigen Herren Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch. 2 Johan. 1. Viel verfürer sind in die Welt komen/ die nicht bekennen Jhesum Christ/ das er in das fleisch komen ist. Dieser ist der verfürer vnd Widerchrist/ Sehet euch für/ das wir nicht verlieren/ was wir ererbeitet haben. Like the original attack, the author again used the term “Primarius” for Osiander. Osiander did not recognize Flacius’s authorship and thus, in his Schmeckbier, refused to answer it. See GA 10: 795, 6 – ​9. Note 248 is misleading, since Osiander was surely referring to this tract, which did not claim to be by Flacius but simply to include citations from his Verlegung, published 1 March 1552. A gloss to a comment of von Amsdorf mentioned that his booklet came out in April 1552.   97 It is difficult to determine which came first. The one from Wittenberg has the word “Wittemberg” before the citation from 2 John 1. Otherwise they contain the same text. The print itself is very different in the two, indicating that they were published by two different printers. However, the Wittenberg printing appears to have plenty of room for the various “scholia,” as the author called them, so that they match perfectly with the text. Because the other printing used smaller type in the text, the glosses run together somewhat.   98 Gegensprüch, A iir: “Jüdischen vnd Teufflischen greweln.”   99 GA 10: 410, 12 –​19. To make the connection to Luther even clearer, the author added a parenthetical note after the words “solche verwechselte/ verblümete vnd geschmückte rede (Lutheri von der Christlichen Gerechtigkeit)….” 100 Gegensprüche, A iir: “Welt/ natur/ vernunfft etc. weis nicht das Vnglaube sünde vnd Glaube Gerechtigkeit sey,” taken from a marginal note in the Kirchenpostil (WA 10/1/2: 259). 101 “Durch den Glauben sind wir allein für Gott gerechtfertiget/ Darumb auch der Glaube ein Gottes gerechtigkeit heisset.” =WA 14: 15, 22 – ​24.

264

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

marized for our author how to approach Luther’s argument in both his sermons on John 16 and his second commentary on Galatians 1– ​3.102 The way Osiander’s opponents posed (and solved) the hermeneutical problem (what to do with Luther’s and the Scripture’s metaphorical language and rhetorical excesses) stood in stark contrast to “world, nature, and reason,” which could not fathom the righteousness of faith (and the sin of unbelief). The hermeneutical divide, which has not disappeared, was already central in 1552. How can one believe (or, at least, understand) unbelievable language? For Luther and his followers (including Gnesio-Lutherans and Philippists alike), the great divide occurred in the language itself, that is, in the direct address of God and the scandal of faith that that very address created. For Osiander and Luther interpreters like him, the truth or true meaning of Luther’s statements (or biblical promises for that matter) had to lie behind the metaphorical language or rhetoric. The “fides ex auditu” of Paul in Romans 10:17 always included for such interpreters an asterisk (namely, instruction to look and listen for the real – ontological – truth behind the text). Continuing his citation of Osiander,103 our anonymous author provided a much longer selection, taken from Luther’s comments on Galatians 3:6 (“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”).104 At the same time he referred to other pertinent passages in the margins.105 Chiefly, he used Luther to deflect Osiander’s charge that some of his opponents defined righteousness as faith itself while others stressed imputation. Luther clearly put both together (something to which all of Osiander’s opponents would have agreed). However, by including a passage of Luther’s attack on the Sophists, the author was also able to take aim (through Luther) at Osiander’s hermeneutics. This article concerning Christian righteousness, about which the Sophists understand absolutely nothing – nor can they understand anything – Christian folk should learn well and diligently. No one should think that he [or she] could learn it in one sitting. This is what they should do: read through St. Paul often and well, and what in a particular place comes before and after, indeed, they should diligently place everything that Paul wrote next to another and compare [these texts]. In this way they will actualy discover that this is so, namely that Christian righteousness depends on these two things: first, on faith, which gives God the honor due him, and thereafter on this: that God imputes such faith to us as righteousness, etc.106 102 WA 46 and 401. A careful search of both documents could not identify this particular comment. 103 GA 10: 410, 19 – ​21. 104 Gegensprüche, A iiv, quoting (in translation) WA 401: 364, 24 – ​28; 366, n. to l. 22 ff. (following CDE); 368, 15 – ​21, all comments on Galatians 3:6. The comments were taken from Menius’s translation of the Galatians commentary, which first was published in 1539 as the first volume of Luther’s works in German, p. 132r, 132 [=133]r & 132 [=133]v. 105 Luther’s comments on Galatians 5 and Psalm 51. 106 Gegensprüche, A iiir (=WA 401: 368, 15 – ​21 in Justus Menius’s 1539 translation, 132 [=133]v): “Diesen Artikel von Christlicher Gerechtigkeit/ dauon die Sophisten gar nichts ver-

B. First Responders, 1551

265

To be sure, the last part of the citation again fixed on the question of the relation between faith and imputation. However, the first part reopened the hermeneutical questions. Sophists were incapable of understanding this; Christians had always to learn it continually and to read all of Paul in light of justification by faith and imputation. The same might be said of how Osiander’s anonymous opponent read Luther: not in small bits but in the context of his entire theological program! Our Zitatensammler continued line by line through the later parts of Osiander’s arguments, taking each example of metaphor and showing how Luther himself expressed its meaning. Osiander had made comments about Christ’s blood (and sweat) justifying the sinner.107 The author of the tract responded with Luther’s comments from his Church Postil on the epistle for the first Sunday after Easter on 1 John 5: 4 –​12.108 Here, however, the hermeneutical differences at first seem to have dropped of his radar screen, and he appeared simply to be throwing Luther quotes at Osiander. He added a longer citation from Luther’s House Postil on the suffering of Jesus.109 By changing the order of the citations, however, he once again managed to place a hermeneutical warning at the end of Luther’s comments. Therefore, protect yourself from doing what crude folk commonly practice and think: “What difference does it make to me what flowed from the Lord Christ’s wounded side? It’s enough for me to know that he died on the cross.” So, don’t think that way but instead honor the Holy Spirit and give yourself comfort by hearing with diligence what indeed such an opening of his side with a spear brings with it, which John so truly shows and Zachariah had so long ago foretold.110

This small reference to the Holy Spirit was Luther’s offhand reference to the continuing discussion over how to balance philosophy and theology. This “other dialectic” of the Holy Spirit – something about which Luther on occasion even chided Melanchthon  – also appeared here (and in the preface to his German stehen noch verstehen konnen/ sollen Christen Leute auffs beste vnd vleissigste lernen. Es sol aber nimand dencken/ als kündte er jn auff ein mal gar aus lernen. Das sollen sie aber thun/ S. Paulum offte vnd wol durchlesen/ vnd was an eim jden ort für vnd nach gehet/ ja alles was Paulus geschrieben hat/ mit vleis gegen einander halten/ vnd vergleichen/ So werden sie eigentlich befinden/ das es also sey/ Nemlich/ das die Christliche Gerechtigkeit auff diesen zweien stücken stehet/ Erstlich auff dem Glauben/ welcher Gott seine rechte ehre gibet/ dar nach auff dem/ das Gott vns solchen Glauben zur Gerechtigkeit zurechnet etc.” 107 GA 10: 410, 21– ​23. 108 WA 21: 286, 20 – ​30 & 287, 36 – ​288, 2. 109 WA 52: 816, 11– ​21; 818, 17 – ​27; & 815, 35 – ​816, 2. 110 Gegensprüche, A ivr: “Drumb hüte dich/ das d nicht thust/ wie die rohe Leute gemeiniglich pflegen/ vnd gedenckest/ was gehets mich an/ was aus des HERRN Christi Seiten geflossen ist? Mir gnüget/ das ichs weis/ das er am Creutz gestorben ist/ Also gedencke ja nicht/ Sondern dem heiligen Geist zu ehren vnd dir zu trost/ höre mit vleis was doch solch öffnen der Seiten mit eim Spehr mit sich bringe/ welchs Johannes so trewlich anzeigt/ vnd Zacharias so lang zuuor dauon geweissaget hat.” (=WA 52: 815, 35 – ​816, 2).

266

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

works of 1539), picked up now by this anonymous author to use against what he viewed as Osiander’s speculative tendencies. In order that the reader might make just this connection, our anonymous author cited a portion of Nicholas von Amsdorf ’s attack on Osiander, published (according to the marginal gloss) in April 1552.111 With no small rhetorical flourish, von Amsdorf posed questions about why Osiander would bring into question whether Christ’s blood justified, “through which the Holy Spirit in godly Christian hearts is deeply grieved.”112 This was not simply a pious complaint but, in the hands of this anonymous author, a well-aimed criticism of Osiander’s hermeneutic, which (like Origen’s or Erasmus’s) divided up listeners into simple folk, for whom all kinds of rhetorical devices sufficed, and the truly enlightened, who knew what was really behind the words. The author also included a citation from Flacius’s work that tried to prove that the blood of Christ both saved and justified.113 Our author/editor then turned to the next lines in Osiander’s tract,114 on the metaphorical nature of Christ’s obedience, and offered a short refutation from Luther’s House Postil,115 followed by a long section from Flacius’s Verlegung.116 He skipped over the hermeneutical problem and focused rather on the fact that Osiander’s theology separated redemption from justification. Flacius had responded to Osiander with what became the stock (Anselmian) answer of the Königsberger’s opponents: to satisfy God’s righteousness and mercy, Jesus as true God and true human being fully fulfilled the law through his obedience and his sacrificial death on the cross. Here Osiander’s hermeneutical challenge remained unanswered, swallowed up with hints of a kind of Biblicism that, stripped of its sophistication, would later give Lutheran orthodoxy a bad reputation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. To Osiander’s fifth objection,117 that Christ’s resurrection was our righteousness, the author pointed again to the same sermon in Luther’s House Postil and to his tract on translating.118 In the latter, Luther reflected on the interpretive 111  Ams 01 (1552): Nicholas von Amsdorf, Auff Osianders Bekentnis ein Vnterricht vnd zeugnis, Das die Gerechtigkeit der menscheit Christi darinnen sie entpfangen vnd geboren ist allen Gleubigen Sündern geschanckt vnd zugerechent wird, vnd für ihr Person hie auff Erden nimmermehr Gerecht vnd heilig werden (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552). 112 Gegensprüche, A ivv, citing von Amsdorf, Vnterricht, B iir – v : “dadurch der heilige Geist in der fromen Christen hertzen höchlich betrübet wird.” 113 F/G 01 (1552): Flacius and Gallus, Verlegung, C iiv and E ir. These references to the printed version indicate that the Gegensprüche appeared sometime thereafter. See above, chapter 4. 114 Gegensprüche, A ivv, quoting GA 10: 410, 23 – ​25, which was found in Osiander’s Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo und rechtfertigung des glaubens bekantnus, T ii (GA 10: 248 – ​250). 115 WA 52: 294, 19 – ​21 & 27 – ​28. 116 Flacius and Gallus, Verlegung, A ivb – B ir & B iiv – B iiir. 117 Gegensprüche, B iv, quoting GA 10: 410, 25 – ​411, 2. 118 Gegensprüche, B iv – B iir, quoting WA 52: 294, 32 – ​35 and Luther’s Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen of 1530 in WA 302: 642, 15 –​19.

B. First Responders, 1551

267

dilemma: “What is the big deal causing people to rage and fume against, to anathematize and burn [the heretic], when the thing itself basically stands so clearly there and proves that alone faith in Christ’s death and resurrection is our life and righteousness.” This reasonable anger at the foolishness of the Christian message rested at the heart of Luther’s rediscovery of the gospel, to use his followers’ description of it. There followed, however, a quotation from Flacius’s Verlegung that concentrated on distinguishing Christ’s eternal, divine righteousness from the righteousness won for sinners on the cross.119 As the sixth example for the misuse of biblical metaphor, Osiander trotted out John 16:10 (“I go to the Father”).120 The author responded with two salvos from Luther: first a small reference from the same sermon in the House Postil mentioned above and then a longer citation from the Church Postil.121 Although Luther’s own hermeneutic (here the connection between God’s word and work) is easy enough to see, it was not clear if the author saw it or if he simply used this as a (literal) example of Luther saying something that opposed Osiander.122 The other references to Luther’s sermons and writings played much the same role and actually did not touch upon Osiander’s hermeneutical objection: that his opponents misunderstood the rhetorical and metaphorical nature of the language found in the Bible and in Luther.123 Thus, although occasionally using citations from Luther that answered the hermeneutical challenge Osiander posed, our Zitatensammler for the most part remained interested only in viewing Luther as a treasure chest full of pithy quotes that supposedly overturned Osiander’s claims. In fact, had Osiander bothered to answer this tract, he could simply have repeated his original charge. His opponents used Luther’s metaphorical comments in a literalistic way, confusing 119 Gegensprüche, B iir, quoting his Verlegung, G iiir – v : “Was ists denn nu/ das man so tobet/ wütet/ Ketzert vnd brennet/ so die Sache im grunde selbs klerich da liget vnd beweiset/ das allein der Glaube/ Christi Todt vnd aufferstehen fasse/ vnd der selbe Todt vnd Aufferstehen sey/ vnser Leben vnd Gerechtigkeit.” 120 Gegensprüche, B iir, quoting GA 10: 411, 2 – ​4. 121  Gegensprüche, B iir – v, quoting WA 52: 293, 34 – ​35 and 21: 363, 10 – ​23. The author also makes reference to Luther’s sermons on John 16, without specific reference, and to the Verlegung, G iiir – v. 122 WA 21: 363, 10 –​11: “Denn dis wort … begreifft das gantze werck vnser Erlösung vnd seligung.” Luther did not view this as a doctrine to be learned but as a word to be encountered. 123 In Gegensprüche, B iiv – B ivr, the author referred to three more claims by Osiander (labeled in the marginal notes of Osiander’s work 7 – ​9), citing GA 10: 411, 4 – ​9. Luther’s “replies” came, for no. 7, from his Church Postil for the first Sunday in Advent (WA 101,2: 36, 22 – ​37, 2) and his exposition of Psalm 51 (not identified: “Darumb sol jederman wissen/ das Gottes Gerechtigkeit nichts anders sey/ denn seine Barmhertzigkeit/ durch welche wir von jm zu Gnaden angenomen/ fur from vnd gerecht durch Christum geact werden/ vnd vergebung der Sünden erlangen”); for no. 8 from his Church Postil for the 19th Sunday after Trinity (WA 29: 573, 26 – ​ 28; 570, 25 – ​27; WA 52: 257, 13 –​17 [from Luther’s House Postil, his second sermon for Easter Sunday]) and from Flacius’s Verlegung, C ivv; for no. 9 from Luther’s House Postil, the twelfth sermon on Christ’s suffering (cf. WA 52: 817, 39 – ​818, 11; with 818, 19).

268

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Luther’s real intention for the rhetorical packaging in which the comments came wrapped. With only a few, albeit important, exceptions, and then only within the Luther quotes themselves, can one find any indication that the author took Osiander’s hermeneutical challenge seriously. This somewhat ambiguous response was not at all the case with other opponents of the Königsberg professor. 4. Flacius Himself Responds In his tract, Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeusisten, Flacius also took on Osiander’s defense of his fidelity to Luther against our anonymous Zitatensammler. Here he addressed the problem of the Königsberg theologian’s hermeneutic, specifically how he interpreted both Scripture and Luther. He objected to: “First and foremost, how he [Osiander] falsely according to his own whims makes figures or tropes with his allegories on passages that are spoken there literally [proprie], actually and simply, and contrariwise he makes out of those passages that are said in a figurative manner or tropologically a literal [proper] meaning ….”124 Worse yet, Osiander argued that because Luther also spoke figuratively in some places, so could he – a position that Flacius rejected especially with respect to John 16.125 Intelligent people, he argued, used tropes to make things more understandable to simple people so that they did not go astray. But this was inappropriate to do to the divine being. Thus, there were not two kinds of righteousness (a legal one and what Osiander called the uprightness of God, which was God’s substance); otherwise there would be two divine beings. To demonstrate this point, Flacius then took a single passage from Luther (his sermon for the first Sunday of Advent in his Church Postil) to prove that there was only one righteousness, the legal one. The sinner’s righteousness was a work of God poured out in Christ not from his divine essence but from his obedience and grace.126 Flacius also examined Osiander’s use of another sermon from Luther’s Postil, on the basis of which “Osiander vilifies and speaks evil about us.”127 Why can I not be destroyed? Because I am built upon God’s righteousness, which is God himself, the very righteousness that he cannot deny lest he would have to deny himself. That is the simple understanding [of Matthew 16:13: “You are Peter, and upon this cliff I 02 (1552): Wider die neue Ketzerey, C 1r – v : “Vnd erstlich/ wie er in der heiligen schrifft felschlich seines gefallens figuren oder tropos macht/ mit seiner deutelung in den sprüchen die da proprie/ igentlich vnd einfeltig geredt sind/ vnd widerumb aus denen die da figuren weise oder tropice gesagt sind/ machet er proprietatem/ Als zun Römern am 10. die gerechtigkeit des glaubens bedeutet jhm ein person/ die da redet etc.” Flacius was referring to Osiander’s comments in GA 10: 407, 20 – ​408, 4. 125 Discussed in the first part of this tract. See above, chapter 4. 126 Wider die neue Ketzerey, C 1v – C 4r, quoting Luther in WA 10/1/2: 36, 22 – ​25; 37, 1– ​2, where Luther wrote of righteousness as “the outpouring of grace and mercy through Christ in us”; and 37, 3 – ​6. 127 Wider die neue Ketzerey, C 3r: “Osiander holhippelt vnnd richt vnns vbel aus.” 124 Fla

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

269

will build my church”]; do not let anyone lead you away from it or else you will be pushed from this cliff and be damned.128

Luther’s comment seemed to support Osiander’s position, so Flacius explained that after being justified, the sinner is indeed reconciled to God’s own essential, judging righteousness. For Flacius this gave the sinner the freedom to address God! You [O God] say that the one who will do or obey this ought to live by it [cf. Galatians 3:12]. Look here! I have a complete fulfillment of all your commandments, not from me but brought about through Christ and imputed to me through faith. For this reason you should give me life and all of your fatherly grace and goodness.129

Here, as in few other places in his writing, Flacius employed the paradox of the righteous sinner to gain insight into Luther’s language. For Flacius Luther’s point was not that righteousness was the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature, but that on the basis of faith in Christ’s promise, God could no more despise this righteousness imputed to the sinner than he could despise his own being.

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius I. Wolfgang Waldner, Osiander’s Long-Earred Owl During 1551, another tract appeared, probably published in Nuremberg, filled with longer citations from Luther, and a few from Brenz and Urbanus Rhegius.130 It was put together by the Nuremberg preacher, Wolfgang Waldner, who signed the preface to the work simply W. W. He had, according to GA 10: 746 – ​47, already attacked Osiander publicly from the pulpit in the summer of 1551.131 This 128 WA 17/2:

450, 29 – ​32, cited in GA 10: 412, 22 – ​24. die neue Ketzerey, C 3r: “Du sprichst/ das/ der solches thun oder halten wird/ der sol dadurch leben. Schaw hie hab ich ein volkommenliche erfüllung aller deiner gebot/ nicht von mir/ sonder durch Christum geschehen/ vnd mir durch den glauben zugerechnet. Derhalben soltu mir das leben geben/ vnd alle deine Veterliche gnade vnd güte.” 130 Wal 01 (1551): Christlicher vnd Gründtlicher bericht, Von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens, Einwonung Gottes vnd Christi in vns Der Ehrwirdigen/ Gottseligen Herrn vnnd Euangelischer warheyt Lehrern. D. Martini Luthers heyliger gedechtnuß/ Johannis Brentzij/ vnnd Vrbani Regij Seligen. I. Thessa. 2. Vnser Ermanung ist nicht gewesen zu irrthumb/ noch zu vnreynigkeyt/ noch mit list/ Sondern wie wir von Gott bewerdt sindt/ daß vns das Euangelium vertrawet ist zu predigen/ also redden wir/ nicht als wolten wir den Menschen gefallen/ sondern Gotte/ der vnser hertz prüfet. Dann wir nie mit Schmeychelworten sindt vmbgegangen/ (wie ihr wisest) noch dem Geytz gestellet/ Gott ist de / Zeuge/ haben auch nicht Ehre gesucht von den Leuthen/ weder von euch/ noch von andern ([Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann], 1551). Flacius, Verlegung, L iiv, referred to this printing as coming from Nuremberg. 131 For the other part of the attack and counterattacks involving Waldner, see below. Osiander published his Beweisung 24 January 1552, in which he attacked Waldner by name for a letter 129 Wider

270

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

book was a further reaction, and earned mention in Osiander’s creatively titled tract, Schmeckbier, as one of his opponents, whom Osiander called Uhu (owl), as a play on the initials with which Waldner had signed his preface.132 The citations themselves, while diverse, demonstrated a concerted attempt by Osiander’s opponents to cite longer sections of Luther’s (and in this case Brenz’s and Rhegius’s) works. Waldner began with a collection of Bible verses (B ir – D iiv), which he then summarized (D iiir). He then published the complete 1539 German version of Luther’s comments on Isaiah 53 from the Latin commentary of 1534 (D iiiv – N ivr).133 This was followed by shorter excerpts from Luther’s Galatians commentary, his Church Postil and his House Postil.134 Waldner then turned to other sources, printing first “A Very Beautiful and Comforting Sermon on Justification of Faith and Christian Righteousness,” his own translation of an excerpt from Johannes Brenz’s Latin catechism.135 Finally, he added an excerpt from Urbanus Rhegius’s Dialogus136 In the brief preface, after depicting the “godly, Christian belief ” that justification and redemption were God’s grace poured out over us through Christ’s merit, death and blood, Waldner complained – without ever mentioning Osiander by name – about “such people who divide and rip apart redemption and righteousness and do not want to consider it as a single entity” and then added “for another thing they do not place our righteousness in Jesus Christ’s suffering and death or his outpouring of blood but rather in Christ’s divine nature.”137 Indeed, in Waldner’s eyes such a faith reduced Christ’s satisfaction to an event of 1500 years ago, which could never be the believer’s righteousness. the latter had sent to him. Waldner and Michael Roting responded almost immediately to this attack. 132 An Uhu is a long-earred owl. 133 For information on this printing, see WA 25: 85. 134 Waldner, Bericht, N ivr – S iv, quoting the German translation of the Galatians commentary, leaf 14v [=WA 401: 75, 27 – ​80, 16 (following BCD)], 95 [here leaf 72r =WA 401: 224, 15 – ​29], 70 [here leaf 75r =WA 401: 231, 20 – ​233, 24], 95 [here leaf 101v =WA 401: 297, 15 – ​300, 21]. After this comes a section from Luther’s Church Postil for Pentecost (WA 21: 458, 11– ​459, 30; 462, 5 – ​464, 2) and for the 16th Sunday after Trinity in the Epistle (WA 171: 436, 1– ​28), and then from the House Postil for Pentecost (WA 52: 322, 35 – ​323, 25). 135 Waldner, Bericht, S iir – V iiv, cited as: “Ein seer schöne vnd tröstliche predig/ von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens vnd Christlicher gerechtigkeit/ des hochgelerten vnd Erwirdigen herrn Johann Brentzij/ auß seinem lateinischen Catechismo/ im jtzigen 1551 Jar außgangen/ verdeutscht.” 136 Waldner, Bericht, V iiir – V ivr: “Herr Vrbanus Rhegius/ der gelertesten einer vnter dem/ Euangelio/ von dreien sprachen der Hebreischen/ Griechischen vnd lateinischen/ ein trefflicher man/ in seinem Dialogo am 204 blat spricht von der Rechtfertigung.” On the verso side he printed 1 Timothy 6. 137 Waldner, Bericht, A iiv – A iiir: “solliche leut/ welche die Erlösung vnnd Gerechtigkeyt trennen/ zerreyssen vnnd nicht für ein ding wöllen halten” and “zum andern/ die vnser Gerechtigkeit nicht stellen auff das leyden vnnd sterben oder blut vergiessen Christi Jhesu/ Sonder auff die Götliche natur inn Christo.”

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

271

Against this teaching, Waldner provided the reader with Luther’s comments on Isaiah 53. However, Waldner’s remarks at this juncture showed how much these theologians connected teaching to comfort – that is to a “Lutheran” hermeneutic. “From this teaching [of Osiander] a remarkable injury inevitably results: that many people are vexed by it and made to err in their faith.”138 He wanted to publish Luther on Isaiah 53, “because therein the correct basis for justification of faith is comprehended and, besides that, because it is also very salutary and comforting for all sorrowful sinners who, because of their sins, are under attack.”139 Although Waldner also emphasized truth and proper understanding, he begged the reader to continue “reading, listening to sermons and praying” so that God would preserve this article in its simple purity. In this connection, he called to mind a sermon from Luther’s Church Postil, in which the Wittenberg reformer warned that anyone who sought a different teaching “knows that he is no Christian but rather is cast away by God and damned.”140 Thus, for Waldner the stakes were far higher than simple theological disagreement, so that he warned the reader about Satan’s wiles and cited again from the same sermon in which Luther opined: “because there can be no higher sermon than the one about grace and the forgiveness of sin.”141 Waldner again broke away from Luther’s text to remind people that in this sermon Luther “also upbraids our weariness and curiosity with these words [of the gospel].”142 Waldner concluded with a prayer that God would give grace and the Holy Spirit to live together peacefully and unified in the true faith and devoted to confession of Christ as savior. Without ever mentioning Osiander by name, Waldner had attacked Osiander for abusing three of the most important teachers of Lutheranism. II. Osiander’s Reply to the “Uhu” In his tract, the Schmeckbier, Osiander provided tastes of an entire case of his opponents’ brew, including Waldner and Pollicarius.143 Osiander’s attack on 138 Waldner, Bericht, A iiiir: “Vnnd folget schon bereit auß dieser lehr/

ein solcher mercklicher schade/ das vil leut dardurch geergert/ vnd in jrem Glauben jrre gemacht werden.” 139 Waldner, Bericht, A iiiir – v : “weyl darinn der rechte grund von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens verfasset/ vnd auch sonst allen betrübten sündern/ so jhrer sünden halben angefochten werden/ gantz heilsamm vnd tröstlich ist.” 140 Waldner, Bericht, A vr, quoting WA 29: 570, 25 – ​29, a sermon for the nineteenth Sunday after Trinity on Matthew 9: “der wisse/ das er keyn Christ/ sondern von Gott verworffen vnd verdambt ist.” 141 Waldner, Bericht, A vr, quoting now WA 29: 570, 33 – ​34: “weyl kein höhere Predigt sein kan/ dann die/ von der Gnade vnd Vergebung der Sünde.” 142 Waldner, Bericht, A vr – v, what follows is WA 29: 570, 34 – ​37, combined with a paraphrase of 575, 24 – ​25, a citation of 575: 28 – ​31, a paraphrase of 575, 32 – ​33: “straffet auch vnsern vberdruß vnd fürwitz mit diesen worten.” 143 The full title is: Schmeckbier – Aus D. Joachim Mörleins Buch. Aus M. Michael Rötings Buch. Aus des Nürmbergischen Vhu Buch. Aus Justi Menij Buch. Aus Mathiae Illirici/ vnd Nicolai Galli Buch. Aus Johannis Policarij Buch. Aus Alexandri Halesij Buch. Aus Nicholaj Amsdorffs Buch. Aus

272

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Waldner was a peculiar one, since Waldner never mentioned Osiander’s name in his collection. But Osiander, who was always fixing for a fight, knew full well against whom Waldner had assembled his little Luther book. Like Osiander’s “light-fleeing night raven,” Osiander made out of W. W. an Uhu, a night owl, and proclaimed Waldner, “a man who flees the light … the Nuremberg night owl.”144 Osiander promised to tap Waldner’s keg, in part because the entire book was thrown together (“zusammengehümpelt und –gestümpelt”) in order to fool the common person. He first objected to Waldner’s preface because the Nuremberg preacher stated that divine and Christian righteousness “was nothing other than God’s grace, his inexpressible love and mercy.”145 This Osiander took to be heretical, a distortion of Paul’s clear statement in Romans 5:17 and 21 that separated grace and righteousness. God’s grace for Osiander was a quality in God (“in God’s heart”); righteousness was a gift.146 Thus, righteousness was something in the believer, just like God’s kingdom (cf. Luke 17:21). Second, Osiander objected that Waldner put redemption and righteousness together, when, in fact, redemption (Christ’s death on the cross) was the means that Christ, who is our righteousness, used to redeem. Third, Waldner incorrectly imagined that redemption and righteousness had to be believed simultaneously, whereas Osiander distinguished the two, claiming that faith believed both that Christ had redeemed us on the cross and that through faith he dwelt in us as our righteousness. At this point, Osiander broke off his attack to explain what he meant by Christ’s blood. The blood on the cross had earned redemption; faith then drank the same blood spiritually and was forgiven. Redemption brought forgiveness; righteousness (the indwelling of Christ) then overwhelmed sin in us and purified us. This distinction was beyond the comprehension of the Nuremberger, who confused spiritual and physical outpouring of Christ’s blood, just like Zwingli confused spiritual and sacramental eating. Finally, Osiander attacked Waldner’s assertion that Osiander’s teaching had done obvious harm. This, of course, was the heart of the hermeneutical debate for Osiander’s opponents: the definition of justification for them was always connected to its effect: comfort. Osiander first appealed to his recently written Beweisung, in which he proved that throughout the 1520s and 30s he was the hero Johannis Knipstro Buch. Das sein kurtze Anzeigung/ etlicher furnemblicher Stuck/ vnd Artickeln/ Die in Iren Buchern wider mich begriffen sein/ aus denen man leichtlich Iren Gaist/ Glauben vnd Kunst kan pruefen/ Gleich wie man aus einem Trunck was im Faß fur Bier ist/ kan schmecken. … II. Timoth. III. Gleicher weis aber/ wie Jannes vnd Jambres Mosi widerstunden/ Also widerstehn auch dise der Warheit/ Es sind menschen von zerrütten synnen/ Vntuchtig zum Glauben/ Aber sie werdens die lenge nicht treiben/ Dann Jr Thorhait wirt jederman offenbar werden (Königsberg: Hanns Weynreich, 24 June 1552). 144 GA 10: 773, 19 – ​20: “den liechtflüchtigen man … den nürmbergischen uhu.” 145 GA 10: 773, 30 – ​31: “sey nichts anders dann Gottis gnad, sein unausprechliche lieb und barmhertzigkeit.” 146 GA 10: 774, 9 –​10.

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

273

of Nuremberg’s Reformation (and even straightened Melanchthon out at the Diet of Augsburg in the 1530!).147 It was only after the learned Wittenbergers were led astray by Joachim Mörlin, who cast a spell on them, that the problems began. Of course, this defined the difference between Osiander’s hermeneutic and his opponents’: he saw himself attacked by theologians who did not understand his theology or who simply distorted it. His opponents worried instead about how such a teaching would rob people of the gospel’s comfort. In the end, Osiander attacked Waldner for having claimed to publish the truth about Luther, when in fact it was only a distortion of Luther’s teaching, which could only be rectified by reading Osiander’s own book of Luther quotes. Waldner was not a worthy opponent for such a theologian: “Of course, he also blasphemes the faith, since we believe that Christ dwells in us and is our righteousness, as was heard above – this here can only be an unabashed, crazy man and uneducated raver and bitter blasphemer. In short, his beer is worth nothing!”148 The hermeneutical debate, which Osiander himself had started, had devolved into name-calling. However, Osiander’s point was clear: only with the proper ontology could one read Luther with understanding. III. The “Uhu” Hoots Back

Wolfgang Waldner may well have been surprised by Osiander’s fierce attack against him, since he had not mentioned his former colleague by name. Nevertheless, he now had leave to leap directly into the fray, which he did in a tract published in 1552 by Magdeburg’s Christian Rödinger shortly after the appearance of Osiander’s Schmeckbier.149 Waldner even made the hermeneutical divide clear on the title page. Waldner insisted that “by their fruits ye shall know them,” appealing even here for an interpretation that included the effect (fruit) of theological statements, not simply their definition. In the tract itself, Waldner began by criticizing Osiander’s stormy response – not worthy of a Christian leader. If, Waldner added, my book was so unlearned, why did Osiander not ignore it? Instead, this “Rabbi Primarius” fulfilled Paul’s 147 See

GA 10: 427 – ​33. 777, 15 –​18: “Ja, er lestert auch den glauben, da wir glauben, Christus wone in uns und sey unser gerechtigkait, wie droben gehört ist – da kan doch ja ein unverschembter, verruchter man und ungelerter schwermer und pitterer lesterer sein! In summa, sein bier ist nichts werdt!” 149 Wal 03 (1552): Antwort auff des Osianders Schmeckbier. Wolff Waldner. Matthaei. XXIIII. Es werden falsche Christi/ vnd falsche Propheten auffstehen/ vnd grosse zeichen vnd wunder thun/ das verfüret werden in jrthumb (wo es müglich were) auch die außerwelten/ Sihe/ ich habs euch zuuor gesagt. Matthei. VII. An jhren früchten solt jr sie erkennen. Matth. XII. An der frucht erkennet mann den baum. Ir Ottern gezichte/ wie künd jr gutes redden/ dieweil jr böse seid? Wie das hertz vol ist/ des gehet der mund vber. Ein gut mensch bringet guts herfür/ aus seinem guten schatz des hertzen/ vnd ein böser mensch bringet böses erfür/ aus seinem bösen schatz (n.p., n.d.). 148 GA 10:

274

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

warning that in the Last Days such proud and wild people would arise.150 Waldner was simply glad that God changed him from a monk into a preacher, set him in his office and was not letting anyone put him back in his cowl. He had not written this book at the behest of the Wittenbergers or Mörlin, Waldner wrote. Moreover, in the preface that Osiander attacked, he was trying not to take people away from Luther’s writings (as Osiander charged) but to get them to read more of Luther. With this final statement, Waldner took direct aim at the hermeneutical problem. Osiander believed that by giving people selected quotations of Luther, they could understand what Luther really meant; Waldner provided long excerpts from Luther to lead people to read more on their own. Waldner then examined Osiander’s first charge: that he published the preface without proper permission from the authorities. By using his initials, which were unusual for that time, he in fact was not hiding from the light like a light-fleeing night bird.151 Had this been the case, then Osiander’s own book, Von dem neu gebornen Abgott und Antichrist zu Babel … Widerlegung, which appeared in 1550 with his initials (A. O.), would also have fallen under the same condemnation.152 Even his attack on the Interim appeared without any attribution to Osiander at all, to say nothing of his catechism and church order. Osiander also had accused Waldner of having hidden his true intentions, when in fact (Waldner stated) Osiander said expressly what they were: “He [Waldner] published the book for the purpose of those who were interested in the truth.”153 He was not so much writing against Osiander as for the truth. For this reason, he did not write it as a disputation but “plainly and simply.”154 This, however, complicated the hermeneutical debate. Osiander had accused Waldner of having published Luther, Brenz and Rhegius because he wanted to deceive “the common man.” Osiander only said this, Waldner retorted, because (as Paul predicted in Acts 20), he wanted to attract disciples to himself. “There is a snake in the grass.”155 With this introduction, Waldner launched into a description of the doctrinal position of Scripture and the teachers he had originally cited: that one could not divide redemption and justification any more than one could divide the two natures of Christ in the one person. He proved this with further references to the works of Luther, Rhegius and Brenz.156 Osiander’s teaching was, contrariwise, “an Antwort, A iiir, where he describes Osiander as “Heilig/ Rhümretig/ Hoffertig/ Lesterer/ Vndanckbar/ Vngeistlich/ Störrig/ Vnuersönlich/ Schender/ Wild/ vnd Vngütig.” 151 Waldner, Antwort, A iiiir. 152 Waldner, Antwort, A iiiiv, referring to GA 9: 340 – ​63. 153 Waldner, Antwort, B ir: “Er [Waldner] hab das Buch vmb der willen in druck geben/ die der warheit begirig sein.” 154 Waldner, Antwort, B ir. 155 Waldner, Antwort, B ir, quoting the well-known Latin proverb (e.g., in Vergil, Eclogues 3.93), “Hic latet anguis in herba.” 156 Waldner, Antwort, B ir – B iiv, quoting from Luther’s Summarium of Psalm 32, his sermon on John 16, his commentary on Isaiah 60, and his commentary on Galatians. 150 Waldner,

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

275

ice-cold teaching,” that led people away from Christ’s death on the cross to his essential, indwelling righteousness. Next, he investigated the charge that it was heretical to claim that Christian righteousness was nothing other than God’s grace and mercy. Waldner could scarcely contain his contempt. Paul himself made this clear in Romans 5 (which Osiander had used against Waldner) that in God’s righteousness toward us one sees God’s heart and mercy. He further fixed on Osiander’s fixation for Waldner’s use of the phrase “nichts anders” (nothing other) and, not surprisingly, found places where Luther himself used the phrase. Osiander, Waldner imagined, obsessed on the word “durch” (“through,” as in we receive righteousness “through grace”). Waldner exploded, “O Almighty God! What will come of this in the long run when a person treats the Holy Scripture in such a lawyerly and juridical way?”157 Here Waldner attacked the hermeneutical problem (posed this time in terms of scriptural interpretation) head on. As discussed above, Osiander’s ontological approach to Scripture allowed him to find truth in such a narrow scope – one that his opponents would always find juridical because he downplayed the meaning of the text in context. Thus, Waldner gave no berth to such “sophistry.” Everyone knew what the grace, love, and mercy of God was: Christ crucified. “And I am certain that Christ Jesus, according to his humanity and divinity in one indivisible person is my righteousness, but [that it is also] not apart from or outside of his work and God’s grace.”158 The very personal, heated nature in which Waldner replied to Osiander showed that Osiander’s attack had forced a personal confession of faith over against what Waldner could only call “knowit-all reason” (die Nasweise vernunfft), which also made no sense of the Trinity. He concluded Thus, foolish reason ought to know that Holy Scripture in matters of faith will not be grasped and examined using human understanding and reason, which in divine matters is a fool, but it must instead be believed using faith, in order that people may allow themselves with their reason and own ideas to be captured under obedience to Christ and may let the Holy Spirit be the master, who can speak about such divine, high and heavenly matters far better than we human beings can fathom. The Spirit can also speak about a single matter with several different ways and means, so that it may appear to our eyes to be a contradictory thing, when indeed everything is united.159 157 Waldner, Antwort, B iiiir: “Ach du almechtiger Gott/

was wil doch nur draus werden in die lenge/ wenn man mit der Heiligen Schrifft/ so Procuratorisch vnd Juristisch wil vmbgehen?” 158 Waldner, Antwort, B iiiiv : “Vnd bin gewis das Christus Jhesus nach seiner Gotheit vnd Menscheit in einer vnzertrenten Person meine Gerechtigkeit/ aber nicht one oder ausserhalb seiner werck vnd der gnaden Gottes ist.” 159 Waldner, Antwort, C ir: “Darumb sol die töricht vernunfft wissen/ das die H. Schrifft in glaubens sachen/ mit menschlichem verstand vnd vernunfft/ die in Gottes sachen ein Nerrin ist/ nicht wil gefasset vnd angesehen werden/ sonder mit dem glauben/ es mus gegleubt sein/ das man sich mit der vernunfft vnd eigen gutdünckel vnter den gehorsam Christi gefangen gebe/ vnd las den H. Geist Meister sein/ der kan von solchen Götlichen hohen/ vnd himlischen sachen viel besser redden/ denn wir menschen begreiffen können/ Der weis auch von einem einigen

276

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

The die was cast, and Waldner grasped immediately the difference between his and Osiander’s teaching. The believer simply could boast in Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection as “my righteousness,” to which Waldner added a long list of biblical passages. In light of these, Waldner argued, the little words “nichts anders” and “durch” must be understood. The Scripture said not only “durch Glauben” [by faith] but also “durch Christum” [by Christ] we are righteous. Using Osiander’s faulty logic, this would imply that Christ, like faith, could not be our righteousness. Moreover, Christ said in Matthew 9, “Your faith has saved you,” when using an “Osiandrian and essentialist manner” (“Osiandrische vnd Essentialische weise”) of speaking he should have said, “durch Glauben.”160 From Christ’s (and St. Paul’s) understanding, Waldner easily moved to Luther and his discussion of these terms in his Church Postil and elsewhere.161 “Why should I not speak in the same way?” he asked pointedly. This, of course, was the question that haunted the debate with Osiander: How could one speak of justification by faith? The “essentialist” Osiander (as Waldner called him), in order to find meaning in words, had to take their meaning from their participation in an ontological structure in which believers were joined to God’s essential righteousness. Waldner viewed faith as an experience of the believer with God’s promised mercy and grace, and he could not stand what he perceived to be philosophical logomachia. “Nichts anders” for him was not a philosophical problem to be solved by the exegete but a confession of faith. No wonder he broke out in a lengthy, sarcastic attack on Osiander, turning Osiander’s attack into his (Waldner’s) own defense: he would stand naked, without beer or wine, next to Luther.162 Waldner also examined Osiander’s claim from Jeremiah 23 that righteousness came from Christ as Jehovah (that is, from his divinity) and not from Christ’s cross. Waldner again answered Osiander’s theory with a confession, “On the contrary, I believe firmly from the bottom of my heart.”163 Moreover, Christ’s blood was never to be separated from his divinity. The problem? Osiander, according to Waldner, understood 1 John 1 (“the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin”) difhandle auff mannicherley art vnd weise zureden/ das es für vnsern augen scheinet/ als were es widerwertig ding/ vnd doch alles eines.” 160 Waldner, Antwort, C iiv. 161 Waldner, Antwort, C iiv, citing WA 29: 569, 35 – ​571, 18 & 573, 26 – ​30 [a sermon on Matthew 9 for the 19th Sunday after Trinity] and WA 24: 282, 28 – ​31 [from his sermons on Genesis published in 1527]. 162 Waldner, Antwort, C iiiv : “Sihe nu du zu/ du armes Ketzerle/ dein Bier ist in summa nicht gut/ Es ist so gar verterbt/ vnd so bitter sawr/ das es dem Ketzermeister in die nasen reucht/ vnd möcht jn toll machen/ Wo wiltu nun aus? Da mustu in deinem geschabenen röckle/ der gantzen Welt zu spot stehen/ nacket vnd blos/ on Wein vnd Bier/ on vorrad vnd gelt/ du must mit dem heiligen Luthero/ mit deinem Nichts anders/ des Nachts Anders Ketzer sein/ vnd wirst kein Marderen Rock mit grossen/ weiten/ tieffen/ langen ermeln/ haben anzulegen/ kein gulden ketten an den hals zuhengen/ noch gulden ring an die finger zustecken/ du wirst allerding nach dieses Ketzermeisters meinung müssen verterben.” 163 Waldner, Antwort, C ivr: “Dargegen aber gleube ich festiglich von grund meines hertzen.”

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

277

ferently from John’s own intention and from all interpreters of the text. How was one to determine which interpretation is the right one? Waldner’s solution was to quote Luther. Here, like Flacius, Waldner reduced Luther to the final arbitrator of correct biblical interpretation – a far different use of Luther than Waldner himself had earlier been using. The only blood of Christ that Waldner wanted to hear of was that poured out on the cross. This was the same blood that a believer clung to by faith alone or that a communicant received in the Lord’s Supper. In this connection, Waldner suspected that Osiander’s Christology and hermeneutic was similar to Zwingli’s and Schwenckfeld’s, who separated Christ’s humanity and divinity in the Supper in the same way that Osiander separated them in redemption and justification.164 He sought to prove this by comparing statements of Osiander and Schwenckfeld on just this point. Just as Schwenckfeld distinguished inner and outer words, so Osiander talked about the human voice in a sermon and contrasted it to the inner, spiritual word of God that dwelt in us. Finally, Waldner examined the problem of the indwelling of God. The two theologians simply disagreed over the order in which justification and indwelling occurred. For Waldner, forgiveness of sins always preceded the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Here, again, Waldner turned to Luther for help, quoting his sermon on the gospel for Pentecost day and his preface to Romans.165 Waldner closed his tract by asking why Osiander was so concerned about the indwelling of God, when his own behavior seemed to show so little proof of it, given the way he behaved toward others. What should one think when the fruit of the tree showed the indwelling not of God but of an evil spirit? But Waldner decided to leave that question to God’s judgment. IV. Luther as Church Father: Johann Pollicarius and an Early Luther Word from Wittenberg On 10 February 1552, or shortly thereafter, a book started rolling off Veit Kreutzer’s presses in Wittenberg: Antwort auff das Buch Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen [Answer to the Book of Osiander on the Justification of the Human Being].166 Pollicarius, by then a pastor and superintendent in Weissenfels, had matriculated at Wittenberg in the late 1540s and received there a Master of Arts degree.167 He had clearly been influenced by Melanchthon, who, in the one 164 Waldner,

Antwort, D iv – D iiir, where he especially mentioned Schwenckfeld.

165 Waldner, Antwort, D iiiv – D iiiir, quoting WA 29: 458, 23 – ​459, 10 and WA DB 7: 9, 10 – ​21. 166 Pol

01 (1552). I: 219: “Joannes Pollicarius Zuiccauiensis” on 21 January 1545. Born in 1524 in Zwickau, Pollicarius came to Wittenberg only briefly, since his son seems to have been born the same year. He is also reported (Deutsches biographisches Archiv, fiche 970, 347 – ​349) to have been a preacher in Rochlitz in the 1540s and then 1543 Deacon in 1547 Archdeacon and 1551 Superintendent in Weißenfels. Either he (or, more likely, his son) was arrested for a year by Elector August because of drinking problems, after which time he was allowed to be a pastor 167 Album,

278

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

reference to Pollicarius in his correspondence, praised this little tract.168 The preface, dedicated to an anonymous, highly education man and friend, bore the in Marktwerden and later called to be a preacher in Kurland where he died. Johann Heinrich Zedler, in his Grosses Vollständiges Universal-Lexikon (Reprint: Graz: Akademische Druck‑ u. Verlagsanstalt, 1996), 28 (orig. 1741): 1238, calls him a philologist from Zwickau who wrote De vocum compositione (3 books, Basel, 1544), Carmen de beneficiis, quae DEUS per Mart. Luther. Orbi terrarum contulit; and Historie der Himmelfahrt Christi (Leipzig, 1554). Christian Gottlieb Jöcher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon: Fortsetzungen und Ergänzungen by H. W. Rotermund, vol 6: 1819, includes these three plus three answers to the bishop of Naumburg, an edition of Lilius Vicentinus, Melanchthon’s Postil in German, Vom Preis der heiligen Schrift, a preface to Sarcerius and a book on the twelve apostles. He also wrote the following: an exposition of Psalm 37 with introduction (Der XXXVII. Psalm der durchleuchtigen … Fürstin … Sybilla, Hertzogin zu Sachssen, Churfürstin, etc. … Samt einer feinen und kurtzen Einleitung … [Erfurt: Stürmer 1547]); a translation of Johann Brenz’s sermons on the Deluge (Erfurt: Sthürmer, 1548); a poem about Luther (see above; it appeared in 1548 again in Erfurt: Stürmer, 1548); a history of the apostles (Der heiligen XII Aposteln Ankunfft, beruff, glauben, lere, leben und seliges absterben [Wittenberg: Rhaw, 1549]); an updated marriage table (Ehe tafel/ Aus Heidnischer und heiliger Schrifft durch Albertum Draconum, zusammen gezogen … aufs new zugericht … [s.l., 1549]); an three-volume edition of Brenz’s Postilla in Latin (Erfurt: Stürmer, 1550, 1551, 1554); an account of Moritz of Saxony’s death (Ein Sendbrieff Magistri Joannis Pollicarij von der Schlacht und abschied aus diesem leben des … Hertzog Moritzen [translated from Latin; Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1553]); a preface for Erasmus Sarcerius’s Von synodis und priesterlichen vorsamlungen … Rath und bedencken [Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1553]); additions to Zacharias Lilius’s De miseria hominis et contemptu mundi (Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1553); a tract for Duchess Agnes of Saxony on the Ascension (Historia von der Himelfart unseres Herrn und Heilands Jhesu Christi. Und wie ein Christ derselbigen zum trost könne seliglich gebrauchen … Geschrieben an … Agnes, Herzogin zu Sachsen [Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1554]); a translation of Melanchthon’s postil of 1544 (Postill … uber die Evangelia, von Advent biß auffs Pfingsten and von Pfingsten biß auffs Advend [Nuremberg: Vom Berg & Neuber, 1555]); a sermon on the eighth commandment (Von bösen Zungen, Widder das verfluchte Teuffelische laster des Verleumbdens, Ligens, Afterredens [Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1556]); a book defending the evangelicals against the Roman bishop of Naumburg, Julius Pflug (Wider das vergiffte blinde Buch, des Bischoffs ohne Namen, yetzt neüwlich zu Erfurrdt im Truck außgegangen, wider unser Lehr und Kirchen: Erste Antwort [Strasbourg: Emmel, 1556]); a collection of Luther citations (Trostspiegel der armen Sünder … Aus d. Büchern D. Martini Lutheri zusammen gezogen [Leipzig: Berwald, 1556]); a second attack on the bishop of Naumburg (Von der Kirchen wider die zwey Bücher, des Bischofs zuor Naumburg und Martini Venatorij, zuo Mentz und Erffurd im Truck außgegangen … Andere Antwort [Strasbourg: Emmel, 1557]); an edition of Johannes Mathesius’s Von der Schule Elise [Weißenfels: Hantzsch, 1560]); a third attack on the bishop of Naumburg (Wieder das unchristliche Buch, oder neue Interim des Wolffbischoffs zur Naumburg [Weißenfels: Hantzsch, 1562]); a fourth book against Pflug (Vom Preis der heiligen Schrifft, wider die ertichten und selbst erwehlten Gottesdienste und Menschen satzungen … Ern Julij Pflugs [Weißenfels: Hantzsch, 1562]). 168 MBW 6403 (CR 7:976 – ​77), dated [6 April 1552] to Hieronymus Besold in Nuremberg: “… quem [books against Osiander by Flacius and Pollicarius] nondum ad vos pervenisse arbitror, cuius perspicuitas mihi valde placuit.” Pollicarius published Melanchthon’s preface to Luther’s works and his funeral oration along with a preface and some of his poems in 1548, and he translated Melanchthon’s Church Postil into German. See: HISTORIA DE VITA ET ACTIS REVERENDISS. VIRI D. MART. Lutheri, uerae Theologiae Doctoris, bona fide conscripta, a PHILIPPO MELANTHONE. ADIECTA SVNT A IOANNE POLlicario Carmina quaedam de beneficijs quae Deus per Lutherum orbi terrarum contulit. ITEM DISTICHA ALIQVOT DE Actis LVTHERI, quae simul annorum numerum comprehendunt. M. D. XLVIII. (Erfurt: Gervasius Sthurmer, 1548), with a preface, to Georg von Anhalt, dated 20 October 1547; and POSTILL Philip. Melanthons/

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

279

date 10 February 1552. Melanchthon was sending it to contacts in Nuremberg by early April. His connections to Luther were also interesting, not only for his work on Melanchthon’s writings about Luther but also for a collection of comforting passages from Scripture, dedicated to the heirs to the one-time Elector John Frederick.169 He opened the tract with a clear view of the theological and hermeneutical divide between Osiander and himself. Osiander, he wrote, made a distinction between “redemption and justification (for here hangs the central issue of the entire dispute).”170 Although the redemption involved Christ’s suffering, justification according to Osiander was a matter of participation in the divine nature of Christ. Pollicarius answered Christologically. “But whenever I am in the business of justification, I should not divide the natures and attributes but instead should remain united in the person of Jesus Christ my redeemer and grasp by faith the person [of Christ] wholly and simultaneously with his works.”171 This represented a more sophisticated answer to Osiander than found in the anonymous tract that quoted Flacius. For Pollicarius realized that the very division of Christ’s work entailed a division of Christ’s person and an undermining of faith. It was precisely this unity that Pollicarius strove to maintain. It did not merely have hermeneutical ramifications; it represented instead a completely different hermeneutic – one that did not divide the real (divinity) from appearances (the humanity). Thus, Pollicarius continued, I should therefore not rashly speak absolutely that Christ redeemed according to his divinity …. In the same way I should also never speak in the matter [of justification] that the divinity of Christ is my righteousness (although the righteousness of the divinity actually bore [it]), but instead I should remain with the Catechism and speak with children in this way: the divinity and humanity of Christ is my righteousness.”172 Vber die Euangelia/ vom Aduent biß auff Pfingstē: Verdeudscht/ vnd jetzt auffs new vbersehen/ Durch M. Johannem Pollicarium/ Prediger zu Weyssenfelß. Psalmo LXXXIX Wol dem volck das jauchtzen kan (Nuremberg: Johan vom Berg & Ulrich Newber, 1555), with a preface dated 10 March 1549 in Weißenfels and written to Jorg Vitzthumb, the Captain in Sachsenburg and Otto von Eybleben, Marshall for Duke August of Saxony. 169 Trostspiegel der armen Sünder. Das ist/ Vom warhafftigen Erkendtnus vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi/ vnd vom seligen Trost/ Fried vnd Freud desselbigen/ wider die verzweifflung/ angst/ trawrigkeit/ vnd anfechtung des hertzens vnd Gewissens/ Vnd wider alle erschreckliche Bildnisen des Teufels/ Todtes vnd Sünden/ Durch Sprüche vnd Exempel der H. Schrifft. Aus den Büchern des Ehrwirdigen Herrn D. Martini seligers zusamen gezogen. Durch M. Johannem Policarium. [sic!] Prediger zu Weissenfels. 1556 (Leipzig: Jakob Berwald, 1556). The preface is dated 12 April 1556. 170 Pollicarius, Antwort, A iiv : “Erlösung vnd Rechtfertigung (denn hie steckt die Heuptsache des gantzen Streits).” 171 Pollicarius, Antwort, A iiiv : “Aber wenn ich jm Handel der Justification bin/ so sol ich solche Naturn vnd Idiomata in Christo nicht scheiden/ sondern sie beide vereiniget in der Person Jhesu Christi meines Erlösers lassen bleiben/ vnd sie samptlich vnd zugleich mit jren wercken durch den Glauben fassen.” 172 Pollicarius, Antwort, A iiiv f.: “Ich sol als denn nicht absolute hin sprechen/ Christus hat mich erlöset nach seiner gottheit … Also sol ich in dem handel auch nichts sprechen/ die Gott-

280

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

It was this appeal to childish speaking that matched most directly Luther’s own peculiarly Christological hermeneutic of the cross. What, then, was the problem with Osiander’s use of Luther? Pollicarius noted that Osiander tried to match his “speculations” up with Luther (who, Osiander imagined, was “completely in our favor”). However, Pollicarius observed that when Luther spoke of God himself as our salvation and righteousness, “he is not speaking speculatively about the essential God in himself but instead about the God who dwells in the flesh.”173 At the same time, Pollicarius added, the term “durch den Glauben” always meant that the person was oriented toward Christ’s merit and not away from it, through which Christ came to us, dwelt in us with the Father and the Holy Spirit, “as with his beloved possession.”174 Turning to the question of imputation, Pollicarius – again sensitive to the hermeneutical struggle – first noted the slurs that Osiander used to describe imputation. Osiander was bitter and angry, “from which his spirit in this matter is easy to deduce.”175 He called imputation pure fiction (“purlauter Geticht”)176 and a juridical, philosophical, fleshly, and imprudent speech (“unbedechtige Rede”).177 Against such name-calling, Pollicarius appealed to Melanchthon’s many writings, but especially to his Loci, for a discussion of the word’s meaning. Clearly Pollicarius realized that the meaning of words  – and the overall approach to their meaning – mattered greatly. Thus, when defining righteousness, Pollicarius immediately moved from Paul’s description of righteousness to the entire office of Christ and its function: “and these show us where we should seek comfort in the worst attacks, when we have to do something about our sins and God’s wrath frightens us.”178 The issue was not simply the definition of doctrine but its effect in the lives of sinners in need of comfort.179 Pollicarius then distinguished Osiander’s teaching from his own  – not by rejecting the indwelling of God but by redefining what that indwelling meant. On earth indwelling meant something different than it did “with the saints in heit Christi ist meine Gerechtigkeit (ob wol die Gerechtigkeit der Gottheit eigentlich gebürt) sondern sol bey dem Catechismo bleiben/ vnd mit den Kindlin also sprechen/ die Gottheit vnd Menscheit Christi ist meine Gerechtigkeit ….” 173 Pollicarius, Antwort, A ivr: “Er redet nicht speculatiue vom wesentlichen Gott an jm selbs/ sondern von dem Gott/ der im fleische wohnet.” 174 Pollicarius, Antwort, A ivv : “als bey seinem geliebten Eigenthumb.” He returned to this issue later (B iir) and noted that Osiander’s definition of faith reduced faith to holding that God’s word was true but not necessarily comforting. 175 Pollicarius, Antwort, B ir: “aus welchem sein Geist in dieser Sache zu spüren [ist].” 176 Pollicarius referred directly to GA 10: 162, 24. 177 Pollicarius referred directly to GA 10: 150, 5 (“unbedachte rede”). 178 Pollicarius, Antwort, B iv : “vnd zeigen vns an/ wo wir Trost suchen vnd holen sollen in den hohen Anfechtungen/ wenn wir mit vnsern Sünden zu schaffen haben/ vnd vns Gottes zorn schreckt.” 179 See, for example, Pollicarius, Antwort, B iiv, where he quoted John 3:16 and added “Vnd mus das hertz aus diesen worten Trost schepffen in anfechtungen/ vnd nicht zweiffeln/ der Mensch sey ein kind des lebens vnd der ewigen seligkeit.”

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

281

that life where God, as Paul says [1 Corinthians 15], will be all in all … There and then our righteousness will be an essential righteousness, which here is only an imputed righteousness from grace.”180 By contrasting this life and the life to come, Pollicarius replaced Osiander’s (Platonic) worldview with an eschatological one. Of course, this, too, was a hermeneutical consideration and a critique of Osiander’s method. Pollicarius then buttressed these arguments with prooftexts – typical for one trained in Melanchthon’s loci method. First came Scripture (Acts 10, Romans 3, and Ephesians 1).181 He broke off his collection of proof texts, however, to explain the movement from law to gospel in the sinner (that is, from sorrow for sin to gospel, where comfort was emphasized), where faith applied Christ’s merit to us. He then turned to the Fathers and proclaimed “that they agree in this opinion with us and the Holy Scripture.”182 He first quoted Augustine and Chrysostom, because Osiander himself quoted them, and then discussed Bernhard’s sermon on the Annunciation. After introducing the example of David receiving forgiveness of sins from Nathan and Psalm 51, Pollicarius again summarized his argument, this time showing that redemption and justification go together “as efficient cause and effect.”183 Then, for the first time, as another kind of church Father, Pollicarius offered his first citation of Luther from the Church Postil.184 In contrast to the anonymous writer, Pollicarius turned it into a dialogue  – not with Osiander directly but with Luther. When Luther said that faith made one righteous before God, Pollicarius interjected: “Here I ask, which faith? The one that grounds itself in the essential righteousness and indwelling of God? No! Instead, he [Luther] speaks soon thereafter ….”185 Then, without mentioning Melanchthon’s name, Pollicarius distinguished gift and grace similar to Melanchthons approach in his commentary on Romans 5. Grace was God’s mercy; gift was the subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit. Just as he divided redemption from justification, Osiander, according to Pollicarius, divided grace and gift. Thus, the Königsberg theologian insisted that human beings were not justified by grace [=God’s mercy] but by gift [=the indwelling of Christ’s 180 Pollicarius, Antwort, B iiiv : “mit den Heiligen in jenem Leben// da Gott/ wie Paulus spricht/ [1 Corinthians 15] sein wird alles in allen … Dort vnd als denn wird vnsere Gerechtigkeit eine wesentliche Gerechtigkeit sein/ welchs hie nur eine Gerechtigkeit ist imputatiue/ vnd aus gnaden.” 181 Pollicarius, Antwort, B ivr – v. 182 Pollicarius, Antwort, C iiv : “das sie in dieser meinung mit vns vnd der heiligen Schrifft vberein stimmen.” 183 Pollicarius, Antwort, D ir: “wie causa efficiens & effectus.” 184 Pollicarius, Antwort, D ir, quoting WA 103: 130, 23 – ​27, a sermon on John 16 for the Sunday of Cantate. 185 Pollicarius, Antwort, D ir: “Hie frage ich/ welcher Glaube? Der sich auff die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit vnd beywohnung Gottes jn vns gründet? Nein/ sondern spricht er [Luther] balde darauff ….”

282

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

divine nature]. For Pollicarius, Osiander had violated the proper distinction of grace and gift found in Romans 5 and in Luther’s Church Postil.186 At every step along the way, Pollicarius interpreted for the reader whether Luther was speaking about Gnade or Gabe. After a brief conclusion, in which he mentioned that Luther had prophesied that his writings would be misused, Pollicarius provided a host of excerpts from the German translation of Luther’s exposition of Galatians.187 To be sure, the imputative nature of Luther’s comments were expanded and made clearer by the translator, Justus Menius. However, everyone in the debate trusted and used Menius’s text. Pollicarius did not treat Luther simply as an authority to be cited but as a source with which to enter into conversation. He provided small excerpts from Luther’s introductory comments of Galatians, interlaced with his own comments.188 He then referred to a longer discussion of Galatians 1:4. “There Luther teaches in his exposition powerfully how faith must grasp such words and apply them to itself. In this way a person is righteous and blessed. But to copy this down here word-for-word would be entirely too lengthy, and so a Christian may simply search it out individually and read it.”189 This demonstrates just how sensitive Pollicarius was to the hermeneutical struggle with Osiander. On one level, he reiterated the movement from definition to effect (“grasp such words and apply them”). On another level, however, he also drew the readers into direct conversation with Luther (“search and read”), so that they could see for themselves. That is, he was convinced that Luther’s words in their native meaning (that is the import of saying “a Christian reader”) would have the same effect. The remaining citations from the Galatians commentary showed a similar (unique) concern for context and conversation with Luther. Pollicarius took them all from a section of Luther’s commentary on Galatians 3:6, which in Menius’s translation was conveniently labeled “The Christian righteousness consists of this: that one believes God from the heart and that God reckons such faith for Antwort, D iir, quoting Luther’s commentary on 1 Peter in WA 12: 546, 33 – ​ 547, 1; 547, 4 – ​8 & 8 – ​9; 547, 22 – ​24. For a discussion of this distinction, see Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5:15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s,” in: Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, eds., Philip Melanchthon (1497 –​1560) and the Commentary (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79 –​104. 187 Pollicarius, Antwort, D iiir – F ir. Osiander himself also joined the battle over Luther specifically on the text of his second Galatians commentary, as we saw above. Osiander and his opponents actually approached Luther’s authority and texts in two completely different ways – ways that are intimately linked to the theological divide that separated them. 188 Pollicarius, Antwort, D iiir – D ivr, quoting the German version of WA 401: 40, 28 – ​29; 41, 15 –​16; 41, 21– ​26; 42, 26 – ​30 & 43, 12 –​17; 43, 20 – ​26; 44, 19 – ​24. 189 Pollicarius, Antwort, D ivr: “Da leret Lutherus in seiner in seiner auslegung gewaltiglich/ wie der Glaube müsse solche wort fassen/ vnd dieselbigen jm applicirn/ So werde man Gerecht vnd selig. Aber alles hieher von wort zu wort zuschreiben/ wurde gar zu lang/ vnd mags ein Christlicher Leser selbs suchen vnd lesen.” Cf. WA 401: 82, 30 – ​94, 11 for the entire comment on this verse. 186 Pollicarius,

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

283

righteousness.”190 At the end of this series, he referred to Luther’s comments on Galatians 3:13, again giving the page numbers for the reader, “for it is unnecessary to copy everything word-for-word. For half of the aforementioned Epistle to the Galatians with the interpretation of blessed Luther will have recommended itself to all Christians to read in this dispute.”191 Examining Luther’s exposition of Psalm 51 in the third volume of Luther’s German works, Pollicarius again referred more generally to certain sections before citing a series of Luther’s comments on verses four and nine.192 Pollicarius saved the best for last, so to speak, citing a long discussion by Luther on the meaning of grace and gift written in connection with the exposition of Psalm 51:12.193 Up to this point we have dealt with and expounded upon the most important part of this Psalm, in which have heard the chief article of the Christian faith, namely … what grace … is and how one obtains it. What now follows further in this psalm, in my opinion has to do with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which follow from the forgiveness of sins …. Grace means God’s grace and favor, through which God accepts us and demonstrates mercy …. Gifts of the Holy Spirit, however, are those things that God, who is now reconciled through Christ after the forgiveness of sins, gives to believers ….194

Pollicarius was not quite done. He then turned to sources that Osiander himself had used, in particular, Luther’s exposition of John 15 (in vol. four of Luther’s German works). Here, rather than simply throwing quotes back at Osiander, Pollicarius drew the reader into the discussion. “So you will mark the deception of Osiander, who took some lines from this source and put them in his book.”195 He closed with some citations from the House Postil, where again he gave the reader more references within Luther’s works. His overall conclusion was that in Luther’s works one discovered three principles: that faith trusted principally in 190 Pollicarius, Antwort, D ivr – F ir (“Die Christliche gerechtigkeit stehet darauff/ Das man Gott von hertzen gleube/ Vnd das Gott solchen Glauben rechne zur gerechtigkeit”) quotes from vol. 1 of Luther’s German works the following: p. 137 (actually 132), 133, 134, and 135 (where 137 and 141 refer to later verses in the same chapter). Cf. WA 401: 364, 11– ​373, 17. 191  Pollicarius, Antwort, F ir: “denn es ist on not alles von wort zu wort hieher zuschreiben/ will der halben gemelte Epistel zun Galatern mit der Auslegung Lutheri seligers allen Christen/ in diesem Streit mit fleis zu lesen befohlen haben.” 192 Pollicarius, Antwort, F ir, quoting sections from WA 402: 352, 33ff and 402, 26 ff. 193 Pollicarius, Antwort, F ivv, quoting sections from WA 402: 420, 33 ff. 194 Pollicarius, Antwort, F ivv – G ir: “Bisher haben wir das fürnemeste stuck dieses Psalms gehandelt vnd ausgericht/ in welchem wir die höchsten Artickel des Christlichen glaubens gehöret haben/ nemlich/ … was Gnade/ … sey/ vnd wie man dieselbige erlange. Was nu weiter im Psalm folget/ dünckt mich/ betrifft die gaben des Heiligen Geistes/ welche auff vergebung der Sünden folgen … Gnade heist gunst vnd hulde Gottes/ durch welche Gott vns annimpt/ vnd barmhertzigkeit erzeiget … Gaben aber des heiligen Geistes sind die/ so Gott/ der durch Christum nu versöhnet ist nach vergabung der Sünden/ den Gleubigen gibt ….” 195 Pollicarius, Antwort, G iv, referring to Luther in WA 45: 655, 9 ff.: “… [S]o wirstu den betrug Osiandri mercken/ welcher aus diesem ort auch etliche Sprüche gezogen/ vnd in sein Buch gesetzt hat.”

284

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Christ’s merit and not in his essential righteousness; that from such faith truly came the righteousness that God accepted; and that this righteousness was an “imputed righteousness.”196 “Osiander is absolutely opposed to this. Thus it follows by necessity that Osiander does Luther injustice and that Luther was his entire lifelong never of Osiander’s opinion concerning essential righteousness, as in many other things as well ….”197 V. Osiander’s Reply to Pollicarius in His Schmeckbier Osiander included Pollicarius in his Schmeckbier and praised his work in a backhanded way, stating that had he received it sooner, he would easily have placed it over all the others, “for he provides me with the correct gloss and interpretation by which I may understand the books of all my opponents.”198 Pollicarius had written that when Paul writes that Christ is our righteousness, “that is the same as saying, ‘Christ has purchased righteousness for us.’ ”199 Osiander could hardly contain himself at reading this sentence. “That’s the point; there it lies!” (“Das laut, da steckts!”) He recognized this immediately as the hermeneutical key around which the entire argument revolved and appealed to the “Christian reader” to note it. When Osiander urges and compels us not only with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Augustine and Luther but also with the entire Holy Scripture, with Fathers and councils, so that we must confess against our thoughts and will that Jesus Christ is our righteousness, so we [on the contrary] want rather to confess only in this way: that [his position] may not be confessed but instead – when we [Osiander and company] now confess and the common man imagines that there is peace and that we are in agreement in this (that Jesus Christ, dwelling in us through faith, is our righteousness) and thus takes it up joyfully as a unanimous, indubitable teaching and satisfies himself with this – under these circumstances we still neither allow room for the truth nor keep the peace but instead circumvent them and with this imaginary, false, misleading and devilish gloss again rob and steal Christ from them and say, “He is not our righteousness in any other way except that he merited righteousness for us.”200  Pollicarius, Antwort, G iir. Antwort, G iir: “Hiewider ist stracks Osiander/ Darumb folget aus not/ das Osiander Luthero vnrecht thut. Vnd das Lutherus der Meinung Osiandri de essentiali Iusticia/ sein lebelang nie gewesen/ wie in viel dingen wol mehr ….” 198 GA 10: 785 – ​89, here 785, 8 – ​9: “dann er bringt mir die rechten gloß und außlegung, wie ich all meiner widersachern bücher verstehen sol.” 199 GA 10: 785, 10 –​11, “das ist sovil gesagt: christus hat uns die gerechtigkait erworben,” quoting Pollicarius, Antwort, B ir: “Wenn wir nu sagen mit Paulo, Christus ist unser gerechtigkeit, das ist so viel gesagt: Christus hat uns die gerechtigkeit erworben, das ist, er hat uns mit seinem wolkomenen gehorsam, leiden und sterben von sünden und ewigem tode erlöset.” 200 GA 10: 785, 13 – ​24: “Wann uns Osiander schon dringt und zwingt nicht allain mit Esaia, Jeremia, Paulo, Augustino, Luthero, sonder auch mit der gantzen heiligen schrifft, mit vetern und concilien, das wir bekennen müssen uber [gegen] unsern danck und willen, das Jesus Christus unser gerechtigkait sey, so wöllen wirs doch allain also bekennen, das es nicht bekennet sey, sonder, wann wirs schon bekennen und der gemain man vermaint, es sey frid und wir seien 196

197 Pollicarius,

C. Osiander’s “Boozy” Opponents: Wolfgang Waldner and Johannes Pollicarius

285

For Osiander the problem boiled down to agreement over the language. He posed for the reader the case where the opponents were forced to admit (not simply with a few citations of Scripture, Augustine or Luther but with the testimony of all of Scripture and the church) that Christ is our righteousness. He also posited that they might reach an agreement on this language, so that the “common man” would imagine, that Christ Jesus, who dwelt in us by faith, was our righteousness and would accept this unanimous, indubitable doctrine with joy and be satisfied with it.201 Here the issue was not, for Osiander, comfort but truth and acceptance of the correct doctrine. Over against this, the opponents would still add Pollicarius’s dreamt up, false, misleading and devilish gloss, and say that “Christ is our righteousness” is nothing other than saying “Christ has earned righteousness for us.” Where would this end? For Osiander, Pollicarius’s interpretation forced believers to use the same rule for every occurrence of the verb “to be” in Scripture. ‘Christ is God’s Son’ meant Christ earned a Son for God; ‘Christ is our savior’ meant Christ earned a savior for us; ‘Christ is Mary’s Son’ meant Christ earned for the Virgin a son. Was not this the same interpretive move that Zwingli and Oecolampadius made in their writings on the Lord’s Supper? Of course, this comment showed Osiander’s own method of interpreting texts: bringing the same fixed rule to each text. If the phrase “to be” meant “earned” in one case, it must have meant the same in all others. Osiander also noted that Pollicarius used the phrase “we” in describing his view. Here he took sharp aim at Wittenberg and demanded that the others included in the “we” repudiated Pollicarius. Otherwise Osiander would have to assume they stood with him.202 Since Pollicarius’s publication was one of the first and most thorough refutations issued from Wittenberg (outside Melanchthon’s much smaller one), this threat took on special meaning. Osiander lumped all Wittenbergers together in a single school and also claimed that Pollicarius did not know enough to understand Melanchthon’s position: “we are righteous by Christ’s merit and its communication” (“Wir werden gerecht et merito Christi et communicatione sui”), since in Osiander’s eyes this separated Christ’s merit from its communication to us. It was, he wrote, like a nobleman earning a fiefdom ainhellig in dem, das Jesus Christus, durch den glauben in uns wonend, unser gerechtigkait sey, und nimpts also auch als ein ainhellige, ungezweyfelte lehr mit freuden an und gibt sich darin zufride, so wollen wir dannoch der warhait nicht raum lassen noch frid halten, sonder hinter inen her sein und mit diser ertraumbten, falschen, verfürischen und teuffelischen gloß inen Christum wider rauben und stelen und sagen, er sey nicht anders unser gerechtigkait, dann das er uns gerechtigkait verdient hab.” 201 Here Osiander might have been thinking either of the early agreement with Joachim Mörlin in 1551 or Melanchthon’s seemingly friendly letter from the same year. 202 GA 10: 786, 15 –​17. “Werden sie, die andern, im nicht einreden offentlich, wie ers offentlich in truck hat geben, so will ichs annemen als offenlich von inen bekant und sie recht darüber in die schul füren.”

286

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

from a king or emperor through his merit. One would not confuse the fief for the merit. It was the righteousness in us that Christ imputed to us. Osiander introduced a further hermeneutical argument related to Pollicarius’s actual citation of Luther. Instead of disproving Osiander’s point with Scripture or even explaining the quotations he (Osiander) had proferred (which was what Osiander thought Pollicarius and the others were bound to do), Pollicarius simply heaped up Luther quotes against Osiander. Taking a page from the anonymous tract, Osiander set what Pollicarius wrote over against Luther himself. Luther had written, The entire life that true-believing Christians lead after baptism is nothing more than waiting for the revelation of the blessedness that they already possess. They certainly have it completely, but it is still hidden in faith. The same faith, even were it taken away (as happens in bodily death), so would this blessedness still be in them, …. Do not let the worksaints lead you astray, that you attempt to attain your blessedness with works. No, my dear, it is in you internally. Everything has already happened, as Christ says in Luke 17[:21]: “The kingdom of God is in you.” Therefore, the remaining life after baptism is nothing other than a pining, waiting and longing for that to be revealed which is in us.203

To this Osiander opposed Pollicarius’s notion that righteousness in us now had a different meaning in this life than in the next. The righteousness that we hoped for was not the same as the righteousness that was in us. Where Pollicarius contrasted this understanding to Osiander’s “fleshly and philosophical” understanding, Osiander turned the tables and argued that Pollicarius’s understanding was less than what philosophy or flesh and blood in its right mind (to say nothing of theologians) understood. Osiander then showed that there was a seamless movement from philosophical to theological understanding. “For all philosophy and all healthy flesh understand that righteousness must be something active that makes a person do right. In social and philosophical existence this is a good habitus or a good type de genere qualitatum [of a kind of quality]; in Holy Scripture, however, and in God’s kingdom it is God himself.”204

203 GA 10: 787, 11–​15, quoting WA 101,1: 108, 6 –​11 & 16 – ​21: “Alles das leben, das ein rechtglaubiger Christ füret nach der tauff, ist nicht mehr dan ein warten auff die offenbarung der seligkait, die er schon hat. Er hatt sie gewißlich gantz, aber doch im glauben verporgen. Derselbig glaub, wann er abgethon were, so wer sie offenberlich in im, welchs geschicht im leiblichen sterben … Laß dich die werckheiligen nicht verfüren, dein seligkait mit wercken zu holen. Nein, lieber mensch, sie ist in dir inwendig, es ist schon alles geschehen, wie Christus sagt Luc. 17:21: ‘Das reich Gottis ist in euch.’ Darumb ist das ubrig leben nach der tauff nichts anders dann ein harren, warten und verlangen, das da offenbart werde, das in uns ist.” 204 GA 10: 788, 5 – ​9: “[D]ann alle philosophi und alles gesundes fleysch versteht, das gerechtigkeit mus ewas tetigs sein, das den menschen macht recht thun, das ist im bürgerlichen und philosophischen wesen ein gutter habitus oder gutte art de genere qualitatum, in der heyligen schrifft aber und in Gottis reych ist es Got selbs.”

D. Anton Otto’s “Wider die Ursachen Osianders”

287

Why could there not be two aspects to Christian righteousness: the one imputed to the believer and perfection in the next life? Again, Osiander revealed the philosophical basis for his view. “I would like to hear and learn from the superintendent how he could so artfully divide the one, eternal, true God in his divine essence into two parts?”205 The unity of God and God’s attributes, a hallmark of theology arising from Platonism, were the guiding principles for his theology. Luther said this divine righteousness was in us, and we were awaiting its revealing; Pollicarius said that the divine righteousness in us was only imputed and that we were awaiting the coming of the essential righteousness. Osiander closed his argument by attacking a single phrase. Pollicarius stated that such essential righteousness, “must surely not be that which we have in this life through God’s present indwelling.” What, Osiander asked, could it mean when Pollicarius, without any Scriptural proof, simply announced that this surely could not be.206

D. Anton Otto’s “Wider die Ursachen Osianders” Martin Luther was for many of his followers Germany’s apostle or, even, “the third Elijah” (after the Hebrew prophet and John the Baptist). Under such projections of Luther’s authority, Anton Otto, a preacher in the small imperial city of Nordhausen who had studied in Wittenberg and was ordained there on 27 October 1538,207 published his Some Prophetic Verses of Dr. Martin Luther, the Third Elijah, with a preface dated 16 May 1552.208 Although that book contained no direct references to Osiander, its companion, graced with a preface dated the same day and addressed to Joachim Mörlin, did. In Against the Well-Chosen and Sharply Pointed but Still Inane Causes of Osiander, with Which He Deplorably Slanders and Twists the Article of Righteousness, Otto turned his attention to defending Mörlin.209 He came to his task with a true love for Luther’s works, as not only his collection of prophecies but also later publications demonstrated.210 205  GA 10: 788, 10 –1​ 2: “Ich mochte aber gern von dem superattendenten hören und lerne, wie er doch den einigen, ewigen, waren Got in seinem götlichen wesen so künstlich kont in zwey teyl voneinanderreyssen …?” 206 GA 10: 789, 1– ​6: “mus freylich diejenig nicht sein, die wir durch die itzige beywonung Gottes in disem leben haben.” Osiander also made indirect reference to (and fun of) a local case where one of the prince’s own counselors painted on the outside of his house, “Gottis wesenliche gerechtigkeit ist nicht mein seligkeit” (God’s essential righteousness is not my blessedness). 207 See WA Br 12: 454. 208 Ott 02 (1552): Etliche prophecy sprüche D. Martini Lutheri/ Des dritten Elias ([Magdeburg: Lotter], 1552). 209 Ott 01 (1552): Wider die tieffgesuchten vnd Scharffgespitzten aber doch nichtigen Vrsachen Osianders, darmit er den Artikel von der Gerechtigkeit lestiget vnd verkeret kleglich (Magdeburg: Christian Rodinger, 1552). 210 See VD 16: O 1480: Eine Einfeltige vnnd Christliche Trostschrifft Antonij Otthonis/ an die Christen/ so hin vnd wider vmb der Reinen Relligion Jesu Christi willen/ von den Papisten verfolget

288

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

The prophecies he collected not only echoed Luther’s attacks on Rome and the Papacy but also singled out the development of sects, which were seduced by new things rather than matters of God’s mercy, faith and love. In his direct attack on Osiander, Otto began by tracing the history of the church until the appearance of the papal anti-Christ. The devil had wanted nothing more than to attack the article of justification in German, which he did through Osiander, who stood in a line of sinners back through the popes and cardinals, Eutyches and Nestorius all the way to Cain and Adam.211 Then, in a particularly clear and organized fashion, Otto outlined Osiander’s case “against us” (by which he meant Mörlin and himself, as well as Luther and all right-minded ­Evangelicals) in terms of five different charges, which he then systematically refuted.212 First, he rejected the notion that Christ’s death was merely the fruit of his (divine) righteousness and not righteousness itself. Christ was the believer’s righteousness according to both natures united in one person. Otto also pointed out the hermeneutical problem with Osiander’s approach: Osiander’s rejection of material, minor things in favor of higher ones.213 Moreover, the redemptive righteousness of Christ was our only comfort in the face of all assaults.214 Second, Otto attacked Osiander’s notion that Christ’s death could not be a Christian’s righteousness because it happened 1500 years ago. There was no period of time [zal] between Christ’s redemption and justification. This had nothing to do with arithmetic used by merchants in Nuremberg or Antwerp and was no different than Oecolampadius’s arguments about place and time in the Lord’s Supper controversy. Third, he challenged Osiander’s notion that imputation of righteousness would do little more than to turn God into an unjust judge. Osiander knew, Otto claimed, that “we” taught Christ’s merit and that there had to be true penitence and with justification true fruit. To the world God might look like an unjust judge, but to those whom God forgave, it was pure grace. In fact, the preaching of the law215 took away all “Juristerey vnd Philosophey,” and left people standing before God as sinners. Otto’s fourth complaint focused on Osiander’s claim that werden. Item/ Ein Trostschrifft D. M. Lutheri/ an die verjagten Christen/etc. ([Eisleben: Andreas Petri], 1564). See WA Br 6: 421– ​23 (no. 1993) with WA 13: 213 –​14, dated 20 January 1533. WA Br does not mention this printing of the letter, which is complete except for the address and date. He also edited a new printing of Luther’s Betbüchlein in 1566. 211 Otto held this approach to church history in common with Melanchthon and Flacius. 212 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, B iir – E iiiv. 213 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, B iiiv : “Der Satan füret die schweremer jmmer in die höhe/ das sie das mündliche wort/ menscheit Christi/ wasser/ brot/ wein etc. gering achten/ wie Osiander Christus verdienst/ leiden vnd sterben/ früchte alleine der gerechtigkeit nennet.” 214 See Otto, Wider die Ursachen, B ivr and C ir. He robs Christians of comfort and leaves them doubting. 215 Described by Otto, Wider die Ursachen, D iiir, in terms of its effect on Cain, David, Peter and Bernhard.

D. Anton Otto’s “Wider die Ursachen Osianders”

289

such trust in Christ’s righteous merit meant that Christ was not righteous in his mother’s womb. He dismissed Osiander’s charge (that one would then have had to determine which of Christ’s actions was his true righteousness) by referring to the simple order of the catechism. For Otto, Osiander’s arguments smacked of a return to the philosophical theology of the medieval scholastics.216 Finally, Otto laid into Osiander for imagining that this view of Christ’s righteousness meant that “we” trusted a creature and not the creator. As with the other complaints, Otto did not merely provide a defense of his position, but he attacked the philosophical presuppositions he saw behind Osiander’s objections. It was mere quibbling (“spitzerey”) as contrasted to faith. Osiander finally would only be content in dividing Christ into two persons in order to maintain his “reasonable” position.217 To this attack on Osiander he then added a long, continuous section of Luther’s sermon on John 16:10, first published in 1538.218 He provided two kinds of commentary with this excerpt. First, at three points he added in the margins the word “Nota.” Thus, he called the reader’s attention to three particularly trenchant phrases in Luther. First, the “Sophists” dreamt that grace “is a infused thing in our hearts.” when in fact, according to Luther, grace is “completely outside and over us.”219 Second, the “going to the Father” had to do with Christ’s suffering, resurrection and ascension, which one did not see or feel but only received by faith. In this way alone Christ himself was our righteousness.220 Finally, he noted Luther’s comments on the auditory nature of Christian righteousness. “But here I hear that Christ says my righteousness consists of this: that he made a way to the Father and ascended into heaven. Right there it is placed so that the devil has to leave it there for me. For he will neither make Christ into a sinner nor attack or rebuke his righteousness.”221 216 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, D ivv : “Summa, der Satan wolt vns gerne wider in die vnnötigen vnd vnzelichen quaestiones füren, das für dieser zeit Scholastica Theologia hies/ da man viel tausent fragen hat auffgebracht/ da doch nicht ein buchstabe in der schrifft von geschrieben stehet/ die man auch nicht mengen sol vnter die heilige schrifft/ wie ich zu Erfort im Augustiner Closter Lutheri handschrifft auff den Occam geschrieben gesehen habe/ das er spricht/ Huiusmodi feces humanorum phantasmatum/ sol man nicht vnter die schrifft mengen.” 217 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, E iiir: “Es mag der vernunfft so seltzam oder nerrisch deuchten/ als es jmmermer kan/ dahin ists in Christo mit der menschlichen nature kommen/ das sie nu almechtig heist vnd ist/ Es mag sich die Diuisio aus der Dialectica vnd Arithmetica dran versuchen was sie kan/ zehen jare werden viel newe zeitung bringen/ sonderlich vom Osiandro.” 218 WA 46: 43, 38 – ​45, 24. 219 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, E ivv (= WA 46: 44, 26 – ​27): Sophists imagined grace “sey ein eingegossen ding in vnserm hertzen … [when it was in truth] gar ausser vnd vber vns.” 220 Ibid (= WA 46: 44, 27 – ​31). Otto also capitalized the words “ER SELBS” [he himself]. 221 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, F ir (= WA 46: 45, 11–​15): “Aber hie höre ich/ das Christus sagt/ das meine Gerechiigkeit [sic!] sey die das er einen gang zum Vater gethan vnd ghen Himel gefaren/ daselbs ist/ sie hin gesetzt/ das sie mir der Teuffel wol mus bleiben lassen/ denn er wird Christum nicht zu einem sunder machen/ noch seine Gerechtigkeit straffen oder tadeln.”

290

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Otto had three reasons for quoting this particular text. On the one hand, despite all of Osiander’s quotations from Luther’s commentaries on John, he completely omitted any reference to this text, despite the fact that this particular passage from John’s gospel figured in the debate. On the other hand, the printed version of the sermon offered a particularly clear example of Luther rejecting the very thing Osiander wanted to discuss: the indwelling of Christ’s righteousness. Of course, Otto linked Luther’s rejection of the medieval infusion of grace to Osiander’s doctrine of the infusion of Christ’s divine righteousness. A third reason for citing this text came to light in Otto’s postscript. One of the arguments he had offered against Osiander’s position revolved around the fact that Christ’s suffering and death (and not just his divine righteousness) sufficed for the sinners’ righteousness before God, precisely because it remained outside of them. In my opinion, this is clearly and plainly enough said, that Christ’s suffering and death are our righteousness – not the essential righteousness of Christ – and that this righteousness is raised and set completely outside and over us at the right hand of the Father, where alone that precious faith can reach and grasp this Christ, our Righteousness. There our righteousness is sure, pure, certain, perfect, strong, and holy enough. This we know with certainty, even though we do not see it now. May He give us his Holy Spirit so that we hold fast to this here. In this way we are well preserved. Amen. And also bring Osiander again to this [faith]. AMEN222

Otto did not discuss Luther’s authority (he assumed it), nor did he criticize Osiander’s use of Luther (although some of the citations from the other volume criticized those who sought after novelty in theology). However, he did offer another way of approaching Luther, using longer sections of the reformer’s works and pointing out to the reader where and how Luther spoke to the present situation.223 222 Otto, Wider die Ursachen, F iv : “Dis ist/ meine ich/ klar vnd deudlich gnug gered/ das das leiden vnd sterben Christi/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey/ vnd nicht Christi wesentliche gerechtigkeit/ vnd nur gar ausser vnd vber vns zur rechten hand des Vaters/ durch die Himelfart erhaben vnd gesatzt/ da alleine der liebe Glaube hin reichen vnd solchen Christum vnser Gerechtigkeit fassen kan/ da ist vnsere gerechtigkeit/ sicher/ rein/ gewis/ volkomen/ starck/ vnd heilig genug/ Das wissen wir gewis/ ob wers schon nicht sehen/ Er gebe vns seinen heiligen Geist/ das wir hie feste halten/ so sind wir wol erhalten/ Amen/ vnd bringe auch Osiandrum wider herzu/ AMEN” 223 At the end of his arguments against Osiander, right before the excerpt from Luther, Otto criticized Osiander’s understanding of the union of Christ’s two natures (earlier invoking the shade of Oecolampadius as a companion for the Prussian professor). Here, he expressed more clearly Luther’s authority as that of a prophet, predicting such heresy as Osiander’s: “Aber Lutherus hats wol gesagt/ wenn sie dahin komen werden/ wie Gott vnd mensch können eine person sein/ da sollen sie sich erst recht zuschwermen/ denn Christus ist eine person/ wo man sie angreifft vnd ansihet/ da ist eitel ergernis vnd torheit/ wer nicht sinne vnd vernunfft zuschleust/ seinem Creuttz/ Göttliche Krafft vnd Götliche weisheit/ wie S. Paulus sagt/ sonst ists alles verloren.” In fact, the drumbeat of Otto’s criticism was Osiander’s philosophical (Otto used the terms arithmetic and dialectic) approach to justification by faith.

E. Longer Texts Join the Chorus

291

E. Longer Texts Join the Chorus I. The Smalcald Articles The controversies between Philip Melanchthon and Gnesio-Lutherans provided one reason for the preservation and publication of the Smalcald Articles in the 1550s and beyond. To be sure, the continued significance of this work and its appearance in corpora doctrina that competed with Melanchthon’s own Corpus doctrinae of 1559 underscored its anti-Philippist character. So, too, did a singular comment of the editors of the 1553 edition appended to Melanchthon’s exceptional signing of the Smalcald Articles.224 However, the editors of this printing, Johannes Aurifaber and Johannes Stoltz, who were court preachers for Duke John Frederick in Weimar, declared another purpose for this publication quite clearly in the first sentence of their preface. “In the last two years, Satan raised up through Andreas Osiander a frightening error and new doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith contrary to the common, Apostolic teaching of our churches.” In fact, almost the entire preface was aimed at Osiander, who had recently died.225 “Rabbi” Osiander was spewing forth poison against the “Seed of the Woman.” He confessed Christ as true God and true human being and as savior “according to the letter,” when in fact he robbed souls of the comfort of both Christ and his righteousness. On the question of Christology, they described his errors by tying them to justification. Osiander believed that our righteousness with which we stand before God was not that of Christ’s 224 A/S 01 (1553): Johannes Aurifaber and Johannes Stoltz, eds., Artikel der Euangelischen Lere/ so da hetten sollen auffs Concilium uberantwort werden/ wo es sein würde/ Vnd vom gewalt des Bapsts/ vnd seiner Bischoffe/ was in dem allen/ vnd wie etwas zugeben/ oder nicht/ zuuor also nie aussgangen. Gestellet auff dem Tage zu Schmalkalden. Anno. 1537. Mit vnterschreibung vieler Lande vnd Stedte Theologen. Jtzt alles aus vrsachen/ in der Vorrede vermeldet/ aus Fürstlichem befehl zu Weymar/ durch die Hoffprediger daselbst in druck geben. M. D. Liij. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1553], f ivr. “O quantum mutatus ab illo, Zuuor hat er gesagt/ So der Bapst das Euangelium geliesse/ das mans allenthalben frey offentlich leren vnd predigen dürffte/ solte man ihm seinen primat vber die Bischoue/ die er sonst one das vnter sich hat/ nachgeben/ vnd das Iure humano. Nu [i.e., in the dispute over Adiaphora] aber gibt man dem Bapst den primat nicht alleine vber die Bischoue/ so er sonst hat/ sondern auch vber die vnsere/ ia Christi Kirche/ die tzuuor den Antichrist verdammet/ verbannet/ vnd sich gentzlich von ihm abgesondert haben. Desgleichen gibt man auch seinen Bischoffen das Regiment vber die Kirchen Christi/ so doch der Bapst mit seinen Vuolffen den Bischofeen/ das heilige Euangelium itzt grewlicher/ denn ihe tzuuor geschehen/ verfluchet/ lestert/ verbannet vnd wider die Kirche Christi vnd vns arme Christen auffs grewlichste/ wie ein rechter Beerwolff/ ia wie der leidige Teuffel selbst/ beide mit fewr vnd schwerdt/ vnd wie er nur immer kan vnd vermag/ wütet vnnd tobet. Das heist/ mein ich/ nach der newen Christen sprach/ gemess gehandelt.” 225 The preface was dated Laetare Sunday, 1552, which would be 27 March. However, the publication date of 1553 and the fact that Osiander’s death was mentioned point to a typographical error. It is more likely written 12 March 1553. For this quote, see Artikel, A iir: “Es hat der Sathan innerhalb zweien jaren/ ein erschrecklichen irthum vnd newe Lehr/ von der gerechtigkeit des Glaubens wider die gemeine vnd Apostolische lehr/ so in vnsern Kirchen … durch Andream Osiandrum … erreget.”

292

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

fulfilling and satisfying of the law and winning for us forgiveness and redemption from God’s wrath through his blood. Instead, Osiander thought it was the eternal, essential righteousness of Christ’s divinity that came to us by the indwelling of Christ in us through faith and the outpouring of that very divine righteousness. Thus, Christ cannot be our righteousness according to his human nature but only according to his divine nature. The human nature, however, is a cause for our ability to participate in the divine nature in Christ, because for this reason he united himself with our human nature, in order that we would participate in his divine life, essence, nature and righteousness.226

After describing in no uncertain terms how terrible Osiander’s teachings were for the church, the editors then expressed their wish for a meeting of theologians to reject this heresy, a call also made by Melanchthon regarding the Lord’s Supper controversies of the 1550s. They called to mind the work of Constantine in calling the council of Nicea and compared John Frederick favorably to him. In lieu of a new synod of theologians, the editors instead pointed first to a refutation written jointly by theologians from ducal Saxony and from the principality of Coburg227 and then to the meeting in Smalcald in 1537, when the theologians subscribed to Luther’s Articles, an occasion recalled by the imprisoned duke himself. While still in Your imprisonment, Your Princely Grace recalled that there in Smalcald in 1537 a great number of theologians (associated with the estates of the Augsburg Confession) diligently thought through and deliberated the points of conflict in our religion against the Pope and councils. From this, articles of our Christian teaching were proposed by the blessed Doctor Martin Luther and were subscribed to, approved and endorsed by all with his own hand – they were even accepted by Osiander himself. And for this reason, [His Princely Grace] demanded a copy of the article on justification, whether with it Osiander’s error and boast (as if he had thirty years ago and ever since not taught any differently at all than he did now) could be taken on and overthrown. And H[is] P[rincely] G[race] also sent this very copy to Prussia.228 226 Artikel, A iiv f.: “Derwegen Christus nicht auch nach seiner Menschlichen natur/ sondern allein nach seiner Göttlichen natur könne vnser gerechtikeit sein/ Die Menschliche natur aber sey ein vrsach/ das wir der Göttlichen natur in Christo mügen teilhafftig werden/ denn darumb hat er sich mit vnser Menscheit vereiniget/ auff das wir widerumb seines Göttlichen Lebens/ wesens/ natur/ vnd gerechtigkeit teilhafftig würden.” 227 See M/Am 01 (1552): Nicholas von Amsdorf, Confutatio, das ist, Widerlegung aus heiliger Schrifft der jrthumen Andreae Osiandri Von dem Articul der Rechtfertigung and Vorlegung der fürnemsten Stück, in dem gifftigen Buch Osiandri, Von der Rechtfertigung in: Censurae der fürstlichen Sechsischen Theologen zu Weymar und Koburg auff die Bekendtnis des Andreae Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens, edited by Justus Menius, Victor Strigel, Dietrich Schnepff (Erfurt: Stürmer, 1552). The preface by Menius is dated 1 August 1552. This includes Menius’s Censurae: Das ist Erkendtnis and von Amsdorf ’s Confutatio, which were subscribed to by von Amsdorf, Jonas, Schnepf, Maximillian Mörlin, Menius, Johann Graius of Weimar, Strigel, Johannes Stoltz, Johannes Aurifaber, Johannes Birnstil (preacher in Coburg), Johannes Fefellius (also a preacher in Coburg). See chapter 2. 228 Preface, B ir: “Es haben sich auch ihr F. G. noch in ihrer hafftung erinnert/ das zu Schmalkalden Anno 1537 da durch eine grosse anzal der Theologen/ vnd von den Stenden der Augs-

E. Longer Texts Join the Chorus

293

They recognized that Osiander had died but that his followers were now insisting that his teaching did not differ from Luther’s and that Osiander had always held this doctrine. The Smalcald Articles, signed by Osiander, proved the contrary, despite the fact that in one of his tracts Osiander referred to a sermon he had preached at Smalcald in 1537.229 Osiander either signed the Smalcald Articles disingenuously or later preached disingenuously. In any case, he was not to be trusted, especially since this very sermon, according to Justus Menius, had raised questions among the theologians assembled there – questions that were set aside on the basis of his subscription to not only the Smalcald Articles but also (as appended in The Book of Concord to the end of the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope) to the Augsburg Confession and Apology. The editors were sure that Osiander had kept his teachings a secret until he arrived in Königsberg. “Osiander always stayed behind the mountains with his novel little discovery and cooked up the soup until he found a hollow and nest in Prussia, where he prepared and ladled out this beautiful meal.”230 The real opponent was thus not simply the deceased Osiander but his disciples, who were busily printing his earlier sermons and claiming that he had always taught that for which he was now being attacked. To be sure, the editors also showed how the purgischen Confession verwand/ fleissig bedacht/ vnd beradschlagt/ worauff in vnser Religion wider den Baptst vnd Concilian/ entlich zu beruhen sein wolte/ vnd darauff Artikel vnser Christlichen lehr/ von Doctore Martino Luthero seligen gestellet/ von allen mit eines jeden eigener hand vnterschrieben vnd approbirt/ auch von Osiandro selbs angenomen/ vnd gewilliget were worden/ vnd derwegen des Artikels/ von der Justification ein abschrifft gefordert/ ob damit Osiandro sein irthum vnd rhum/ als hette er dermassen/ wie jtzt/ dreyssig jar für vnd für/ vnd nicht anders geleret/ könte genomen vnd vmbgestossen werden/ vnd haben S. F. G. denselben auch in Preussen mit schicken lassen.” 229 The reference is to Beweisung: Das ich nun vber die dreisig jar/ alweg einerley Lehr/ von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens/ gehalten/ vnd gelehret hab/ nemlich/ das … Jhesus Christus, … warer Gott vnd Mensch/ nach seiner Götlichen Natur/ vnser/ der rechtgleubigen Gerechtigkeit sey / Andreas Osiander (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 1552). C iiiv f.: 1535 [= 1537] Bundestag zu Schmalkaln. There he preached on 1 John 4 in the presence of Luther, Melanchthon, Bugen­hagen, Brenz, Bucer and others, and no one complained. In the same writing, Osiander described a meeting in Augsburg, 1530, where he strengthened a weak Melanchthon, and proved to him that Jeremiah 23 (the LORD our righteousness) meant we receive Christ’s divine righteousness (Rhegius and Brenz were also there). He argued that Rhegius (then preacher in Augsburg) helped him prove it and taught the same thing in his Dialogue with his wife (on p. 103). Osiander was called back to Nuremberg before the CA was handed over; otherwise he might have helped to make the CA clearer. 230 Preface, B iiir: “Osiander hat alweg hinterm berge mit seinem newen fündlein gehalten/ vnd an dem brey gekochet/ biß er ein loch und nest in Preussen gefunden/ dahin er dis schöne essen hat anrichten vnd ausschütten mögen.” A reference here was to a recently published sermon on the twelfth Sunday after Trinity, but it was more likely one for the sixteenth Sunday: Ein Sermon auss dem 6. capit. Matthei/ vber das heilige Vater vnser/ des Ehrwirdigen Achtparn herrn/ Andreae Osiandri seligen/ die er die letzte gethan/ den 2. Octobris jm 1552. jar/ auff vieler fromen Christen der Altenstadt Königsperg begern/ jnen zu einem glückseligen Newen Jar/ aufgeben. Psalm 50. Ruff mich an in der not/ So wil ich dich erretten/ So solt, du mich preisen. (Königsberg: Lufft, 1552). The title makes it clear that it was published close to the end of the year.

294

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

articles corrected the errors of Antinomians, Sacramentarians, Adiaphorists and Interimists, but from the very testimony of Duke John Frederick they saw them aimed most directly at Osiander.231 II. Three Sermons of “Martin Luther” (aka Georg Buchholzer) At nearly the same time as the new edition of the Smalcald Articles appeared, three sermons rolled off the presses of Johann Eichorn in Frankfurt an der Oder. “Now New and Never before Printed,” the title page boasted.232 As a later printing made clear, these represented the work of Georg Buchholzer, the provost in Berlin.233 The first was delivered Easter Monday Morning, 2 April 1526 (and not 1525, as Buchholzer imagined, when Luther was on his way to Eisleben), the second on that evening, and the third the next morning (3 April). The subtitle revealed this publication’s intent: “In Which One Can Sense What a Glorious, Prophetic Spirit Was in That Man, That He Saw Long before As Something That Would Soon Occur: What Ungodly Thing Is Now Taught by Andreas Osiander.” Compared to the manuscript notes of Rörer, Buchholzer had not simply reworked the sermons but created new ones, so that the editor of the WA even questioned their place in the edition of Luther’s works. Nevertheless, there were general points of similarity. Thus, Buchholzer did not simply make up the text but radically expanded notes that he had before him. For our purposes, however, the sermons offer an opportunity to see how a later controversy directly shaped the way Luther was remembered and used. What Buchholzer created was not so much new sermons as a new, living Luther, who could speak directly to a new threat coming from within the Evangelical camp. The first sermon expanded Luther’s exposition of Genesis 3:16. It ran through the entire Old Testament, showing that the first promise of a savior was repeated throughout Scripture. Buchholzer concluded with the familiar patristic image of Christ’s humanity as the bait covering the hook of Christ’s divinity that finally caught the devil, and he added a warning against the heretics Nestorius and

231 Preface, C ir: “Vnd ist je vnleugbar/ das sie mit den Messbischoffen colludirt haben/ jre jurisdiction vnd Ceremonien zum theil gewilliget/ vnd so viel an jhnen die Kirchen vnd Ordnung von Luthero gepflantzet vnd gestifftet/ mit jrem weichen turbirt vnd dem Antichrist die thür zum schaffstall widerumb geöffnet (welchs viel Kirchen in Oberland sind gewar worden vnd klagen) Den Hauptartickel/ das wir allein durch den Glauben gerecht werden/ nicht mehr streiten wollen/ wie auch noch Doctor Georg Maior/ diesen Heidnischen/ Jüdischen/ Papistischen artickel/ das die werck dermassen zur seligkeit nötig sein/ das es vnmügelich sey/ one gute werck selig zuwerden … wider Lutherum/ des schüler er sich doch rhümet ….” 232 Buc 01 (1552): Drei Sermon D. Martini Lutheri, darin man spüren kan wie ein herlicher Prophetischer Geist in dem manne gewesen ist, das er das, was itzt vngötlich vom Andrea Osiandro geleret wird lengst zuuor als würd es bald geschehen gesehen hat. Itzt new vnd zuuor niemal gedruckt (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichorn, 1552). 233 See WA 20: 321– ​23 and the introduction of Paul Pietsch from 1898.

E. Longer Texts Join the Chorus

295

Eutyches.234 There was no mention of these particular heretics in Rörer’s notes. Instead, we read there simply “you have in this text that Christ is a human being and God, has a virgin mother, is conceived by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, both the humanity and divinity are so ordered that he may conquer etc.”235 In light of the Osiandrian controversy, where the Königsberg professor was often accused of heretically dividing Christ’s humanity and divinity, this addition was extremely helpful for the prosecuting the case against Osiander and shifted Luther’s remarks from general comments about how Satan is defeated through Christ’s resurrection to a discourse on the two natures of Christ. The second sermon examined God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22. There Rörer’s notes were even sparser, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the role Buchholzer played in shaping Luther’s remarks to his own situation. Nevertheless, if it is true (as we saw above) that Luther only mentioned the Christological controversies in passing, then comments about Nestorius bear Buchholzer’s stamp. And we Christians must see to it, as we also mentioned today in the morning and now will say even more about it, that we do not divide the person of Christ nor mix the two natures (the divine and human substance) into one nature or substance. Instead, here we must distinguish the nature or essence and keep the persons [sic!] united …. Nestorius, a patriarch or bishop in the imperial city of Constantinople … publicly taught that God or Jesus Christ God’s Son, was not born of the Virgin Mary, did not die or was not raised again …. That means to make out of Christ two persons … which is the same as [teaching] that God did not become a human being, did not die and was not raised. And this is patently against the Scripture that says (John 1[:14]) “THE WORD BECAME flesh.”236

The other heretic, Eutyches, … also taught publicly that the human being Jesus Christ, born of Mary, is not the Creator of heaven and earth, whom one should worship. This heretic again divided the person of Christ and made two persons out of one.237

234 WA 20: 335, 26 – ​29. Christ came, “nicht in zweien personen, wie beide ketzer Nestorius und Eutiches genarret haben, sonder ist nur ein person, wie ein mensch, mit leib und seel, nur eine person ist.” 235 WA 20: 327, 3 – ​5. “Habes in hoc textu, quod Christus sit verus homo, deus, mater virgo, conceptus ex spiritu sancto. Et tamen et humanitate et deitate da hin geordenet, ut vinceret &c.” 236 WA 20: 343, 35 – ​344, 19: “Vnd wir Christen müssen vns wol fürsehen wie wir auch heutte vor mittage gesaget haben/ vnd ietzund noch mehr dauon sagen wollen/ das wir die person Christi nicht trennen/ noch die zwo naturn/ als das Götlich vnd menschlich wesen/ nicht in ein natur oder wesen mengen/ Sondern die natur oder das wesen/ hie vnderscheiden/ vnd die personen einig behalten. … Nestor ein Patriarch oder Bischoff in der keiserlichen stadt Constantinopel/ … offentlich gelerhet hat/ Gott oder Jesus Christus Gottes Son/ sey nicht geborn aus Marien der junckfrawen/ gestorben/ vnd aufferstanden. … Das heist gemacht aus Christo zwo personen … Welchs eben so vil ist/ als das Gott nicht ist Mensche worden/ gestorben vnd aufferstanden. Vnd ist öffentlich wieder die schrifft/ die do saget/ Joann. 1. DAS WORT IST fleisch worden.” 237 WA 20: 344, 30 – ​36: “Der ander ketzer Eutyches/ … lerete auch offentlich/ das der Mensche Jesus Christus von Marien geborn/ ist nicht der Schepfer himels vnd der erden/ den man anbetten sol. Dieser ketzer trennet abermals die person Christi/ vnd macht aus einer person zwo personen.” In what followed, Luther (Buchholzer) clarified that Eutyches made a “Sonder-

296

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

After summarizing the two heresies, Buchholzer’s Luther concluded: We do not speak of the plain human being, separate from, outside of and without God. Instead we speak of the human being or of the person who is at the same time God and human being in one person, undivided and inseparable. That is, we speak de Deo incarnato [of God incarnate], concerning whom I must therefore not speak in abstracto or absolute, as the ancients called it, but in concreto. Christ, God and Mary’s Son is the creator of the heavens and the earth.238

To be sure, Luther used this language elsewhere to attack the “Sacramentarians” but never in a sermon. The very technical language, used in the Osiandrian controversy, betrayed Buchholzer’s hand. The third sermon Luther based upon Exodus 3:1 ff. Buchholzer took a single sentence from Luther’s sermon (that the story of the burning bush indicated that Christ was God and human being in one person in order to be victorious over death)239 and again transformed it into a discourse on the natures of Christ. When Luther said simply, “the bush is Christ,” Buchholzer wrote, “For this reason this fiery and burning bush is a figure of Christ,” and then expounded for several pages on the two natures of Christ. “Thus, also here in the person of Christ [as in a person with a body and soul] the divine and human nature (that is, God and human being in one person) must remain together undivided.”240 Again, it was not impossible for Luther in 1526 to have been particularly concerned with Christological issues, given the raging debate over the Lord’s Supper. However, the expansions also matched Osiander’s views, especially when Buchholzer’s Luther writes, “For some heretics and ravers … divide and separate the divinity from the humanity and say that the humanity of Christ alone suffered. This is false, because the humanity did not redeem us alone, but also the divinity, that is, the Son of God.”241 To prove his point, this Luther quoted Maxentius, Fulgentius, the council of Ephesus and John of Damascus – and all in Latin! Throughout this sermon, Buchholzer’s Luther returned to the allegory of the burning bush, but as with the other two Buchholzer managed to weave throughout person” out of Christ. It is far more confusing than what Luther wrote in Von den Konziliis und Kirchen (WA 50: 593 f.). 238 WA 20: 345, 8 –​12: “So reden wirs nicht von dem blossen und abgesonderten menschen von, ausser und one Gott, Sonder reden von dem Menschen/ oder von der person/ die zu gleich Gott vnd Mensche ist/ in einer person/ vngesondert vnd vnzutrennet/ Nemlich de Deo incarnato, von dem ich nicht in abstracto oder absolute/ wie es die alten genant/ sondern in concreto also sagen mus: Christus Gottes vnd Marien Son/ ist schepfer himels vnd der erden.” 239 WA 20: 355, 5 – ​8. 240 WA 20: 358, 30 – ​32: “Also auch hie in der person Christi/ [as in a person with body and soul] mus die göttliche vnd menschliche natur/ das ist/ gott vnd Mensch in einer person/ zusamen bleiben vnzertrennet.” 241 WA 20: 359, 7 –1 ​ 1: “Denn etzliche Ketzer vnd Schwermer/ … trennen vnd scheiden die Gottheit von der Menscheit/ vnd sagen/ Die Menscheit Christi habe alleine gelitten/ das ist falsch/ Denn die Menscheit hat nicht alleine vns erlöset/ sonder auch die gottheit/ das ist gottes Son.”

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

297

snatches of the very orthodoxy he saw threatened by Osiander’s teaching. Thus, while not contradicting what Luther said elsewhere (except perhaps that Luther could express better the differences between Nestorius and Eutyches), Buchholzer brought a new Luther to life, capable of speaking directly from the pulpit to this issue. To be sure, Rörer’s notes on the sermons prove that Luther mentioned the Christological controversies; that he spoke with orthodox authority against Osiander was most likely the brilliant creation of Buchholzer, who presumed to know only too well what Luther would have said had he lived long enough to say it.

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray Melanchthon’s participation in the “Luther” side to the Osiandrian controversy is in some ways hard to measure. As in his controversy with the “Magdeburg Consistory” over adiaphora, Melanchthon preferred in the first instance to allow others to do the talking. In this case, the publications by Ziegler and Pollicarius most likely occurred with his approval, and the fact that he sent Roting’s publication to Brettschneider also indicated some approval for that document. Yet, Osiander posed a real theological dilemma for Melanchthon and was, at very least, a burr under his saddle, as the over 300 references to him in Melanchthon’s correspondence indicate. I. Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri Nearly from the outset of the controversy, Osiander suspected that he was in fact doing battle with Melanchthon. In his tract from early 1551, Osiander had attacked the John commentary of the by then deceased Caspar Cruciger, Sr. and intimated that the commentary might actually be Melanchthon’s. In any case, Melanchthon needed either to defend Cruciger or repudiate him. Then, Osiander included favorable excerpts from Melanchthon’s letter in his tract from June of 1551. In his major work on Christ as mediator, it was clear that Melanchthon had become the direct target of attacks. As we shall see in chapter 7, Melanchthon defended himself to Ambrose Moibanus, a preacher in Breslau, penning in November/December 1551 a memorandum that he then edited and expanded into an open letter by 1 January 1552 and that was published along with similar, but sharper, letters by other Wittenberg professors (Bugenhagen and Förster).242 At the end of that tract, he included the 242 Mel

02 (1552). See MBW 6268 (CR 8: 608 –​12), the memorandum to Moibanus and MBW 6294 (CR 7: 892 – ​902; Bds. 355 – ​48; MSA 6: 452 – ​61), the actual Antwort, and especially the comments in MBW Regesten 7: 245 f. There is no doubt that (contra GA 10) Melanchthon intended to publish this material as an answer to Osiander. For other analyses of Melanchthon’s tract and Osiander’s response, see Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 245 – ​58; Anna Briskina, ­Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit

298

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

famous conversation over justification between himself and Luther from 1536, a conversation to which Melanchthon and, even earlier, Staphylus had made reference.243 The publication itself, which has not been published as an entire work since the sixteenth century, showed Melanchthon at his diplomatic best (but still his sharpest). MSA 6 omits the end of Melanchthon’s letter, a postscript in Latin (perhaps from a letter to Paul Eber when he sent him the manuscript) in which he explained exactly why he included the quote from Luther. This shredding of Melanchthon’s own thoughts by modern editors shows how important it is to pay attention to Melanchthon’s own work. Melanchthon stated that because Osiander cited Luther’s words, readers knew that some places he spoke “de effectione” [i.e., about the cause, namely, grace] and other places “de consolatione” [i.e., about the effect, namely, the gift].244 He then simply suggested that people take a look at Luther’s commentaries on Psalm 51, Psalm 130, and the “argumentum” to Psalm 32. He also referred to the sermons on John 16 and the propositions against the Antinomians.245 Here, again, Melanchthon employed a very different manner of citing Luther from Osiander: not as a treasure chest of pithy quotes but as a theologian who made entire arguments and thus deserved to be read thoroughly. Melanchthon’s final sentence, however, demonstrated most clearly the contextual nature of Melanchthon’s reading of Luther. He decided to publish Luther’s written answers to some of his questions, Melanchthon added. However, he included for the reader a guide to the historical reading of texts. He did not assume that the questions posed and Luther’s answers applied directly to the current controversy but rather that one had first to take into consideration the context in which they arose and first then apply them to the present controversy. This phrase, “tunc tantum … tamen,” contained within it a highly sophisticated approach to Luther and his authority unlike any other writing in this controversy. It showed both a respect for the past and, using the subjunctive, a sense of how Luther might understand the present. “And sixteen years ago I posed these questions to him and asked expressly that he write the responses with his own hand. Although at the time there was then only [tunc tantum] the struggle with the Papists, nevertheless [tamen] from these responses can be gleaned what Luther would have thought.”246 aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2006), 192 – ​242; Olii-Pekka Vainio, Justfication and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 81– ​91 and 95 –​107. The latter two works do not mention Luther’s Disputatio, appended to Melanchthon’s Antwort. 243 WA Br 12: 189 – ​95. 244 CR 7: 900. The effectio was Cicero’s word for the efficient cause of a thing. See below for Osiander’s mistranslation. 245 That is WA 402: 313 – ​470; 403: 335 – ​376; WA 38: 28, 12 – ​30; WA 46: 1–​111; WA 50: 461– ​77. 246 CR 7: 900, quoting Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen. Philip: Melanth: (Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552): “Et ante annos sedecim ego

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

299

The actual text that Melanchthon published consisted of written answers to some questions about justification that Melanchthon had put to Luther in 1536.247 The meeting took place at Bugenhagen’s house, and the questions arose in connection with negotiations with the French and the English delegations.248 However, they could also have been instigated by the Cordatus Controversy and a recent disputation on justification held on 10 October 1536.249 To begin with, Melanchthon posed seven questions to Luther (not numbered in the printed version) dealing with imputation, by mercy alone, the necessity of works, justification by faith and works, the necessity of a two-fold righteousness before God (by faith and works), justification gratis or by virtues given to believers, and finally the role of merit. Luther responded to all of them together by arguing that only justification by mercy alone could oppose wrath, death and sin and absorb them all. The believer was reputed (reputatio) to be righteous, which (unlike works of righteousness) could oppose these enemies of the Christian. Melanchthon then asked about the reborn Paul. On what basis was he accepted? To this Luther replied, “By no other thing than by that rebirth through faith.”250 Luther rejected the notion of a partial righteousness of faith and a partial righteousness of works, by stating that Paul’s works were righteous, “on account of the righteous Paul.”251 On the question of the necessity of works, Luther distinguished between a legal necessity and a “gratuitous necessity or a necessity of consequence or immutability.”252 He used as an example the sun shining not “from the law” but “by nature or an immutable … will, because it was created to shine.”253 To Paul’s ipse ei quaestiones proposui, ac petiui, ut diserte sua manu adscriberet responsiones. Etsi autem tunc tantum erat certamen cum Papistis, tamen ex illis responsionibus intelligi potest, quid senserit Lutherus.” 247 See Timothy J. Wengert, “Melanchthon and Luther/Luther and Melanchthon,” LutherJahrbuch 66 (1999): 68 – ​70, now in: idem, Philip Melanchthon, Speaker of the Reformation: Wittenberg’s Other Reformer (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010), essay X; Martin Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther: Studien zur Gestalt der Rechtfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537 (Witten: Luther Verlag, 1965), 110 – ​65; and Rolf Schäfer, “Melanchthons Hermeneutik im Römerbriefkommentar von 1532,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 60 (1963): 216 – ​35. 248 See Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthons ökumenischer Einsatz in Frankreich,” in: Günter Frank and Kees Meerhoff, eds., Melanchthon und Europa, vol. 2: Westeuropa (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2002), 195 – ​210; and John Schofield, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 55 –​147. 249 See WA 391: 87 –​126. 250 WA Br 12: 192, 40. 251 WA Br 12: 192, 45: “propter Paulum iustum.” 252 WA Br 12: 192, 50 – ​51: “necessitas gratuita seu consequentiae seu immutabilitatis.” He used similar language in his debate with Erasmus in 1525. 253 WA Br 12: 192, 52 – ​53: “ex natura seu voluntate … immutabili, quia sic creatus est vt luceret.” Because Melanchthon slightly rearranged the material, he added in l. 55 the words, “Caeterum cum dicis, ‘non faciens non placet,’ est implicite dictum [WA: Hoc implicat].” It was just this kind of language in Luther that Musculus would later transform into the “free and merry spirit” of article six of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

300

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

own combining of believing and doing, Luther again invoked this same kind of necessity. A discussion of an attack on the sola fide from Jacobo Sadoleto’s commentary on Romans from 1535 then ensued.254 In Luther’s view, such theologians only imagined they knew about faith but like prophets of Baal were confused. “For so God was by necessity and yet apart from law.”255 To the question of whether one began with faith and then added works, Luther exploded. “Because the person is righteous, that one is righteous perpetually.”256 Works streamed forth from faith and were pleasing on account of faith, not the other way around. There was no partial cause for justification in works because “faith is efficacious or it is not faith.”257 On the question of whether Augustine’s view of faith only excluded prior works, Luther seemed unconcerned (“It may or may not be so”) and proceeded to cite Augustine (actually Bernard of Clairveaux) to prove that the church father agreed with the Wittenbergers.258 The text ended with a more thorough discussion of Sadoleto and the question of whether works were necessary for salvation. Luther made passing reference to a joke in which the fellow about to be hanged was happy to go along with the crowd to the execution.259 Luther then speculated whether Sadoleto’s position did not rest upon an understanding of faith as a virtue commanded by the law. “Here you see that Sadoleto understands nothing.”260 On the contrary, Luther described faith as an effect of God’s promise or as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith was necessary for doing the law but was not attained through law or works. A new person did new works; new works did not make the person new. Works might adorn the person, but they were not the cause of justification. The difference in works among people was no different than the light from different heavenly bodies. Just because Saturn did not shine as brightly as the sun or moon did not mean that God loved it less. So believers were new creatures, new trees, so that “legal phrases” did not pertain to them.261 The sun shines de facto; trees bear fruit de facto; three plus seven is ten de facto.262 Thus light or fruit bearing was not conditional or hypothetical. Luther concluded, “Only conditionally and hypothetically can you understand things this way: if the sun is there, then it ought to shine; if you see that a faithful person [WA Br: faith] is

254 A

similar discussion took place at the disputation “de justificatione” on 10 October 1536. See WA 391: 95, 26 & 96, 15. However, Luther’s answer pointed out the weakness of their understanding of original sin, something not touched on here. 255 WA Br 12: 192, 64 – ​65: “Sic enim Deus necessario fuit et tamen sine lege.” 256 WA Br 12: 192, 68 with reading from note “u”: “Quia persona iusta est, iusta est perpetuo.” 257 WA Br 12: 193, 85 – ​86: “fides est efficax vel non est fides.” 258 WA Br 12: 193, 90: “Sit hoc vel non.” He also cited Psalm 129: 4 and 142:2. 259 WA Br 12: 193, 99 with WA TR 6: 152, 20 – ​21. 260 WA Br 12: 193, 105: “Hic vides Sadoletum nihil intelligere.” 261 WA Br 12: 194, 120. 262 Cf. Augustine, De libero arbitrio II, 8, 21 [MPL 32: 1252].

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

301

there, it ought to be that you work.”263 But then he hastened to add that this was only said “against a counterfeit sun and faith.”264 Concerning a real faith and a real sun it would be ridiculous. This close reading of this text may help clarify how Melanchthon thought this text applied to the later controversy. An unpublished letter to Melanchthon from Friedrich Staphylus, written from [Breslau] and dated 1 August 1550, however, demonstrated that this written discussion with Luther was very important to Melanchthon and that a wide circle of Wittenberg-trained theologians knew about it.265 The passage reads: I believe you know that Matthias [Lauterwald] and Fabian [Stösser] were dismissed. It is going well with them. Although that Holy man without an “H” [i.e., Osiander instead of Hosiander or Heiligmann] prepared a trap for them, he fell into other [traps], unknown to other people. The disputation [was] concerning the phrase [Romans 4:3] “and it was reckoned to him unto righteousness.” When this disputation was argued between us, the Elder [=Duke Albrecht] saw much, which otherwise he had only heard about in my absence. The little disputation between you and Luther was helpful for me, which, having had it copied (as you know) you gave to me. I would greatly [like to] procure your original of Luther, however you could [do it]. [For] I desire his original copy of your disputation.266

The reference in Staphylus’s letter to imputation of Romans 4:3 and the passing reference to it in the discussion of 1536 provided the crucial context, to be sure, but the real contribution in Melanchthon’s eyes was both Luther’s refusal to talk speculatively about faith and his clear distinction between law and faith. These very things were missing from Osiander’s teaching about justification, and it was just these things that Melanchthon had emphasized in his introductory remarks to the tract itself. For Melanchthon, the first gift or fruit of faith was comfort, precisely what was missing from Osiander’s explanation. 263 WA Br 12: 194, 125. Perhaps this ought to read: “Si vis fidelis, esse oportet, vt opereris.” That is, “If you see [you are] a faithful person, it ought to be, that you work.” 264 WA Br 12: 194, 126: “contra fucatum solem et fidem.” 265  MBW 5866 (HAB, ehemals Landeshut, Ms. I, f. [now: 108 Noviss. 2o] 369r – 370v). 266 HAB: Wf 108 Noviss. 2o 369r: “Dismißos eße Mathiam [Lauterwald] & Fabinum [Stösser] credo te scire. Bene cum illis agitur. Quanquam vir ille sine aspiratione Sanctus laqueum eis pararat, sed alia inciderat, alijs ignota. [D]isputatio περὶ τοῦ ρήματος [Romans 4:3], καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῳ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Quae disputatio cum esset inter nos agitata vidit senex pleraque, quae me absente secus audierat. Profuit mihi tua & Lutheri disuptatiuncula [sic! =disputatiuncula], quam vt scis, mihi describendam conceßeras. Magno redimerem Lutheri αὐτόγραφον Tuum, si quoquo modo poteris, eius vestrae disputationis αὐτόγραφον desidero.” A letter from Melanchthon to Camerarius [in Leipzig], written 12 August [1550] gives more detail. See MBW 5871 (CR 7: 443): “… postea huc reversus accepi literas a Staphylo, qui scribit se et Osiandrum coram principe familiariter disputasse περι δικαιοσύνης, et de Pauli sententia. Tollit omnino imputationem ille novus hospes gentis Hyperboreae, protulit Staphylus pagellam Lutheri, in qua respondet quaestionibus a me diserte ipsi propositis ante annos quindecim, lecta ea Princeps acquievat et valde laetatus est. Alter confugit ad cresphygeton [from the Greek κρησφυγετον: refuge], Non esse autographon Lutheri. Nunc ille a me petit autographon. Sed haec et alia coram.”

302

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

II. Osiander Refutes the Answer Chapter 7 will show that Melanchthon’s Antwort was not his first publication in this controversy.267 Nevertheless, it was the first publication to elicit a response from Osiander. As usual, the Königsberger’s title left little to the imagination: Refutation of the Unfounded, Impertinent Answer of Philip Melanchthon Together with Doctor Johannes [Bugenhagen] Pomeranus’ Ill-Considered and Doctor Johannes Förster’s False and Slanderous Testimonials against My Confession, Published in Wittenberg. And Philip’s Answer along with the Other Testimonials Are Included Herein Word-for-Word. Rom. 3[:13 –​ 18]: “Their Mouths Are an Open Grave; with Their Tongues They Behave like Liars. Adder’s Poison Is under Their Lips. Their Mouths Are Full of Curses and Bitterness. Their Feet Are Quick to Shed Blood. In Their Ways Are Pure Destruction and Misery. And the Way of Peace They Know Not. There is No Fear of God before Their Eyes.”268

Osiander constructed the book as a conversation between himself and Melanchthon, taking each of Melanchthon’s sentences and providing lengthy commentary for each one. Melanchthon began with a reference to “many correct churches.” This gave Osiander opportunity to trot out Wittenberg’s doctoral oath with its references to the Augsburg Confession and the Creeds. However, the creeds and, especially, the Augsburg Confession were very unclear about justification, and Luther said nothing about it in his catechisms. As a result of this “short and dark” discussion,269 Osiander turned to Luther, in order to break Melanchthon’s death grip on the interpretation of the Augsburg Confession. He quoted Luther from several different places in the Church Postil, the Galatians lectures, and the sermons on 2 Peter.270 Naturally, each citation was very short. Several were already used in Etliche schöne Sprüche, one of them with the same gloss to the Latin word “formaliter” (Osiander: “that is, with correct, essential righteousness”).271 He also 267 Contra

GA 10: 561.

268 Widerlegung der ungegrundten, undiestlichen antwort Philippi Melanthonis sampt doctor Jo-

hannis Pomerani unbedachtem und doctor Johannis Försters falschem lestergezeugnus wider mein bekantnus, zu Witteberg ausgangen. Und ist Philippi antwort sambt der andern zeugnussen hierin von wort zu wort eingeleibt … Rom. 3: Ir schlund ist ein offen grab; mit iren zungen handeln sie trüglich. Otterngifft ist unter iren lippen; ir mund ist vol fluchens und pitrigkeit. Ir fues sind eilend, blut zu vergiessen; in iren wegen ist eitel unfal und hertzenlaid, und den weg des frides wissen sie nicht. Es ist kein forcht Gottes fur iren augen. Printed twice in Königsberg by Hans Weinreich in 1552, the first on 21 April (GA 10:571– ​670). 269 GA 10: 576, 6. 270 WA 101,1: 48, 16 – ​49, 6; WA 401: 336, 30 – ​31 and 401: 369, 24 – ​25; 14: 19, 3 – ​5 & 7; WA 172: 450, 29 – ​31. 271 GA 10: 577, 13 (cf. 9: 595, 6 – ​7): “das ist mit rechter, wesentlicher gerechtigkeit.” The entire sentence in Luther reads: “Quod reliquum in te peccati est, non imputatur, sed condonatur tibi propter Christum in quem credis, qui est perfecte iustus formaliter, cuius iustitia est tua, peccatum tuum est suum.” The German translation of 1539 (p. CXIXv) reads for the first quotation: “Das thuts/ das man höre die liebliche freundliche stim des Breutigams/ die predigt vom glauben/ die macht gerecht. Wie kompt aber das? Also kompts/ das die selbige stim den heiligen Geist mit sich bringet/ Der selbige ists/ der da gerecht machen kan/ vnd thuts auch.” The second quotation (p. CXXXIIIIr) reads, “Was denn weiter sünden an dir sind/ werden dir

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

303

referred the reader to the works of Urbanus Rhegius, Johannes Brenz and Peter Artopoeus.272 Melanchthon and his students, on the other hand, understood things differently, as Osiander claimed to have already proved in Wider den nachtraben. The trouble was that Melanchthon was also the author of the Augsburg Confession and could thus claim that it meant what he said it did. Thus, the Wittenbergers’ doctoral oath meant swearing to Melanchthon’s theology. Osiander thought that Melanchthon’s letter of 1 May 1551 proved how powerful Melanchthon was, since Mörlin quickly changed his tune about Christ’s indwelling the believer once it became known. Thus, when Philip appealed in the first lines of his Antwort to other churches, it was disingenuous, since they all were already in thrall to him.273 Proceeding with Melanchthon’s texts, Osiander did not excuse his attacks on Melanchthon but simply claimed that Melanchthon’s reference to Osiander’s “horrible attack” meant nothing other than “attack with the truth.”274 Osiander admitted that Melanchthon had not attacked him before this, but he insisted that privately the Wittenberg professor had been doing it for years. “But it more accords to his nature to pour out poison secretly and not let it be observed that he is an enemy until he has done the damage, than that he should act publicly in the light and go to the person in the right way and visibly.”275 To Melanchthon’s statement of adhering to Luther’s teaching, Osiander immediately provided his own hermeneutical principle for interpreting Luther’s works. Of course he followed Luther, he insisted, with this one reservation: That he [Luther] in some places speaks in such a way that, if one does not massively protect [readers] with his best and clearest statements, the ignorant and fleshly ones may incorrectly interpret and introduce a twisted meaning, as some – especially the Night Raven – have already dared to do.276 nicht zugerechnet/ sondern vmb des Christus willen/ an den du gleubest/ vergeben/ welcher volkomlich vnd formaliter gerecht ist/ welches gerechtigkeit deine ist/ vnd dein sunde seine.” For the second, Osiander had: “Christus ist volkommenlich gerecht formaliter (das ist mit rechter, wesentlicher gerechtigkeit), desselben gerechtigkeit ist dein.” 272  The latter was a pastor in Stettin and author of, among other things, a church postil (cf. John M. Frymire, The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 85 – ​89). In 1555 he was accused of sympathies for Osiander was removed from his position. See MBW 12: 91. 273 See GA 10: 580, 19, where Osiander wrote, “sie haben in alle weg ein gewunnen spil.” 274 GA 10: 582, 22 – ​23. 275 GA 10: 584, 7 –​10: “Aber es ist seiner natur gemeßer, also Heimlich das gift außgiessen und sich nicht ehe lassen mercken, das er feynd sey, biß er schaden hat gethon, dann das er offentlich am liecht solt handeln und dem man richtig unter augen gehn.” GA 10 claims that Melanchthon also contrasted his approach to Osiander’s in lectures from 1550 – ​51 on 1 & 2 Timothy and refers to CR 12: 399 – ​436. This, however, was added to those lectures by Peucer and seem to come from a later period. The lectures themselves (CR 15: 1295 –​1360) take issue with Osiander’s theology (e.g., 1311–​1316) but without naming names. 276 GA 10: 585, 22 – ​25: “… das er [Luther] an etlichen orten also redet, das es die unverstendigen und flaischlichen, wan man inen mitt seinen pesten und kleristen spruchen nicht

304

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

Osiander insisted that the true interpreter of Luther not take what Luther actually said and did literally. Luther was often unclear, so that the debate over Luther was about the essential meaning of theological terms not their effect and about using what Osiander viewed as Luther’s “best and clearest” statements. Precisely here Melanchthon and Osiander most seriously parted ways. Another side to the hermeneutical debate between Melanchthon and Osiander appeared when Osiander examined Melanchthon’s commendation of Osiander to God for his vilification (Schmähreden). Osiander replied that this was “a piece of Philippistic rhetoric and sophistry” (“ein stuck von der philippischen rhetoriken und sophisterey”), because Melanchthon had not proven that such attacks were false. “Thus, rhetoric attempts to make an elephant out of a flea, even though it will not have succeeded.”277 Osiander turned aside Melanchthon’s bitter disappointment with the words of Scripture that “God is our righteousness.” For defending this text, Osiander had been mercilessly attacked. With these niceties out of the way, Osiander then turned to the central issue of the fight, which he defined as whether God was the believer’s righteousness or not. Christ’s suffering, by which he reconciled us to God, was not our righteousness (otherwise we would be righteous before birth and without faith). Instead, it could only be Christ’s indwelling. Osiander then quoted Melanchthon’s interpretation of Romans 5 and John 1 and argued that Melanchthon agreed with him, as long as one interpreted God’s presence in this way: “And in this way he is present in us; in this way he himself is our life, righteousness and glory, [namely,] according to his divine essence etc.”278 Because they seemed to agree, Osiander admitted not being sure if Melanchthon was attacking others or simply imagined that Osiander would not agree with him. Of course, all depended on Osiander’s interpretive gloss, which revealed the hermeneutical principle: all depended upon the divine nature of Christ. Osiander then took up Melanchthon’s comments on Christian transformation and comfort coming through the Word of Christ, which, as will become clear in chapter 7, was crucial to his entire argument. Here Osiander felt he had discovered a contradiction in Melanchthon, who was now speaking not of the real indwelling of God but “of another, far lesser, creaturely life that the Son of God effects in us.”279 To explain himself, Osiander described the three types of indwelling (in all creatures, in the angels, in believers), where he made the third equal to the indwelling of the divine nature in the humanity of Christ himself. For gewaltigklich wehret, mochten unrecht deuten und ein verkerten synn dareintragen, wie etlich, sonderlich der nachtrab, schon unterstanden.” 277 GA 10: 586, 11 & 19 – ​20: “Also pfleget die rhetoricka aus einer mucken ein elephanten zu machen, und wills dannoch nicht gethan haben.” 278 GA 10: 594, 22 – ​24: “Und so er gegenwertig ist in uns, so ist er selbs unser leben, gerechtigkeit und herrligkeit nach seinem göttlichen wesen etc.” 279 GA 10: 599, 5 – ​6: “von eim andern vil geringern, creatürlichen leben, das der sohn Gottis in uns wirckt.”

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

305

Osiander, Melanchthon’s position meant trusting in a creaturely righteousness, which could not save because it did not participate directly in the divine.280 More than that, Osiander also took up Melanchthon’s comments in the letter from 1 May 1551 about the presence of Christ’s humanity and divinity. Melanchthon thought that Paul’s words in Romans 8:10 meant that Christ was in us “through the Spirit.”281 Thus, Osiander imagined that for Melanchthon Christ himself was not present but only Christ’s Spirit. “How could he [Melanchthon] believe that he [Christ] gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink in the Holy Sacrament?”282 For Melanchthon, Christ’s presence was in Osiander’s view one of effect (as the sun’s rays on the earth) than of an essential indwelling. From these points Osiander concluded, “There you have, I say, his entire philosophical, sophistical and fleshly theology rightly depicted.”283 There were two sides to this “philosophy,” namely, pretending to agree on the one side but secretly holding a different opinion on the other. However, Osiander’s comments also hinted at another, deeper problem: that Melanchthon’s own Aristotelian approach to theology, one where causes and effects and, hence Mover and motions in the believer, ruled the day. For someone beholden to Platonic philosophy, this would make Melanchthon appear to be simply “fleshly” and incapable of expressing the “real” presence of Christ in believers. At least at this juncture, however, Osiander skipped over Melanchthon’s concern for comfort. Thus, after quoting an entire section from the Antwort that only talked about the centrality of comfort, Osiander simply dismissed it as bad theology. In a lengthy description of his own theology, Osiander focused on the meaning of Romans 3:25 and the causes for God indwelling believers with his own essential righteousness. First, because of Christ’s satisfaction for the punishment of sin, God proved that he would be in the highest measure gracious. Second, the difference between created and uncreated righteousness touched upon God’s honor. Created righteousness was simply the righteousness of the law. For God simply to reckon believers righteous and not make them righteous went against God’s very nature.284 Osiander insisted against Melanchthon that Christ’s satisfaction earned not simply forgiveness of sins but the very indwelling of God, whence came Christian 280 On

this point, Flacius attacked him mercilessly, as shown in chapter 4. paraphrased from Melanchthon’s commentary on Romans (CR 15: 493 –​1052, which is his commentary of 1540 and not 1532 as GA 10: 603, n. 317 imagined). 282 GA 10: 603, 19 – ​20: “Wie solt er [Melanchthon] glauben, das er [Christus] uns im heiligen sacrament sein flaisch zu essen und sein blut zu trincken gebe?” Indeed, it may well be that Melanchthon’s encounter with Osiander’s Christology shifted his way of describing Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and caused him to reject what he viewed as equally philosophical attempts to explain that presence. 283 GA 10: 605, 14 –​15: “Das hastu, sag ich, sein gantze philosophische, sophistische und flaisch­liche theologia recht gecontrafeiet [abgemalt].” 284 The argument stretches from GA 10: 614 – ​26. 281 Osiander

306

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

righteousness. Moreover, Melanchthon’s understanding of Christ’s effect upon us was nothing other than the effect of the sun on a field, not the actual presence of Christ. Yet, as a final irony, when Osiander went to explain 1 John 1:7 (cited by Melanchthon), he argued here (as elsewhere) for a distinction between the actual blood of Christ that earned forgiveness and the spiritual faith that now purified from sin. Here he even cited favorably Zwingli’s favorite text, John 6:63.285 Osiander explained other passages that Melanchthon used by stating that, in the case of Hebrews 10:10, the author shortened his argument but implied that righteousness came by Christ indwelling believers. Osiander claimed that Melanchthon was simply shadowboxing [spiegelfechten]. When Melanchthon indicated that Osiander defined righteousness as “that which makes us do the right,”286 Osiander responded by wondering why Melanchthon did not talk about Christ as our righteousness. Moreover, he disputed Melanchthon’s misunderstanding of grace and gift, since grace was our redemption and gift was our justification. Forgiveness was not our righteousness; only the indwelling of Christ that brought forth righteous fruit in us. When Melanchthon then turned to the comfort of the gospel and forgiveness, Osiander claimed that this has nothing to do with the argument and that, in any case, he taught the same thing. On the specific question of comfort, however, Osiander understood it as part of the redemptive side of Christ as mediator (as opposed to the indwelling of Christ). Similarly, when Melanchthon attacked Osiander for confusing cause and effect, Osiander thought he was saying that human beings were the cause of their own righteousness, which Osiander, of course, denied. Osiander also referred to a supposed conversation between the two men at Augsburg in 1530, which he had described more fully in his Beweisung.287 Melanchthon confused “The Lord is our righteousness” with “the Lord makes us righteous,” especially in his Loci communes. Osiander also went to great lengths to emphasize that forgiveness of sins preceded the infused righteousness of Christ’s divinity.288 Osiander dismissed any attempt by Melanchthon to reduce the righteousness of Christ to forgiveness of sin and bypass the indwelling of Christ. Those who believed this, he intoned, had not received God’s righteousness, were not God’s temple and remained with the devil. At the end of Melanchthon’s tract, as noted above, the Preceptor added a Latin explanation for the inclusion of his conversation with Luther from 1536. In translating it into German, Osiander made a surprising mistake. Where Melanchthon 285 GA 10:

637, 17 – ​27. 639, 28 – ​29; cf. GA 10: 160, 22 – ​24 & 246, 28 – ​30: “das uns macht recht thun ….” 287 He referred to this several times in his writings. See here GA 10: 647, 3 –​17 but also 10: 434, 12 – ​438, 21 (the Beweisung); 442, 1– ​443, 11; and 9: 523, 34 – ​524, 9. 288 GA 10: 649, 25 – ​29: “Wann man aber fragt, was gerechtigkeit sey, so mus man antworten: Christus, durch den glauben in uns wonend, ist unser gerechtigkeit nach seiner gotheit, und die vergebung der sund, die nicht Christus selbs ist, sonder durch Christum erworben ist, die ist ein zuperaitung und ursach, das uns Got sein gerechtigkeit, die er selbs ist, darpeüt.” 286 GA 10:

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

307

talked about “de effectione,” (concerning the efficatious nature or cause), Osiander translated, “that is, concerning the effect” (“das ist von der würckung”). In fact, the word “effectio” means the efficient cause (that is, not the effect at all but that which effects something).289 Further, he translated argumentum with “the content (“den inhalt”), thereby confusing even the editor of GA 10, who thought the reference was to the content of Psalm 32, not to Luther’s summaries.290 Osiander’s explanation showed how completely he misunderstood not simply Melanchthon’s point but also the meaning of the word effectio.291 Thus, Osiander argued that Melanchthon ignored any mention of Christ as our righteousness – the middle point between the comfort of forgiveness [the cause of God dwelling in us] and the fruits of faith [the result or Wirkung]. Moreover, Osiander insisted that Melanchthon simply did not like the fact that Luther taught that Christ himself was our righteousness. “This does not please Philip nor did it ever please him. Otherwise, he would have agreed to and followed my admonition about Jeremiah 23 given to him in the presence of Johannes Brenz and Urbanus Rhegius in Augsburg at the Imperial Diet in 1530.”292 Instead, as the devil led Christ into the wilderness, so Melanchthon in the disputation of 1536 led Luther there and tested him on all sides, Whether, with a single word, he could bring him [Luther] to a philosophical, fleshly opinion, which he made up out of his own head and not from Scripture and forced into the Scripture, so that he might adorn his false opinion with it. Moreover, he tempted him on the right side – whether he would confess that grace or forgiveness or mercy were our righteousness – and on the left side – whether he would confess that our renewal and good works were our righteousness.293

Here the hermeneutical dilemma that flowed under the entire debate came to full expression. Luther was tempted to follow Melanchthon’s devilish tricks, things that the younger man had dreamt up from his own head and forcibly read into the text (hineingenöttigt), thereby attacking Luther from the left and the right. Aconly in the philosophical language of Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum 3, 7, 24 & 3, 14, 45 and Academica 1, 2, 6. 290 GA 10: 654, 27 & 29 – ​30. Thus, footnote 731 should read: Vgl. WA 38: 28, 12 – ​30, an excerpt from Luther’s Summarien über die Psalmen of 1531. The Latin argumentum and the Latinized German Summaria were often equivalents in the sixteenth century. 291 GA 10: 655, 1–​16. 292 GA 10: 655, 19 – ​22: “Das gefelt dem Philippo nicht und hat ihm nie gefallen, er hett sonst mein erinnerung aus dem 23. capit. Jeremie, zu Augßpurg auffm reychßtag im 1530. jahr in beysein Johan Brentii und Urbani Regii an ihn gethon, stadgeben und gefolget.” 293 GA 10: 655, 24 – ​30: “… ob er ihn auff sein philosophische, flaischliche mainung, die er nicht aus der schrifft, sondern aus seinem aigenen hirn erdichtet und in die schrifft hineingenöttigt hat, nur mit einem ainigen wort pringen konth, auff das er sein falsche mainung darmit möcht schmucken, und versucht ihn zur rechten, ob er wolt bekennen, das gnad oder vergebung oder barmhertzigkeit unser gerechtigkeit were, und zur lincken, ob er wolt bekennen, das die verneüerung und gutte werck unser gerechtigkeit wern.” Even Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther, 230 – ​42, saw Melanchthon as shaping the content of the discussion by his questions. 289 Found

308

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

cording to Osiander’s reading, Luther remained a wall and cliff, and insisted that believers were only righteous because of their rebirth.294 Osiander then glossed this statement by distinguishing the “seed” of rebirth and the renewal itself. The seed was God’s word, which Osiander then defined as “God himself and the Holy Spirit, himself God.”295 Osiander acted surprised that Melanchthon knew Luther for sixteen years and yet first got around to asking Luther about righteousness so late. Osiander promised a further tract on this conversation that would furnish “the correct gloss” to Melanchthon’s infamous letter to Christoph von Carlowitz “written against Doctor Luther.”296 For Osiander, Melanchthon was actually asking the reader not to read where Luther was clear but rather only where he spoke of the comfort and the effect of justification. From all of this it is clear that Philip in his aforementioned words does nothing other than as if he said, “My dear, do not read Luther’s books, where he speaks about righteousness from a pure, clear, rich and passionate spirit. Instead, read him only where he speaks of comfort and effect, so that I can gloss it over in accordance with my opinion and you all will not be able to detect that up until now I have taught and understood nothing correctly regarding righteousness.”297

Osiander described and attacked Melanchthon’s approach to Luther’s writings. By providing this source from 1536, he was simply leading the reader away from the clear comments arising from Luther’s true spirit and toward comments that spoke of comfort and effect, which for Osiander were not part of the essential meaning of Luther’s words. More than that, Osiander instructed Melanchthon on what he should have done: taken the texts that Osiander cited and tried to give them a different interpretation or to prove that they themselves were heretical – an approach that, as we have seen, Flacius among others used. “But I am certain that he cannot do anything else. Thus, he must use such sophistry.”298 To deal with those texts where Luther may have said something that appeared contrary to Osiander’s po294 GA 10:

655, 30 – ​31. The note refers to a reference to “sola illa renascentia per fidem.” Of course, for Luther “rebirth” was a synonym for justification not sanctification as in the theological vocabulary of later Lutherans. 295 GA 10: 656, 2 – ​3 & 8: “Got selbs … und der heylig Gaist, Got selbs.” 296 GA 10: 656, 15 –​16. See For more on this letter, see Timothy J. Wengert, “ ‘Not by Nature Philoneikos’: Philip Melanchthon’s Initial Reactions to the Augsburg Interim,” in: Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548, ed. Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 33 – ​49, and the literature cited there. 297 GA 10: 656, 16 – ​21: “Aus dem allem ist klar, das Philippus in seinen obgedachten worten nichts anders thut, dann als sprech er: Lieber, leset des Luthers pücher nicht, da er lautter, klar, aus reychem, prünstigem [leidenschaftlichem, feurigem] gaist von der gerechtigkeit redet, sonder leset in allein, wo er von trost und würckung redet, so kan ichs auff mein mainung verglosirn und ihr werdt nicht können spüren, das ich bißanher von der gerechtigkeit nichts recht gelehret oder verstanden hab!” 298 GA 10: 657, 4 – ​5: “Aber ich bin gewiß, das er der keins thun kan, darumb muß er mit solcher sophisterey umbgehn.”

F. Philip Melanchthon Joins the Fray

309

sition, Osiander pointed the reader to his tract Wider den nachtraben, in which, as we have seen, he gave a particularly Platonizing reading of Luther. Having also misconstrued the word argumentum, Osiander concluded this section with a discussion of Psalm 32 (and not Luther’s Summarien to which Melanchthon was referring), which he claimed did not say precisely what righteousness was.299 Finally, Osiander turned to Melanchthon’s final words, in which he stated that Luther wrote this with his own hand and that the fight was with the papists. Osiander rejected out of hand one of the clearest statements of Melanchthon’s contextual hermeneutic. It was “a sly fox, an antithesis and a dangerous use of Luther.”300 Why, Osiander wondered, did Melanchthon go to such trouble to talk about the disputation’s origins? Who would not understand that with this long-studied disputation Philip dared and really hoped that he had pulled Luther’s tongue and elicited something that later on he could use for himself and capture Luther with his own handwriting, so that he [Luther] either would have to be forbearing with his [Melanchthon’s] philosophical, fleshly thoughts or would have to convince himself by his own hand that he was inconstant and had earlier taught otherwise.301

For Osiander, citing sections of Luther’s hand-written answers to questions about justification had the opposite effect from what Melanchthon might have hoped for. Osiander viewed it as ripping out Luther’s tongue out and allowing someone like Melanchthon to replace what Luther meant with “philosophical, carnal thought” or to prove that Luther did not understand the subject and taught differently before. Osiander then attacked Bugenhagen and Forster mercilessly. Old Father Pomer did not understand Melanchthon’s teachings. In the case of Forster, as Melanchthon had feared, Osiander contrasted Melanchthon’s sorcery with words to the bitter jealousy and hatred of Forster. He claimed that he did not start the controversy (something that must have sounded like an incredible claim to his opponents) and that most of the rest of Forster’s comments were simply lies. He concluded with a rejection of Wittenberg’s theology and especially of Melanchthon, whose true feelings about Luther became clear in his letter to von Carlowitz.302 Melanchthon, who used to warn about scholars who tried to eat 299 Unlike

Luther, who thought the entire psalm was about how the believer’s righteousness was forgiveness of sins. See WA 38: 28, 19 – ​21. 300 GA 10: 658, 2 – ​3: “ein fuchslist, hindersatz und fahrlichs anwenden gegen D. Luther.” “Ein Hintersatz” is here meant as an antithesis or [unexpressed] presupposition. 301 GA 10: 658, 7 –​12: “Wer wolt nicht greiffen, das sich Philippus mit diser lang studirten disputation unterstanden und verhofft hat, er woll dem Luther die zungen ziehen und ettwas herauslocken, das er darnach fur sich könt geprauchen und den Luther mit seiner aignen handschrifft halten, das er aintweder ine mit seinen philosophischen, flaischlichen gedancken müst lassen walten oder sich mit seiner aigen hand lassen uberzeugen, er wer unbestendig und hett zuvor anderst gelehrt?” 302 GA 10: 666, 14.

310

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

snakes (i.e., those who attack), had himself tried to eat the One who treads on snakes (Christ), but to no avail. Osiander admonished the reader to understand that everyone who attacked him were really only singing Philip’s song. The point was not to look at the numbers attacking Osiander (which by mid-1552 were considerable), “but instead pay attention to which person proves his teaching with clearer Scripture.”303 These “Philippianer,” as he called them, were so dangerous that following them meant losing the entire gospel. III. Melanchthon’s Last (Luther) Word

The Antwort was not Melanchthon’s last “Lutherwort” in the controversy.304 Only a few weeks later he wrote the preface to Luther’s lectures on Genesis.305 There, after explaining that struggles in the church were already predicted in Genesis 3: 15, he explained in a positive way the meaning of Abraham and Jacob’s justification by faith, showing that it occurred through faith in the one Mediator and his sacrificial death and that any other righteousness was only an effect of that faith. Moreover, he added, Luther himself also spoke in these terms in these very lectures. Thus, without naming names, Melanchthon brought one of Luther’s most massive commentaries in line with his own position on justification and against Osiander’s. However, Melanchthon added an even more poignant word against Osiander. Noting that Jacob and Esau were brothers, close to one another and yet at one another’s throats, Melanchthon applied this to the church. “So, although in the Church dissension between kindred and friends frequently occurs, souls must be prepared and remain firm, so that we may wisely bear this huge sorrow, which 303 GA 10:

667, 1– ​2: “sonder hab acht darauff, welcher sein lehr mit klarer schrifft beweis.” 567 – ​70 completely overlooks this writing and concentrates instead on Melanchthon’s oration, delivered by Tileman Hesshus at his receiving his doctorate: Oratio in qua refutatur calumnia Osiandri reprehendentis promissionem eorum quibus tribuitur testimonium doctrinae, which was not delivered in 1552 at all (GA 10: 568, based upon Stupperich, 258 f.) but on 16 May 1553. See Koehn, no. 181. Again, the reconstruction of these matters in GA is nearly useless, especially when the editor (Hans Schulz) writes, “Melanchthon hatte keine Bereitschaft gezeigt, eine theologische Diskussion mit der Gegenseite zuzulassen.” On the contrary, the final word comes then in the German translation of the Loci communes 1555, where Melanchthon systematically refutes Osiander’s position, and in the commentaries on Romans and Colossians of 1556 and 1559. For a refutation of Osiander’s speculation about Christ’s incarnation (GA 9: 450 – ​91), see Melanchthon’s [December 1552?] oration: Or. de nativitate filii Dei, Domini nostri Iesu Christi, hoc est, de admiranda copulatione divinae et humanae naturae in filio Dei, assumente humanam naturam in utero virginis Mariae, et de causis cur missus sit, et quomodo sit excipiendus, in CR 11: 1030 – ​44. This seems not to have been published separately. Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, overlooks both this preface and the Romans commentary. 305 Mel 03 (1552): MBW 6316 (CR 7: 918 – ​27; WA 44: XXIV–XXIX), dated Nuremberg, 25 January 1552. It is the preface to the material from WA 43: 365 – WA 44: 231. To be sure, after Osiander’s death, Melanchthon repeatedly referred to Osiander in his lectures and writings, as we will see in chapter 7. 304 GA 10:

G. A Final Word: Andreas Musculus on Luther’s Christology

311

the anguish of those who were so closely joined produces.”306 Even though he expressly mentioned the Council of Trent before describing his own position on justification, Melanchthon’s way of stating the case had as much to say against Osiander as against the Council’s decrees. When Paul cited Genesis 15:6, he pointed to the way it defined faith and justification, And he affirmed that the promise must be accepted by faith and when by this faith a person rests in the Mediator righteousness is truly imputed: namely, a person is given forgiveness of sins and is reconciled on account of the Mediator, and this very Mediator is efficacious in the person, and, by the word of promise and the very Holy Spirit, new light and obedience is enkindled and brings about peace in the heart, which is the beginning of eternal life.307

After mentioning other Tridentine decrees in passing, Melanchthon urged people of good will to read Luther’s swan song. In this preface, he also managed to separate Osiander’s interpretation of justification from Luther’s. Righteousness was imputed (not infused); it was equated with forgiveness of sin (not doing righteous things); new light and obedience and peace [cf. Romans 5:1] came as a result of such justification (not as a cause).

G. A Final Word: Andreas Musculus on Luther’s Christology In 1553, Andreas Musculus, a professor in Frankfurt an der Oder who in the preceding year had written and signed a protest against Osiander by Brandenburg’s theologians and had also produced his own tract against Osiander, published “Luther’s” most far-reaching and final word against Osiander, On the Indivisible Union in one Person of Both Natures of our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and Mary.308 Probably published after Osiander’s death (17 October 1552), the tract 306 WA 44: XXVII; CR 7: 923: “Ita cum usitata fit in Ecclesia distractio cognatorum et amicorum, praeparandi et confirmandi sunt animi, ut hunc ingentem dolorem, quem acerbitas parit eorum qui fuerant coniunctissimi, sapienter feramus.” 307  WA 44: XXVIII; CR 7: 924: “… et adfirmat fide accipiendam esse promissionem, et cum hac fide acquiescit homo in mediatore, vere imputari iusticiam: videlicet dari remissionem peccatorum, et reconciliari hominem propter mediatorem, et hunc ipsum mediatorem in eo efficacem esse, et voce promissionis et spiritu suo sancto accendere novam lucem et obedientiam, et in corde pacem efficere, quae est initium vitae aeternae.” 308 Musc 02 (1553): The full title is Von der vnzertrenlichen voreynigung in einer Person beider naturn vnsers Herrn Jesu Christi Gottes vnd Marien Son, Docto. Martini Lutheri bekentnis, Glaub, vnd Leer, aus seinen büchern zusam getragen wieder den neulichen erregten Nestorischen vnd Eutichischen miesvorstandt vnd jrthum … Psalm. 119. HERR nim ja nicht von meinem munde das Wort der Warheit/ Denn ich hoffe auff deine Rechte, (Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn, 1553). The previous year the Brandenburg pastors published their Grüntliche anzeigung (M/Ag 01 [1552]). Musculus himself published De adorando (Musc 01 [1552]), the preface of which was dated 2 May 1552. For more on Musculus’s Christology, see Ernst Koch, “ ‘Das Geheimnis unserer Erlösung’: Die Christologie des Andreas Musculus als Beitrag zur Formulierung verbindlicher christlicher Lehre im späten 16. Jahrhundert,” in: Heiko Franke, et al., eds., Veritas et Communicatio. Ökume-

312

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

did not mention the Königsberg professor by name. Instead, it attacked what Musculus thought was Osiander’s position: his heretical (or, as he stated in his own tract against him: anti-Christian) views of the person of Christ. Unlike the other collectors of Luther quotes, Musculus concentrated all of his work on the Christological question. Of course, this tract was also written against a living opponent, this time Francesco Stancaro, who was engaged in a struggle with Osiander over whether simply the human nature of Christ was the believer’s righteousness. Again, as we have come to expect from most of Osiander’s opponents, the citations from Luther came in large blocks. The first, from his Von den Concilijs vnd Kirchen, was twelve quarto pages alone.309 Musculus then took a chunk out of Luther’s sermon on John 14, this time about nine pages.310 He then provided the reader with a series of shorter excerpts, beginning with Luther’s exposition of the “Last Words of David”311 and continuing with excerpts from his commentary on Galatians (1535),312 from his [Great] Confession concerning Holy Supper (1528),313 from “his” (or Buchholzer’s) 1526 sermons on Genesis 3, Genesis 22 and Exodus 3,314 from his That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm (1527),315 from his Short Confession concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544),316 and concluding with another selection from his Great Confession (1528),317 a selection from his sermon for Easter Day in the Hauspostille (1544),318 and finally a small piece from his Die drei Symbola oder Bekenntnis des Glaubens Christi.319 Musculus concluded his work with a note to the reader.320 He referred to some recently published sayings (“etliche sprüch”) of Luther, printed in great haste and nische Theologie auf der Suche nach einem verbindlichen Zeugnis. FS zum 60. Geburtstag von Ulrich Kühn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 143 –​56. 309 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, A iir – B ivr, citing WA 50: 583, 26 – ​592, 15. 310 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, B ivr – C ivv, citing WA 45: 555, 32 – ​560, 13 & 550, 31– ​551, 4. 311 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, C ivv – D iir, citing WA 54: 89, 35 – ​91, 14 & 92, 8 – ​24. 312 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, D iir – v, citing the German translation of WA 401: 415, 26 – ​416, 17. 313  Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, D iiv – D ivr, citing WA 26: 319, 27 – ​322, 22 & 324, 19 – ​35. 314 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, D ivr – F iv, citing the recently published sermons of his colleague, Georg Buchholzer, WA 20: 333, 34 – ​335, 8 & 335, 23 – ​336, 16; 343, 35 – ​345, 37; 358, 39 – ​360, 16 & 361, 27 – ​362, 10. See above. 315 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F iv, citing WA 23: 142, 23 –​143, 1. This was in effect Luther’s warning against Osiander’s teaching. 316 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F iv – F 2r, citing WA 54: 157, 25 –​158, 13. 317 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 2v – F 3r, citing WA 26, 500, 33 – ​502, 25. 318 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 3r – F 4r, citing WA 52: 248, 23 – ​249, 9 & 250, 14 – ​34. 319 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 4v, citing WA 50: 269, 1– ​20. Musculus stated that it was from the Betbüchlein, and indeed this text was included in Luther’s Betbüchlein in the Wittenberg printings of 1539, 1542, 1543 and 1545, and in the sixth volume of Luther’s German writings published in Wittenberg in 1553. 320 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, G ir – G iir.

G. A Final Word: Andreas Musculus on Luther’s Christology

313

sloppiness.321 As we have seen in criticisms of Osiander’s use of Luther, Musculus also complained that this new publication also took things from Luther “piecemeal and completely incorrectly (“stückweis vnd gantz vntrewlich”). That is, he recognized in this tract the same deep interpretive problem with the way Osiander proceeded, one that broke apart and twisted Luther, in Osiander’s (or Stancaro’s) case, in order to confirm new Nestorian and Eutychean heresies. Moreover, this tract had appeared “secretly and hypocritically (“heimlich und meuchlich”). To be sure, Musculus’s church had attacked this error (in tracts published in 1552). Nevertheless, Musculus felt the need to rescue Luther’s Christology by collecting his statements “fully and accurately (“volkömlich vnd treulich”). He took only the most important and skipped Luther’s Latin texts altogether, since people who have the books (by which he seems to mean especially the newly appearing collected works) could read Luther themselves. Instead, Musculus stated that “[I] wanted this time to serve only the commoner and the simple folk, who do not and cannot possess the other books.”322 For perhaps the first time in this war over (Luther’s) words, someone discussed the audience for these writings directly. The scholars could read Luther on their own; Musculus produced this for the commoner who did not or could not own these books. Once again, and this time with respect to the readers, the hermeneutical battle was joined. Luther was not just a collection of ideas for theologians to argue about, just as Christ was not our righteousness merely according to his divinity. Instead, Luther spoke in full sentences and excerpts to all, even the simple folk. No wonder that Musculus ended by encouraging “upright and Godfearing Christians” who were pleased with this work to join Musculus in praying to God to preserve the truth confessed in the clear teaching of the gospel, “as [God] revealed the [doctrine] to us through Doctor Martin Luther, of blessed and highest memory,”323 to defend “us” from the devil and his crowd, and graciously to protect “us” from divisions and sects. Musculus demonstrated this same hermeneutical concern in the citations themselves. First, he did indeed include long selections from Luther’s works. Second, unlike others, he concentrated on the Christological problem and, hence, 321 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, G 1r: “aus grossem freuel vnd vergessenheit.” He was likely not referring to Osiander’s Etliche Sprüche of 1551 but perhaps to Etliche warhafftige weissagung/ vnd fürneme spruce des Ehrwirdigen Vaters/ Hern Doctor Martini Luthers/ des dritten Heilie/ vom trübsal/ abfal/ finsternissen/ oder aber verfelschungen reiner Lere/ so Deudtschlandt künfftiglich nach seinem Tode widerfaren sole, compiled by Johann Timann [in Latin] and translated by Albert Christianus [pseudonym?] (Magdeburg: Lotter, 1552). Or it could have been to some ephemeral tract that circulated in Frankfurt/Oder and involved his dispute with Stancaro. 322 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, G 1v : “[ich] hab auff dis mal allein dem gemeinen man vnd einfeltigen dienen wöllen/ die obgenante bücher nicht haben/ oder haben können.” 323 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, G 1v f.: “… wie er [Gott] die [leer] vns durch Doctor Marti. Lutther seliger vnnd Hohergedechtnus/ an tag geben hat.”

314

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

used material from Luther’s tracts on the Lord’s Supper. Thus, terms that later would play a role in the Lord’s Supper controversies of the 1550s came up here. Third, he organized his citations in such a way as to move from the content of Luther’s Christological teaching to its effect. Luther’s own language, which always included a criticism of human reason, came to Musculus’s aid. For example, from the Kurzes Bekenntnis Musculus excerpted this trenchant passage. How can this make sense? How is this possible? That the one and entire, perfect Godhead of the Son should separate or divide itself [from the Trinity] in order to be united at the same time with the humanity? And the same one Divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit is not united with the humanity? And, at the same time, the single Godhead in Christ is one person with the humanity, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. O how they must really rave, stagger and bluster, when they come to this point. They shall discover the meaning (as I have heard) there, in that they already securely and joyfully go arm in arm with Nestorianism and Eutycheanism.324

Or, again, in the excerpt from the sermon on Easter, Luther concluded, “This is a strange and never-before heard sermon that reason cannot grasp. It must be believed.”325 Then, in a later excerpt from the same sermon, Luther emphasized the pictorial nature of Christ defeating the devil and, rather than trying to discover truth behind the picture, simply told his hearers, “We should allow such pictures [of Christ’s victory] to be commended to us and should view them often.”326 Musculus’s parting shot was perhaps the most brutal: Luther in the Betbüchlein [actually in Die Drei Symbola]. There Luther described three ways the devil attacked Christology: by making a person believe Christ was not divine, or that Christ was not human, or that Christ, God and human being, had done nothing for humanity. “All three things must truly be believed, namely, that he is God, likewise, that he is a human being, likewise, that he became a human being for us.”327 Faith could be weak, Musculus’s Luther concluded, but not false. It was, however, the third point, the pro me of faith that Osiander’s opponents most often saw lack324  Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 2r, quoting WA 54: 158, 1– ​9: “Wie kan sichs reymen? Wie ists müglich? Das die einige gantze volkomene Gottheit des Sons/ sich also solt trennen oder teilen/ das sie zu gleich ist vereiniget mit der menscheit? Vnd dieselbige einige Gottheit des Vaters vnd Heiligen geists nicht voreiniget ist mit der Menscheit? Vnd ist zu gleich einerley Gottheit/ inn Christo mit der Menscheit eine person/ vnd nicht der Vater oder Heiliger geist. O wie sollen sie aller erst recht schwermen/ daumeln vnd poltern/ wenn sie hieher komen/ Da sollen sie zu deuten finden/ wie ich denn höre/ das sie bereit an getrost vnd weidlich hinan gehen mit Eutycherey vnd Nestorey.” 325 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 3v, quoting WA 52: 249, 7 – ​8: “Das ist ein seltzame vnerhorte predigt/ so die vernunfft nicht fassen kan/ sie mus gegleubet sein.” 326 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 4r, quoting WA 52: 250, 34 – ​35: “Solchs Bilde [of Christ’s glorious victory] sollen wir vnd lassen befohlen sein/ vnd es offt anschawen.” 327 Musculus, Von der … voreynigung, F 4v, quoting WA 50: 269, 12 –​14: “Es mus warlich alle drey stuck gegleubt sein/ nemlich/ Das er Gott sey/ Item/ Das er Mensch sey/ Item/ das er fur vns solcher Mensch worden sey.”

H. Joachim Mörlin’s Postscript of 1555

315

ing in the Königsberger’s theology. When, as in his tract against Melanchthon, Osiander minimized the importance of comfort – a direct fruit of such faith – he admitted as much himself.

H. Joachim Mörlin’s Postscript of 1555 There was one small postscript in this struggle over how to use Luther’s writings in theological dispute, and it came in 1555 from one of the main participants, Joachim Mörlin.328 Tucked away in his admonition to his former flock in Königsberg, Mörlin quoted several sections of Luther’s On the Councils and the Churches, published in 1539.329 Here the point was no longer to refute Osiander’s misuse of Luther but rather to upbraid the attempts by Duke Albrecht and the Prussian court to find a compromise. Here Luther suddenly became the patristic scholar, who described and commented on the attempts by the semi-Arians to find a compromise between the homo-ousias of the orthodox and the teaching of Arians. Instead of properly extirpating Osiander’s teaching from the land Instead, in a new, strange and mystifying way they clean things up and decorate them. Indeed, today one still threatens the godly pastors who are heard preaching against the opposite view with an executive process to persecute them in earnest, and yet the execution of judgment should be hoped for against Osiander on the basis of the churches’ knowledge.330

Rather than of following this Arian-esque policy, true Christians should follow Luther’s advice. “So we must, as Luther says above, be good bishops and watch out. For here it is not a matter of love but of God and the faith.”331 This marked a very different use of Luther: as church historian par excellence, who took direction from church history on how to proceed against heresy. In a way, Mörlin made Luther into an equal, a scholar determined to glean from history and texts hints about how to behave in a new situation, from which later scholars could also benefit. Whereas all of the other major uses of Luther in 328 Mör 03 (1555): Joachim Mörlin, Trewliche warnung vnd trost an die Kirchen in Preussen. Joachimus Mörlin D. Roma. XII. Nemet euch der heiligen nodturfft an (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1555). For a more general tract by Mörlin on the use of Luther published in 1565, see Thomas Kaufmann’s analysis in his Konfession und Kultur, 67 –1​ 11, especially Kaufmann’s analysis of the influence of the Osiandrian controversy, 82 – ​89. 329 Specifically, he cited WA 50: 569, 8 –​16, 573, 29 – ​574, 5 and 574, 5 – ​29 (Trewliche warnung, B 4v – C 1v). 330 Trewliche warnung, C 1v – C 2r: “sondern auff eine newe/ sondere/ wunderliche arth putzen vnd schmücken/ Ja man drewet noch heute zu tage den frommen Pfarherrn/ die sich mit predigen widder das gegenteil hören lassen/ mit executorial procession, sie damit ernstlich zuuorfolgen/ vnd sol doch die execution der Iudiciorum wider Osiandrum auff erkendtnis der Kirchen zugewarten sein …” 331 Trewliche warnung, C 2v : “So müssen wir/ wie Lutherus droben sagt/ gute Bischoffe sein/ vnd wol zusehen/ denn es gilt hie nicht der liebe Sachen/ sondern Gottes vnnd des Glaubens.”

316

Chapter 6: The Authoritative Luther for and against Osiander

this dispute focused exclusively on theology, Mörlin employed On the Councils and the Churches to upbraid bad church policy. Luther warned against certain approaches to Arianism that attempted compromise; the same situation now existed in Prussia. Although one may be tempted to connect this uncompromising position with a peculiar gnesio-Lutheran habit of resisting any and all bad theology, in the same year that this tract was published Philip Melanchthon himself demonstrated a similar intolerance in Nuremberg, as shown in chapter 5. For him, too, the doctrine of justification by faith alone – the declaration of forgiveness to the sinner and the imputation thereby of Christ’s righteousness by faith alone for the same sinner’s comfort – was simply too central to salvation to allow any compromise. Here was the article on which, for Mörlin and Melanchthon alike (to say nothing of all the other theologians introduced in this chapter), compromise was not possible. The very heart of the Reformation – no, rather, the Gospel and its comforting good news – was at stake. In that light, Luther’s authority rose directly out of his own witness to and life in that gospel. Luther’s authority, however, did not arise without a concomitant examination of how to use that authority, that is, how to construe Luther’s words. This hermeneutical debate ran along several lines. For one thing, almost all of Osiander’s opponents insisted on quoting large portions of Luther’s writings, convinced that the only way to understand Luther was to read him in (literary) context. At the same time, many also insisted that they could only bridge the gap between Luther’s opposition to his Roman foes and their opposition to Osiander by taking seriously the different historical contexts. Third, as faithful students of Melanchthon (and Luther!), they connected the truth of a doctrine to its effect – as much as Osiander scorned this approach as “fleshly” and “philosophical.” Finally, a few also encouraged their supporters to read Luther sub cruce (under the Cross), that is, in view of the foolishness and weakness of the gospel message. Over against them, Osiander developed an opposing hermeneutic, one that insisted on separating the words Luther used from the meaning hidden underneath, one that could therefore use a single line rather than an entire tract to find that meaning, one that rejected tying truth to the effect of a doctrine, and one that assumed a basic integration of reason – at least understood as common sense – and Luther’s witness to the gospel. These same alternatives continue to mark Luther studies today, as those who define Luther’s theology by the Word event, as it is called, are challenged by those who would argue that underneath Luther’s words rests certain ontological commitments, without which his theology cannot be understood.332

332 See, for example, the review by Vainio, Justification and Participation, 6 –​14, especially his implied criticism of Greschat on p. 8. For some of the other voices in this debate, see chapter 1.

Chapter 7

Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander1 As mentioned in chapter 1, certain aspects of this dispute have captured the attention of modern scholars, including especially the question of the relation between Melanchthon and Osiander. In her dissertation on the subject, Anna Briskina examines the theology of both Osiander and Melanchthon, scrutinizing many of their most important tracts and pamphlets in the controversy.2 Rather than repeat her thorough work on those texts, this chapter will examine two crucial documents overlooked in her study, which, coming in 1551 and 1556 respectively, form the “alpha and omega” of Melanchthon’s comments. Moreover, setting aside Briskina’s rather esoteric question of whether, at some deep level, these two theologians had more in common than either was able to comprehend, this chapter will explore the heart of Melanchthon’s published objections to Osiander’s position, objections that rested on theological definitions and their effects. The literary explosion of attacks on Osiander in 1552 – ​53 puts the lie to the notion that the entire affair focused on the Königsberg professor and the Wittenberg preceptor.3 Indeed, the most important actors in this drama were Mörlin and Flacius. However, once the part Melanchthon played is properly delimited, his central role, as first among equals, becomes even clearer. Moreover, one can also see more precisely how he prosecuted his case against Osiander. As described in chapter 5, his behavior in Nuremberg revealed a Melanchthon whose behavior contradicted at almost every turn the image that later interpreters constructed for him. Here was a decisive, intransigent defender of the faith, who took no prisoners and even maneuvered around a pusillanimous Johannes Brenz to insure that no Osiandrist would teach or preach in Lutheranism’s most powerful urban center. Both before and after the dismissal of the Nuremberg Osiandrists Culmann and Vetter, Melanchthon also forcefully rejected Osiander’s theology and built what he regarded as an airtight theological case against him. 1 An earlier version of part of this chapter (on Melanchthon’s 1556 commentary on Romans) appeared as “Commentary As Polemic: Philip Melanchthon’s 1556 Enarratio ad Romanos against Andreas Osiander,” in: Torbjörn Johansson, et al., eds., Hermeneutica Sacra: Studies of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 147 – ​63. 2 Anna Briskina, Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 2006). 3 This against Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 112.

318

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

A. First Things First: Defining Iustitia Dei Long before he published his formal rejection of Osiander’s understanding of justification in the Antwort of 1552, Melanchthon was formulating and publishing his own position, intending to combat Osiander without naming names. In mid-1551, for example, Melanchthon wrote the Confessio Saxonica, as the Saxon confession to be delivered at the Council of Trent came to be known. It was first published in 1552 without Melanchthon’s permission and then in 1553 with his own preface.4 There he argued that Christ, “is our righteousness as Jeremiah and Paul say, because his righteousness is imputed to us and, on account of him, we are reputed righteous and because by giving his Holy Spirit he makes us alive and regenerates us.”5 Here Melanchthon took one of Osiander’s favorite verses from Jeremiah (“‫ יהוה‬is our righteousness”) and interpreted it along the lines of imputation, distinguishing this imputed righteousness from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Without mentioning Osiander’s name, he dismissed the late Königsberg professor’s position and associated it with the Roman, Tridentine view. This would become part of Melanchthon’s stock response to Osiander’s theology. At nearly the same time that he was writing this confession, Melanchthon was responding to a request from Osiander and the Prussian court and wrote on 1 May 1551 an opinion in the growing dispute, caused in part by Osiander’s attacks on the Wittenbergers.6 As described in chapter 5, Melanchthon began by insisting that the indwelling of the Spirit implied, in orthodox Trinitarian theology, that God dwelt in us (as in John 14). This indwelling differed from God’s omnipresence and also implied that the Holy Spirit inspired new light and righteousness in the believers’ hearts, as Augustine had written. First, saying that Christ was everywhere did not imply that Christ was everywhere bodily.7 Second, when Melanchthon asked Luther what Romans 8:10 meant (“if Christ is in you”), the former responded, “that he [Luther] understood it this way, as was written before, ‘if the Spirit of Christ is in you’ (Romans 8:9).”8 To explain 4  MBW 6733 (CR 8: 49; CR 28: 369 – ​70; MSA 6: 81– ​83), dated by MBW around 15 February [?] 1553. The earliest comments come in MBW 6080 (CR 7: 788), dated 11 May [1551]. (See the remarks on dating this letter in MBW, Regesten, 6:161, and the reference to a notation on one copy of the Confessio.) This is another text that Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, neglects to examine. 5 MSA 6: 99, 30 – ​33. “[Jesus Christus] est iusticia nostra, ut dicunt Ieremias et Paulus, quia eius iusticia nobis imputatur et propter eum iusti reputamur, et quia dato Spiritu suo sancto nos vivificat et regenerat.” See also MSA 6: 100, 4 – ​8. 6 All dated 1 May 1551: MBW 6072 (CR 7: 775 f.; to Duke Albrecht), 6075 (CR 7: 778 – ​79; to Osiander, as a cover letter), and 6076 (CR 7: 775 – ​81, here line 8). See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 122 – ​26. 7 Pezellius, Consilia II: 155, makes several additions, noted in the CR, to conform Melanchthon’s thought to later Calvinists. Melanchthon meant corporaliter, as a body separate from the divinity. 8 CR 7: 780: “se [Lutherum] sic intelligere ut ante scriptum est: si spiritus Christi est in vobis.”

A. First Things First: Defining Iustitia Dei

319

a citation from Augustine, Melanchthon stated, “Christ is one person, and the ancients correctly state that Christ is everywhere in that person.”9 Third, when Osiander stated that we were righteous by the essential righteousness of Christ, Melanchthon understood that he was disclosing “the efficient cause.”10 Christ’s essential righteousness created new things in believers. But the Church spoke not only about this cause but also about how Christ’s death placated God’s wrath. By his merit believers were reputed righteous and obtained forgiveness, and, at the same time, essential righteousness worked in us. Thus, as early as May 1551 Melanchthon was mentioning Luther along with other church fathers to define the contours of the debate. Moreover, Melanchthon also made clear where the difference lay. He defined the indwelling of Christ’s essential righteousness as simply a way of saying that God in Christ caused justification. By 1556 he had even developed two kinds of efficient causes to clarify the relation between the eternal divine righteousness and Christ’s sacrificial death. For Melanchthon, Christ’s presence in the justified was a result of the work of the Holy Spirit and followed from justification. By August 1551, several things indicated Melanchthon’s increasing suspicions of Osiander’s theology. In addition to requests and rumors from Königsberg,11 Michael Roting’s attack on Osiander had appeared by this time, and Melanchthon was sending it approvingly to his correspondents.12 For another, Melanchthon had become concerned about Clement of Alexandria’s definition of iustitia and discussed this issue in a letter to Laurentius Moller.13 It was this second concern that led to his first publication on the subject. As happened quite frequently in disputes of this nature, Melanchthon’s responses began with an oration, in this case on the topic of iustitia, delivered on 11 August 1551 by Lucas Hetzer (deacon at St. Mary’s in Wittenberg who received his Master of Arts at the university in 1541) and entitled: Oratio de definitione iusticiae, quae extat apud Clementem Alexandrinum.14 At the outset, the young   9 CR 7: 780: “Una Persona est Christus, et vere dicunt veteres: Christus est ubique personaliter.” 10  CR 7: 780: “in declaratione ad effectionem.” Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 125, misinterprets the word effectio [that which effects something] to mean effectus [that which is effected] and thereby misconstrues Melanchthon’s entire argument. 11 The earliest hint in Melanchthon’s correspondence that there were problems with Osiander’s interpretation of justification came in a letter from Friedrich Staphylus (MBW 5866 [unpublished autograph in the HAB, Codex Guelf.: 108 Noviss. 2o, 369r, [deposited at HAB: ehemals Landeshut (Silesia), Ms. 1]), dated [from Breslau] 1 August 1550. 12 See chapter 8 for details. 13 MBW 6156 (CR 7: 816 –​17), addressed [from Wittenberg] to Moller, [in Hildesheim], dated 4 August [1551]. There he argued that Clement distinguishes the iustitia of the reborn from that of the law. The first part of the quote from Clement (given in Greek) had to do with the first table (fellowship with God) where obedience to God comes “in cordibus verae flammae divinitus.” The second part involved the second table. 14 Koehn, no. 177 (CR 11: 992 – ​999): “Oration on the Definition of Righteousness Found in Clement of Alexandria.” This speech has been completely overlooked in scholarly discussion.

320

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

students were admonished to avoid sophistic tricks that lead away from the truth (one of the recurring complaints that Melanchthon leveled against Osiander). Clement of Alexandria wrote against the heretics and gave the following definition of iustitia. “Righteousness is a fellowship of God with impartiality.”15 Melanchthon then explained Clement’s concern: that the heretics used the phrase “with impartiality” in the same way monks or hermits “would use goods and women that did not belong to them.” After expressing his amazement at how quickly such controversies arose, he added that the devil instigated fights in all ages of the church. Melanchthon turned again to the definition. Because it was new, the hearer might be tempted to admire it. But first the students had to consider that in philosophy and in the church there had been “great labyrinths of disputes.” Passing over philosophy, Melanchthon concentrated on church fights.16 Many understood iustitia, Melanchthon began, as “a universal congruency with the norm of the mind and will of God.”17 Such a definition encompassed all moral precepts, he continued, but because of human infirmities Scripture (referred to using the Ciceronian term vox divina) stated that no one conformed to this mind and will of God. In contrast to this, “nevertheless the voice of the Gospel again pronounces some to be righteous.”18 This meant, Melanchthon concluded, that one had to look for another definition of the term. Indeed, these two definitions (that God is righteous and that sinners are pronounced righteous) could never be reconciled, “except that the Son of God had offered an explanation from the hidden counsel of divinity.”19 From this it followed that “A decree was made with inerrant wisdom, in which righteousness is conjoined with mercy in a remarkable mixture.”20 Thus, despite the single, legal meaning of iustitia, Christ’s intercession for the human race found a way out from under judgment through his suffering as an offering for human sin. At the same time, this divine wisdom decreed that Christ’s benefits were to be given to those “who by faith acknowledge the Son as redeemer and, 15  CR 11: 993: “Iusticia est societas Dei, cum aequalitate. δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶ κοινωνία θεοῦ μετὰ ἰσότητος.” He was citing Clement of Alexandria, Stromata IV, c. II, 6,1. See Otto Stählin, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. 2: Stromata Buch I–VI (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1906), 197 – ​98 (vol. 15 of Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller), where Clement was quoting (and then refuting) Epiphanius, Haer. 32, 3, II. “λέγει τοίνυν ουτος [Epiphanius] ἐν τῷ Περὶ δικαιοσύνης ‘τὴν δικαιοσύνην τοῦ θεοῦ κοινωνίαν τινὰ ε῟ἶναι μετ’ ἰσότητος.’ ” 16 CR 11: 994, “magnos disputationum labyrinthos.” Under philosophy (and in keeping with the level of erudition expected to be demonstrated in a declamation), Melanchthon mentioned Plato, the colloquies of Socrates and the struggle of Hippia with Xenophon. 17 CR 11: 994, “Congruentiam universalem cum norma mentis et voluntatis Dei.” 18 CR 11: 994, “Rursus tamen aliquos vox Evangelii iustos esse pronunciat.” 19 CR 11: 995, “nisi filius Dei ex arcano consilio divinitatis enarrationem protulisset.” 20 CR 11: 995, “decretum factum est inerrabili sapientia, in quo cum misericordia copulata est iusticia mirando temperamento.” Despite the Anselmian nature of the language (justice and mercy), Melanchthon’s emphasis (even grammatically) is on the “mirando temperamento.”

A. First Things First: Defining Iustitia Dei

321

experiencing God’s wrath, flee to this mediator. They admit that their sins are truly forgiven on account of him and that they are received and please God on account of this Priest who is interceding for us.”21 The divine decree also sanctioned “that the righteousness of the Son be imputed to us.” These three things – the centrality of Christ’s sacrificial death, its reception by faith and the imputation of righteousness – also shaped Melanchthon’s later explicit objections to Osiander. Melanchthon then went on the offensive in this speech, attacking definitions of iustitia that distorted the gospel. Besides the monks’ dreams that their spiritual exercises merited forgiveness, he went after “others” [probably including Osiander] who taught less absurdly by saying that “iustitia is movements incited in us by God.”22 Still this, too, did not match the gospel, “among other things because there is silence about that consolation in which faith sustains us.”23 Melanchthon warned his hearers not to allow such “tricks” to obscure this consolation. This concern, too, came up continuously in complaints about Osiander’s theology by him and others: “Where was the consolation?” Turning to Clement’s definition, Melanchthon divided the saying into two parts and wasted little time in showing the limitations of the first part (“Iustitia is a fellowship with God”). To be sure, Clement may have been thinking about God’s divine movements, but such a definition offered little more than what one could find in Plato, Cicero or Seneca. In the church, one had to know that the benefits of the Son were of a different nature all together, accepted by faith so that human hearts became God’s home. Simply to mention “κοινωνία θεοῦ” (communion with God) was not enough, unless one included Christ’s merit and forgiveness, that is, the voice of the gospel.24 Regarding the second part (“with impartiality”), Melanchthon insisted that this had to do with the second table of the law and how believers behaved toward their neighbors. Such “impartiality” (which could also be rendered as equality) was not a recipe for rebellion and social equality – something unthinkable for this sixteenth century reformer – but (as Plato and Aristotle “wisely” said) a proportional impartiality, as when a seller took money for goods or a judge meted out punishment for a crime. Thus, Clement was using the term to describe society’s necessary offices: parent, magistrates, and the like.25 Far from being an “Epicurean” virtue aimed at individual pleasure, Clement’s definition assured Christians that God wanted equality in serving others. The best example of such 21 CR 11: 995, “qui fide hunc filium redemptorem agnoscunt, et in sensu irae Dei ad hunc mediatorem confugiunt, statuunt vere propter ipsum remitti peccata, se recipi, se placere Deo propter hunc Sacerdotem pro nobis deprecantem.” 22 CR 11: 996, “esse motus a deo accensos in nobis.” See Osiander’s Disputatio de iustificatione, theses 4, 12, 31, 66, 73, and especially 76 – ​81 (GA 9: 428, 430, 434, 442, 444, 446). 23 CR 11: 996. “interea de consolatione illa silentium est, in qua fides sustentat nos.” 24 CR 11: 997, which Melanchthon defined as “propter filium Dei donari remissionem peccatorum, et imputatione iusticiae per fidem accensam a Spiritu sancto.” 25 CR 11: 997 – ​98.

322

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

impartiality was the Son of God himself, who threw himself into human miseries to be equal in death and torment, taking on human sins in order to create a new equality for humanity.26 Thus, in the midst of this succinct exposition of Melanchthon’s understanding of justification, based upon Christ’s satisfaction of God’s justice as our redeemer, many of his later complaints against Osiander took shape. For him, any singleminded focus on divine righteousness missed the centrality of Christ’s death and the comforting effect of faith. The “impartiality” (or: equality) spoken of here was for him not only not Epicurean but also not a way to speak of human deification. Instead, Christ became equal through serving and self-emptying, a standard refrain in later Lutheran Christology as well. The heart of Melanchthon’s criticism, not surprisingly, combined proper definition and its effect.

B. The In-Between Times Briskina’s dissertation describes in detail the arguments in many of the documents Melanchthon produced between 1551 and 1556.27 We shall only concern ourselves here with a handful of those in an attempt to outline the chief interests of Melanchthon’s attacks on Osiander, concentrating especially on those documents that have attracted less attention in the literature. I. Melanchthon’s Antwort of January 1552 In early 1552, Melanchthon’s Antwort [Reply] was published and contained some of Melanchthon’s most important objections to Osiander, as well as the first printing of the written discussion between Melanchthon and Luther from 1536.28 This chapter must first clear up the distorted picture of Melanchthon’s reaction to the printing of this memorandum.29 Melanchthon sent the reworked text to Paul Eber on 18 December 1551, while in Eilenburg, preparing for his journey south that was supposed to take him to the Council of Trent.30 (He remained in 26 CR 11:

999. Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 192 – ​213 and 243 – ​321. 28 Mel 02 (1552). For this document, see the discussion in chapter 6. 29 The reconstruction in GA 10 is based almost solely on Wilhelm Möller, Andreas Osiander: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften (Elberfeld, 1870), 478 – ​79. It demonstrates very little knowledge of how things worked in Wittenberg. Moreover, the editor shows next to no understanding of Melanchthon’s theology in his Antwort, which they preface with a rather dismissive comment that Osiander should have received a more detailed answer – to which one must add, only if Melanchthon actually found anything worthwhile in the document to which he needed to respond. In fact, he did not and instead focused upon the central matters: justification as forgiveness arising from Christ’s merit (not indwelling); the necessity of comfort as a result of justification. 30 MBW 6284 (CR 7: 872), dated from Meissen on 18 December 1551. He had already sent a copy of the 1536 Disputatio with Luther to Jerome Besold of Nuremberg on 11 March 1551 27 See

B. The In-Between Times

323

Nuremberg for some time before returning again to Wittenberg.) In a further letter to Eber on 22 December from Dresden, he instructed him to show the copy to Bugenhagen.31 It was set to type in early January 1552, so that Melanchthon had a copy in Zwickau by the middle of the month. He immediately wrote to Eber on 16 January expressing his surprise that the other material had been added and predicting that the second addition (that of Johannes Forster) would not please Osiander at all.32 Ten days later, in a letter to Justus Jonas, he mentioned that had he been at home in Wittenberg, he would have seen to it that the judgments of the others would have been made somewhat milder.33 In both cases, it was not the content of their positions but rather their tone and the expected blast from the North that worried Melanchthon.34 The publication showed Melanchthon at his diplomatic best (but still his sharpest). He began with a greeting to the Christian reader: “Dem Christlichen Leser wünscht Philippus Melanthon Gottes gnad durch Jhesum Christum unsern einigen Mittler und Heiland.”35 No one, of course, would have missed the play on the title of Osiander’s book (Von dem einigen Mittler Bekenntnis), except that here Melanchthon added the term Savior to Mediator, perhaps as a shot against Osiander’s separation of redemption from justification.36 The letter itself began with a reference to Osiander’s attack on him in his Confession.37 Because of this, Melanchthon wished that “other Christian men of understanding would function as judges,” just as he always submitted his writings to the church for approval. This remark indicated that the comments of Bugenhagen (MBW 6017 [Bds., 317]). The original text appeared at the Altenburg Colloquy of 1568 – ​69 (See WA Br 12: 189 –​190), especially notes 1– ​3 on p. 190. 31 MBW 6286 (CR 7: 874 – ​75), dated 22 [December 1551]. He was briefly in Wittenberg around 1 January 1552, when he completed work on the document. 32 MBW 6310, dated [Zwickau], 16 January [1552] (CR 7: 914 f.), here 914: “Miror te in editione publica addidisse aliorum subscriptiones, cum quidem altera illum Hyperboreum Gorgiam valde irritatura sit.” Cf. MSA 6: 452. “Es ärgerte ihn, daß Eber eigenmächtig seiner Schrift Nachschriften von Bugenhagen und vor allem von Forster beigegeben hat, zumal die letztere recht scharf gehalten war und Osiander aufbringen mußte.” What amazed (miror!) Melanchthon was not that Eber included other material but that Eber had retained Forster’s sharp comments despite the trouble they would inevitably cause. This material is published in CR 7: 900 – ​902. Bugenhagen simply attested to the truth of Melanchthon’s writing, but Forster attacked Osiander for using sophistic tricks, distorting Luther’s writings, for being ambitious, and for defending a poor understanding of justification, given that he did not understand Hebrew (“ex mera Hebraeae linguae ignorantia”). He also advised people to flee Osiander’s teaching like the plague. 33 MBW 6317, dated Nuremberg, 26 January 1552 (CR 7: 927 f.), here 927 – ​28: “Non volui onerare meos collegas periculo. Scripsi igitur meo nomine, et multas causas narrarem coram, ac si in editione domi fuissem, leniissem aliorum subscriptionem.” 34 MBW 6317 (CR 7: 927 f.). 35 “Philip Melanchthon wishes to the Christian reader God’s grace through Jesus Christ our only mediator and savior.” 36 MSA 6: 453, 1– ​3. 37 GA 10: 266, 4 – ​26 & 268, 1– ​3. Here and elsewhere the editors are unaware of the Wittenberg oration described above.

324

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

and Forster, which both began with praises for Melanchthon’s theology, could even have been requested by Melanchthon to buttress not simply his position but also his modus operandi. He also mentioned that he was under command (MBW thinks from the Saxon court but it could perhaps be from the Prussian one) and had received requests from a variety of “hohen und andern Personen.”38 Rather than argue, Melanchthon wanted to comfort the countless people who had endured much sorrow and confusion, so that they might realize what the controversy was about and how to receive comfort.39 It comes as no surprise that definition and comfort formed the heart of Melanchthon’s evangelical theology and his chief objections to Osiander. Only because he sensed that Osiander’s theology was undermining both of these things – the proper definition of justification (and, to a lesser extent for Melanchthon, Christology) and comfort for the doubting – did he respond.40 Moreover, his response focused on comfort. To this opening paragraph he added a little hook: “And I state that my intention in my writings and especially on this most important article has never been other than the position [Meinung] of the honorable Doctor Martin Luther and the common understanding among the reasonable people in this church.”41 The appendix containing Melanchthon’s interview with Luther thus carried even more weight. Just as Bugenhagen and Forster proved that Melanchthon’s opinion was that of the Wittenberg church, the material from Luther proved that the church’s chief Reformer also stood with him. Melanchthon also took the time to put Osiander’s own severe attacks in perspective. Melanchthon insisted that he had always loved and respected Osiander and was thus shocked by the bitterness of Osiander’s comments.42 Melanchthon wrote for students in a simple, even weak manner. This kind of boast, found in both Luther and Melanchthon’s writings, pointed to what might be called a hermeneutic of the cross. It was also, however, typical of a form of humanist attack – to feign weakness in the face of an (unexpected?) attack from an opponent. 38  See, for example, MBW 6131 (from Duke Albrecht of Prussia; 13 July 1551), 6133 (from Georg von Venediger; 15 July 1551), 6226 (to Christian III of Denmark, dated 5 October 1551 [CR 7: 841– ​43]), 6231 (from Johannes Stigel in Jena, dated 11 October [1551]). MSA 6: 453, 20. 39 MSA 6: 453, 23 – ​25. 40 See Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthon und Osiander über die Rechtfertigung: Zwei Versuche, die Wahrheit zu formulieren,” in: idem, Aufsätze zu Melanchthon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 202 – ​217. Not only does he detail the sharp differences between the two sixteenth-century theologians, but he also (215 –​17) notes the Osiandrian approach to Luther implicit in the Finnish school of Luther research and describes Osiander’s own theology as, in the final analysis, schwärmerisch. 41 MSA 6: 453, 26 – ​454, 3. “Und sprich aber mal, das mein gemut nie gewesen ist, in meinen schrifften, und sonderlich in diesem hochwichtigen Artikel anders zu leren, denn des Ernwirdigen Herrn Doctoris Martini Lutheri meinung und der gemeine verstand bey den verstendigen in disen Kirchen ist ….” 42 See, e.g., his implication that Melanchthon’s position was heresy (GA 10: 266, 11 & 23).

B. The In-Between Times

325

The body of the response was in some places word-for-word the same as Melanchthon had written earlier to Moibanus. At several places, as in the title (where he used the word “Heiland”), Melanchthon added the words “und Erlöser” and even added an explanation that it was Christ’s work as “Erlöser” that distinguished him from the other persons of the Trinity.43 He seemed also to have read Osiander’s works quite carefully and was quick to indicate Osiander’s deviant interpretations. Most importantly, however, both in his original writing to Moibanus and even more in the printed memorandum Melanchthon underscored the centrality of comfort. There was a difference between “grace” and “gift” in Romans 5:15, he wrote, but the gift was also the indwelling of God “through which we are renewed and experience comfort and the beginning of eternal life.”44 One trusted Christ’s merit precisely because Christ thereby gathered the church and bestowed the Holy Spirit “who brings comfort, prayer and strength.”45 The point of knowing the origin of forgiveness (in Christ’s merit) was simply this. “Here now the saints must also have comfort … For them this comfort is presented, so that also after rebirth they may continuously receive and keep forgiveness of sins and grace.”46 Melanchthon even placed doctrine (definition) and comfort (effect) together. “This teaching and comfort … is [there] from the beginning and is continuously preached by the prophets in all their oracles [Sprüchen], in which they teach taking refuge in mercy.”47 Melanchthon clearly missed this very comfort of forgiveness of sins in Osiander. “Now Osiander often talks this way: ‘I call righteousness that which makes us do right [just] things.’ In these words there is no discussion of the forgiveness of sins.”48 He then recounted instances where such comfort was needed: in the throes of death, under severe anxiety, in our weakest prayers. He concluded this list with a warning: “What happens when someone looks away from this comfort and points you to the essential righteousness in you, everyone can determine for themselves.”49 Osiander’s confusion of cause and effect was robbing people of comfort. And not just other people, but Melanchthon himself! Thus, in a remarkable turn of rhetoric, Melanchthon included in the tract his own prayer to God for mercy.50 To Osiander’s charge of “cheap grace,” Melanchthon responded not simply with law but added, “and contrariwise [one should] hold up to frightened hearts

43 MSA 6:

457, 14 – ​22. 454, 28 – ​29. 45 MSA 6: 456, 1– ​2. 46 MSA 6: 456, 29 – ​35. 47 MSA 6: 458, 11 & 14 –​15. 48 MSA 6: 458, 23 – ​25. 49 MSA 6: 459, 27 – ​29. 50 MSA 6: 460, 30 – ​37. 44 MSA 6:

326

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

true comfort, although the listeners are not all the same.”51 To Osiander’s favorite verse, Jeremiah 23:5 – ​6, Melanchthon insisted that one could not exclude Christ’s humanity nor his redemptive work and forgiveness from this text, “for without this comfort we cannot come before God.”52 In the end, Melanchthon admitted that he could not fathom why Osiander did not understand faith as trust in mercy promised because of the Mediator. One had to distinguish between the devil’s faith in God (mere knowledge) and the trust that receives the promise “and through which the heart obtains comfort and joy, which certainly is the recognition of mercy and a trust in Christ.”53 MSA 6 omits the end of Melanchthon’s letter: a postscript in Latin (perhaps from the original letter to Paul Eber), in which Melanchthon explained exactly why he included the quote from Luther.54 II. Melanchthon’s Preface to the Lectures on Romans by Alexander Alesius On 1 January 1553, Melanchthon’s preface to Alesius’s commentary on Romans, addressed to Thomas Cranmer, appeared. In a brevity for which Melanchthon was well known, the letter (which Alesius thought should be published alongside Melanchthon’s Antwort) attacked Osiander’s theology on several levels.55 He began with something that, at first glance, might seem far removed from the Osiandrian controversy. Some, given the confusion “of opinions, conduct and events,” might doubt, he wrote, that there was a true church, that is, a special assembly of people for whom God cared.56 But, blessed with divine revelation, Christians knew better that there was such a gathering of people among whom “the uncorrupted voice of the gospel sounds” and who, therefore, acknowledged “the enormous blessings that God gives to the church,” especially through the Redeemer.57 This gospel was taught to believers especially through the prophets and apostles, chief among them Paul, whose writings had over time been subject to horrible distortions. Origen, first on Melanchthon’s list, turned Paul’s message of justification by faith into its opposite by defining faith as simple knowledge (notitia) and justification as something human beings did. The monks and 51 MSA 6: 459, 33 & 36 – ​460, 1. “Osiander sagt: ‘Diese leer mache sichere leute’ … darauf ist diese antwort: man sol recht leren, Gott seine ehr geben und sünde straffen und dagegen den erschrocknen hertzen warhafftigen trost fürhalten, ob gleich die zuhörer nicht alle gleich sind.” See above, chapter 3. 52 MSA 6: 460, 20 – ​21. 53 MSA 6: 461, 7 – ​9. 54 This shredding of Melanchthon’s own thoughts by modern editors shows how important it is to pay attention to Melanchthon’s work as published, not simply as later edited. See chapter 6 for a discussion of this postscript and the material from Luther. 55 Mel 04 (1553): MBW 6696 (CR 8: 8 –​11). Briskina omits any discussion of this letter. But see, Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –1​ 568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 130. 56 CR 8: 8. 57 CR 8: 8 – ​9.

B. The In-Between Times

327

Thomas Aquinas, who turned faith into “formed faith” (fides formata), simply followed the Alexandrian church father. Despite Augustine’s insight that faith was trust,58 the “Enthusiasts” (here Melanchthon was referring by name to an ancient monastic heresy that rejected the external text of Scripture in favor of direct inspiration from God within the person [hence, ἐν θεοῦ]) transformed Paul into a Platonic philosopher. “Our own age has imitators of Origen and the Enthusiasts,”59 including the monks and the Anabaptists, whom Melanchthon depicted as boasting in their transformation and deriding Lutherans for being justified by grace and not by any new, spiritual virtues. They relied on the old definition of Clement of Alexandria, which Melanchthon then cited in Greek.60 People admired “this splendid description” of justification because “who would not want to be seen as a participant in the divine nature? Moreover, what is sweeter than the term ‘impartiality’?”61 Clement himself, Melanchthon went on to explain, showed how people in his day misused this definition to promote sexual promiscuity. Melanchthon then bemoaned the insidious nature of this definition: it made no mention of the Mediator or forgiveness of sin, instead it turned the human being into a participant in the divine nature rather than one rescued from the terrors of hell by faith in the promised forgiveness. The Enthusiasts always omitted teaching of faith and true consolation. They “imagine that their speculations and cooked up ideas [illabentes ideae] were a fellowship with the divine nature.”62 He had been fighting the trickery of both monks and enthusiasts for thirty years, Melanchthon added.63 With this introduction, he was now ready to lower his guns to blast Osiander. Moreover, although there is some beginning of renewal [in us], in these very divine movements that occur in us we ought to prefer by a huge margin the obedience of the Son of God [to our own]. Let the godly think upon this argument often and with proper attention and not let themselves be led astray by the clamoring of Osiander from the simple and natural meaning of Paul, which Luther brought to light and which the Saxon churches teach.64

With “novel grandiloquence” Osiander claimed that the “iustitia Dei” revealed in the Gospel meant God’s essential righteousness. On the contrary, this was only the law’s righteousness, 58 Melanchthon made the same claim in CA XX. The citation in Augustine has not been found. 59 CR 8: 9. 60 CR 8: 9. For a description see above. 61 CR 8: 9. 62 CR 8: 10. 63 CR 8: 10. He was writing this in late 1552, almost exactly thirty years after the publication of his first commentary on Romans in November 1522. 64 CR 8: 10, “Deinde etiamsi qua est inchoatio novitatis, in immensum anteferre debemus filii Dei obedientiam his ipsis divinis motibus, qui in nobis fiunt. Hoc argumentum pii et saepe et attente cogitent, nec Osiandri clamoribus a simplici et native sentential Pauli, quam Lutherus illustravit, et quam Ecclesiae Saxonicae docent, abduci se sinant.”

328

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

with which the Son of God clothes us, giving us forgiveness of sins and reconciliation, which he merited by his obedience, and along with reconciliation, at the same time, the Son of God fills us and gives us new life and bestows on us his Spirit. Although those who are reborn are God’s dwelling place, nevertheless they make [Christ’s] obedience far more precious than these divine actions in them.65

With such dissonance among interpretations, Melanchthon advised Cranmer and the reader to consider which was closest to the sources (fontes) and best accorded with the “perpetual consensus of the prophets and apostles.” The teaching of our churches, he argued, was not obscure or perplexing, as Alesius’s commentary showed. His work would help against the monks and Anabaptists and would prevent young students from inventing new concepts, as Osiander did when he argued that the text, “Through the obedience of one, many are justified” (Romans 5:19) referred to Christ’s divinity.66 Although God effected righteousness in those who were converted, Paul was speaking here, Melanchthon insisted, about Christ meriting forgiveness. III. Melanchthon’s Oration against Osiander’s Calumnies

A few months after the publication of this preface, in a declamation written (pace Stupperich) after Osiander’s death, Melanchthon defended Wittenberg’s doctoral oath.67 Far from being a minor part of the theological dispute, as Briskina characterizes it, this speech went to the heart of Osiander’s complaints against his early opponents,68 because it engaged directly the problem of authority, what amounted to Osiander’s chief objections to Wittenberg’s version of confessionalization (Konfessionsbildung). Osiander complained that such an oath replaced the authority of the Bible with that of the Augsburg Confession or the teachers at Wittenberg. Melanchthon used the occasion of the bestowal of a doctorate of theology on Tileman Heshuss on 16 May 1553 to refute Osiander’s “calumny.” For Melanchthon there were two parts to a doctoral oath: swearing allegiance to the “uncorrupted teaching of the gospel,” as found in the creeds and the Augsburg Confession, and, should new controversies arise, promising to consult 65 CR 8: 10, “… qua filius Dei nos vestit, donans nobis remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem, quam meruit sua obedientia, et cum reconciliatione simul amplectitur nos ipse filius Dei et reddit nobis vitam, et dat nobis de spiritu suo. Quamquam autem renati sunt domicilium Dei: tamen multo pluris faciunt obedientiam filii Dei, quam has divinas actiones in ipsis.” 66 CR 8: 11. See GA 10: 248 – ​51. 67 Mel 07 (1553). See Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –1 ​ 552 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), 258 – ​61. What Melanchthon was probably working on shortly before Osiander’s death was his preface for Alesius’s commentary on Romans. See also Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 243 – ​59. 68 See, for example, Osiander’s Bericht und Trostschrift, published in January 1551 (GA 9: 525), his Von dem einigen Mittler (GA 10:126, with n. 197), but especially his Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons (GA 10: 574 – ​76, with n. 45, here 575, 25 – ​576, 2): “Dann sie [the doctores et magistri] haben geschworen, sie wollen in der einhelligkeit, nicht der heyligen schrifft, sonder der Augsburgischen confession bestendig bleiben, sie musten sich sonst aydtpruchig lassen schelten.”

B. The In-Between Times

329

with the “seniores,” the elder statesmen, of the institution granting the degree. Osiander, by contrast, reviled the Wittenberg-trained theologians for not submitting to his self-willed individuality.69 Osiander did not behave like Pericles but like Cleon and (given his passion for grandiloquence) Hyperbolus, the Athenian orator. Melanchthon labeled such conduct anarchy and license and associated it with Pyrrho, the skeptic. Given that Luther, Justus Jonas and Johannes Bugenhagen had approved the Wittenberg doctoral oath over twenty years earlier, Osiander’s attack could only be compared to that of the Anabaptists, Servetus and Schwenckfeld. In the West, already at the time of Augustine no one could become a pastor without examination, so as to root out heresy. The same was the case for teachers in the church. Already St. Paul had reminded Titus (1:7) that bishops were not to be “self-willed” (αὐταδης). Paul had surely not suggested that they be κωφὸν πρόσωπον, Melanchthon’s nasty Greek translation of Osiander’s favorite self-designation, “primarius.” For Melanchthon, Osiander’s theological transgressions revolved not simply around justification but also around Christ’s sacrifice, which, in Melanchthon’s eyes, the Prussian professor denigrated. If Osiander had really always believed what he later proclaimed, then it should have come up in discussions over the Augsburg Confession, to which he was privy. Otherwise, Demosthenes’ complaint to Aeschines (that he should have given advice [to sue for peace] before the war) applied: it was rather like a doctor giving a remedy at a patient’s funeral. As if warming to the task demanded by an erudite declamation, Melanchthon compared Osiander to someone emerging from the cave of Trophonius with new oracles (which he labeled mystagogy).70 Osiander’s definition of iustitia was Promethean. By 1553, with their leader dead, a “second-rate actor” (Johannes Funck) had taken center stage employing Simonides’s old definition of iustitia as giving to each his [or her] own.71 While such a definition might characterize the renewal of a person, it did not explain Romans 5:1 (“Having been justified, we have peace with God”) and the need of the sinner for forgiveness and reconciliation. (This was Melanchthon’s chief proof text for the connection of justification and comfort.) To be sure, the Holy Spirit renewed the person, “Nevertheless, the obedience of the Son of God must be given preference to these divine actions, although excellent, even the kind done in Elijah and Elisha, and consolation (that on account of the Mediator, God and Man, righteousness is imputed to each of you who believes) must be retained.”72 69 CR 12: 6, “singulis ἰδιοβουλεύειν.” He used it a second time in the speech (col. 8). It was used by Herodotus, The Histories 7.8.d 2. 70 CR 12: 10. The cave of Trophonius was a famous for its oracles. 71 CR 12: 10. Simonides, the lyric poet of Cos, quoted by Cicero and Quintillian, originally in Plato, Republic, 1.331e as a saying of Simonides, “Iusticia is the constant and continual will giving to each his own.” 72 CR 12: 11.

330

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

Having barely touched on the theological issue in the case, Melanchthon lit into those who were lovers of victory and who pretended to know the entire corpus doctrinae (body of doctrine). It was easier to complain about one line in Vergil’s Aeneid than to write the Aeneid. Empedocles had described this same situation: “Now the bane of men wanders about [and] has uttered an empty quarrel.”73 Here, Melanchthon picked an example of such writing from Osiander’s 1550 tract, in which he criticized what Evangelicals had written about governing officials. that he [Osiander], reading the writings of others concerning the political order and magistrates, had seen that they understood nothing, but that he had revealed these mysteries. Afterwards, he said that Imperia is of God alone and that meanwhile human beings must be tolerated in governance but they are organa of God. When they are not organs of God, they must be driven out by force of arms. Although he seems to be speaking subtly, nevertheless such speech is dangerous. But for whoever would contradict [him] on account of ambiguity, subterfuges and betrayals would not be lacking.74

At the heart of Osiander’s attacks lurked problems of church and authority, especially the chief problem of constructing a confessional church that did not selfdestruct. “Since, therefore, Osiander has not put forth a whole body of doctrine nor himself explained [it] and in his sermons has intimated that he dissents from us in many things, let us not be moved by his censure, lest we reject this simple and perspicacious kind of teaching that has the witness of many churches, which are the voice of the Holy Spirit.”75 In this call for a confessional church – one that held an entire body of doctrine and bore testimony to it in a simple manner as a mark of the Holy Spirit’s work – Melanchthon provided one of the earliest and clearest descriptions of just what this church should look like. Even Osiander’s disturbing view of government had an important (negative) connection to this process of building (territorial) confessional churches.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans In her otherwise fine dissertation on the relation between Melanchthon and Osiander, one of the last completed under Gottfried Seebass at the University of Heidelberg but also supported by Heinz Scheible, Anna Briskina complains that 73 CR 12:

11, “φοιτᾶ δὴ βροτολοιγὸς ἒριρ κενεὸν λελακγα.” 11–​12. Melanchthon was referring to Osiander’s preface to Etliche schöne Gebete und Bericht, wieweit man den Oberherrn Gehorsam schuldig sei (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, August 1551), now in GA 9: 718 – ​35, with 710 –​15. GA 9 was not aware of a reprint of this tract under the title Grüntdlicher [sic!] bericht aus heiliger schrifft/ wie ferne man den Oberherrn/ gehorsam schuldig/ auch wer/ wie/ vnnd in welcherley fellen/ man den verderblichen Tyrannen/ möge widerstand thun … ([Magdeburg: Lotter], 1552). See above, chapter 5. 75 CR 12: 12. 74 CR 12:

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

331

speeches, letters and tracts that Melanchthon wrote in response to Osiander’s attacks are fairly thin theological gruel and end up showing that in point of fact the two theologians had more in common than either imagined.76 What she did not know – and this author only found out by accident – was that Melanchthon had written a far more substantial response to Osiander but placed it – as was his wont – not in an ephemeral tract or open letter or even simply in the German Loci communes of 1553, which Briskina analyzed, but in a biblical commentary: his 1556 Epistolae Pauli Scriptae ad Romanos, Enarratio, based upon lectures from 1553.77 Only because another combatant in that theological fray mentioned the importance of his comments in the Enarratio, did the role that this text played already in the sixteenth century come to light.78 Even the epistle dedicatory of the Enarratio put the reader on notice that Melanchthon intended to address contemporary theological issues. Before he was even a page into the text, he was raging against philosophers who doubted God’s providence and against monks who doubted God’s mercy. Romans “contains the principle part of wisdom,” which for Melanchthon meant a proper distinction between law and gospel and between human and divine righteousness, points that foreshadowed his attack on Osiander. Romans “distinguishes human righteousness from that righteousness by which a human being is reputed righteous before God by acknowledging and trusting the Son of God and thereby becomes the Temple of God and an heir of eternal salvation.”79 To be sure, these doctrines (and others concerning church, government etc.) were scattered throughout Scripture, but Paul brought them all together, as if “giving it bodily shape”80 (in line with the practice in all the arts), while avoiding sophistries. Melanchthon promised the reader to stay close to the native meaning of Paul’s words, which corresponded to the confession [of faith] “of our churches, from which I do not depart.”81 Over against this proper interpretation, Melanchthon contrasted a long list of opponents. for example, Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 292 – ​96. 10 (1556). The first printing was by Veit Kreutzer in Wittenberg. He quickly followed it with a second printing in 1558. In 1561 Hans Lufft of Wittenberg also printed it. Caspar Peucer included it in volume four of Melanchthon’s Opera. It is now available in CR 15: 797 –​1052 and (for the epistle dedicatory) in CR 8: 737 – ​41. Melanchthon also touched on the Osiandrian controversy in his 1559 commentary on Colossians. See CR 15: 1244, 1246, 1266 and 1275. 78 Pal 01 (1557): Peter Palladius, Catalogvs aliquot haeresium huius aetatis, et earvm refutatio, Scripta, a Petro Palladio doctore theologiae gvbernante ecclesiam Dei in inclyto Regno Danico (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1557), D 7v. “Sed haec & similia argumenta soluit ac refutat Philippus Melanthon in nouissima enarratione Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, quae edita est Anno 1556. seorsim in 3, Cap. sub litera K.” 79 MBW 7785 (CR 8: 737 – ​41, here 738), dedicated to Ulrich Mordeisen [in Dresden] and dated by MBW to the first half of April 1556. 80 CR 8: 738. Melanchthon used a rare Greek word σωματοποιηθεῖσα, which means to give bodily existence to, represent in art, personify, organize as a body, make into a whole. 81 CR 8: 739. This comment echoed his objection to Osiander in the speech from 1553, discussed above. 76 See, 77 Mel

332

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

I know that many dispute that in the exposition of this letter there is a question of the literal [ρητου] and the intention [διανοίας]. Thomas [Aquinas], Asotus [Domingo de Soto],82 and similar people depart from the peculiar nature of the word [sermo] and seek a strange meaning, and they mutilate and corrupt Paul. They say, “We are righteous by faith, namely, a formed faith, without works, namely, without ceremonies. And there are many little corruptions [corruptulae], which are addressed in this Enarratio. Clearly I reject these strange interpretations, whether they are from Origin or Thomas or the synecdoche of Osiander. I confess that I dissent from these enemies of the native understanding of Paul, and I judge that our churches – not sophistically but rightly – retain the word [ρητον] and are disciples of Paul and follow the native meaning that the peculiar nature of the words and phrases bears.83

While Augustine retains this same meaning in his work, there are others who do not. Melanchthon first mentioned Friedrich Staphylus,84 one of Osiander’s former colleagues in Königsberg who had recently returned to the Roman church. But he had a longer list of pontifical writers in mind: Reginald Pole in England, Stanislaus Hosius in Poland, Petrus Canisius in Austria, [William Lindanus], bishop of Roermund [Roardus] in Belgium, and Johannes Gropper in Cologne. Then he described the wild errors of the Anabaptists, Servetus, and (as he consistently called Caspar Schwenkfeld) Stenckfeld. Finally, he closed the letter by commending the church to God’s protection. Along with all the usual suspects (but otherwise none of his other Lutheran opponents, such as Flacius), Melanchthon mentioned only Osiander by name. Of course, the Prussian theologian had died in 1552 and, thus, might have been considered fair game. But still, mention of his name alone shows just how seriously Melanchthon took his challenge and how convinced he was that adhering to the “native meaning” of Romans could easily refute him. It also pointed to Melanchthon’s recent encounter with “Osiandrists” in Nuremberg where, as Briskina shows, he composed all of the responses subsequently signed by clerics from Nuremberg and representatives from Leipzig and Greifswald.85 Moreover, Melanchthon perhaps also had in mind Brenz’s pointed reaction to the Nuremberg agreement from 1555, where the Württemberg theologian implied that Melanchthon’s interpretation of Romans and justification, though correct, was not as straightforward as he claimed.86 82 [Domingo de Soto (1494 –​1560), Dominican theologian, who had just published a commentary on Romans: In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos commentarii (Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius, 1550). 83 CR 8: 739. This synecdoche may be found already in Osiander’s theses, Disputatio de Iustificatione, thesis 16 (GA 9: 430): “Quare fides iustificans in sacris literis semper intelligenda est per synecdochen, ut scilicet includat obiectum suum, dominum nostrum Iesum Christum.” 84 CR 8: 740. 85 Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 301–​10. See chapter 5. 86 MBW 7608 (Bds. 569 – ​72), dated 15 October 1555, here p. 571: “You often write that we are righteous by faith, [and] you are accustom often to explain this through these words, ‘we are accepted by God,’ which is a true and correct exposition. But you confess in this very exposition that the term iustus or iustitia has another meaning than common parlance. And this is neces-

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

333

I. The Argumentum As was typical of Melanchthon’s interpretations of biblical books, he began with an overview of Paul’s main arguments and the important terms (law, sin, grace, faith) used by the Apostle. Here, without mentioning Osiander by name, Melanchthon dropped small hints that the Königsberg professor would be among the opponents that Melanchthon used his Pauline exegesis to refute. Melanchthon distinguished human righteousness, which dreamt of a political messiah (Israel) and merited salvation by sacrifices (the heathen) or by the Mass (monks and sacrificing priests), from the righteousness revealed in the gospel. Then, invoking a central aspect of theology, present since 1521, Melanchthon wrote, “It is always necessary to refute these errors in the Church and, against them, to illumine the doctrine concerning the Son of God and his benefits.”87 For Melanchthon this teaching (“rightly to acknowledge the Son of God and to understand the righteousness of faith and to distinguish law and gospel”)88 was not only relevant for his time but for all time. This “one perpetual voice of the Gospel,” was most clearly stated in Paul’s letter to the Romans, which the apostle wrote as an artifex and methodus to guide people toward proper church doctrine, “because he expounds so accurately upon the principle matters: the benefits of the Mediator, the distinction between law and gospel, the distinction between the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works, the doctrine of the true church and of true worship.”89 To prove his point, Melanchthon not only brought up a host of biblical passages but also examined the experience of Adam and David, experiences that would also figure in his refutation of Osiander. Why include such examples? “Chiefly so it will not only be a cold, lifeless concept of the soul but so that we also may be seriously struck with dread by the remembrance of our iniquities and seek consolation.”90 This was the heart of Paul’s argument in Romans for Melanchthon: unmasking sin and proposing consolation through forgiveness and, at the same time, through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Despite the clarity of this argument, Melanchthon warned young people (his listeners in the Wittenberg classroom) to retain the native sense of the Gospel (nativa Evangelii sententia),91 namely, that believers were justified by faith freely on account of God’s Son (not sary, so that, because Paul very frequently uses Hebraisms, chiefly in the discussion of justification, the strange tropes of the word may be explained. But even Osiander fell into this fantasy, because he understood the word justify as used by Paul not according to a trope [tropice] but, according to the Latin custom, for ‘to become righteous.’ ” See above, chapter 5. 87 CR 15: 798 – ​99. Cf. MSA 2/1: 20, 26 – ​28 (the Loci communes theologici of 1521), “Nam ex his proprie Christus cognoscitur, siquidem hoc est Christum cognoscere beneficia eius cognoscere, non, quod isti docent, eius naturas, modos incarnationis contueri.” 88 CR 15: 799. 89 CR 15: 799. 90 CR 15: 802. As we will see, this is a crucial charge against Osiander’s “sophistries.” 91 CR 15: 802. See also CR 15: 861 and the discussion below.

334

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

our works) and that his righteousness was imputed to us when they believed the gospel. This faith was not in general or mere knowledge but the recognition that the promise was “for you” (tibi). At the same time, believers were raised by faith through the Son who also gave the Holy Spirit.92 Other biblical interpreters, including Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Ambrose [actually Ambrosiaster], Basil, Bernard, Johannes Tauler and others, in spite of occasional misstatements, also agreed with this position. Melanchthon then confronted the false teaching surrounding this epistle. Some understood “faith” to be merely knowledge of the history. Others understood righteousness philosophically as possessing certain virtues. Others, such as Jacobo Sadoleto (whose exposition of Romans appeared in the 1530s), argued that we were saved by faith and other virtues. The Council of Trent spoke of faith as preparatory for true justification. In this connection Melanchthon also attacked Petrus Malvenda [=Pedro de Malvenda], who was the Roman opponent at the 1546 colloquy at Regensburg (attended by Georg Major from Wittenberg) and later a participant at the Council of Trent. He then returned to what he regarded as the basic teaching on justification and pointed out that conversion, justification and the beginning of good works in a person occurred by faith on account of the Mediator who, throughout life, remained as an umbrella covering us and our faults. “Therefore this proposition is always true: In conversion and in the life after conversion a person is righteous by faith on account of the Son of God, that is, accepted by God through mercy and not on account of one’s own worthiness but by faith alone.”93 When the opponents insisted that such justification was on account of a new [habit of] love, they removed Christ, buried him and refused to talk about his intercession for sinners or the imputation of his righteousness. For them righteousness was nothing more than how Plato defined it: an excellent or heroic virtue. For this reason, Paul cited Abraham who, despite his virtues, was justified by faith. Melanchthon concluded, “From this recitation, the argumentum of Paul may be understood and with certainty it can be shown what is the native meaning [nativa sententia], and the sources become apparent whence solid arguments may be gathered to refute the corruptions of Origen and more recent commentators.”94 In a related discussion of the necessity of contritio, Melanchthon again recounted the experience of justification this way, especially emphasizing the role of comfort. In these terrors and sorrows [wrought by the law], when you ask for forgiveness and truly believe that your sins are forgiven and that you are received on account of the Son of God freely and not on account of your worthiness or merit, and by this faith and consolation 92 CR 15:

802 – ​03. 806. 94 CR 15: 807. 93 CR 15:

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

335

you sustain your terrified heart, then certainly your sins are forgiven and God receives you in grace and at the same time gives the Holy Spirit, who is received in this very consolation, when by knowledge of the promise we enkindle faith. And these causes run together: the Word of God and the Holy Spirit in the knowledge of the Word, who aids the mind and will. Likewise, there is the mind and will. And when the Holy Spirit is given, faith is enkindled, which conquers terrors and cries “Abba, Father,” invokes God, and by acknowledging the mercy of God now subjects us to God.95

Of course, shortly after Melanchthon’s death controversy would break out over these “three causes,” a phrase that already appeared in the Loci communes theologici of 1535. But for now Melanchthon maintained a remarkable inconsistency in his thought, where faith arises both in the person (“by faith … you sustain your terrified heart”) and from the Holy Spirit (“faith is enkindled”). More importantly, Melanchthon’s description was remarkably free of language about essences, that is, speculation about the way God worked in the human soul. Rather, he described a process experienced by the convicted sinner coming to faith, a “word event.” In that light, Melanchthon ruled out speculation about innate human worth (a la Erasmus, Trent or Osiander) or (as he called it elsewhere) about Stoic necessity (a la Calvin). What followed in the Argumentum was first a refutation of several false syllogisms regarding justification by faith (for another set, see below) and then definitions of the chief terms used by Paul in Romans. For example, faith for Melan­ chthon meant not simple knowledge but “trust that rests in the promise.”96 “For the sake of teaching, therefore, this definition must be held on to: Faith is assent to that Word of God handed down to us, and so also we assent to the promise of reconciliation, and it is trust resting in the Son of God according to the promise.”97 In comments on Romans 1, Melanchthon noted that this Word of God is efficacious, but not as fire was efficacious in burning straw (as the Manichaeans, Enthusiasts, and Anabaptists believed, who “wait for some internal illumination”).98 Once again, the contradiction (or hermeneutical circle) noted above shows up. “We ought to hear the gospel, consider it and, by assenting, embrace it so as to fight off doubt. When we do this, the Holy Spirit is at the same time [simul] effective in his own consolation and in this light. These things are learned daily by experience and in prayer.”99 How this Argumentum set up Melanchthon’s experiential arguments against Osiander became clear in what follows. 95 CR 15:

808. 815. 97 CR 15: 816. 98 CR 15: 825. 99 CR 15: 825. Here and in other remarks on chapter 1 (CR 15: 835), Melanchthon also rejected complaints that Paul twisted the meaning of the Hebrew Scripture (leveled by Sebastian Münster?) and brushed aside those who rejected “the simple and true grammatical interpretation” (of the words, “God handed them over”) in favor of labyrinths (probably Calvin’s more predestinarian [Melanchthon would say Stoic] interpretation). Cf. CR 15: 978 – ​80. 96 CR 15:

336

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

II. Introducing Romans 3:21 First in comments on Romans 3:21 did Melanchthon mention Osiander and provide readers with an all-out assault on the deceased chief theologian of Königsberg. In fact, Melanchthon’s refutation of Osiander’s position takes up twelve columns in the CR.100 This contrasted strikingly to his dealings with other opponents. To be sure, he mentioned Origen (aka Erasmus), the monks and the Council of Trent, Antinomians, Anabaptists and Schwenkfeld, among others.101 And from time to time in the commentary, as was his wont, Melanchthon interrupted the flow of the text to aim a few trenchant paragraphs at these adversaries. In contrast, Osiander’s views not only earned mention throughout the text, but his position on justification was so virulent that Melanchthon felt the need to interrupt or, rather, preface his entire discussion of the topic with an attack.102 Since he first lectured on the Latin text of Romans in 1521, Melanchthon had always insisted that the very heart of Paul’s first argument in Romans, justification, introduced in Romans 1:16 –​17, actually commenced with Romans 3:21 and ran to 5:12, when Paul introduced a different theme, where he then employed analytical (dialectical) techniques rather than rhetorical ones to prosecute this second topic. In 1556, having arrived at Romans 3:21, Melanchthon began his all-out attack on Osiander. This revealed just how seriously Melanchthon took his Prussian opponent. Indeed, he did not think that he could teach the students (iuniores) the meaning of this all-important text without first setting aside Osiander’s wayward interpretation. It was here – as almost nowhere else103 – that Melanchthon commenced his most sophisticated and sustained attack on Osiander’s position. III. Excursus: Explicit Agreement with Osiander in the Enarratio

Just how sophisticated this attack was may be seen by three surprising comments elsewhere in the Enarratio. At three places, Melanchthon expressly agreed with Osiander’s interpretation of Romans. No other contemporary exegete received such praise, and even Melanchthon’s patristic sources received compliments with caveats.104 The notion of agreeing with one’s enemies or disagreeing with one’s 100 CR 15:

855 – ​67.

101 For the association of Origen and Erasmus, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Famous Last Words:

The Final Epistolary Exchange between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Philip Melanchthon in 1536,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 25 (2005): 18 – ​38. 102 Here Briskina’s work is less than satisfying. It is not a matter of whether she sees more agreements between Melanchthon and Osiander than they did, but that Melanchthon saw no basis for agreement with Osiander at all. 103 The revised German translation of the Loci communes theologici, as Briskina has shown, also contains some arguments against Osiander, but even there they were not nearly as concentrated. 104 Cf. CR 15: 803.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

337

allies was a basic premise in Melanchthon’s biblical interpretation that went back at least to his battles with Johann Agricola in 1527.105 What is striking is that, unlike other cases (for example, with his use of Erasmus), Melanchthon expressly stated with whom he was agreeing. On Romans 3:22 (“witnessed to in the law and the prophets”), Melanchthon noted that Osiander understood “law” as referring not to books of the Bible (i.e., the Torah and the prophetic writings) but to its content, namely, that the law in its sacrifices provided types of Christ’s sacrifice. Melanchthon’s comment? “Sit ita sane.”106 A second time in his exposition of Romans 3, where Paul asked rhetorically whether his approach to justification by faith abolished the law, Melanchthon again stated his agreement with Osiander. This agreement was even more remarkable. After arguing that the phrase meant that the moral law (the Decalogue) was the eternal and immovable wisdom and norm of righteousness in God, revealed to the rational creature, which God wanted to restore in fallen sinners through the Christ, Melanchthon expressed his hesitancy in this interpretation and added I know that Augustine often uses this explanation, namely, that the phrase, “the law is confirmed through faith” means that help is obtained so that you can obey the law. This explanation is very weak and distorted. Although it is true that the Holy Spirit is given in consolation, in which faith we find comfort in the Mediator and although it is true that the Holy Spirit according to his own nature ignites such movements, nevertheless this inchoate obedience in us is quite far removed from the perfection of the law. Osiander rightly says that God dwells in believers but that at the same time there is in human beings great masses of sin.107

Of course, there was a remarkable irony here. In Osiander’s attempt to show that he did not minimize the effect of sin in the justified believer (that is, the person in whom the divine nature of Christ, indeed the entire Trinity, dwelt), he inadvertently allowed Melanchthon to use those words to substantiate Melanchthon’s own chief argument: believers were not totally righteous in this life and therefore had to trust the imputed righteousness of Christ while awaiting the consummation in heaven (which was what Melanchthon immediately added to his comments about Osiander). The third agreement with Osiander came in comments on Romans 12:1 (“Present your bodies as living sacrifices”), where Melanchthon discussed the various kinds of sacrifices. While Melanchthon (already in the 1531 Apology of the Augsburg Confession) distinguished two types of sacrifices (propitiatory and 105 In

that case, Agricola complained that Luther and Melanchthon did not agree on the interpretation of Galatians 3:19. For both reformers, this was no cause for alarm. See Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 121. 106 CR 15: 866. “It may well be so.” 107 CR 15: 883.

338

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

eucharistic), Osiander discussed three: “as a prefiguring, as a propitiation and as a thank offering, by which the priests are fed.”108 Melanchthon simply stated that while this did not displease him, he preferred to speak of sacrifices of thanksgiving, since it included both the spiritual and ceremonial meaning of sacrifices. This final instance indicated Melanchthon’s (and Wittenberg’s) ongoing respect for Osiander’s knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture.109 The reason for the other two express agreements arose from another source, two related experiences: Melanchthon’s intervention in the continuing Osiandrian controversy in Nuremberg110 and certain subtle concessions to Johannes Brenz, who already in 1531 showed himself to be more Augustinian than Lutheran in his approach to justification and who was more open to Osiander’s position – partly out of friendship and partly out of his desire to maintain peace among Lutherans.111 In all three cases, however, Melanchthon was less interested in praising Osiander than in using his most formidable evangelical opponent to further his (Melanchthon’s) own arguments. IV. The Heart of the Disagreement At the very beginning of his interpretation of Romans 3:21 (“But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God is revealed”), Melanchthon described the disagreement with Osiander this way. “Osiander understands the righteousness of God to be God dwelling in the reborn person and moving that one to do righteous things. So, by this approach [res] itself he teaches that a human being is righteous by renewal [novitas] and works.”112 From this synopsis, the conclusion of which, as seen in chapter 1, Osiander vigorously contested, Melanchthon focused not so much on the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature – other opponents attacked Osiander on this point – but on the consequences of such an indwelling: moving a person to do righteous things, which was then the true definition of justification for Osiander. Indeed, Osiander had said as much (that the point of justification was doing just works), and that was where Melanchthon attacked him. Where the Roman (now Tridentine) party spoke of an indwelling of the habitus of love or grace, Osiander simply had replaced it with the indwelling of God himself. Melanchthon, who was more familiar with medieval exegetical and theological debates than some give him credit, recognized that the differences between these two positions 108 CR 15:

1006, “typicum, propiciatorium et θρεπτήριον, quo alebantur sacerdotes.”

109 See Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and the Jews: A Reappraisal,” in: Dean Phil-

lip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett, eds., Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 105 – ​35. 110 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 304 – ​06. 111 See above, chapter 5. Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 310 –​16, goes too far in her analysis of the Colloquy at Worms. See also Fligge, Osiandrismus, 371– ​432. 112 CR 15: 855.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

339

(indwelling habitus versus indwelling divine nature) went back to an old dispute over Romans 5:5 (“The Holy Spirit is poured out in our hearts”). On that text he stated in the Enarratio, “Here many questions are stirred up: whether love is the Holy Spirit himself substantially and thus a created love of God has no place in the human being and, likewise, whether knowledge, which is faith, may be the Son of God himself, the Word, and whether no created knowledge of the promise may have a place in the human being.” These questions went back to a comment in Peter Lombard’s Sentences, where he argued that the Holy Spirit indwelt the believer. Thomas Aquinas objected that only a gift of the Holy Spirit (a habitus charitatis) could dwell in the soul. Melanchthon wrote: “These questions were stirred up in times past and now renewed by Osiander, as if someone imagined that the righteous person has not been at all changed in himself but is only the dwelling place for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as when water is poured into a jug there is no change in the jug.”113 At first glance, especially if viewed as a debate over competing “ontologies,” it would seem that Melanchthon had gotten it all wrong. Osiander had insisted upon the indwelling of Christ’s divinity (or, in other places, the Trinity) precisely to argue against an approach to justification that rested “merely” upon a “forensic” declaration of forgiveness, which, Osiander went on to say, had no effect upon the human being. (See the discussion of Nero below.) The medieval teaching about habitus argued in a similar way. The habitus entered the soul and changed its very essence. But, in fact, Melanchthon’s objection (that the Holy Spirit or habitus is poured into the soul like wine into a jug) revealed a vastly different approach to justification that, pace Briskina, Frank and others, rejected all such ontological speculation about the nature of the soul and its ontological connection to God and had everything to do with relatus, relation.114 As Melanchthon had consistently stated, at least since his 1532 commentary on Romans and in every major theological treatise since then including the 1556 Enarratio, the word justificatio had to be understood as a Hebraism. This comment alone made clear that he saw Paul’s use of the word in direct conflict with the regnant (though often competing) ontologies of his day. In the 1556 Argumentum he put it this way. Thomas Aquinas and others (Melanchthon was probably thinking of Osiander, given later comments linking the two) understood iustificatio and iustitia in terms of the law, philosophically, as a matter of possessing certain virtues. The Gospel spoke otherwise. 113 CR 15: 912 –​13. Melanchthon may first have become aware of this connection from Alexander Alesius in his Tres Disputationes. See above, chapter 3. 114 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 260 – ​96. For a more nuanced view of Melanchthon’s ontological assumptions, see Günter Frank, Die theologische Philosophia Philipp Melanchthons (1497 –1​ 560) (Leipzig: Benno, 1995), 211– ​25. In our context, the argument is not whether Melanchthon found ways to appropriate philosophy (in Frank’s view, especially Platonism) into his theology, but whether ontology provided the underpinnings for his doctrine of justification.

340

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

When your mind is in anguish about whether you are righteous or not, it is not principally seeking what are the qualities in the heart but … whether you are accepted by God, whether God receives you and forgives you …. Thus, the word “to justify” means to absolve from sin and “righteous,” that is, accepted, means to repute or to pronounce, as commonly in judicial speech [in forense sermone], although the Hebrews speak [this way], as if they said, “The Roman people justified Scipio accused by the tribune,” that is, pronounced him just.115

In the midst of his attack on Osiander, Melanchthon went into even more detail, this time explaining that “to impute” “signified a relation, as elsewhere that term is usually defined.”116 Then, rather than using the example of Scipio, Melanchthon cited a biblical example (in this context unusual for him), namely Joseph’s comment in Genesis 50 (“You intended it for evil but God for good”), adding, “this intention [cogitatio] is acceptation.” He concluded that the word “to impute” had to be understood “relative.” While relative and relatus were first attested in post-classical Latin,117 the classical Latin term from which they were derived, relatio, included several technical meanings. Literally, it meant a carrying or bringing back (cf. refero). In philosophy and grammar it denoted a reference or relation (as in a “relative” pronoun).118 In rhetoric it referred to the repetition of a word for effect. Of course, it could also mean repayment or simply a report or relating of something. However, when Melanchthon employed the term, his reference to Genesis 50 (and to Scipio) demonstrated that he was thinking of the technical usage in law: a retorting or rejecting of a charge, that is, turning a charge back on the accuser.119 In this case, however, Melanchthon inverted the meaning. Here not the accused but the accuser (God) overturned the accusation with the beneficia Christi.120 In this sense, relative implied something close to what English speakers 115 CR 15: 815. Melanchthon was referring to the story of Scipio Africanus who, when accused in 185 B. C., on the anniversary of his victory over Carthage, of having been bribed by the Syrian King, Antiochus III, was surrounded by the people of Rome and brought to the Capitol, where they prayed the gods to give them more citizens like Scipio. (Livy, Ab urbe condita libri, XXXVIII, 52 – ​53.) It was just this definition that Osiander attacked in Von dem einigen Mittler (GA 10: 148, 150): “Dann es sein etliche, die halten, lehren und schreiben, wir warden umb des glaubens willen gerecht gesprochen, aber vom gerechtmachen schweigen sie gantz und gar still und setzen die ursach, das wörtlein ‘rechtfertigen’ sey ein gemein wort, von den gerichtshendeln genommen, und heis nichts anders, den das man einen beklagten vor gericht gerecht und ledig sprech, gleichwie das römisch volck den Scipion, der da beklagt war, als were er gemeinem nutz nicht treulich vorgestanden, fur gerecht hielt und ledig zelet. Solchs sey nun gemeinet, wie es wolle, so ist es an im selbs ein philosophische, fleischliche und unbedachte rede.” 116 CR 15:859. Osiander had attacked this notion at the very outset, having dismissed defining fides as relatio in his Disputatio de Iustificatione of 24 October 1550. thesis 19 (GA 9: 430). 117 Cf. Augustine, De Trinitate 5, 16 & 5, 71, according to Lewis & Short. 118 Quint. 8,4,21. 119 Cicero, Inv. 1,11,15: “Relatio criminis est cum ideo jure factum dicitur, quod aliquis ante injuria lacessierit.” 120 See the insightful article on this topic by Risto Saarinen, “Wohltaten, Medizin, Theologie: Melanchthon im ‘oikumenischen’ Gespräch mit Seneca und Galen,” in: Günter Frank and

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

341

mean by relationship or experience. That is, Melanchthon was not simply talking about a mental construct, a fictive judicial “as if,” but an actual turn of events before God’s judgment seat.121 Thus, the actual sinner, oppressed by sin (that is, under the law), heard the judge speak a completely unexpected word of grace. No wonder that, to prove his point Melanchthon, both in his argumentum for the entire epistle and in the discussion of Romans 5:5 proffered examples of famous sinners in the Bible (Adam and David). Far from “nothing happening” in some sort of fictional courtroom scene, for Melanchthon everything changed because of this divine pronouncement of judgment (law) and forgiveness (gospel).122 This very pronouncement carried with it the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the gifts of comfort and joy, because the Son and the Holy Spirit were not there like water in a jug but the person was reborn and could bear the fruits of the Spirit. On the contrary, “smug reason [ratio secura] neither discerns the wrath of God against sin nor the presence of God in consolation nor the joy in God,” that is, neither law nor gospel.123 Melanchthon expressed the centrality of this relational meaning of iustitia far more completely in his direct attack on Osiander in the Enarratio. In Paul’s view, believers became righteous “not by an indwelling or essential righteousness which causes us to do righteous things, but rather [imo] by the obedience of the Mediator, which is infinitely preferable and which is active in the one reborn.”124 But what did the term iustitia mean? Melanchthon first noted that in political essays it had two meanings. It referred, on the one hand, to a iustitia universalis (obedience to all laws that had their origin in God’s wisdom, which distinguished righteous and unrighteous deeds). Under this definition Aristides was called righteous because he obeyed all laws according to externa disciplina.125 Melanchthon also provided two common adages to this effect: one from Theognis, on whom he lectured in Wittenberg, and the other from Horace.126 On the other hand, it referred to a iustitia particularis, “which is equality preserved in Stephan Meier-Oeser, eds., Konfrontation und Dialog: Philipp Melanchthons Beitrag zu einer ökumenischen Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 203 –​17. 121  For the contrast with John Calvin, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin against Andreas Osiander: Coming to Terms with Forensic Justification” (forthcoming). 122 See, in the Argumentum, CR 15: 799 – ​801 (Adam), 801– ​02 (David) and, in arguments against Osiander, CR 15: 858 (David) and 915 (Adam). 123 CR 15: 915. 124 CR 15: 856. 125 Aristides (530 B. C. – 468 B. C.), an Athenian soldier and stateman who was given the nickname “the Just” and about whom Herodotus wrote that there was not a man in Athens as just as he. 126 CR 15: 857. “Sic usitate dicitur de iusticia universali: ‘Iustitia in sese virtutes continet omnes.’ ” He repeated this later in the commentary (CR 15: 989), where he identified Theognis (v. 147) the poet as his source. (Cf. Melanchthon’s lectures in CR 19: 86, which makes clear that he was not dependent upon Erasmus, Adagia, 1273). “Et apud Horatium [Odes, III.3] ‘Iustum et tenacem propositi virum, Non vultis [=voltus] instantis tyrannis mente quatit solida, Si fractus illabatur urbis [=orbis], impavidum ferient ruinae.’ ” English: “The man who is just and tenacious

342

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

contracts.” Thus, [Gaius Cilnius] Maecenas was just in emotions but not in public shows.127 But, Melanchthon concluded, these were legal definitions, occasionally used by the prophets and apostles when speaking about works. “It is another thing to speak about the righteousness of the person before God, that is, concerning the acceptance of the person.”128 Such a person was accepted and righteous by faith. Only afterward [postea] was such a one said to have a good conscience, which referred to the particular righteousness of one’s calling. Thus, this legal definition (both universal and particular) was behind Clement’s phrase (cited in Greek but without attribution) that “righteousness is the fellowship of God with impartiality [or: with equality].”129 The first part (fellowship with God) referred to the renewal of the believer and the latter (with impartiality) with the works of the second table. In this context Melanchthon introduced his “simul.” Luther, of course, was and is famous for the phrase “simul iustus et peccator.” Melanchthon’s simul had a quite different flavor. For him faith clung to this pronouncement of forgiveness, but at the same time (simul) the Holy Spirit was given and indwelt the believer to begin the process of renewal. This was related to the “hermeneutical circle” described above. While this renewal was not to be confused with justification (precisely what Osiander was doing in Melanchthon’s eyes), it should also not be separated from it.130 Nevertheless, a person was righteous even after justification “on account of the mediator [Christ] by faith alone through mercy.”131 Melanchthon then summarized his position with reference to David. Therefore, when David, filled with this sense of God’s wrath, seeks righteousness, what does the promise and voice of the gospel offer? It does not say that he is righteous by fulfilling the law but it shows the benefits of the Mediator: forgiveness of sins and gratuitous reconciliation, or imputation of righteousness on account of the Mediator, with which at the same time [simul] vivification occurs, when he believes that he is received on account of the obedience of the Mediator.132

David did not ask what virtues were in him or the quality of the indwelling essential righteousness but how he received forgiveness. Here what is reduced by some scholars (especially under the influence of Albrecht Ritschl) to “mere” psychology or existential philosophy was for Melanchthon something quite difof his purpose … the face of a threatening tyrant shakes not from his solid determination … if the world should fall shattered, the ruins will strike him unafraid.” 127 Perhaps a reference to Horace, Odes, II.17. Maecenas was accused of misuse of funds for circuses. 128 CR 15: 857. 129 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III.2.6. See Melanchthon’s speech of 1551 discussed above. Osiander used this same definition with quite a different result. See GA 10: 841, 4 – ​5. 130 See CR 15: 803, 805, 825 (here the simultaneity of the hearing of the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit) and 858 – ​59. 131 CR 15: 805. 132 CR 15: 858.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

343

ferent: a fundamentally divergent way of doing theology, one that rested in the experience of the sinner but rejected the medieval addiction to psychology and ontology in favor of a relationship between God and the sinner borne by the Word of forgiveness won by the mediator (cf. Romans 3:25).133 V. What Does This Mean? The Debate over Definition A standard objection to Melanchthon’s theology focuses on his supposed moralization or psychologization of salvation. In fact, as Peter Fraenkel demonstrated fifty years ago, Melanchthon’s theology is driven by Luther’s distinctions between law and gospel and between philosophical and spiritual righteousness and the concomitant, analytical distinction between the definition of a thing and its effect.134 Thus, it comes as no surprise (except to those who choose to ignore Melanchthon’s theological principles) that in his disagreement with Osiander, Melanchthon focused on their competing definitions of justification and Osiander’s near total neglect of the effect of his teaching on the terrified conscience. For Melanchthon a theological concept did not simply have a definition (answering Aristotle’s question in the Analytics, “quid sit” [what a thing is]) but also an effect (answering the question “quid effectus” [what is the effect, i.e., the final cause of a thing, its goal]). Thus, defining “law and gospel” for Melanchthon was never simply a matter of spelling out whether something was a command or a promise but included as well what the command and the promise effect (terror and comfort, respectively). This basic insight, which Melanchthon and, indeed, all Lutherans (save Osiander) claimed to derive from Martin Luther, meant that one could never argue simply on the basis of the definition of things but also always with an eye toward the effect or goal of such definitions. Moreover, Melanchthon was convinced that this very link between definition and effect was also imbedded in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Thus, after Paul defined justification in Romans 3 – ​4, he turned immediately to its effect in Romans 5:1 (“Having been justified, we have peace with God”). Melanchthon could, on occasion, also call this the first fruit of faith or of the Holy Spirit. But this meant for him, at the same time, that this “fruit” could only be borne by the rightly defined tree! Thus, his attack on the minutiae of Osiander’s position and its consequences derived directly from his basic theological and philosophical commitments and from his exegetical conclusions. Only removing individual statements of Melanchthon from this driving methodological commitment makes his approach reductionistic, that is, only concerned for law, psychology or ethics. 133 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 18 – ​29 and the description of the older literature.

134 See Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: Droz, 1961), and Timothy J. Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 48 – ​64. Melanchthon stated this expressly in the epistle dedicatory to the Enarratio.

344

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

Melanchthon went after Osiander’s “defective” definition of righteousness and his ignoring of the effect of this divergent definition. Turning first to definitions, for one thing, Melanchthon, following Aristotle, believed that all correct definitions were the result of the proper use of dialectics, that is, of syllogistic logic. Thus, in his exposition of Romans in 1556, he included in the Argumentum not only a set of (Pauline) definitions of grace, faith, law and the like135 but also a set of syllogisms, refuting the arguments of his (Roman) opponents, refutations that more often than not focused on defective definitions. More striking than this approach (which we also find in other writings) came when he reached Romans 3:21. Melanchthon concluded his excursus on Osiander with another set of false arguments, reduced to syllogisms. Specifically, Osiander had argued that the iustitia Dei in Romans 3 – ​4 was an essential righteousness that was in God and was God himself, as revealed in the law. Later Osiandrists (Melanchthon probably had the Nuremberg opponents fresh in his mind but perhaps also Johannes Funck) called this a iustitia tropica [figurative righteousness] and argued that Christ [actually, Christ’s death] justifies per accidens. “These impious terms must be condemned.’136 Melanchthon then constructed a series of syllogisms, similar in form to those in the Argumentum.137 Through them, Melanchthon sought to show how ungodly Osiandrian definitions really were. “Only God is good; therefore only God is righteousness.” Using this Osiandrian enthymeme (the missing term would state that God’s righteousness is a part of God’s goodness) Melanchthon attacked Osiander’s hidden assumption. When he said that only God was good, Osiander should have added that God was the source of goodness (by implication Melanchthon opposed this dabbling in speculation and sheer abstractions about the goodness of God per se), since God himself called creation good in Genesis 1. At the same time, Christ’s obedience was scarcely such a derived good and thus could not be called a figurative righteousness. Instead, “it is the highest conformity in mind and will” with God’s righteousness. At the same time, to imagine that Christ justified per accidens is a horrible lie, since it confused cause and effect. In Romans 3 Paul stated that “God justifies the one who has faith from Jesus.” Here Paul named two causes: God as efficient cause and Christ as impulsive cause per se (impulsiva causa per se).138 Similarly, when Melanchthon constructed a second Osiandrian syllogism (Mercy justifies; mercy is God’s es135 The parallel to Luther’s preface to Romans from 1522 is striking and may indicate that the reformers had worked on this preface together, given that Melanchthon always included such a list in his various commentaries on Romans and already in the Loci communes of 1521 and that he helped see the September Testament through the presses in the summer of 1522. 136 CR 15: 861. 137 The only other set in the commentary itself comes in a series refuting Melanchthon’s Roman opponents, into which he inserted an attack on Osiander (CR 15: 895). 138 CR 15: 862.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

345

sence; therefore, God’s essence justifies), he again distinguished between first cause and impulsive cause.139 Jakob Runge used this same term in his sermon, published in 1555 and, if not written by Melanchthon, probably influenced by the latter’s lectures on Romans. Melanchthon had started using the term causa impulsiva, already in his argumentum for Cicero’s Oratio pro M. Caelio Rufo, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics and his Initia doctrina Physicae.140 He explored the term most fully in his Erotemata dialectices.141 In a lengthy discourse on the four causes (efficient, formal, material and formal), Melanchthon defined the efficient cause generally as that “by which a motion first occurs, that is, that truly or principally acts so that it effects something.”142 He then described ten different ways efficient causes had been divided. (The other nine were: natural and voluntary; total or partial; principal or secondary; immediate or remote; universal or particular; principal or instrumental; preparatory or effectual; principal, inclinatory or preparatory [a division employed by physicians]; and interior and exterior). The tenth distinguished efficient causes coming from the object moved, on the one hand, while “others are the things moving or impelling, which are called impulsive,” on the other. This latter type, he continued, was used by lawyers and taken from rhetoric. Although sometimes confused with the final cause, Melanchthon asserted that these two should be properly separated. “The impulsive cause is the affect or the one who acts moving the object.”143 The first example given was mercy (misericordia). But Melanchthon recounted others, including the Law and “Merit also pertains to the impulsive cause, as in: the merit of Christ moves the will of the eternal Father to receive the human race.”144 Later, in one of the examples of logic, Melanchthon expanded on God’s impulsive cause for the crucifixion this way But the impulsive cause moving God is the immense mercy toward the human race and the very intercession of the Son, who offered himself to pay the penalty for us. The formal cause, what God wills in the Passion, is not principally torment but the obedience of the Son. The final causes are that by the wrath placated through this obedience he satisfied the righteousness of God and that the Son himself is revived and rules in eternal communion with the eternal Father and there gives for his inheritance life and eternal salvation.145 139 Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 196, implies that Melanchthon actually reduced Christ’s saving righteousness to his humanity. Not only is this a tendentious reading of the sources, but it is directly opposed to comments Melanchthon made later in his commentary (CR 15: 1038), where he argued that the benefits of Christ’s divine nature are made by the Son in his assumed nature as “actiones communes huius personae.” 140 See, respectively, CR 16:1097 (published in 1539), CR 16: 336 (which only reproduces the 1546 edition at this point and not those from 1532 or 1535) and CR 13: 313 (published in 1549). 141 CR 13: 507 – ​742; which uses the edition from 1547 142 CR 13: 675. 143 CR 13: 678. 144 CR 13: 679. 145 CR 13: 724. Melanchthon contrasted God’s impulsive cause from the Jewish fulfilling of the law. Satisfying God’s wrath was not for Melanchthon an efficient cause, only a final one, and

346

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

In other contexts, Melanchthon found this impulsive cause revealed in such places as John 3:16 (CR 24: 610) and Psalm 23 (CR 13: 1050). The third syllogism returned to what Melanchthon deemed Osiander’s most egregious error. Righteousness was what made us do right; the divine essence made us do right; therefore the divine essence was our righteousness. This, he conceded, was completely “legaliter loquendo.” Forgiveness, however, revealed another, alien righteousness, “Wherefore the Osiandrian definition is only legal.”146 This objection rested upon Melanchthon’s basic distinction, learned from Luther, between civil and divine righteousness, a distinction he also used quite effectively against Erasmus.147 “And clearly, this error of Osiander may be seen; for this error in definition is the font of many confusions.” If one then changed the definition of iustitia to the forgiveness of sins and imputation through faith, then it was clear (as Melanchthon argued above) that this righteousness arose from the obedience of the mediator and not simply from the essence of the Trinity. In the final two syllogisms, Melanchthon went after Osiander’s understanding of eternity, an especially important aspect of his (Osiander’s) Platonizing tendencies. Daniel talked about an eternal righteousness [in Daniel 9:24]; only God was eternal; therefore, only God was righteousness. Or, alternatively, Daniel called righteousness eternal; forgiveness was not eternal; therefore, forgiveness was not righteousness. In both instances, Melanchthon called into question Osiander’s assumption about the meaning of the word “eternal.” Rather than always being something without beginning or end, which would have forced Melanchthon to concede the argument, “eternal” could also designate a righteousness given to human beings that had a beginning (in imputation) but would be brought to its true consummation in eternity. That is, it would never fail. At the same time, when the phrase “the LORD is our righteousness” occurred (as in Jeremiah 23), Melanchthon raised no objection to identifying this with the person of Christ (God and human being). Thus, righteousness in Jeremiah referred to all of Christ’s benefits, which in this life were received on account of Christ’s obedience through imputation and on account of Christ as the beginning of renewal that culminated at the resurrection.148 Moreover, the passage from Daniel itself linked righteousness and forgiveness, which proved that they were not incompatible, since forgiveness was not only good in this life but also marked the beginning of eternal life. It was called eternal in contrast to the iustitia operum [righteousness of works], which ended at death.

thus he never set it opposite God’s mercy. Moreover, God’s mercy and the Son’s intercession (“Father, forgive them”) became the two efficient, impulsive causes and were both lodged in God’s love for humanity (John 3:16). 146 CR 15: 863. 147 Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness, 110 – ​36. 148 CR 15: 864.

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

347

But why did Melanchthon concentrate on definition and syllogistic arguments (the conclusions of which always offered competing definitions to those in Osiander’s writings)? One must not only look to Melanchthon’s commitment to Aristotelian logic but also to the theological heart of definition. This is not to gainsay the enormous impact dialectic had on Melanchthon’s theology.149 It is rather to say that looking for theological expressions of the need for clear definition paves the way to understand the theologically serious nature of Melanchthon’s disagreement with Osiander. This was no minor skirmish on the road to Protestant orthodoxy but rather a massive disagreement about the very core of Christian teaching. At stake for Melanchthon was, to use an anachronistic term, Konfessionsbildung per se. First of all, Melanchthon introduced his criticism of Osiander with comments about the Königsberger’s method. Some of these criticisms Melanchthon shared in common with Luther, who found Osiander and Bucer to be two of a kind (with Zwingli!): preachers more interested in rhetorical flourishes than in the plain truth of the gospel. As Melanchthon later proved (to his satisfaction at any rate), Osiander confused cause and effect, “although he mixes up many things and even obscures some things deliberately with ambiguous cover-ups and he thunders by some of his grandiloquence, in which many things are θαύματα ρημάτον [word tricks].”150 This desire for novelty in speech (often criticized in humanist circles) contrasted for Melanchthon with the language of the true church. He criticized the “­alienae significationes” employed by such heretics as Paul of Samosatenus [revived by Servetus], Pelagius [revived by the monks], Origen [revived by Erasmus], and now Osiander, who “pours forth mental darkness.”151 By contrast, “the church does not beget new doctrine but in the ministry is the propagatrix of the voice received from God, to which she does not want to add anything and which she does not want to mutilate. Since, however, she is the disciple of the divine voice, she also ought to retain the native signification of the words and phrases.”152 Both Luther and Melanchthon had insisted that the function of a church council was never to make new doctrine but rather only to affirm the “voice received from God.” This theological conservatism (or, better, conservation) meant that the theologian was duty bound to show how his teaching conformed to this voice.153 149 From Aristotle via Rudolf Agricola. See Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon: Eine Biographie (Munich: Beck, 1997), 22, and idem, “Aristoteles und die Wittenberger Universitätsreform,” now in: idem, Aufsätze zu Melanchthon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 125 – ​51. 150 CR 15: 855. 151 CR 15: 861. The adage may be from Cicero. 152 CR 15: 861. 153 WA 50: 605, 20 – ​24 and MSA 1: 332, 1–​11. See also Caspar Cruciger’s dedicatory epistle to his commentary on John (CR 15: 5 – ​6) and Melanchthon’s letter to Johannes Gigas, dated 29 October 1556 and accompanied by a copy of the Enarrationes (MBW 8009 [CR 8: 893 – ​94]). For an analysis of this letter, see Timothy J. Wengert, “Philipp Melanchthon, biblischer Theologe

348

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

But there was a second theological impulse to this kind of criticism. Melanchthon linked the plain sense of Scripture with God’s revelation in Christ. Commenting on Romans 3 (“through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”), Melanchthon insisted that Paul’s very words eliminated all other sources of redemption but placed them in the one Mediator, Christ. This placed the Christian alongside the father of a possessed boy in Mark 9, who cried out, “I believe; help my weakness.” This meant, Melanchthon argued, that our redemption could not come from reason. Indeed, after the Fall, reason always employed this logic when confronted by the law’s righteousness: the righteousness of God was immutable; human beings were guilty of sinning against this righteousness; therefore they would be punished. No creature knows the solution to this argument, save the Son of God – interceding for us and offering himself for our punishment – who brings to light and shows the solution to this argument and teaches how mercy and righteousness fit together. These things must be piously and reverently pondered: that we consider just how bad as sin is and, again, that we magnify the benefits of God.154

For the most part, because of his discomfit with paradox (or rather because of his insistence that paradox was a rhetorical trope and scarcely a part of good dialectics), Melanchthon’s theology did not reflect Luther’s famous theology of the cross (i.e., the revelation of God under the appearance of the opposite) with the exception of what this author has called elsewhere an ecclesiology of the cross.155 However, here we discover what might be called Melanchthon’s pedagogy of the cross.156 From Melanchthon’s viewpoint, his theology and its method contrasted with the “sophistic” arguments of Osiander and others. To be sure, Melanchthon used what might be called a modified Anselmian argument (where Anselm in Cur Deus homo? focused on honor and dishonor rather than the distinction between mercy and justice). But Melanchthon actually turned Anselm’s logical argument (remember that Anselm wanted to replace the “picture” of God defeating evil with the “logic” of God maintaining honor) on its head. For, rather than presenting a logical argument, as Anselm did for his interlocutor Boso, Melanchthon insisted that reason could not possibly conceive of divine forgiveness, precisely because of its (existential) predicament after the Fall. Reason could not get where Anselm was trying to go precisely because its only syllogism, recounted above, ended in judgment. Instead, another (the Son of God) must “profert, ostendit et docet” (bring to light, show and teach). The results matched the work of God’s der Neuzeit,” in Günter Frank & Ulrich Köpf, eds., Melanchthon und die Neuzeit (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2003), 23 – ​42. 154 CR 15: 874. 155 “Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s 1546 ‘Enarratio’ on John’s Gospel: An Experiment in Ecclesiological Exegesis,” Church History 61 (1992): 60 – ​74. 156 So to speak an “educatio a Deo sub contrario specie.”

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

349

Word as law and gospel. For Melanchthon this meant that teaching the gospel actually brought to light what reason itself sub lege could not imagine: forgiveness of sins on account of Christ (not on account of works). This also meant that Melanchthon derived his theology and its method from the experience of the justified (i.e., one who had experienced law and gospel). This, for lack of a better term, experiential theology provided the heart of Melanchthon’s rejection of Osiander’s teaching. For example, Melanchthon insisted that, “remission of sins must not be divorced from present conversion, as Osiander imagines.”157 The phrase “from present conversion” [a praesenti conversione] delimited not merely a different dogmatic position but an entirely different way of doing theology: one in which Melanchthon derived doctrine from the actual, present experience of justification. No wonder that immediately after that statement, Melanchthon expressed deep emotions: “Recounting these things I am horrified and deeply saddened that such words [of Osiander] must be repeated.”158 VI. Disagreement over the Comfort of the Gospel The experiential nature of Melanchthon’s theology and method meant that he also focused his rebuttal of Osiander on what had been a leitmotiv for his (and others’!) attacks on Osiander from the very beginning: Osiander’s position robbed the person of comfort.159 Again, this objection had for Melanchthon not simply ethical or psychological aspects (as Briskina and a host of others have argued).160 Instead, as we indicated above, it was grounded in his understanding of the nature of meaning. Throughout his career Melanchthon remained wedded to the notion that proper theology comprised two parts: proper definition of a thing and accurately understanding its effects or goal. In introducing his rebuttal of Osiander in the commentary on Romans, not only did Melanchthon identify his Königsberg opponent with the Papists, as he called them, but he also described, “what evil is in that imagination [of Osiander].”161 As he repeated countless times, Melanchthon argued that in true sorrows over sin a person did not seek out a kind of renewal within but, seeing only uncleanness, sought forgiveness itself. “Here [Paul] teaches that wherever the voice of the Gospel is, first forgiveness of sins and reconciliation ought to be received freely by faith on account of the Mediator, not on account of our 157 CR 15:

859. 859. 159 Many others also expressed this complaint, as we have seen throughout chapters 2 – ​4. At several points in his refutation of Melanchthon, Osiander noted this objection by simply dismissing it out of hand, a sure indication that he had no grasp of its significance. See, for example, GA 10: 598 – ​607, passim. 160 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 272 – ​96. 161 CR 15: 855. 158 CR 15:

350

Chapter 7: Melanchthon’s Theological Response to Osiander

worthiness.”162 After listing a myriad of proof texts, Melanchthon concluded: “These and similar sayings show that in this life we offer our sins to God and that God desires (so that we may rest assured) that we are received and pleasing to God on account of the Son.”163 It is this assurance (“ut certo statuamus”) that marked the effect of the teaching. Thus, Melanchthon stated, “Osiander obscures this teaching and consolation” (i.e., doctrinal definition and its effect). As one of the worst examples of Osiander’s obliteration of good teaching and comfort, Melanchthon offered what for him was one of his opponent’s most outrageous arguments: Nero had forgiveness (imputed to him from the cross) but was damned because he lacked essential righteousness. This Melanchthon could only call “a horrible impiety.”164 “For pulling apart remission [of sin] and justification manifestly fights with Scripture, according to the statement in John 3 (‘The wrath of God remains on whoever does not believe in the Son’).”165 By explaining Osiander’s error in advance, Melanchthon argued, he cleared the way for properly understanding Paul’s language. This brings us again to the crux of the matter for Melanchthon, summarized best, perhaps, by Luther’s famous line, “Experience makes a theologian.”166 For Melanchthon, experience actually made theology. Perhaps nowhere did Melanchthon make this clearer than in his use of biblical examples. In his exposition of dialectics, Melanchthon had argued that examples had very limited function and could be abused. Because examples could not support a major premise, which had always to be in some sense universal, he preferred proper syllogisms to examples.167 Yet, on several occasions in his exposition of Romans, Melanchthon used and relied upon the examples of Adam and David (as Paul had used the example of Abraham in Romans 4), because they showed that justification by faith alone was not a matter of some “cold, lifeless concept of the soul” but had to strike fear in the person’s heart and provide true comfort. Here, in Adam fleeing the Garden of Eden and David being caught by Nathan in his murderous affair with Bathsheba, one saw clearly, from Melanchthon’s perspective, what actually happened to believers as they moved from law to gospel. It was precisely this experience of grace (Adam hearing the proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 and David receiving God’s forgiveness in Psalm 51) that defied reason and, effectively, broke the very syllogism on which human existence after the Fall was based. Any attempt to skirt this human predicament by pure logic destroyed the “native meaning” of

162 CR 15:

855. 856. 164 CR 15: 856. He returned to his on 859 and again (without mentioning Osiander’s name) on 905 and 908. 165 CR 15: 856. 166 WA TR 1: 16 (no. 46). Cf. CA XX.15 –​18 (Latin). 167 CR 13: 621– ​24. 163 CR 15:

C. Famous Last Word: Melanchthon in His Final Commentary on Romans

351

the text and left a person stuck in sin. Moreover, from this experiential theology Melanchthon’s other forays into the battle against Osiander make sense. This chapter has traced the reactions of a single theologian, Philip Melanchthon, to Andreas Osiander. Consistently, Melanchthon used a two-pronged attack, complaining about Osiander’s poor definitions of righteousness and justification and, at the same time, worrying that the Königsberger’s theology could not deliver what for Melanchthon was the first and only necessary fruit of faith: comfort of the terrified. But this approach was not simply Melanchthon’s own. As we saw in chapters three and four, the twin concerns of definition and comfort infused almost every critical response to Osiander throughout this period. In part, Osiander was right in suspecting some sort of Wittenberg cabal, which, led by Melanchthon, had abandoned the Christian message for sheer sophistry. Whether he was right or not, what this surprising harmony and concord point to for the historian is instead the actual steps toward confessionalization, that is, toward the building of a confessional self-awareness among the participants. These two aspects of Melanchthon’s theology and the way in which they also demarcated all of the Evangelical theologians involved in this dispute formed the very backbone of Evangelical theology, the morphology of Lutheranism, to use Werner Elert’s term for it. Its obscuring by later generations of Lutheran theologians and its rediscovery in what Gerhard Forde called the “Law – Gospel” debate, may also show what is still at stake for Lutheran theologians in modern forms of this struggle over confessionalization.168 One can never ask only “What does this mean?” or only “What does this do?” but instead must discover how Lutherans witness to a gospel that both calls a thing what it is and works death and life, judgment and forgiveness, terror and comfort on the hearers.

168 Gerhard Forde, The Law-Gospel Debate: An Interpretation of Its Historical Development (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969). See also idem, Justification by Faith: A Matter of Death and Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).

Chapter 8

Writing against Osiander: A Bibliographic Essay This chapter provides the bibliographic culmination for the entire argument on confessionalization and publication, and it may also provide help for future research, both on the Osiandrian controversy but also on other similar disputes during the birth years of Lutheran theology and confession, that is, in the time between Luther’s death in 1546 and the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580.1 The point all along has been a simple one. The conflict that raged over Andreas Osiander’s approach to justification by faith can best be understood by taking into account the entire range of printed reactions to it, stretching from established, well-known figures such as Joachim Mörlin, Nicholas von Amsdorf, Johannes Brenz, Philip Melanchthon and Matthias Flacius to a host of relative unknowns.2 As much as many of them held similar points of view, they nevertheless represented their own or their church’s position with energy and ingenuity, as they tried to ward off what they considered a threat to the very foundations of Evangelical teaching. In so doing, they became midwives for the birth of confessional Lutheranism.

1 In this regard, I have been inspired by the work of Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and

Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), but also by the eight-volume project, led by Irene Dingel, Controversia et Confessio: Theologische Kontroversen 1548 –​1577/80, Kritische Auswahledition, 8 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008–). 2 In 1556, as Flacius looked back upon the controversy in his Trost und Unterricht (Fla 14 [1556]), he characterized this way: “Denn es ist ja eine vnermeßliche vnd vnbegreiffliche wolthat des gütigen himlischen Vaters/ das wiewol der Gottlose verführer Anno 50. vnd 51. also grewlich alda stürmete vnd polterte/ vermeinete auch gentzlich ein gewunnens spiel zu haben/ gleich wol hat der liebe Gott durch geringe personen/ solchen grossen vnd grewlichen Goliath dermassen zuschanden gemacht/ also seine irthumen entdecket/ vnd lügengestrafft/ die vnterdrücke warheit aber dagegen erkleret/ erleuchtet vnd ehrlich gemacht/ das nu auch die Kinder auff der gassen erkennen/ vnd verlachen die Osiandrische spitzfündige schwermereyen/ sampt seinen schwermeren vnd verführeren.” English: “For it is certainly an immeasurable and incomprehensible blessing of the gracious heavenly Father, that although in 1550 and 1551 the godless seducer so dreadfully raged and blustered there and also imagined that he had completely won the game, nevertheless our dear God through insignificant people disgraced such a great and horrible Goliath to such a degree, uncovered his errors and punished his lies. But contrariwise, God clarified, brought to light and restored to honor the suppressed truth, so that now children in the street recognize and make fun of the Osiandrian, hair-splitting ravings, along with his [disciples] who also rave and seduce.”

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

353

This dispute, like others swirling around the Evangelical churches at this time, was a literary event of the first order. This chapter demonstrates just how remarkable the outpouring of tracts and pamphlets was: nearly 125 printings of ninety separate publications between 1550 and 1559 (with one from 1567). Osiander was, almost from the beginning, if not outclassed then certainly outgunned. One after another, the churches to which Duke Albrecht and his “Primary Theologian” turned for support responded with well thought out, often polemical, but rarely brief tracts of their own, all rebutting Osiander’s basic point of view. Even after Osiander’s death, although in slightly lower numbers, as disputes continued in Königsberg and broke out anew in Nuremberg, the literary battle went on, led by the unlikely triumvirate of Mörlin, Flacius, and Melanchthon. Despite Brenz’s continued insistence that this was still more a war of words than a substantive debate, these three and others who supported their point of view continued to agitate against Osiander and his followers. The commitment to a spoken, external gospel and to the comfort that comes with hearing a clear word of forgiveness also drove the opponents to continuing speaking, refuting and pleading for their witness to the gospel. Even after his death, Osiander and his supporters afforded these theologians an opportunity to confess their faith and to express it as clearly as they knew how. Even a mediator like Brenz continued to speak, in part moved by the very vehemence of Osiander’s enemies, mapping out a position far closer to Osiander’s enemies than to Königsberg theologian himself. By publishing Brenz’s later views, the presses of Wittenberg and Magdeburg hoped to turn ever more of the reading public – to say nothing of Flacius’s children in the street – toward their common perspective. In this dispute, perhaps as in no other of the time, the firm boundaries between Philippist and Gnesio-Lutheran, later invented by scholars to simplify the debates of 1548 to 1577, simply did not obtain.3 Unlike the voters in some sections of the United States, for whom voting as Democrat or Republican seems a birthright if not a genetic predisposition, these theologians were bound to the texts, the authorities, and the actual theological matters at hand – not to some artificially constructed categories of “genuine” or “user-friendly, pussyfooting” Lutheran that later generations attached to them. Osiander had to learn this the hard way, when, of all people, Matthias Flacius rejected out of hand Osiander’s attempt to enlist the Croatian theologian on his side by insinuating that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” At least with respect to this controversy, Osiander’s opposition consisted not so much in fixed parties as in ill-defined factions. Even the Swabian exception, led by Johannes Brenz, was revealed in chapter 5 to be far less favorably inclined toward Osiander than previous scholarship has depicted him. 3 For most recently, see Thomas Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), chapter nine, where he draws a false distinction between gnesio-Lutherans and Philippists on the use and authority of Luther and the Augsburg Confession.

354

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

If one can speak of a center to Evangelical theology at this time – despite all of the controversies over adiaphora, good works, the law, and (later) free will and the Lord’s Supper – this controversy defined it: justification by faith alone, understood as solely trusting in God’s gracious, merciful promise of forgiveness through Christ, which comforted the sinner. The remarkable, virtually unrehearsed and yet by-and-large harmonious chorus that responded to Osiander reveals something about the nature of the developing confessional Lutheranism of the 1550s and 1560s. Unlike any other religious group at mid-century – whether Anabaptist, Reformed, or Roman Catholic – Lutheran, that is, Evangelical Christianity found its center in the evangel: the announcement of the forgiveness of sins and its consoling effect on the terrified sinner. Or, to put it in the classical terms of later Lutheran Orthodoxy, at the heart of a growing sense of Lutheran identity and (later) concord beat an understanding of justification by faith alone with its concomitant distinction between law and gospel. In one way this chapter, with its exclusive focus on the printed record, might seem incomplete since it leaves out especially the many letters written on this subject (some of which we have nevertheless used in previous chapters). However, there is historical justification for doing so, since for this dispute precisely the printing press served, in perhaps an even more massive way than in Luther’s dispute against indulgences, as the medium for the exchange and execration of ideas.4 Only in the encounter between Melanchthon and Brenz (see chapter 5) did it seem useful to employ the wider epistolary record, but then only to clarify aspects of the printed material. But this chapter will examine only the remarkable publishing record itself, establishing a definitive chronology and identifying the authors and provenance of as many tracts as possible. The Osiandrian controversy was a literary event of the first magnitude, but it was also an historical event, since the debate itself quickly spilled out of the university lecture halls and pulpits in Königsberg, Prussia to fill the bookstalls of Evangelical printers and the library shelves of a remarkable number of sixteenth-century Evangelical theologians. From this printed record emerges a striking testimony to the extraordinary literary output that this dispute evoked, in which anyone who had a teaching office, made some excuse to respond and access to a printer seemed eager to share his thoughts (and condemnation) of that “primary” professor from Königsberg.

4 For Martin Luther, see David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518 –​1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) and Mark U. Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975). Thomas Kaufmann also understands the importance of the printed record for this period. See Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548 –​1551/2) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) and, more recently, Anja Moritz, Die religiösen Vereinheitlichungsversuche Karls V. im Spiegel der magdeburgischen Publizistik 1548 –​1551/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). I am grateful to Robert Kolb for the latter reference.

A. 1549 –1550: In the Beginning ….

355

A. 1549 –​1550: In the Beginning …. Zie 01 (1549)5: Bernhard Ziegler, De hac sententia, fide iustificari homines coram deo absque merito operum, capita ad disputandum proposita … ad diem XV. Februar. (Leipzig: [V. Bapst, 1549]); reprinted as part of Z 02 (1549). The disputation was held on 15 February 1549. Zie 01.1 (1549): Bernhard Ziegler, Disputationes duae prima de iusticia fidei, secunda de bonis operibus … habitae Bernardo Ziglero (Leipzig: Bapst, 1549), reprinted in CR 12: 664 – ​77. Fligge, no. 166.6 Zie 02 (1549): Bernhard Ziegler, De dicto quod extat in capite XIII. Iohannis, si quis diligit me, sermonem meum seravabit etc. Capita ad disputandum proposita a Bernardo Ziglero D. Theologiae. Ad diem Iunij sextum (Leipzig: Bapst, 1549). The disputation was held on 6 June 1549.

As described in chapter 1, the controversy “officially” began in the classroom with the publication and public defense of Osiander’s Disputatio de iustificatione (GA 9: 422 – ​47). The theses, which were first published in anticipation of the 24 October 1550 disputation itself,7 were quickly printed twice more in 1550, combined with theses from Osiander’s earlier inaugural address at the University of Königsberg, Disputatio de lege et evangelio.8 This printing included a brief preface by Osiander (GA 9: 508), in which he vaguely complained about opponents in Saxony (i.e., Wittenberg and Leipzig) and upper-Germany (i.e., Nuremberg). As in the later disputation, Osiander’s peculiar position on that doctrine also shone through in these theses. This collection bore a title similar to one published the previous year by Bernhard Ziegler (1496 –​1556), Osiander’s original Saxon nemesis from the University of Leipzig. Ziegler’s publication contained theses written by Melanchthon.9 Ziegler, as we saw in chapter 1, was really the new Prussian 5 The nomenclature for this bibliography is comprised of three parts: the first three letters of the author’s name (or pseudonym), the number of his publication, and the year it appeared in parentheses. Later printings of the same document will be indicated by a period and the printing (e.g. 01.1). Because Zi 02 (1549) contains more than simply a reprint of an earlier document, it receives its own number. 6 For this chapter, all references to Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –1​ 568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972) are to the numbered bibliography on pp. 858 – ​952, abbreviated (as here) Fligge, no. 166. 7 Cf. GA 9: 426, 2 and Seebaß, no. 48. They seemed to have been published before 24 October, since Melanchthon sent a copy to Georg von Anhalt [in Merseburg] on 28 October. See MBW 5931 (Cr 7: 1119). 8 Seebaß, nos. 49.1.1 and 49.1.2, published under the title, Disputationes duae …. This same version was published shortly after Osiander’s death in 1553 (Seebaß, no. 49.2), during which time a host of Osiander’s writings, especially sermons, also found their way into print. A German text was published in 1551 (Seebaß, no. 57.1), dated 12 September 1551. In this preface Osiander complained that his enemies had insulted him in the worst way and forced him to provide and translations in German and Polish (see GA 9: 427, 18 with n. 5). 9 Here Zie 01 (1549) and Zie 02 (1549). See chapter 1.

356

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

professor’s first opponent. Upon proposing an interpretation of a Hebrew word that differed from Osiander’s opinion, Ziegler earned Osiander’s wrath. Yet, as these other theses from 1549 published by Ziegler indicate, Osiander could also have learned a great deal about Leipzig’s (and Melanchthon’s) position on justification from them. Just at a time when Melanchthon was reassuring the wider public about Wittenberg’s fidelity to the gospel, Osiander was gearing up to show just how they had abandoned it.

B. January – May 1551: A Moment of Silence After Osiander’s forays into the world of law and gospel and justification there was silence from the German printing presses. Osiander’s first address came in April 1549 and his famous disputation on justification in October 1550, and both were published by the end of the year. However, except for Ziegler’s response to Osiander’s (unprovoked) attack, there were no salvos from the Prussian’s supposed enemies. In fact, when judged from the perspective of publications, there really was no “other side” at this point in time. Of course, Osiander himself was not silent. If anything, he was on a kind of publishing rampage. Having published his theses in October 1550, he then published in short order (between December 1550 and March 1551) three documents defending his position in print against opponents who had not yet publicly attacked him.10 Thus, in the middle of 1551 we have the rather curious set of circumstances: the dispute had produced at least four documents (five, if one includes the theses on law and gospel) from Osiander and none from his opponents. Even after his opponents broke their literary silence in June 1551, public reaction to Osiander only slowly developed, finally spurred on both by the publication of his definitive defense, Confession concerning the One Mediator, and by Duke Albrecht’s request for opinions of it from other Evangelical theologians. Aep 01 (1551): Johannes Aepinus, Liber de iustificatione hominis operibus legis. Fidei iustitia & origine. Fidei discrimine & virtute. Notis signis iustificantis fidei et hominum iustificatorum. Imbecillitate et peccatis sanctorum. Discrimine peccatorum. Praemijs fidei et bonorum operarum. His addita est confutatio argumentorum, quae adversarijs opponi solent iustificatione fidei (Frankfurt/Main: Brubach, 1551). The prefatory letter was dated 1 January 1551.

The one person who could be said to have broken this silence was Johannes Aepinus (1499 –1​ 553), the pastor and first Evangelical superintendent of the church in Hamburg, who received one of Wittenberg’s first Evangelical doctor10 See above, chapter 1 and 6, for details. He did not often publish this much in a single year. See Gottfried Seebaß, Das reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander (Nuremberg: Verein für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1967), 6 – ​58.

C. Summer 1551: Three Still, Small Voices

357

ates of theology in 1533.11 Sometime shortly after 1 January 1551 his lengthy tract on justification appeared, published in Frankfurt/Main with a brief dedicatory epistle by Hartmann Beyer to Adolf von Glauberg, dated 1 January. When sent a copy by Beyer that summer, Melanchthon replied with a thank-you note, in which, despite the fact that Aepinus had attacked him in the dispute over adiaphora, he compared Aepinus’s erudition to Osiander’s nova sophistica.12 Aepinus showed throughout the book his thorough-going dedication to a forensic understanding of justification, stating that “Justification is properly speaking to absolve and to pronounce righteous, not to be made [effici] righteous by just actions, nor through conversion to make a godly person out of an ungodly one or a just person out of an unjust one, as the papistic sophists imagine.”13 While clearly not yet an attack on Osiander (Aepinus would write one the following year), it clearly represented (given Aepinus’s attacks on Wittenberg’s position vis-à-vis adiaphora) not just the “Wittenberg line” on the doctrine of justification but the position of a host of Evangelical theologians. In 1557, Johannes Wigand republished this book, specifically attacking Osiander in the new preface.14

C. Summer 1551: Three Still, Small Voices Rot 01 (1551): Michael Roting, Testimonium optimi ac doctissimi viri D. Michaelis Rotingi unius e populo ecclesiastico contra falsam Andreae Osiandri de iustificatione sententiam, quam in Prussia libellis ac propositionibus spargit. ([Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann], 1551). Probably printed in late June 1551. Fligge, no. 150.

In June 1551, the first salvo from the “other side” was fired in this print war. It came from a peculiar source, given that many researchers (to say nothing of Osiander himself) often have been tempted to reduce this dispute to one between Osiander on the one side and Joachim Mörlin and (more importantly) Philip Melanchthon on the other. That it issued from a teacher in Nuremberg, however, 11  Unless otherwise noted, all historical information throughout this chapter comes via WBIS Online, here, Schröder, Lexikon der hamburgischen Schriftsteller, vol. 1 (1851), s. v. 12 MBW 6169 (CR 7: 822 f.), dated 20 August [1551], here 823: “Habeo etiam gratiam, quod edidisti [Beyer’s epistle dedicatory demonstrates that he was its publisher] τὸ σύγγραμμα περὶ δικαιοσύνας, scriptum a viro docto et gravi d. Aepino. Osiander recte [CR ed. corr.: certe] eruditas res nova sophistica conturbat.” At some time in the second half of 1550, Osiander was asked for his opinion on the dispute in Hamburg over Christ’s descent into hell, in which the Königsberg professor corrected Aepinus’s position at several points. See GA 9: 324 – ​27. 13 Johannes Aepinus, Liber de iustificatione hominis, 20r. 14 Aep 01.1 (1557): De Iustificatione hominis, et operibus legis etc. liber Vna cum confutatione Argumentorum, quae ab aduersariis opponi solent Iustificationi fidei, His praemissa sunt argumenta de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem, ex ipsis autoribus et defensoribus huius dogmatis pio studio collecta et perspicue refutata per Ioan Wigandum (Frankfurt/Main: Brubach, 1557). See Jörg Rainer Fligge, Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568 (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972), 128. Fligge, no. 64.

358

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

is understandable, since Andreas Osiander had been a pastor there for years and his son-in-law, Jerome Besold, had already warned him about attacks circulating around Nuremberg.15 This text disturbed Osiander enough that he answered it the following year in his notorious Schmeckbier.16 The Schmeckbier was perhaps one of the best signs for just how besieged Osiander felt by the published responses of his opponents.17 Whereas in the beginning he responded individually to an anonymous attack, to Melanchthon and then to Mörlin, by June he had attracted so many enemies that he could only dedicate a single tract to eight of them. Thereby Osiander imagined that he had answered Mörlin, Roting, Waldner, Menius, Flacius and Gallus, Pollicarius, Alesius, von Amsdorf, and Knipstro. But his answers had very little if anything substantive to say about their charges. Instead, the Schmeckbier represented a literary and political sleight-of-hand, whereby Osiander, now under the theological protection of (what he thought was) Brenz’s approval for his position and as always under the political protection of Duke Albrecht, felt it unnecessary to answer his opponents’ charges thoroughly. But therein lay the greatest difference between Osiander and his opponents: precisely on the worth of the spoken, external word. Osiander could, in large measure, dismiss his opponents because the truth was not in the words at all but in his encounter with the divine righteousness of Christ. Thus, when charged by Justus Menius with dividing the external and internal Word of God, Osiander claimed that God’s Word could not be a creature. Concerning the external word, I say that it is a voice that disappears in the listener’s ear. That cannot be labeled God’s Word, because God’s Word does not pass away like a voice that ceases. Concerning the inner word, however, I say – to speak in human terms about it – that when God speaks his thoughts out of his divine eternal counsel and reveals it to the prophets who announce it to us, so is their voice an external word but the meaning and sense is God’s Word that remains eternally and, because it is in the eternal counsel of God, it is thus also God himself.18

The very first published response to Osiander, then, came from Michael Roting (1494 –​1588), a teacher in Nuremberg at their famous Latin school.19 Born in 1494, Roting studied, among other places, in Leipzig, where in 1519 he witnessed Luther’s famous debate with John Eck. He moved to Wittenberg to study with Luther and Melanchthon alongside Jerome Baumgartner (a patrician from and city councilman in Nuremberg) and Joachim Camerarius (who became rector of Nuremberg’s Latin school at its founding). As a result of these contacts (and being from Franken), in 1526 he became its first professor of Latin – in the same 15 GA 9:

492 – ​94 (no. 428), Osiander to Duke Albrecht, dated 25 December 1550. the content of this tract, see chapters 2 and 6. 17 GA 10: 742 – ​96, published on 24 June 1552. 18 GA 10: 779, 32 – ​780, 6. 19 His son was a student in Wittenberg at the time. 16 For

C. Summer 1551: Three Still, Small Voices

359

year Melanchthon held the school’s inaugural address.20 His tract, published by the school’s mathematician (astrologer), Joachim Heller, under a title that Roting did not choose, was written in Latin in the style of a polished declamation. For this unauthorized printing, Heller and the printer, Hans Daubmann, received from the city council an eight-day jail sentence on bread and water. Despite not mentioning Osiander by name until well into the address, the title gave the reader no doubt as to the tract’s target: The Witness of … Michael Roting … against Andreas Osiander’s False Understanding of Justification, Which He Spreads throughout Prussia in Booklets and Propositions.21 Although Osiander first mentioned it in his correspondence in the fall of 1551, Melanchthon had already sent a copy to a correspondent in Danzig, Johann Bretschneider, on 7 July, meaning either that the tract was probably printed in late June or that Melanchthon possessed a manuscript copy.22 Mel 01 (1551): Philip Melanchthon, Oratio de definitione iusticiae, quae extat apud Clementem Alexandrinum, recitata a Mag. Luca Hetzer, Decano, an. 1551 (Wittenberg: [Kreutzer], 1551). Delivered on 11 August 1551 (Koehn, no. 177; CR 11: 993 – ​99).

The next shot came from the source Osiander had suspected of orchestrating all attacks against him: Philip Melanchthon. Given Master Philip’s subtle manner of attack, it may come as little surprise that Osiander seemed never to have noticed it. However, in his Widerlegung of Melanchthon, Osiander included a long list of sources proving that Melanchthon had been secretly after him for years and not first broken his silence in the Antwort of 1552.23 Certainly, modern researchers 20 WBIS Online, from Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrtenlexikon, vol. 3 (1757), s. v. See also CR 11: 836, Melanchthon’s funeral oration for Caspar Cruciger, Sr., in which he mentioned Cruciger’s fellow students in the early 1520s, including Roting, Camerarius, Jerome Baumgartner, Caspar Borner, and Chilian Goldstein. 21 See GA 10: 350, 14 – ​351, 2 (no. 495), a letter to Osiander from Hans Fürstenauer in Nuremberg, dated 18 October 1551. Because it was an unauthorized publication, Daubmann’s name and the city of origin (Nuremberg) do not appear on the tract. 22  For another view of the dating, see GA 10: 744 – ​45. Osiander was asking about this book in September and heard more about it in a letter from Nuremberg in October 1551. However, contra GA 10, see MBW 6121 (CR 7: 804 – ​05), the letter to Bretschneider dated 7 July [1551]. Since it took at least a week for mail to get from Nuremberg to Wittenberg, the tract would have been published at the end of June. To be sure, Melanchthon’s use of the word scriptum to describe this could mean that he was sending a hand-written copy. In any case, this tract could well have contributed to Melanchthon’s desire to write the August declamation discussed below. The actions of the Nuremberg City Council against the printers took place first on 24 September 1551. See GA 10: 351, n. 171. 23 See GA 10: 583, 24 – ​584, 6, where Osiander mentioned secret letters, loose talk among friends, arguments in his public lectures and in some “themata” read out publicly in September 1551. GA 10: 584, n. 161 assumes that these were those connected with his lectures on 1 & 2 Timothy, which were not published until 1561 and did not contain these theses. The themata (now in CR 12: 399 – ​436) were first included in a printing of 1558, where the express comments about Osiander could well have been added later. See Propositiones theologicae Lutheri

360

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

have not paid any attention to this piece.24 However, it laid the groundwork for many of Melanchthon’s later comments. A letter from Melanchthon to Laurentius Moller, dated 4 August showed that, already one week before the rector Lukas Hetzer delivered the speech, the Praeceptor Germaniae was hard at work on the problem of the meaning of iustitia, especially in connection with the standard quotation from Clement of Alexandria.25 Thus, in front of the entire university (and for anyone who came into possession of the printed edition) Melanchthon defined iustitia. Throughout the entire dispute, he would not deviate from this interpretation and in his preface to Alesius’s Romans commentary and in his own Romans commentary would rehearse his objections to Clement’s definition all over again.26 Mör 01 (1551): Joachim Mörlin, Epistolae quaedam Ioachimi Morlin Doctoris Theologiae, ad D. Andream Osiandrum. Et Responsiones. [Konigsberg?: ??], 1551. Published between 24 April and 5 November 1551. Fligge, no. 119.

After 24 April 1551 and before 5 November of the same year, most likely in September or October, one of Osiander’s opponents, perhaps Joachim Mörlin (1514 –​1571), took to the presses publishing an epistolary exchange with Osiander that had taken place in April 1551.27 He was, more than anyone else in this controversy, a true Wittenberger, having been born there in 1514 and having had all of his schooling there under Melanchthon and Luther, including receiving his Master of Arts in 1537 and his doctorate under Luther’s presidency on 16 September 1540.28 Because of his close connections to Wittenberg and for et Melanthonis (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1558), where the preface (MBW 8815 [CR 9: 673 f.]) mentioned Friedrich Staphylus. 24 For example, Anna Briskina, Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive (Frankfurt/ Main: Lang, 2006) and Martin Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​1552 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 245. For a discussion of this speech, see chapter 7. 25 MBW 6156 (CR 7: 816 f.) addressed [from Wittenberg] to Moller, [in Hildesheim] and dated 4 August [1551]. Osiander referred to Clement’s definition in a letter from the second half of July 1552, written for Duke Albrecht to be sent to King Christian III of Denmark. See GA 10: 841, 4 – ​5, where n. 46 should be corrected to read: Stromata III.2.6. 26 The fact that, already a year before this, Staphylus had reported to Melanchthon about a private discussion with Osiander over justification and that the 24 October 1550 disputation also took up this theme gave Melanchthon plenty of motivation for clarifying his definition of iustitia. See chapter 7. 27 Now published in GA 9: 618 – ​22 (#454; Mörlin to Osiander on 18 April); 623 – ​24 (#455; Osiander to Mörlin on 19 April); 625 – ​26 (#456; Mörlin to Osiander on 19 April); 639 – ​40 (#459; Mörlin to Osiander on 21 April); 641– ​44 (#460; Osiander to Mörlin on 23 April); 647 – ​52 (#462; Mörlin to Osiander on 25 April); 653 – ​54 (#463; Osiander to Mörlin on 25 April); 655 – ​58 (#464; Mörlin to Osiander on 27 April); 659 – ​61 (#465; Osiander to Mörlin on 27 April). Mörlin’s preface is on GA 9: 619, n. ‘a’; intervening comments are in GA 9: 626, n. ‘e’ and 641, n. ‘a.’ His afterword is on GA 9: 661, n. ‘s’. For more on Mörlin’s career, see chapter 2. 28 WBIS Online, from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vol. 13 (1905), s. v., and, most recently, Jürgen Diestelmann, Joachim Mörlin:

C. Summer 1551: Three Still, Small Voices

361

other reasons (not least of which was the fact that Konigsberg’s chief printer, Hans Lufft, was the son-in-law of Osiander’s staunchest supporters at the court, Andreas Aurifaber),29 it was not surprising that Mörlin did not have open access to Königsberg’s printers the way his opponent did. But what was Mörlin’s role in the publication of these letters? Curiously, in his 1554 history of the early stages of the affair, Mörlin argued that they were published poorly or out of spite.30 Presumably, the publication took place in September or October, that is, at exactly the time Osiander’s Confession appeared.31 Yet Mörlin’s short preface to the first letter reflected the position of Osiander’s opponents.32 In any case, it gave complete outsiders their first public glimpse into the internal struggles in Königsberg and included some rather shocking statements by Osiander, who called into question the authority of Melanchthon, Luther and even the Augsburg Confession. As a result of the timing of its publication, these letters were later cited by Justus Menius as further proof of Osiander’s unreliable theology and Mörlin’s innocence.33 Several other collections of letters were published in this dispute, including one under Duke Albrecht’s name. In every case, the letters revealed how intractable the political and social ramifications of the dispute were proving to be. Where church and government officials intervened on behalf of those opposed to the Osiandrists, as in the case of Nuremberg in 1555 (see chapter 5), the affected congregations were quickly rid of their opponents. In Königsberg, despite the power of both church and court officials who favored Osiander and his followers, the end result saw their total defeat with the return of Joachim Mörlin in 1567. In all cases, letters and other documents were published to prove the veracity of one or another version of events and to defend the position either of the prince and his favored theologian Osiander or of their arch-enemy, Joachim Mörlin. This first set of letters, however, depicted Mörlin, whom the prince had initially called in to mediate the disputes at his university, unable to come to terms with his reLuthers Kaplan – “Papst der Lutheraner”; Eine Zeit‑ und Lebensbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert (Neundettelsau: Freimund, 2003). 29 Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 63. 30 See his Historia of 1554, H 4v, where he writes that they were printed “aber böslich” [understood in Grimm as the Latin maligne or male, out of spite, evilly cf. böswillig] and thus somehow without his permission. 31 See GA 9: 618, n. 3, where reference is made to a letter from Osiander to Herzog Albrecht from 5 November 1551 (no. 497; GA 10: 355 – ​61, here: 359, 14 –​17), in which Osiander does not know “wo oder durch wen, getruckt kommen. Sein drey pogen.” 32 GA 9: 619, n. a. “Post multas et varias actiones, quas intempestive turbavit Osiander suis calumniis, quibus publice deformavit et theologos huius scholae et praeceptores nostros ….” 33 See Justus Menius, et al., Censurae: Das ist Erkendtnis aus Gottes Wort und heiliger Schrifft: uber die Bekendtnis Andreae Osiandri, Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, und von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens (Erfurt: Sthürmer, 1552), A 3v; and idem, Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri (Erfurt: Gervasius Stürmer, 1552), M 4v.

362

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

calcitrant, nearly unreasonable correspondent, despite Duke Albrecht’s fervent hope for rapprochement between the two. For Osiander, these letters (and their publication) represented one more example of the Wittenberg plot against him.34

D. Fall, 1551: Breezing-Up before the Storm Some time after Osiander’s definitive Confession rolled off the presses (German edition: 8 September 1551; Latin edition: 24 October 1551) and was sent out by Duke Albrecht to various churches of the Empire with a request for their response (5 October 1551), Osiander wrote to Duke Albrecht (on 5 November 1551) that the expected storm of responses had not materialized.35 Outside of Mörlin’s collection of letters, an anonymous single-page attack, and Roting’s Latin speech, there was little negative to report. Indeed, given that Erasmus Reinhold, Wittenberg’s mathematician (astrologer), had written that the Wittenbergers did not see why Osiander’s enemies were attacking him, Osiander could proudly announce, “I am guessing that they will not write against me for a long time.”36 Little did he know that a “wolckenpruchs von puchern” (the cloudburst of books) was already a small wisp on the horizon. Zie 03 (1551): Bernhard Ziegler, ed., Zwo Predigten des Ehrwirdigen Herren Doctoris Martini Lutheri. Die Erste von Jhesu Christo/ darin der heubt artickel vnsers heiligen Christlichen glaubens (Ich gleube an Jhesum Christum etc.) gehandelt vnd erkleret wird. Die Andere vber den Spruch S. Pauli zun Galatern am Ersten/ Christus hat sich selbs fur vnser sunde gegeben/ darinn der Apostel den Haubtartickel des Christlichen glaubens von Jhesu Christo/ (das der Mensch gerecht werde/ ohne des Gesetzs werck/ allein durch den glauben an jhn) handelt. Mit einer Vorred/ Zu diesen grewlichen letzten zeiten sehr nützlich vnd tröstlich zulesen (Leipzig: Georg Hantzsch, 1551). After 21 March 1551 and perhaps by September 1551.

Ziegler’s only direct entry into the pamphlet war with Osiander was his printing of several excerpts from Luther’s writings.37 Without mentioning Osiander by name, Ziegler achieved two things in his continuing struggle against Prussia’s primary theologian. First, he answered Osiander’s unprovoked attack by focusing in his preface on the doctrine of justification and arguing in favor of a childlike approach to salvation. Second, he also countered Osiander’s “picking and choosing” snippets of Luther by providing the reader with much lengthier excerpts. Although this piece could have appeared after the publication of Osiander’s 34 GA 10: 359, 4 – ​21, where Osiander mentioned Mörlin’s letters in the midst of an account of the goings on in Wittenberg. 35 GA 10: 355 – ​61 (no. 497). 36 GA 10: 359, 10 –​11. The Duke was better informed. On 14 November 1551 (GA 10: 365 – ​ 70), he replied to Osiander that he could anticipate a large cloudburst and that in Wittenberg people were already attacking him from the pulpit. 37 See chapter 6.

D. Fall, 1551: Breezing-Up before the Storm

363

Confession, Ziegler’s failing health throughout 1552 would seem to indicate that it occurred in the previous year, perhaps after Osiander had produced his own collections of Luther quotes. Ano 01 (1551): Anonymous, ed., Wie fein der rabe Osiander primarius mit dem ehrwirdigen, hochgelarten herrn doctor Martino Luther seliger gedechtnis ubereinstimmet im artickel von der rechtfertigung, nach dem er rhümet widerumb seine lere sey des Luthers, anon. ed. [Wittenberg?: 1551]. A single-sheet publication in two columns with contrasting quotes of Luther and Osiander, appearing between 8 September and 5 November 1551. Fligge, no. 140.

Osiander’s letter to Albrecht had mentioned this single-sheet placard, which contained quotations from the German version of his Confession. This dates it to before 5 November 1551. In late 1551 it generated one of Osiander’s most caustic replies, published in early January 1552.38 The sheet, perhaps published in Wittenberg (according to a contemporary report by a Prussian student living there), simply listed statements of Luther in one column and opposing statements of Osiander in the other.39 It called Osiander a raven, which could as a play on words be translated rabbi; a concluding quote from Luther’s attack on Hebraists in glosses to his Bible would seem to indicate that the latter term was intended. Osiander’s attack on this single sheet stimulated the anonymous avenger to make another similar collection, in which he included quotes from von Amsdorf and Flacius, one edition of which was printed in Wittenberg.40 As seen in chapter 6, this single sheet responded both to the earlier tracts of Osiander, in which he had excerpted material from Luther to prove that his teaching and Luther’s were the same, and to similar comments in Osiander’s Confession. It was also another early shot in the skirmish over Luther’s writings and authority described in chapter 6. Alb 01 (1551/2): Erasmus Alber, Widder das Lesterbuch des hochfliehenden Osiandri, darinnen er das gerechte Blut unsers Herrn Jesu Christi verwirfft, als untüchtig zu unser Gerechtigkeit etc. An den Hertzogen in preussen geschrieben ([Hamburg]: Joachim Leo, [1551/1552]). The preface is dated November 1551, and the book had been received by Duke Albrecht by the thirteenth of that month. Fligge, no. 65.

The earliest published formal response to Osiander’s Confession came from Erasmus Alber (ca. 1500 –​1553), who had completed his preface to the book by November. We know from a letter from Duke Albrecht to Osiander that the former had a copy by 13 November.41 Alber, perhaps best known in later times for his 38 See above, chapter 6. Osiander’s response was ready for the printer on 7 December 1551 (cf. GA 10: 372 – ​73, no. 501, a letter of that date to Duke Albrecht, asking permission to publish it). 39 GA 10: 399. Nuremberg also could be the place of publication. Some have speculated that Wolf Waldner was the actual editor. 40 See below, Ano 02 [1552]. 41 See GA 10: 365 – ​70 (no. 499), here 369, 17. Note 53 (based upon Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 186) must be corrected as follows. First, the reference to a book “das an dy marggraff geschriben” was a certain reference to the dedication to Albrecht, who, as the address in

364

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

hymnody, was a student at Wittenberg in 1520 and, after several pastorates, returned there to receive his doctorate in theology under Luther on 11 October 1543.42 In the aftermath of the Smalcald War, Alber was for a time in Magdeburg (where he attacked the Augsburg Interim in prose and verse) and then, in 1551, in Hamburg and Lübeck, whence he moved finally to Brandenburg, where in October 1552 (less than six months before his death) he became the first Evangelical superintendent of Stargard. Alber, who was not afraid of a theological fight, addressed his (private) response to Duke Albrecht. He contrasted his thirty-three year association with Luther (actually thirty-one) to Osiander’s ignorance of Luther’s theology. This contrast, for all of its polemic, called attention to the connection all of these writers felt to Luther (and not just to Wittenberg) and to the age of these early respondents, all of whom (with the exception of Mörlin) were born between 1494 and 1500. Ziegler and Roting received their Master of Arts degrees at Wittenberg. Aepinus, Mörlin, and Alber all had received doctorates of theology under Luther’s presidency. For all of their obvious connections to Melanchthon, these theologians were hardly his clones, if for no other reason than that, on other theological topics they did not hesitate to disagree with their Praeceptor publicly and in print. They were interdependent thinkers who, on the question of justification by faith, found Osiander’s teaching dangerous. Thus, when Osiander attacked Wittenberg doctorates and implied that they had simply been bought,43 he was attacking the avant-garde of his opposition, not just Mörlin. Alber’s response to this attack was to contrast Wittenberg’s doctorates to that of Johannes Carion, the much maligned astrologer and chronicler from Berlin: “In Wittenberg one does not make that kind of doctor.”44 When Melanchthon took up the same charge in 1553, it was not the minor issue that Briskina makes of it but the crucial argument of authority and the legitimacy of Wittenberg-trained theologians and their theology that was at stake.45

Osiander’s letter from 13 November shows (365, 2) had the title of Margrave of Brandenburg. Thus, this is a reference to Albrecht in the third person. The only book of this time addressed to him was Alber’s, not Roting’s. The content, “in dem der auctor kurcz das leiden Christi unser gerechtigkeit nennet,” is certainly not a reference to Roting’s Latin book but to the very title of Alber’s. 42 WBIS Online, from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vol. 1 (1896), s. v., 43 GA 10: 254, 4 –​12, with n. 623. 44 Alber, Widder das Lesterbuch, G 4r. On 1 September 1534, Georg Sabinus as poet had received from the pope the title of papal count palatine, to which was connected the right to bestow doctoral degrees, one of which he bestowed (as a joke) on Carion, who was noted for his girth and his consumption of alcohol. On this occasion, Luther wrote him an equally funny letter of congratulation. See WA Br 7: 173 – ​75, especially n. 4. 45 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 243 – ​59.

D. Fall, 1551: Breezing-Up before the Storm

365

Wal 01 (1551): Wolf Waldner, Christlicher vnd Gründtlicher bericht, Von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens, Einwonung Gottes vnd Christi in vns Der Ehrwirdigen/ Gottseligen Herrn vnnd Euangelischer warheyt Lehrern. D. Martini Luthers heyliger gedechtnuß/ Johannis Brentzij/ vnnd Vrbani Regij Seligen. I. Thessa. 2. Vnser Ermanung ist nicht gewesen zu irr­ thumb/ noch zu vnreynigkeyt/ noch mit list/ Sondern wie wir von Gott bewerdt sindt/ daß vns das Euangelium vertrawet ist zu predigen/ also redden wir/ nicht als wolten wir den Menschen gefallen/ soncern Gotte/ der vnser hertz prüfet. Dann wir nie mit Schmeychelworten sindt vmbgegangen/ (wie ihr wisest) noch dem Geytz gestellet/ Gott ist die / Zeuge/ haben auch nicht Ehre gesucht von den Leuthen/ weder von euch/ noch von andern ([Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann], 1551).46 Fligge, no. 156.

By the end of 1551, another publication from Nuremberg appeared, focused solely on the skirmish over Martin Luther’s understanding of justification. Its author, the young pastor Wolf Waldner (?-1583?), had, according to one of Osiander’s supporters, been led astray by none other than Michael Roting.47 Waldner, Austrian by birth, left the Dominican order and a parish in Steyer, Austria to take refuge as a married Evangelical in Nuremberg, where he quickly became pastor in the city’s Dominican church. He remained in Nuremberg until asked to leave in 1556 because of differences over other theological matters, ending up in Regensburg where, as a committed gnesio-Lutheran, he in 1561 translated Joachim Westphal’s Confession on the Lord’s Supper into German, in 1572 prepared a collection of Nicholas Gallus’s sermons for publication posthumously, and as late as 1580 wrote a tract on original sin.48 In all likelihood and in close imitation of Ziegler’s work from Leipzig, Waldner assembled this collection of Luther quotes shortly after having received Osiander’s Confession. Having learned the hard way from the jail time of the printer Daubner and the mathematician Heller, Waldner did not attack Osiander directly but rather assembled Luther’s words around the themes of justification and indwelling. However, both the title of the piece and Waldner’s preface (signed W. W.) revealed his real intent: an attack on Osiander’s teaching in his Confession (without mentioning his name), using the words of Luther.49 In his reply in the omnibus defense, Schmeckbier, Osiander even speculated that the city fathers in Nuremberg had given permission to publish the tract before the preface was written.50 In terms of the “parties” that opposed Osiander, Waldner’s position was nearly unique: he did not attend the University of Wittenberg and had scarcely arrived in Nuremberg before Osiander hightailed it to Prussia. 46 Flacius, Verlegung, L iiv, referred to this printing as coming from Nuremberg. For Waldner’s second publication, see Wal 02 (1552). 47 GA 10: 345, 4 –​13 (no. 495), a letter from Hans Fürstenauer to Osiander, dated 18 October 1551. 48 WBIS Online, from Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexikon, vol. 4, suppl. (1758), s. v. 49 See above, chapter 6. 50 GA 10: 773, 7 – ​8.

366

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

As things stood at the dawn of Osiander’s last year on earth, there had been relatively few published responses to his position on justification by faith. The feared cloudburst was hardly a sprinkle. Three collections of Luther quotes, a speech by Melanchthon of which Osiander seemed completely unaware, a meager collection of letters, and a sharp rebuke by an older former colleague in Nuremberg, which had landed printer and editor in jail, were all that the opposition seemed able to muster. Only the peripatetic Alber seemed to be up to the task. To be sure, there were rumors of wars everywhere, and Osiander felt beset on all sides by Wittenbergers. But had the world ended on 1 January 1552, people would little have noted nor long remembered what took place at the University of Königsberg – except for one thing. On 5 October 1551, Duke Albrecht sent Osiander’s Confession to Germany’s Evangelical churches, requesting their opinions. And, with the dawn of the New Year, responses would begin flooding into Königsberg sweeping up prince and professor into the deluge.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches! The last half of 1551 had witnessed the appearance of seven tracts aimed at Osiander. Despite the impression of a Wittenberg plot against the Prussian professor that one may get from reading both Stupperich’s Osiander in Preussen and Osiander’s collected works from the period (GA 9 –​10), the opposite was more likely the case.51 With the exception of Roting and Alber, the opponents either did not mention Osiander’s name at all or simply published his own words against him – a very different state of affairs from the way the adiaphoristic controversy proceeded.52 But Duke Albrecht had asked Germany’s Evangelical theologians what they thought, and they were only too happy to oblige. Even if the Duke had been prescient enough at this stage merely to hope for one good opinion from Brenz,53 it seems unlikely that even he was ready for such a universally negative response. By the end of the year, he and his theologian would be buried in paper (and Osiander literally buried in Königsberg), having evoked scores of responses to his understanding of justification. I. January Thaw AurJ 01 (1552) Johannes Aurifaber (Vratislaviensis). Eine Predigt von der geburt vnsere Herrn Jhesu Christi. Aus dem j. Cap: S. Johannis (Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1552). (Forschungsbibliothek Gotha: Theol. 8o 00363/04 (04)) Fligge, no. 70.

Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –​1552 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973). Dingel, ed., Controversia et Confessio, vol. 2 (forthcoming). 53 See GA 10: 370, 4 – ​5: “wolt Got, er [Prenctius] were bey uns!” 51 Martin 52 See

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

367

Although Fligge includes this book, with its preface by Sebastian Neogeorgus54 to the City Council at Rostock, in his list of anti-Osiander tracts, it contained no polemic against Osiander at all. It was simply Aurifaber’s Christmas sermon on John 1. However, at least in comments on John 1:11, Aurifaber insisted that the blessings of Christ were forgiveness of sins, which he equated with righteousness.55 At very least, this sermon showed what the alternatives to Osiander were at this time and the ease with which the preacher could move from Christ’s redemption to forgiveness of sins (understood as righteousness). It is hard to imagine that Aurifaber, Neogeorgus or the reader would not have realized this contrast. Mel 02 (1552): Philip Melanchthon, Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen (Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552). Republished in CR 7: 892 – ​902; Bds. 335 – ​348; MSA 6: 452 – ​61 and (the Luther material) WA Br 12: 189 – ​95. Dated in MBW 6294 to ca. 1 January 1552. Fligge, no. 115b. Mel 02.1 (1552): Philip Melanchthon, Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen (Nuremberg: Johannes Berg & Ulrich Neuber, 1552). Fligge, no. 115a. Mel 02.2 (1555): In: Simon Musaeus, Ein Sermon von der Verklerung vnsers lieben HErrn Jhesu Christi, aus den dreien Euangelisten, Matth. 17. Marci. 9. Luce. 9. Gestellet vnd geprediget, Durch D. Simonem Musaeum zu Breßlaw, Am 25. Sontag nach Trinitatis. 1555. Antwort auff das Buch Andreae Osiandri, Von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1555), D 1v – G 3v. Fligge, no. 115c.

On 10 December 1551 Johannes Aepinus, who had just written an extensive tract on justification, sent a letter to Melanchthon outlining his church’s approach to Duke Albrecht’s request and encouraging Melanchthon to follow the same course of action.56 Since Albrecht had sent Osiander’s Confession not only to Hamburg but also to the adjacent principalities and cities, Aepinus had decided to orchestrate a common response from them.57 He suggested that Melanchthon do the same. This idea had already occurred to Melanchthon, who had passed on advice for the Brandenburg Elector Joachim II through Georg Buchholzer, the superintendent in Berlin, to do much the same thing in Brandenburg.58 54 Sebastian Neogeorgus or Naogeorg (1530 –​1572) was a student in Rostock from 1550 and probably Aurifaber’s famulus. He later published a variety of sermons and other tracts while a pastor in Elbing. See Christian Krollmann, ed., Altpreußische Biographie, 2 vols. (Königsberg et al.: Gräfe & Unzer et al., 1941–​1967) 2: 305. Accessed through WBIS. 55 See H 2v: What more could be said against works righteousness by the evangelists than what he says, “Nemlich vergebung der sund oder gerechtigkeit/ vnd ewiges leben/ nicht anders denn durch glauben gefasset oder erlanget werden?” 56 MBW 6275 (unpublished), information taken from MBW Regesten 6:237. 57 See below, Ae 02 [1552]. 58 MBW 6262 (CR 7: 857), dated [from Wittenberg] on 26 November 1551: “… ut una communis responsio mitteretur, ne postea ex his initiis maiora dissidia oriantur.” Melanchthon wrote the same counsel to Georg von Anhalt the next day (MBW 6263 [CR 7: 857 f.]), indicating that

368

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Not exactly in line with this good advice, Melanchthon continued to work on his own much briefer response to Osiander, which he sent to Ambrose Moibanus sometime around the end of November 1551.59 Throughout December, perhaps as a rearguard action to prepare other theologians for their responses, Melanchthon then sent this same short response to several other correspondents.60 Although he promised some people a longer response, he published the original letter with only a few additions (including as an appendix a written discussion between him and Luther) shortly before leaving for Dresden on 4 January 1552.61 Chapter 6 showed how this written exchange between Luther and Melanchthon from 1535 played a role in the discussion between Friedrich Staphylus and Osiander in 1550 and how it contributed to the developing side debate over Luther’s authority. The fact that this tract was republished, as were several other documents discussed below, was further indication of just how serious a matter this was. Whereas in other disputes the participants published a single tract and then moved on, here we find reprints of important documents. Also included in this tract were notes from Johann Forster (1495/6 –​1556) and Johannes Bugenhagen, who expressed Wittenberg’s unified front over against Osiander. Forster, the professor of theology and (with the departure of Flacius) Hebrew, and Bugenhagen both stated their unqualified approval of Melanchthon’s statement and their rejection of what Bugenhagen labeled Osiander’s “nova dubitationes” and what Forster rejected in even more vehement terms as “delusional testimonies, sophistries … and sinister understanding.” They also asserted that the churches and schools in Wittenberg had never taught anything other than what Melanchthon professed. This validation of Melanchthon’s response to Osiander, added in his absence without his approval, did not completely please Melanchthon, who feared that their sharpness would provoke Osiander (which it did).62 There can be no doubt, however, that Wittenberg’s Praeceptor had intended his Antwort to serve as his and Wittenberg’s reply. Wittenberg had not yet received the official request for a response from the Saxon court. See also MBW 6265 (CR 7 853 f.), again to Buchholzer dated 30 November. 59  MBW 6268 (CR 8: 608 –​12). Cf. the arguments for this dating in MBW Regesten, 6: 234. 60 His correspondence indicates that he had many copies made in Leipzig (cf. MBW 6284 [CR 7: 872] to Paul Eber in Wittenberg, dated 18 December from Eilenburg). Besides Eber, who was later instructed to give a copy to Johann Albrecht von Mecklenburg (MBW 6286 [CR 7: 874 f.], dated 22 [December from Dresden]), Melanchthon himself procured copies for Johannes Matthesius (MBW 6272 [CR 7: 866], dated 8 December [1551]), Georg v. Anhalt (who was to get a copy from Bernhard Ziegler: MBW 6287 [CR 7: 873 f.], dated from Dresden 22 December 1551), and David Chytraeus (MBW 6296 [CR 7: 902], dated 4 January 1552, where it is clear that copies had been sent to Rostock some time ago). 61 MBW 6294 (CR 7: 392 – ​901; Bds., 335 – ​48, MSA 6: 452 – ​61), dated ca. 1 January 1552. 62 See the reinterpretation of the sources, contra GA 10, in chapter 6. It is highly likely that Melanchthon had requested the letters be written but had not reckoned with the sharpness of Forster, a man who had been forced to leave previous positions in Augsburg and the University of Tübingen due to polemics against the Zwinglians. See WBIS Online, from Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., vol. 4 (1886), s. v.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

369

After Melanchthon’s New Year’s greeting, there were several other official opinions of Osiander’s work that were written and (presumably) sent to Duke Albrecht in January 1552, which, however, were not published until later in the year. Thus, Justus Menius (1499 –​1558), the superintendent in Gotha and Eisenach, orchestrated the sending of the Censurae: Das ist Erkendtnis aus Gottes Wort und heiliger Schrifft: uber die Bekendtnis Andreae Osiandri, Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, und von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens of the Ernestine Saxon theologians. It was signed on 18 January by Menius and the other ducal Saxon theologians: Nicholas von Amsdorf (1483 –​1565; then in Eisenach), Justus Jonas (1493 –1​ 555; then in Coburg),63 Erhard Schnepf (1495 –​1558, professor of theology at Jena), Maximillian Mörlin (1516 –​1584; superintendent in Coburg), Johannes Graius (from Weimar but also active in Eisenach, where his son, Jakob, was born), Johannes Stoltz (ca. 1514 –​1556; then court preacher in Weimar), Johannes Aurifaber (1519 –1​ 575; then court preacher in Weimar), Johannes Birnstil and Johannes Fefellius (both preachers in Coburg).64 They also signed von Amsdorf ’s Vorlegung der fürnemsten Stück/ in dem gifftigen Buch Osiandri/ Von der Rechtfertigung. These were not published until August, by which time both Menius and von Amsdorf had published individual refutations of Osiander’s teaching.65 At the end of the month, Bugenhagen and Forster again entered the lists with a Iudicium, dated 25 January and addressed to Joachim Mörlin, but not published by the latter in Königsberg until perhaps May.66 Also ready by the end of January was the official opinion of Pomeranian pastors and the theologians at the University of Greifswald, led by Johannes Knipstro. Their Antwort der Theologen vnd Pastorn in Pommern auff die Confession Andreae Osiandri, wie der Mensch gerecht wird, durch den Glauben an den Herrn Christum was published in Wittenberg by Veit Kreutzer, probably by April 1552, when Knipstro was in Wittenberg for talks.67 Bret 01 (1552): Johannes Bretschneider [Placotomus], De incarnatione Christi conclusiones quaedam contra novam, minime necessariam, inutilem, & impiam opinionem Andr. Osiandri asseuerantis, Christum oportuisse fieri hominem, etiamsi Adam lapsus non fuisset (Lübeck: Georg Richolff, 1552). The Latin poem referred to below in Aqu 01 (1552) and

63 For Jonas’s opinion of Osiander, see Gustav Kawerau, ed., Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, 2 vols. (Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 2: 309 –​19, probably written in late 1551 or early 1552. It mentioned only the response of Michael Roting. 64 WBSI Online, from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vols. 2, 12, 13, 23, 24 (1897, 1903, 1913), s. v., and (for Stoltz), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed. (1962), s. v. 65 See below Men 01 (1552). 66 See below, Bug 01 (1552). 67 See below, Kni 01 (1552). Melanchthon could send a copy to Erhard Schnepf in Jena by 11 May 1552. See MBW 6444 (CR 7: 1004), dated 11 May [1552].

370

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

translated in Aqu 02 (1552), may be the one appended to the end of this document. Fligge, no. 148.

Some time in 1552 a Lübeck printer published an attack on Osiander’s disputation regarding the necessity of the Incarnation from 18 December 1550. At nearly that same time in 1550, a Königsberg student, Heinrich Moller, was expelled for having written a slanderous poem against Osiander. Johannes Bretschneider [Latin: Placotomus] (ca. 1514 –1​ 576/77), the author of this set of theses, was questioned about Moller and left Königsberg around the same time that he proposed these theses to refute Osiander’s own. At various times in 1551, Melanchthon wrote to him: sharing Roting’s attack on Osiander, promising to write one of his own and, finally, sending him the finished product.68 Bretschneider had studied in Wittenberg where in short order he received a master of arts (1541) and a doctor of medicine (1543). He was called almost immediately to Königsberg where he remained as teacher and ducal physician until his falling out with Osiander in 1550, when he moved permanently to Danzig.69 That his contribution to this debate – theses attacking the notion of the necessity of the incarnation even without humanity’s fall into sin – hardly touched upon the debate over justification demonstrated two things: first, that as a professor of medicine he would not have been responsible for a direct answer (that was being provided by Roting, Aepinus and others), and second that, despite the outrageous nature (in sixteenth-century Lutheran eyes) of Osiander’s speculation, theologians in the opposition by and large kept their focus on the task set before them by Albrecht’s request and the directives of their churches and princes. As important as this topic was for determining the nature of the human being, it did not become the center of the dispute with Osiander. Moller’s poem, written in the neo-Latin verse typical of Wittenberg students, was an exercise in vicious understatement. What the Creator of Highest Olympus wants us to know; These things are revealed in the Sacred Writ. By this God expresses, what is the divine will: What he wants [to be] uncertain; what he wants to be fixed. A minister, fallen from the angelic seat, may descend And may show a way of religion other Than what the supremely godly footprints of Christ point out. That work, as something booed off stage, may be rejected. 68 MBW 6121 (CR 7: 804 – ​05), dated 7 July [1551], where Melanchthon sent Bretschneider Roting’s book; MBW 6234 (CR 7: 847 – ​48), dated 13 October 1551, where Melanchthon promised to reply to Osiander’s Confession; and MBW 6299 (CR 7: 905), 7 January 1552, where he mentioned that both answers have already been sent. MBW Regesten 6: 247 f., suggests that this is a reference Melanchthon’s answers (to Moibanus and the Antwort), but, given their similarity, it may also have referred to his own Antwort and any one of a number of writings described above. 69 WBIS Online, from Altpreußische Biographie, ed. Christian Krollmann, vol. 1 (1941), s. v.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

371

Therefore anything of that kind outside the prescribed oracles We should properly neither scrutinize nor have established. Much less should we wish to seek what is neither necessary nor certain. [For] We may forsake the divine riches, And thus we may depart from the genuine light of sense, Following the way of doubtful understanding, As the dog of Aesop, deceived by pursuing shadows, Received nothing, the meat having been dropped in the midst of the water.70

Of course, Aquila’s German “translation” (see below) did not bear the slightest resemblance to this poem. Instead, it became an opportunity for Aquila (or Moller, or someone else) to make fun of the fools raining on Prussia. Aqu 01 (1552): [Caspar Aquila?], Pasquillus auß || Preussen || Anno. 1552. || ([Place and printer unknown], 1552). Copy in HAB: S 228 4o Helmst. (25). Published shortly after 10 January 1552. Aqu 01.l (1552): [Caspar Aquila?], Pasquillus auß || Preussen. || Anno 1552. || [Place and printer unknown], 1552). Copy in HAB: 127.10 Theol. (7). Fligge, no. 143.

On 10 January 1552, Osiander published a response to that anonymous single-page attack contrasting his statements to Luther’s.71 Very shortly thereafter another anonymous tract, Pasquillus auß Preussen. Anno 1552, appeared.72 It referred to Melanchthon’s Antwort and to Osiander’s Wider den Liecht flüchtigen Nacht Raben as having “recently appeared.” That Caspar Aquila (1488 –​1560) was the likely author comes from solving a riddle at the end of the piece: “Do you want to know who I am? Add some letters and rearrange the rest, and you will find my name.”73 Aquila, left Wittenberg in 1527 with a Master of Arts degree for a pastorate in Saalfeld, from which he fled in 1548 after the publication of his 70 De incarnatione, A 1v: “Quae uoluit summi nos scire creator Olympi, Haec ex scriptura sunt manifesta sacra. Hac Deus expressit, quae sit diuina uoluntas, Quid uelit incertum, quid uelit esse ratum. Lapsus ab angelica descendat sede minister. Ac alius monstret relligionis iter. Quam pia supreme signant uestigia Christi, Id uelut explosum reijciatur opus. Illius extra igitur praescripta oracula quicquam. Nos nec scrutari, nec statuisse decet. Ne dum quae non sunt opus, aut non certa, uelimus Quaerere, diuina destituamur ope. Sicque amittamus genuina lumina sensus Sectantes dubiae cognitionis iter. Vt canis Aesopi decepta sequacibus umbris. Nil posita medijs carne recepit aquis.” 71 Wider den Liecht flüchtigen NachtRaben/ der mit einem einigen bogen Papiers/ ein falschen schein zumachen vnterstanden hat/ als solt mein Lehr/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ Doctor Luthers seligen Lehr/ entgegen vnd gantz widerwertig sein … Wer arges thus, der hast das liecht (GA 10: 398 – ​413). 72 According to the Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, 16 vols. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854 –​1971), 13: 1482 f., the word Pasquille is a loanword (in both German and English) from the Italian for a mutilated statue in Rome, where placards were often affixed. It came to denote either the anonymous or pseudonymous libels, often printed and posted in a town without official permission, sometimes, as in the case below, by the author himself. 73 A 4v: “Wiltu wissen wer ich bin? So nim etliche Buchstaben dahin. Die andern füge recht zusamen. So wirstu finden meinen namen.”

372

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

brutal attack on Johann Agricola and the Augsburg Interim. He turned down a call to Königsberg in 1550 for one in Smalcald, where he stayed until his return to Saalfeld in 1552. His strong objections to Osiander’s “unfounded and unheard of ” teaching on justification broke off their lively correspondence.74 Indeed, Pasquillus can easily be transformed into Casparus Aquila. As mentioned above, Aquila also referred in his work to students having been unfairly imprisoned and to his desire to translate a Latin poem (perhaps Moller’s) into German for the common folk. The tract was simply filled with vindictive accusations regarding Osiander and his cronies, Johannes Funck and Andreas Aurifaber. But, as in Moller’s poem, there was also reference to the novelty of Osiander’s language and doctrine Aqu 02 (1552): [Caspar Aquila?]. Der Narren= || fresser in || Preussen. || Anno. 1552 ([Place and printer unknown], 1552). Copy in HAB: S 228 4o Helmst. (24) Published with Aqu 01 (1552). Fligge, no. 142a. Aqu 02.1 (1552): [Caspar Aquila?] ♠ Der Narren= ♠  || fresser inn  || Preussen.  || [Three leaves]  || Anno M. D. Lij., ([Place and printer unknown], 1552). Copy in HAB: 127.10 Theol. (6). Fligge, no. 142b.

Bound in close proximity to both printings of the Pasquillus are copies of a poem, entitled “The Devourer of Fools in Prussia.” In his anonymous attack on Osiander, Aquila had mentioned the sad plight of several students who had been driven out of Königsberg by Osiander for writing scurrilous poetry against him and posting it, and he threatened to translate their Latin poems into German. This perhaps represented his attempt. Matthias Flacius, the first owner of HAB: S 228 4o Helmst. certainly thought so and bound the two poems next to each other and in a much larger collection of material from the Osiandrian controversy.75 Without mentioning Osiander by name, it described the various fools who made their way to Prussia, where it had recently rained fools.76 Before leaving dark January for longer days, it is important to note just how many opinions of theologians printed later in 1552 were written and delivered to Königsberg in January. For that, Michael Roting and Wolf Waldner compiled a handy list in their tract from March 1552, a sign not only for the number of judgments being sent to Prussia but also for the number of copies that were being made and shared among the Empire’s Evangelical theologians.77 The list included Saxony (either 1 January [Melanchthon] or 25 January [Bugenhagen et al.]), Thuringia (18 January), Meissen (perhaps a misreading for Weißenfels and, hence, the work of Johannes Pollicarius, published in February), Pomerafür protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed. (1896), 1: 350. ownership is proved by the initials MFI 1553 stamped in the leather cover. 76 Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 293, n. 150, thinks that this appeared in Nuremberg near the end of the year. 77 See below, Wal 02 (1552), for bibliographic information. 74 Realencyklopädie 75 His

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

373

nia (January), Magdeburg (published around 1 March) and Königsberg itself (7 December 1551, sent to Nuremberg in January).78 Even though some appeared in print later, they demonstrated, to these Nuremberger preachers at least, just how the theologians in Germany had risen up against Osiander with one accord. Osiander himself of course was not silent and, in some ways, his publications in January 1552 made matters worse. He issued in short order a refutation of the anonymous author of the one-page comparison between himself and Luther (in order to prove that he had not changed his teaching in thirty years) and a collection of Brenz’s statements on justification.79 The first evoked a response by the same anonymous author, adding more citations from other theologians.80 The second brought a response from some preachers in Nuremberg, who claimed they “knew Osiander when.”81 And the third finally caused a sharp rebuke from Matthias Flacius after Osiander’s death, when it became clear (to him) how Osiander’s followers were misusing Brenz’s statements to their advantage.82 Pas 01 (1552): Pasquillus [pseud.], Ein Colloquium oder Gesprech wider die Antichristische und verfürische lere, Andree Osiandri, Pfarherren zu Königspergk in Preussen Vom Artickel der Rechtfertigung etc. ([No place: no printer], 1552). VD 16: P 842. Fligge, no. 144.

This pseudonymous tract could have appeared as early as late January or early February. It referred both to Osiander’s Confession but also, probably, to the tracts Osiander wrote in the course of January 1552. It depicted, in doggerel verse, a discussion in heaven (involving the recently arrived Evangelical bishop, Paul Speratus [d. 1551], Luther, Peter and Gabriel) over the heresy in Prussia. At one point Speratus expressed the hope that the Duke would follow the true counsel that the Elector of Saxony had given through his learned advisors.83 A discussion of the good Joachim Mörlin then followed. This “true counsel” most likely referred to Melanchthon’s Antwort of January, which Bugenhagen also sent to Duke Albrecht as the opinion of the Wittenberg theologians.84 Although for the most part this writing was typical for such pasquilles, in several instances not only were Osiander and his supporters (Andreas Aurifaber and Johann Funck) the subject of satire but the author actually brought substantive criticisms to Osiander’s theology and, especially, to his use of Luther.

02 (1552): Waldner et al., Verantwortung, A 2r. 398 – ​413; 421– ​449; 450 – ​56, resp. 80 Ano 02 (1552). 81 Wal 02 (1552). 82 Fla 08 (1553). 83 Pasquillus, Ein Colloquium, D 3r: “Wird folgen auch dem trewen rath// Den jm der Churfürst zu Sachssen hat// Gegeben durch die glerten sein// Des wird er sich erinnern fein.” 84 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 248 – ​49. On 21 March 1552, Duke Albrecht wrote to Bugenhagen his disappointment at their decision to stick with Melanchthon’s Antwort as their response to Osiander’s Confession. 78 Wal

79 GA 10:

374

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Mel 03 (1552): Philip Melanchthon, Prefatory Epistle to the reader in Martin Luther, In Genesin enarrationum … tomus tertius (Nuremberg: von Berg & Neuber, 1552). See MBW 6316 (CR 7: 918 – ​27 and WA 44: XXIV–XXIX). See chapter 6.

II. February Shadows; March Madness Pol 01 (1552): Johannes Pollicarius, Antwort auff das Buch Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). The preface is dated 10 February 1552. Fligge, no. 149.

Pollicarius’s work represents the first full response to Osiander to roll off Wittenberg’s presses. Up until then only Melanchthon’s small Antwort had seen the light of day. Pollicarius (1524 –1​ 567) was a Wittenberg student through and through.85 He was born in Zwickau, matriculated in Wittenberg in 1545 and very soon thereafter received his MA, becoming first pastor and then superintendent in Weissenfels. He can be credited with having written the first “biography” of Martin Luther, by having taken the various writings and speeches from the time of Luther’s death and publishing them with a preface and a chronology of Luther’s life. He also translated Melanchthon’s 1544 commentary on the Sunday gospel readings (his Postil) into German.86 He was a persistent opponent of Julius Pflug, the Roman bishop of Naumburg, and wrote several tracts against him. His reply in the Osiandrian controversy, with its preface dated 10 February 1552, not only was published in Wittenberg (probably by April) but also gained the seal of approval from Melanchthon himself, who upon his return to Wittenberg sent it to Jerome Besold.87 In it, Pollicarius showed his debt to his other Wittenberg teacher, Luther, reserving twenty pages of the fifty-two-page tract for quotes from the reformer’s works.

85 One of the problems with piecing together his life comes from the confusion with his son, Johannes Jr., who apparently was imprisoned in Saxony for a drinking problem and afterward allowed to be a pastor in Marktwerden and later served in the Balkans, dying in the 1590s. 86 HISTORIA DE VITA ET ACTIS REVERENDISS. VIRI D. MART. Lutheri, uerae Theologiae Doctoris, bona fide conscripta, a PHILIPPO MELANTHONE. ADIECTA SVNT A IOANNE POL­licario Carmina quaedam de beneficijs quae Deus per Lutherum orbi terrarum contulit. ITEM DISTICHA ALIQVOT DE Actis LVTHERI, quae simul annorum numerum comprehendunt. M. D. XLVIII. (Erfurt: Gervasius Sthurmer, 1548), with a preface to Georg von Anhalt dated 20 October 1547; and POSTILL Philip. Melanthons/ Vber die Euangelia/ vom Aduent biß auff Pfingstē: Verdeudscht/ vnd jetzt auffs new vbersehen/ Durch M. Johannem Pollicarium/ Prediger zu Weyssenfelß. Psalmo LXXXIX Wol dem volck das jauchtzen kan (Nuremberg: Johan vom Berg & Ulrich Newber, 1555), with a preface dated 10 March 1549 in Weißenfels and written to Jorg Vitzthumb, the Captain in Sachsenburg and Otto von Eybleben, Marshall for Duke August of Saxony. For more on Pollicarius, see chapter 6. 87 MBW 6403 (CR 7:976 – ​77), dated [6 April 1552] to Hieronymus Besold in Nuremberg: “… quem [books against Osiander by Flacius and Pollicarius] nondum ad vos pervenisse arbitror, cuius perspicuitas mihi valde placuit.”

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

375

Men 01 (1552): Justus Menius, Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri. (Erfurt: Gervasius Stürmer, 1552). Preface to Duke Albrecht dated 16 February 1552. Fligge, no. 118.

Not content with the joint statement of Ernestine Saxony’s theologians (which would not be published until August in any case), Justus Menius took up his own pen against Osiander in a tract published shortly after 16 February 1552 (the date of the preface addressed to Duke Albrecht). Among other things, Menius was responding to Osiander’s claim, made in the Beweisung of 24 January 1552, that he had always taught the same thing. Indeed, as the title pointed out and as the text then explained in more detail, Menius depicted Osiander as a theological alchemist, trying to work against God’s Word the way alchemists try to work against God’s natural order. In June 1552 Osiander responded to Menius’s work in the notorious Schmeckbier. He claimed that he could scarcely tell the difference between Mörlin and Menius, and, as we saw above, he disputed Menius’s dismissive characterization of his distinction between outer and inner Word. Of course, Osiander himself was drowning in the external words of his critics, which were filled with the harshest kind of judgment. F/G 01 (1552): Matthias Flacius with Nicholas Gallus, Verlegung des Bekentnis Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung der armen sünder durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit der hohen Maiestet Gottes allein Durch Matth. Fla. Illyr. Mit vnterschreibung Nicolai Galj/ darin der grund des jrthums Osiandri sampt seiner verlegung auffs kürzest verfast ist (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552). The preface to Duke Albrecht is dated 1 March 1552. Osiander responded in his Schmeckbier. Fligge, no. 76. F/G 01.T (1552): Matthias Flacius with Nicholas Gallus, Confessionis An. Osiandri de iustificatione, in qua acerbe et impie insectatur adflictas ecclesias earumque ministros, qui hactenus doctrinam in Augustana confessione compraehensam sonuerunt, Refutatio erudita et pia scripta Magdeburgi (Frankfurt: P. Brubach, 1552). Fligge, no. 77.

Two weeks after Menius dated the preface of his salvo to Duke Albrecht, the Prussian ruler received a second tract with a preface dedicated to his highness, dated 1 March 1552. This time two of the most notorious opponents of Philip Melanchthon, Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, entered the ring with the first thoroughgoing refutation of Osiander’s Confession to hit the bookstalls of the Empire. No wonder that it was quickly translated into Latin and printed in Frankfurt am Main! Later, Flacius would discount rumors that the original German was printed without his final approval but admitted that the unauthorized Latin translation did not please him at all.88 That the title page included a citation from Acts 20 and a warning to the reader to listen to Luther (who taught thirty years not three) and that the preface refuted the notion that Osiander’s sermon 88 See his Wider die Dikaeusi[a]sten and its translation, Contra Haereticum Dikaeusiastam, of ca. June 1552.

376

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

in Smalcald in 1537 was universally praised indicated Flacius had also read (and rejected) Osiander’s tract from 24 January 1552, Beweisung, das ich nun uber die dreisig jar alweg einerley lehr von der gerechtigkeit des glaubens gehalten und gelehret hab.89 Nicholas Gallus (1516 –​1570), one of Flacius’s staunchest supporters and an independent theologian in his own right, added his own subscription to the end of Flacius’s tract.90 Gallus, who received an MA from the University of Wittenberg in 1537, was ordained by Bugenhagen and called to serve the recently reformed imperial city of Regensburg. Forced to flee imperial troops during the Smalcald War, he settle for a brief time in Wittenberg (where he filled in for the dying Caspar Cruciger, Sr.) before finally receiving a call to the Ulrichskirche in Magdeburg in 1549 (as successor to von Amsdorf and the de facto superintendent and leader of the gnesio-Lutherans), where he remained until his return to Regensburg in 1553. Flacius also revealed the reason for this publication: some (including Osiander, as he revealed in his Schmeckbier) suspected that because of Flacius’s fights with some [Wittenberg] theologians he disagreed with them about everything. As shown in chapter 4, nothing could have been further from truth, since Flacius published far more tracts than anyone else involved in the controversy (including even Mörlin himself). Flacius attacked Osiander on three fronts: his misuse of Luther, his misunderstanding of justification, and his mistaken division of the two natures of Christ. Gallus’s much briefer addition managed to call Osiander both a Nestorian and a Eutychean within the space of a single page. Wal 02 (1552): Wolff Waldner with Michael Roting (?) and/or Jerome Besold (?), Etlicher Jungen Prediger zu Nürnberg verantwortung gegen der anklag Andreae Osiandri, so newlich im druck widder sie ist ausgangen (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, [1552]). Published in February or March 1552. Fligge, no. 135.

Both Roting and Waldner had already published their opinions of Osiander’s understanding of justification. However, because Osiander attacked Roting in his Confession (1551) and Waldner in his Beweisung of 24 January 1552, they felt justified to respond.91 Given Roting’s earlier difficulties with publishing responses in Nuremberg, it was hardly surprising that this document was published in the one city with a “free press” among the imperial Evangelicals: Magdeburg. Roting was hardly young by sixteenth-century standards; so another possible candidate for authorship could be Osiander’s own son-in-law, Jerome Besold. Because the authors referred to the Beweisung as a “newlich angedruckte schrifft” [a recently printed tract], one could surmise that theirs was published in February. However, a reference to the statement by the Magdeburgers (see 89 GA 10: 421– ​49. English: Proof That I Have Held and Taught for Over Thirty Years One and the Same Doctrine concerning the Righteousness of Faith. 90 Flacius with Gallus, Verlegung, P 1v – Q 3v. 91 See GA 10: 96, 20 – ​24 and 446, 18 – ​447, 3.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

377

F/G 01 [1552] above), shifts the date to slightly after 1 March, if it was a reference to the printed document. However, given that Roting and others had reliable information about other unpublished materials, it might also be that they had access to a handwritten copy of the Magdeburg opinion. There is a certain edge to this writing (for example, calling Osiander not the Primarius Theologus but rather [in capital letters] PATER RABJ PRIMARIVS GAR NICHTS [Father Rabbi Primarius of Absolutely Nothing]) that otherwise was contained only in anonymous attacks (or in the title of Roting’s original tract). The tract itself included a point-for-point refutation of Osiander’s five “proofs” that he had never taught differently about justification. Waldner also added at the end his own dismissal of Osiander’s teaching on justification by faith. III. April Showers Fla 01 (1552): Matthias Flacius, De Iesu, nomine Christi servatoris nostri proprio, contra Osiandrum, De Iehova nomine veri Dei proprio (Wittenberg: Johann Krafft, 1552).92 Fligge, no. 75.

With his massive Verlegung published in March 1552, Flacius was just getting warmed up. At least two of his writings were in von Köteritz’s hands by 6 June, probably the Verlegung and either this one or the Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeusisten. In April, Melanchthon sent a booklet by Flacius (probably this one) to Jerome Besold in Nuremberg.93 What was most remarkable about this small tract was its place of origin: Wittenberg!94 What Flacius produced here was a careful exposition of the Hebrew name for God and a refutation of the notion that one could derive the name of Jesus from it. Hardly any other Evangelical theologian besides Flacius could match Osiander’s knowledge of Hebrew. Thus, of the three Old Testament scholars in the fray – Ziegler, Forster, and Flacius – Wittenberg published the work of its star Hebrew student, Flacius.95 The tract also contained a reference to the Verlegung, as the place to look for a fuller proof of his arguments.96 This at least provides a terminus a quo of 1 March 1552. Of all the tracts produced in this debate, this was by far the most technical by the 92 With the exception of the first few sentences, the later essay on the same topic is completely different. See Matthias Flacius, De nomine Iehova, in: De voce & re Fidei, quodque sola fide iustificemur, contra Pharisaicum hypocritarum fermentum, Liber … [et] De nomine IEHOVA (Basel: Oporinus, 1563), 253 – ​67. 93 MBW 6403 (CR 7:976 – ​77), dated [6 April 1552]. This could also be a reference to the Verlegung. 94 For more on Melanchthon and Flacius, see Luka Ilić, “Praeceptor Humanissimus et duo Illyri: Garbitius et Flacius,” in: Irene Dingel and Armin Kohnle, eds., Philipp Melanchthon – ein europäischer Reformator (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011), 65 – ​79. 95 In his own library, Flacius possessed a copy of this tract, in which, in his own hand are certain corrections, for a second printing, for which there is only the one from 1563. See HAB: S 229.4o Helmst. (14). 96 Flacius, De Iesu, D 1v.

378

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

exegetical standards of the day, attacking Osiander’s use of the Talmud and de­ monstrating the weakness of his arguments around Jeremiah 23:6 (“The LORD is our righteousness”).97 Ams 01 (1552): Nicholas von Amsdorf, Auff Osianders Bekentnis ein Vnterricht vnd zeugnis, Das die Gerechtigkeit der menscheit Christi darinnen sie entpfangen vnd geboren ist allen Gleubigen Sündern geschanckt vnd zugerechnet wird, vnd für ihr Person hie auff Erden nimmermehr Gerecht vnd heilig werden (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552). In the anonymous Tröstliche Gegensprüche there is a marginal notation that this tract appeared in April.98 Fligge, no. 68.

Having already penned a direct response to Duke Albrecht, which would be published later in the year, von Amsdorf like Menius took up arms against Osiander’s Confession with his own Instruction and Witness. In a mere eight leaves, von Amsdorf rejected what he viewed as the heart of Osiander’s errant view of justification. In replying to these charges in his Schmeckbier, Osiander, who claimed to cut the refutation short due to von Amsdorf ’s age, could not quite fathom how an opponent of Melanchthon could agree with Master Philip on this matter.99 In some ways, Osiander’s disbelief has also spilled over into modern discussions, where scholars insist upon using “for or against Melanchthon” as the only meaningful way to judge the various controversies. As von Amsdorf and Flacius both appreciated, however, the issue was never about Melanchthon and Osiander but about teaching and confessing the gospel. Moreover, viewing this dispute from its publication record should finally put to rest the powerfully influential claims of Karl Holl that Melanchthon distorted Luther’s view of sanative justification with his own forensic notions.100 The dreams of a justification that made Christians moral people (also championed by later Pietists, then affixed to Lutheran doctrine by nineteenth-century German Liberalism and revived more recently by certain Finnish scholars) had nothing in common with Luther’s (or Melanchthon’s!) rediscovery of the external, divine address that worked to put to death the Old Creature and bring to life the New Creature of faith. This forensic (that is, relational) teaching was not simply Melanchthon’s invention or distortion but was held in common with a host of theologians who did not agree with one another on a host of other issues. Von Amsdorf, Aepinus, Flacius, Alber, Gallus and Mörlin would hardly have counted as Melanchthon’s best friends or favorite students.101 Yet on the question of jus  97 See

GA 10: 228 – ​41. Gegensprüche, A 4r or [Wittenberg edition] B 1r.   99 GA 10: 792 – ​93. 100 Karl Holl, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewißheit,” in: Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1: Luther (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1932), 111– ​54; here, 128. 101 As Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 363, n. 2, points out, Funck and Aurifaber were also Melanchthon’s students, for all the good it did them!   98 Tröstliche

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

379

tification, with the singular and somewhat limited exception of Johannes Brenz discussed in chapter 5, all of these theologians immediately but on their own terms rejected Osiander’s teaching. This remarkable literary occurrence, which played itself out from the end of 1551 through 1553, forces a reexamination certain long-held, cherished views about the theological landscape in the years immediately following Luther’s death. Confessionalization was not simply (if it ever was) a goal toward which Lutherans were running and which was then fulfilled in 1580.102 It was also a process of discovering a common confessional proprium that bound these fiercely independent and interdependent churches together.103 As important as education and experience were in forming people for Evangelical pulpits and classrooms, for these theologians this training led them into the Scripture and, in a slightly different way, into Luther’s writings and the Augsburg Confession, where they then were charged by their churches and by their ordination and doctoral vows to confess their faith before God and in common with others. The early publications in the Osiandrian controversy demonstrated just how these common confessions took shape through a remarkable public discussion aimed at a common enemy. Kni 01 (1552): Johannes Knipstro, et al., Antwort der Theologen vnd Pastorn in Pommern auff die Confession Andreae Osiandri, wie der Mensch gerecht wird, durch den Glauben an den Herrn Christum (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). The preface is dated January 1552 and was likely printed by April. Fligge, no. 108.

Among Osiander’s closest Evangelical neighbors were the Pomeranian pastors, led by Johannes Knipstro (1497 –​1556), the first general superintendent of Western Pomerania [Vorpommern].104 A Franciscan friar, who escaped to Stettin, first became a pastor in Stargard, Stralsund and, in 1531/32, the reformer of Greifswald. As the court preacher in Wolgast (Pomerania) for the ducal court, he later had a hand in the reform of the University in Greifswald, where he became a professor in 1539 –​1541 and 1543 –​1552 (receiving his doctorate in 1547), before returning to Wolgast in 1552. This publication was the result of a conference held at Greifswald in January 1552, where not only Osiander but also one of his strongest supporters in Stettin, pastor Peter Artopoeus, were the object of their deliberations.105 102 See Irene Dingel, Concordia controversa: Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996). 103 For the development especially among Gnesio-Lutherans from 1530 –​1580, see Robert Kolb, Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991). 104 WBIS Online, from RGG3 3 (1959), s. v., and Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vol. 10 (1901), s. v., as well as MBW 12: 429 – ​30. 105 Artopoeus finally lost his position in 1555, when Jakob Runge returned to Pomerania fresh from the Nuremberg negotiations involving Philip Melanchthon. See above, chapter 5. Artopoeus was the first to give approval to Osiander’s Confession. See GA 10: 331– ​33, a letter to Osiander dated 5 October 1551.

380

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

The preface, dated January 1552, was delivered to the printer with the manuscript, proved by the fact that it ended on B 1v, that is, as part of the entire document and not as a later addition. At the same synod, the pastors and theologians (including Jakob Runge, Johannes Knipstro, and Andreas Magerius), sent an official letter to Melanchthon, dated 21 January, in which they gave their unqualified support to his newly written Confessio Saxonica.106 That their work was then printed in Wittenberg indicated that it might have been included with the same letter. Melanchthon, in Nuremberg at the time, returned to Wittenberg by 21 March, around which time it could have been printed.107 Osiander responded to it in his Schmeckbier, complaining that it went out only in the name of Knipstro, that “most brazen jackass” of all his opponents.108 Its publication could well have been incited by the publication of Osiander’s Widerlegung against Melanchthon. Sta 01 (1552): Friedrich Staphylus, Synodus Sanctorum Patrum antiquorum contra noua dogmata Andreae Osiandri (Nuremberg: Peter Fabricius, 1552). The preface to the senate in Danzig was dated 6 March 1552. Fligge, no. 154. Sta 01.1 (1553): Friedrich Staphylus, Synodus Sanctorum Patrum antiquorum contra noua dogmata Andreae Osiandri (Nuremberg: Peter Fabricius, September 1553). Sta 01.2 (1555): Friedrich Staphylus, Illustres Synodorum Antiquarum Sanctorum Patrum sententiae, noua et impia dogmata Andreae Osiandri refutantes (Nuremberg: Fabricius, 1555).

Friedrich Staphylus (1512 –1​ 564) was one of Osiander’s original opponents. Born in 1513, he was a student of Melanchthon in the 1530s and received his Wittenberg MA in 1541. He then taught at the Breslau Latin school before being called as a professor of theology to Königsberg in 1546, where he remained until his fight with Osiander, when he departed first for Danzig before returning to the Roman Catholic faith in 1553 in Breslau. The date of the preface (6 March 1552) implied a publication date in the spring. However, the fact that Osiander never referred to it in his writings (especially the Schmeckbier) and that von Köteritz did not mention it in his 10 June letter to Duke Albrecht might indicate that it was published later in the year.109 Unlike other documents in this dispute, it consisted for the most part of references from the church fathers.

106 MBW 6312

(CR 28: 466 – ​68), sent from Greifswald. is also possible that the manuscript was sent to one of the other Wittenberg professors and published earlier. However, Melanchthon sent a copy to Erhard Schnepf on 11 May 1552 (MBW 6444 [CR 7: 1004]). 108 GA 10: 793, 8 – ​794, 23. 109 Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 293. See above, chapter 6, for a possible reference in Musculus’s writing, Musc 02 (1553), which treated it as something “newly published.” 107 It

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

381

IV. May Flowers Musc 01 (1552): Andreas Musculus, De adorando summa veneratione et fide inconcussa amplectendo mysterio Vnitionis duarum naturarum Christi, in unam personam, contra Antichristum septentrionis Osiandrum (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552). The preface is dated 2 May. In his Schmeckbier of 24 June, Osiander mentioned having not yet received a copy of it.110 It is available on-line at http://luther.hki.uni-koeln.de/luther-cgi/ kleioc/0010KlLuther/exec/druckseite/. Fligge, no. 134 Musc 01.1 (1558): Andreas Musculus, Responsio ad virulentum ac maledicum [sic?] scriptum, ex meris calumnijs & mendacijs conflatum: Friderici Staphyli, edita ab Andrea Musculo Anno 1558. 1 Ioan. 2. E nobis egressi sunt, sed non erant ex nobis. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum &c. ([Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn], 1558), C 1v – D 6v.

As if published statements against Osiander were not diverse enough, Andreas Musculus entered the lists on 2 May 1552, with his Latin theses “against the Antichrist of the North Country,” as the original title so succinctly put it. Musculus began his education at the University of Leipzig, where he received his BA in 1534. After several years as a private tutor, he came to Wittenberg, earning his MA 1539. At around this time he married the sister of Johann Agricola’s wife (Agricola was then a teacher in Wittenberg) and moved in 1541 to Frankfurt/ Oder, where he was both preacher at the Franciscan Church and a teacher at the university. First in 1546 did receive his doctorate in theology there, under the presidency of Theodor Fabricius, superintendent in Zerbst who held a Wittenberg doctorate, defending theses composed for the occasion by Melanchthon.111 Whether he wrote the opinion of the Brandenburg theologians or not (see below, M/Ag 01 [1552]) is a matter of dispute.112 As primary professor at the University of Frankfurt/Oder, however, he doubtless composed these articles. With Friedrich Stancaro now hovering around the University of Frankfurt an der Oder,113 proclaiming his own questionable Christological theories, it was perhaps not surprising that Musculus focused on Christology. Nevertheless throughout the document Osiander alone commanded Musculus’s attention. No wonder that Musculus also called on Elector Joachim II, to whom he dedicated his theses, to imitate Constantine and call a council to rid his cousin Albrecht’s lands of the pestiferous Osiandrianism. If, as we have argued, Musculus had a hand in composing the Brandenburg responses, then one must take this attack 110 GA 10:

795, 5 – ​6. Online from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., 13 (1903). The intended presider, Conrad Cordatus, died on his way to Frankfurt, and was replaced by Fabricius at the last moment. 112 In his article on Musculus, Kawerau insisted that Agricola, not Musculus was the author. See WBIS Online from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., 13 (1903). 113 Francesco Stancaro (1501–​1574), was Osiander’s colleague at Königsberg in 1551, moving to Frankfurt/Oder by 1552. 111 WBIS

382

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

very seriously, as one of the first to focus almost exclusively on the Christological issues entailed in the dispute.114 M/Ag 01 (1552): Andreas Musculus, Johann Agricola, et al., Grüntliche anzeigung was die theologen des Churfürstenthumbs der Marck zu Brandenburgk von der Christlichen Euangelischen Lehr halten, lerhen vnnd bekennen. Auch warinne Andreas Osiander wider solche Lehr vnrecht lehret, Welchs auch in diesem Buch aus Heiliger schrift nottürfftiglich gestrafft, vnd widerleget wird Roma. I. Reuelatur ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem & iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem Dei in iniustitia detinent (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552). Fligge, no. 74.

One of the most important Evangelical territories to which Duke Albrecht sent his request for a theological judgment was electoral Brandenburg.115 On 20 February 1552 Elector Joachim II called for a synod to meet in Berlin to discuss Osiander’s theology. The resulting opinion was then published. But who wrote it? According to Salig’s history of the Augsburg Confession, the answer was Andreas Musculus.116 However, as Gustav Kawerau pointed out in 1881, Abdias Praetorius, a Brandenburg theologian later involved in a conflict with Musculus over good works, listed this confession as one of Johann Agricola’s works.117 It would be best to conclude, as Kawerau finally does, that one has to reckon with Agricola’s essential collaboration in the writing of the work. Kawerau had not read Musculus’s De adorando, where Musculus referred also to a synod having met in Küstrin as well as in Berlin and then stated that the decisions “in the synods will proceed immediately into print.”118 Not only did this provide an approximate date for this publication (after 2 May), but it also indicated that Musculus was also involved in the statement’s publication (in Frankfurt/Oder). The result was indeed an interesting mixture of Musculus’s deep concern for a proper use of Luther and for Christology and Agricola’s worry (at least in line with the Augsburg Interim of 1548) to define sola fide in such a way as not to exclude repentance. The leitmotif of this response, however, was the crucial importance of the external word, something for which, as Menius also argued, Osiander had little use.

114 Melanchthon certainly approved these theses, as his letter to Musculus on 12 April 1553 (MBW 6798 [CR 8: 67 – ​68]) demonstrated. CR 8: 67: “Legi et propositiones tuas de duabus naturis in Christo, et de idiomatum communicatione, ante annum mense Maio editas, easque palam dixi me approbare.” 115 For this paragraph, see Gustav Kawerau, Johann Agricola von Eisleben: Ein Beitrag zur Reformationsgeschichte (Berlin: Hertz, 1881), 303 –​12. See also, K/M 01 (1552), below. 116 Christian August Salig, Vollständige Historie der Augsburgischen Confession und derselben Apologie (Halle, 1730), 2: 997 (cited in Kawerau, Johann Agricola, 304, n. 1. 117 Responsio Abdiae Praetorii ad Scriptum D. Andreae Musculi (Wittenberg: [Rhaw Heirs], 1563), 216 (not 214 as in Kawerau, Johann Agricola, 304, n. 2). Much weaker is Kawerau’s argument regarding the content, since references to the Creation story and the conversion of Paul, which he traces back to Agricola, also occurred in other writings of the time. 118 De adorando, C 6v: “… in Synodis statim in lucem progressuris.”

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

383

K/M 01 (1552): Wenzeslaus Kilmann, Simon Musaeus, et al. Widerlegung der Opinion oder Bekentnus, Osiandri, welches er nennet Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, vnd der rechtfertigung des glaubens, von F. G. Marggraff Johansen zu Brandenburgk etc. Theologen, in gehaltenem Synodo zu Custrin vorsamlett ausgangen: In massen solchs Marggraff Albrechten dem eltern, Hertzogen in Preussen, auf seiner F. D. selbst schreiben, vnd begeren, zugeschickt worden (Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn, 1552). U. Bibliothek Erlangen, 4o THL-V 111. Fligge, no. 106

Having sent this written opinion to Margrave Johann on 16 February 1552 for him to forward it to Duke Albrecht, the theologians of Margrave Johann von Brandenburg-Küstrin promised not to publish it if Duke Albrecht promised within the month to place Osiander under strict orders not to publish anything further in this conflict. Shortly after Osiander published his Widerlegung of Melanchthon on 21 April, Andreas Musculus responded with his De adorando, promising that the results of both the synods in Berlin and Küstrin would soon see the light of day. Thus, one can surmise that sometime during May this opinion, along with that of the Electoral Brandenburg theologians, was published. That they labeled Osiander’s Confession a mere “opinion” on the title page already revealed their judgment on this (in their eyes) questionable work. Kilmann was possibly the chief drafter. He was the first to sign the piece, and the synod took place in Küstrin, where he was superintendent.119 Kilmann was ordained by Wittenbergers120 and was called to Brandenburg-Küstrin in 1538 (Soldin) and to Küstrin itself as Superintendent and Pastor in 1541.121 In any case, Kilmann would have signed the document first by reason of his standing in the church. Another candidate for authorship is Simon Musaeus.122 Indeed, the Confession referred to Musaeus indirectly when it talked about one in their midst who had heard Osiander in Nuremberg.123 (Musaeus had briefly been a teacher of Greek in Nuremberg in 1547, shortly before Osiander left for Königsberg.) His sermon of 1555 (Musa 01 [1555]) was also dedicated to Margrave Johann. Indeed, outside of the court preacher and a chaplain from Küstrin, he is the only non-superintendent to sign the document. Given that the theologians worked on the document for eighteen days, according to Margrave Johann’s own account, it should be seen as far more a joint effort than the writing of a single theologian.124 119 For more on Wenzeslaus Kilmann, see MBW 12: 414. Melanchthon sent him a letter on 15 November 1544 (MBW 3733). 120 Martin Krarup, Ordination in Wittenberg (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007), 271– ​73. 121 See also WA Br 12: 460 – ​64. 122 For his biography, see below Musa 01. 123 See the Widerlegung, A 3r: “zu Nurmbergk do er die lengste zeit/ diser dreissig iar sein predigampt gefüret/ viel frommer Christlicher vnd gelarter menner gewest sein/ deren … etliche noch am leben/ vnd zum teil in vnserm mittel sein [Musaeus]/ denen bewust/ das er zuuorn/ also nicht/ sondern diesen artickell von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens/ mit vnd eintrechtigk bekant vnd geleret/ wie mit seinem Catechismo vnd andern seinen schriefften/ mechtigk kan beweiset vnd bezeuget werden.” Emphasis added. 124 Ibid, F 3v.

384

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Ott 01 (1552): Anton Otto, Wider die tieffgesuchten vnd Scharffgespitzten aber doch nichtigen Vrsachen Osianders, darmit er den Artikel von der Gerechtigkeit lestiget vnd verkeret kleglich (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552). With an afterword to Otto’s congregation, dated 16 May [1552]. Fligge, no. 137. Ott 02 (1552): Anton Otto, Etliche Propheceysprüche D. Martini Lutheri/ Des dritten Elias ([Magdeburg: Lotter], 1552). The epistle dedicatory, to Christoph von Hagen, is dated 16 May 1552.

We know that Anton Otto (or: Otho; ca. 1505 – ?) studied under Luther in Wittenberg, where he was ordained on 27 October 1538.125 After serving in Gräfenthal, in 1543 he became the head pastor for the imperial city of Nordhausen, to whose citizens he dedicated this work. Later he would be caught up in the socalled second Antinomian controversy.126 In this writing, as in his collection of Luther’s prophecies published at the same time,127 Otto showed his deep regard for Luther’s own words, quoting at length from the good doctor’s sermon on John 16, one of the most hotly debated texts in the dispute. In the bulk of the text, however, he analyzed Osiander’s approach to Christology and justification and found it wanting.128 His preface to Joachim Mörlin, dated 16 May 1552, indicated that Otto had at some point established direct connections to the beleaguered Königsberg pastor perhaps while both were students in Wittenberg. M/V/H 01 (1552): Joachim Mörlin, Georg von Venediger, and Peter Hegemon, Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht/ auß Gottes Wort/ etlicher Theologen zu Künigsberg in Preussen: Wider die newe verfürische und Antichristische Lehr Andreae Osiandri, Darinnen er leugnet das Christus jn seinem vnschüldigen Leiden vnd sterben/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey (Königsberg: Lufft, 23 May 1552). Fligge, no. 120.

The publication of this response to Osiander bore testimony to the enormous pressure under which the Prussian court and its primary theologian were operating. The original response of the theologians to Osiander’s Confession was dated 7 December 1551. A preface to Duke Albrecht bore the date 27 February 1552, by which time copies of the three theologian’s Report had been sent (by their 125 See WA Br 12: 454 and the data base: “Controversia et confessio. Quellenedition zur Bekenntnisbildung und Konfessionalisierung (1548 –​1580)” (http://www.litdb.evtheol.uni-mainz. de/Biographien/Otho,%20Anton.htm), accessed 15 July 2009. 126 See Matthias Richter, Gesetz und Heil: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte und zum Verlauf des sogenannten Zweiten Antinomistischen Streits (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). 127 In the tract against Osiander, Otto also mentioned having seen Luther’s gloss on a book by William of Ockham. Otto, Wider … die Ursachen, D ivv: “Summa, der Satan wolt vns gerne wider in die vnnötigen vnd vnzelichen quaestiones füren, das für dieser zeit Scholastica Theologia hies/ da man viel tausent fragen hat auffgebracht/ da doch nicht ein buchstabe in der schrifft von geschrieben stehet/ die man auch nicht mengen sol vnter die heilige schrifft/ wie ich zu Erfort im Augustiner Closter Lutheri handschrifft auff den Occam geschrieben gesehen habe/ das er spricht/ Huiusmodi feces humanorum phantasmatum/ sol man nicht vnter die schrifft mengen.” 128 See above, chapter 6.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

385

own admission) to Magdeburg and Wittenberg (even before Albrecht received a copy on 1 January) but, as can be implied from Roting and Waldner’s comments above, also to Nuremberg. Yet publication of this tract in Königsberg did not occur until 23 May (the date the printer himself recorded in the colophon), in large part because of struggles with the court over both its content and its title. Osiander was so angry at the title that he rushed to put his own refutation into print within a week: Against the Lying, Roguish, Honor-Robbing Title on D. Joachim Mörlin’s Book.129 This delay bore with it curious consequences, in that the three persons most directly affected by the controversy finally publicized their response to Osiander’s Confession six months after the first reactions began pouring into Königsberg. This document was the twenty-first response. Of course, throughout this controversy the opinions of Mörlin and others were well known through letters, sermons, and official written opinions to the court. But first in May 1552 the Evangelicals of the Empire could read the published positions of both sides in the dispute. Yet, outside of his own bombastic response to the tract’s provocative title, Osiander dedicated only fourteen of sixty-four pages in his Schmeckbier to a refutation of Mörlin’s work.130 By that time, Osiander had nothing good to say about Mörlin.131 B/F 01 (1552): Johannes Bugenhagen, Johann Forster and Paul Eber, Iudicium Ecclesiae Witebergensis de hoc ipso libro nostro contra Osiandrum ([Königsberg: Weinrich], 1552). Fligge, no. 162. B/F 01.T (1552): Johannes Bugenhagen, Johann Forster and Paul Eber, Der Kirchen zu Witteberg jr IVDICIVM von diesem vnserm buch wider Osiandrum ([Königsberg: Hans Weinreich] 1552). Fligge, no. 163.

By May 1552, Osiander had published not only excerpts from Luther but also comments from Brenz to shore up his position.132 In May 1552 Mörlin countered this set of authorities with one of his own, publishing a letter from Wittenberg’s theologians: Johannes Bugenhagen, Johannes Forster and Paul Eber in which 129 See GA 10: 698 – ​710: Wider den erlogenen, schelmischen, ehrendiebischen Titel auf D. Joachim Mörlins Buch, a book printed on 28 May and posted on the walls of the Altstädter Church the next day (Sunday). See GA 10: 700. 130 Separately in June, Osiander also attacked Mörlin’s sermon in Ein Sendebrief an ein guten Freund, Von der Vnchristlichen Predig D. Joachim Mörlins zu Königsperg im Kneiphoff Am Ersten Junij [a Wednesday in 1552] gethan (Königsberg: Weinreich, 1552). At the bottom of the title page in a shield is: “‫ יהוה‬IST Vnser Gerechtigkeit.” The preface is dated 3 June 1552. See GA 10: 725 – ​31. Mörlin’s tract is 168 pages long. 131 Whom he described in the Schmeckbier (GA 10: 761, 28 – ​29) as “ein unverschembter, verrüchter unman,” whose accusations “anleügt und anstinckt.” The feeling was mutual. 132 In 1551 Excerpta quaedam (GA 9: 574 – ​81), Etliche schöne Sprüche (GA 9: 582 – ​601), which were both used in his Confession and, in 1552, Des achtbar, wirdigen, wolgelerten ehrn Joh[annis] Brentii lehr von der rechtfertigung des glaubens, aus seinen buchern, da er am aller­ kleristen redet, gezogen (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 28 January 1552).

386

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

they expressed their agreement with Mörlin’s refutation of Osiander. Written on 25 January 1552 in Melanchthon’s absence (he had already departed for Nuremberg on his way [so he assumed] to the Council of Trent), it was published at the same time as Mörlin’s Bericht, a fact that Osiander revealed in his Schmeckbier.133 Osiander could only wonder that Bugenhagen had signed it; he seemed not to be surprised by the signatures of Forster and Eber. This seal of approval from Wittenberg’s theologians pointed again to the fact that these theologians did not work and did not wish to work in a vacuum. Mörlin was duty bound by his doctoral oath to seek the support of the Wittenberg faculty.134 He also thought that their support would help his cause. It also points out that an appeal to Wittenberg was never simply an appeal to Melanchthon. To be sure, Melanchthon was the single most important member of the faculty, whose influence was felt far and wide within the Evangelical churches of the Empire and beyond. However, support from Bugenhagen was also not unimportant as evidenced by Osiander’s shock. It further means that the struggle to assert a particular theological position depended not simply on princely opinion but on a much broader consensus, spanning not only the learned theologians (for them it would have been enough for Mörlin to have left the letter in Latin) but also for other opinion makers both in the court and in the wider court of public opinion. When placards were posted in churches or letters of approval were printed with refutations (or Mörlin’s position were painted on the house of an important Königsberg citizen and supporter), more was at stake than simply church politics. Or, rather, church politics could not be reduced to mere consistorial, university, or princely decisions. The process of bringing the Lutheran church into existence involved an appeal to the public, precisely because of the nature of a theology based upon a declared Word and despite the fact that publicum was understood far differently in the sixteenth century than in the present. Moreover, the persons who gathered to hear the sermons of Mörlin or to see the attack ads of Osiander were people for whom death and life, sin and forgiveness were real, everyday affairs. For them, facing such matters with confidence also mattered. Bül 01 (1552): Stephan Bülau, Ein Bekentnis und kurtzer bericht widder die irrige lehr Andree Osiandri, von dem Artickel der Rechtfertigunge, auff vordechtige anforderunge etlicher von Dantzk und Königisperck durch M. Steffanum Bilaw von Osthatz/ einfeltig geschriben ([Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn], 1552). Written in January/March and published before 6 June 1552. Fligge, no. 73.

133 GA 10: 768, 33 – ​769, 2. In n. 77, the editor seems unaware of Mörlin’s publication of this writing. 134 This was important enough a factor for Melanchthon to write an oration about it. See above, chapter 7.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

387

This tract was probably in the hands of Wolf von Köteritz by 6 June 1552.135 The author himself dated the writing of the piece to just prior to the publication of Melanchthon’s Antwort, since he used the publication of Melanchthon’s position as an excuse to publish his own, although his citations from Luther bore a strong resemblance to Flacius’s Verlegung of 1 March. Bülau (? – 1569, also spelled Bilaw), enrolled at Wittenberg in 1532 and received his MA either there or in Leipzig shortly before being ordained in 1545, when he first served in Breslau.136 In 1547 he came to Danzig, where he was a preacher until at least 1552. In 1555 he was preacher for the bishop of Kammin, in 1557 a preacher in Thorn and, finally, in 1561/62 he was appointed the first superintendent in the Kurland, where he died. The situation under which he wrote differed from all other writings. Here was someone accused (by Joachim Mörlin no less) of Osiandrianism, who now vigorously defended himself against the charge. According to Bülau’s account in the beginning of the tract, it was a matter of guilt by association. Mörlin had prevented Bülau from preaching in Königsberg because he was friends with some of Osiander’s supporters. He, on the contrary, stressed his training in Wittenberg (with Melanchthon) and in Leipzig.137 Bülau had maintained his contacts with Osiander’s supporters because he had assumed that they were upstanding people. Once he heard their teaching, he resisted them. Upon returning to Danzig, several people, having heard that Mörlin had refused to allow him to preach, began calling him an Osiandrist.138 At the same time, Bülau had not wanted to return immediately to Königsberg to preach, on the assumption that that would have raised Mörlin’s suspicions even more. What followed in Bülau’s confession was an interesting interweaving of the arguments and vocabulary of Melanchthon (and Flacius). Here, finally, was truly a “Wittenberg student,” an epigone who admitted not only to having been trained by his teachers there but also endeavored to make his comments reflect theirs. Only Pollicarius’s work showed such a close relation to Melanchthon’s writing and thought.

135 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 294, where von Köteritz referred to a “Frankfurter iudicium.” Contra n. 157, this may not refer to Musculus’s theses (Musc 01 [1552]) but to Bülau’s Bekentnis, also published in Frankfurt/Oder. Note that as of his writing of Schmeckbier (24 June 1552), Osiander had heard of but had not yet received Musculus’s tract (GA 10: 795, 5 – ​6). 136 See WBIS Online from Theodore Kallmeyer, Die evangelischen Kirchen und Prediger Kurlands, 2nd ed. (Riga: Grothuß, 1910), s. v. and further information gleaned from this tract (Bülau, Bekenntnis, A 3r and H 2v). 137 Bülau, Bekentnis, A 3r. 138 One wonders if perhaps Johann Bretschneider (see above, Bre 01 [1552]) might not have had a hand in this.

388

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Ano 02 (1552): Anon., ed. Tröstliche Gegensprüch … Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch (Wittenberg [Peter Seitz Heirs], 1552). It contains citations from Luther, von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius.139 Ano 02.1 (1552): Tröstliche Gegensprüch … Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch ([Magdeburg?], 1552).140 Fligge, no. 138.

The anonymous writer of a single broadsheet, which contrasted quotations from Luther and Osiander, found reason, after Osiander attacked him, to expand his citations in a tract dated 10 January 1552, Against the Night Raven That Fears the Light, Who with a Single Leaf of Paper Tried to Give the False Appearance As If My Teaching about Justification of Faith Is Completely against and Contrary to the Teaching of Doctor Luther of Blessed Memory.141 Without tipping his hand to his identity, the “Citation Collector,” as we called him in chapter 6, responded with more citations from yet more people. The fact that Flacius’s name is in the title has confused researchers and librarians alike. Thus, the editors of Osiander’s Gesamtausgabe did not realize that this writing was what Osiander was referring to at the end of his Schmeckbier, since Stupperich had identified it as Flacius’s work.142 The piece may be dated to between April and June 1552. The tract included a quote from Nicholas von Amsdorf (published, as shown above [Ams 01 (1552)], in April). As we have seen, Osiander mentioned it in his Schmeckbier of 24 June. Although the author was unknown, the fact that this document was published in Wittenberg with citations from both von Amsdorf and Flacius, showed just how 139 One copy is in HAB: 216.13 Theol. (15): Tröstliche Gegen= || sprüch des Ernwirdigen Her= || ren Doctoris Martini Lutheri/ vnd  || Matthie Illyrici/ wider des Ra=  || be Osiandri Prima=  || rij spruch. || ♠ || Wittemberg. || 2. Johan. 1. || Viel verfürer sind in die Welt komen/ die nicht || bekennen Jhesum Christ/ das er in das fleisch ko= || men ist. Dieser ist der verfürer vnd Widerchrist/ || Sehet euch für/ das wir nicht verlieren/ was wir || ererbeitet haben.|| 1552. || Wittenberg [Peter Seitz Heirs], 1552. Identification: The initial letter “D” is the same as that found in 127.10 Theol. (1): Von dem Bilde Got= || tes in den ersten Menschen. || Von der verstörung vnd ver= || newerung des Bildes/ || Vnd von den Zeichen vnd Wer= || cken der newgeboren kinder || Gottes/ || Kurtze Erklerung vnd Bekentnis/ Mit einer || Klagrede an Deudschland/ || Thilomanni Kragen || Luchowani. || [seal] || Mit einer Vorrede Philippi || Melanthons. || 1553 || Colophon: Gedruckt zu Wittemberg/ || Durch Peter Seitzen || Erben. || 1553. ||, P iiiv. 140 One copy in HAB 140.8 Theol. (4): Tröstliche Gegen= || sprüch des Ernwirdigen Her= || ren Doctoris Martini Luthe= || ri/ vnd Matthie Jllyrici/ wi= || der des Rabe Osiandri || Primarij spruch. || 2. Johan. 1. || Viel verfürer sind in die Welt komen/ die || nicht bekennen Jhesum Christ/ das er in das fleisch || komen ist. Dieser ist der verfürer vnd Widerchrist/ || Sehet euch für/ das wir nicht verlieren/ was wir || ererbeitet haben. || 1552. 141 Wider den liechtflüchtigen nachtraben, der mit einem einigen bogen papiers, ein falschen schein zu machen, unterstanden hat, als solt mein lehr von der rechtfertigung des glaubens doctor Luthers seligen lehr entgegen und gantz widerwertig sein (GA 10: 398 – ​413). 142 GA 10: 795, 6 – ​9: “Wie ich aber diß alles geendet, sein mir zwey büchlein zukommen, ains von dem ‘lichtflüchtigen nachtraben,’ der so fromm nicht ist, das er weder seinen noch seines buchdruckers namen nennen oder bekennen thar.” Note 248 states that this printing could not be found. See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 292, note 141, “i.”

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

389

seriously the printers and theologians there took the establishment of a unified front against Osiander. Ale 01 (1552): Alexander Alesius, Diligens Refutatio errorum quos sparsit nuper Andreas Osiander in libro, cui titulum fecit: De unico mediatore Christo (Wittenberg: Lufft, 1552). Refuted by Osiander in his Schmeckbier of 24 June and mentioned in von Köteritz’s letter of 6 June. Fligge, no. 66.

This work by Alexander Alesius elucidates the complex ways in which the literary output of a theologian contributed to the building of what might be a called theological “public” opinion.143 But first some clarification of Alesius’s contributions is in order. Stupperich mistakenly lists two books from Alesius in 1552. However, there was but one (our Ale 01 [1552]).144 It was this one that was mentioned in two of von Köteritz’s letters and that Osiander then refuted in his Schmeckbier. (The only terminus a quo comes from Alesius’s reference to the death of Bernhard Ziegler [on 2 January 1552].) More importantly, this tract represented yet another publication from Wittenberg. Alexander Alesius (1500 –​1565), born in Scotland where he attended the University of Edinburgh, was driven from his preaching post after attacking clerical corruption and ended up in Wittenberg, where he participated in the first Evangelical doctoral disputation (for Caspar Cruciger, Sr., Bugenhagen and Aepinus).145 After a short stint at Cambridge, he left England after the publication of the “Six Articles of Religion.” He returned to Germany, first to a post at Frankfurt/Oder and then in 1543 to the University of Leipzig, where he remained until his death. Alesius could hardly be counted as a “younger” theologian or a “student” of Melanchthon. Indeed, Melanchthon adumbrated his view of the Scotsman by composing in 1553 a preface for Alesius’s commentary on Romans.146 In 1554 Alesius contributed a second piece against Osiander, for which he had prepared a preface already in March of 1553. Along with the commentary on Romans and Melanchthon’s preface, Alesius counted among the most active opponents to Osiander, even requesting Melanchthon to reprint his Antwort along with the preface to the Romans commentary.147 Here again the publishing record pointed to cooperative work by theologians differently trained and from different cultural milieus. Whatever else the outcry against Osiander was, it surely was more than 143 Here

using the word “public” to denote “in public” rather than “the public.” Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 294, n. 155, where the second title from 1552, Tres disputationes, supposedly in the Göttingen library (8o Th. Thet. I 606/25) is given by the on-line catalogue the proper date of 1554. See below. 145 WBIS Online from D. C. Browning, comp., Everyman’s Dictionary of Literary Biography: English and American (London: Dent, 1962). 146 MBW 6696 (CR 8: 8 –​11). See chapter 7. 147 MBW 6708 (unpublished; HAB: Cod. Guelf. 108 Noviss., 2o, 216r – 217v), Alesius from Leipzig to Melanchthon [in Wittenberg], dated 14 January [1553]. 144 See

390

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

simply a struggle between younger and older theologians, or between Wittenberg and Königsberg, as Osiander himself tried to portray it, or even of Melanchthon versus Brenz and Osiander. Alesius’s careful seven-point refutation, followed by the publication of his disputations against Osiander the following year, demonstrated the need of almost all noted Evangelical theologians to express themselves on this crucial doctrine and to take a position squarely against Osiander. Anh 01 (1552): Georg von Anhalt, Zwo predigten über das Evangelium Matth. VII von falschen Propheten: in 2 Tractate gebracht, in welchen die fürnembsten … misbreuche, die jtziger zeit vorhanden, in sonderheit gezeigt; sampt einer Vorrede … durch Fürsten Georgen zu Anhalt (Leipzig: Günter, 1552). VD 16: 1338. Anh 01.1 (1555): Georg von Anhalt, Zwo predigten über das Evangelium Matth. VII von falschen Propheten: in 2 Tractate gebracht, in welchen die fürnembsten … misbreuche, die jtziger zeit vorhanden, in sonderheit gezeigt; sampt einer Vorrede, in: Des Hochwirdigen Durchleuchten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnd Herrn, Herrn Georgen Fürsten zu Anhalt … Predigten vnd andere Schrifften, darinn die Summa Christlicher leer trewlich vnd rein gefasset vnd erklert ist … Mit einer Vorrede Philippi Melanthonis (Wittenberg: Hans Krafft, 1555), pp. 206v – 301v.148 Fligge, no. 101.

It would be easy to overlook Georg von Anhalt’s contribution were it not for the reference to it in the letter of Wolf von Köteritz to Duke Albrecht, dated 10 June 1552, to which he appended Georg’s preface and a few pages of the book itself.149 The Wittenberg theologians had, by their own admission, passed on Albrecht’s request to Georg, who, as one of the few Evangelical “prince-bishops,” seemed only too eager to supply an answer.150 Georg wove into his nearly completed manuscript (aimed primarily at refuting the Roman party still active in Merseburg) comments that clearly reflected the situation in Königsberg. We know from comments in the preface that he was working on the marginal glosses well into December 1551, by which time Osiander’s positions would have been only too well known to him.151 Georg von Anhalt (1507 –1​ 553) was being groomed from the beginning of his career for a bishopric, receiving training at the University of Leipzig (1518) and becoming a Cathedral canon in Magdeburg in 1524.152 Despite the Reformation, to which he and his princely brothers adhered from the early 1530s, Georg be148 The

preface, MBW 7594 (CR 8: 542 – ​45), was dated 29 September 1555 and written in Nuremberg in the midst of the negotiations over the Osiandrists there. 149 Cited in Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 291, with notes 136 and 137. Against Stupperich’s claim that it is hard to make out what was directed against Osiander, see below. 150 See MBW 6263 [CR 7: 857 f.], Melanchthon to Georg von Anhalt, dated 28 November 1551. 151 See, in the 1555 printing, 220r and 222r, with explicit references to Tridentine debates in December 1551. 152 MBW 11: 72 – ​74; RGG4 3 (2000): 693. See also Peter Gabriel, Fürst Georg III. Von Anhalt als evangelischer Bischof von Merseburg und Thüringen 1544 –​1548/50 (Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1997).

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

391

came the next best thing to a bishop in 1544, when he was ordained by Luther as the co-adjutor of Merseburg, exercising his office under the watchful eye of Duke August of Saxony. In the aftermath of the Smalcald War he resigned his office in 1550 in favor of Michael Helding, the Roman appointee. His two sermons, originally preached on 11 August 1549 and 27 July 1550, defended both his irregular ordination by Luther and his initiating Evangelical theology and practice in the diocese. To this purpose, he dedicated a large portion of the first sermon to the central doctrine of the Reformation, justification by faith alone, answering many of the standard Roman Catholic objections in the process. When Georg reached the question of imputation, however, he included not only standard Roman language but also “as some now use another new way of speaking” on the “indwelling, essential righteousness of Christ.”153 To be sure, Georg von Anhalt was the quintessential follower of Melanchthon, who composed many of Georg’s sermons as bishop (especially those for official gatherings of pastors, according to Latin texts written out for him by Melanchthon). Nevertheless, these comments were clearly Georg’s own words, as he struggled (as bishop!) both to express clearly Evangelical beliefs to a divided clergy and to avoid the kind of novelty that he believed Osiander represented. Fla 02 (1552): Matthias Flacius, Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeu[i]sten, vom spruch Christi Joan. Am XVI. Der Heilig Geist wird die Welt straffen vmb die gerechtigkeit, das ich zum Vater gehe (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, [1552]). Fligge, no. 79. Fla 02.T (1552): Matthias Flacius, Contra Haereticum Dikaeusiastam de dicto Ioannis: Spiritus arguet munde iustitia, quia trado ad Patrem … Audio editam esse meam Confutationem confessionis Osiandri latine, sic mutilam & inemendatam, ut eam initio quibusdam amicis petentibu exhibueram, Quae editio quoniam sine meo iussu facta est, ideo remitto lectorem ad Germanicum exemplar quod & integrum est & meo iussu editum. Quod facere me necesse est, ut aduersarij cauillationes cauere possim (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]). Fligge, no. 87.

At the beginning of this dispute, Duke Albrecht had specifically asked Flacius for his opinion of Osiander’s theology. Because Flacius referred in this tract to the Verlegung, we know that it was published after March 1552. Osiander mentioned in his Schmeckbier that a copy of the German version had just come into his possession.154 Von Köteritz mentioned two writings from Flacius had arrived and, given the very different provenance of Fla 01 (1552), it would seem that he was referring to both the Verlegung and Wider die neue Ketzerey. Yet, this tract 153 From the 1555 edition, p. 268r: “Derhalben hastu zu schliessen vnd zu vrteilen/ das diese grewlich jrren/ vnd verfürische Lerer sind/ die do fürgeben/ das wir nach vnd neben dem glauben auch durch den angefangenen gehorsam/ oder (wie sie es nennen) die eingegebene gerechtigkeit/ oder inhaerentem iusticiam, oder (wie nu etliche andere newe weise zu redden gebrauchen) durch die einwondende wesentliche gerechtigkeit Christi fur Gott from vnd gerecht werden.” 154 GA 10: 795, 10 –​11.

392

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

represented not simply a case of Flacian overkill; instead it took direct aim both at Osiander’s pamphlet on the proper interpretation of John 16 and at Osiander’s attack on the anonymous comparison of himself to Luther.155 As described in chapter 4, Flacius’s systematic rebuttal of Osiander’s work continued throughout the year, shifting to the Osiandrists after their leader’s death. V. The Long, Hot Summer Fla 03 (1552): Matthias Flacius, Wider die Götter in Preussen. Das nur eine einige wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes sey, die nemlich so inn den Zehen geboten offenbaret ist. Ein kurtzer, heller vnnd klarer bericht von verdienst vnd gerechtigkeit Christi ([Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552]). Fligge, no. 83.

Given that Osiander seemed unaware of this tract at the time he wrote the Schmeckbier, that in it Flacius seemed unaware of the publication of the Schmeckbier, and that this tract provided a response to Osiander’s criticism of Melanchthon (the Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons, printed on 21 April 1552), it would seem that this next salvo in Flacius’s paper war appeared somewhere after the middle of June but before the middle of July. Clearly, Flacius was bound and determined to answer every one of Osiander’s publications. Because of a comment in Osiander’s Widerlegung, which Flacius construed as supporting deification, Flacius took leave to accuse the Königsberg professor of rank self-worship already in the title. Of course, Flacius was not so much defending his former teacher Melanchthon as excoriating what he saw as Osiander’s untenable theological position. However, the effect of this tract, if there had been any doubt any longer, was to place Melanchthon and Flacius side-by-side in their rejection of Osiander’s doctrine of justification. Lau 01 (1552): Matthias Lauterwald, Fünff schlussprüche: wider Andream Osiandrum, Von Matthia Lauterwalt Elbingensi gestellet, vnd zu einem grunde geleget seinen volgenden Schrifften. Act: xv. Wir gleuben durch die gnade des HErrn Jhesu Christi selig werden (Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552). The colophon reads: “Gegeben zu Wittemberg am xv. tage Julij im iar. 1552.” Fligge, no. 109.

After having been unceremoniously thrown out of Prussia accused of heresy, Matthias Lauterwald had every reason to write against Andreas Osiander. Matthias Lauterwald (ca. 1514 –1​ 555) was born in Elbingen in East Prussia [now Elblag, Poland], enrolled at the University of Wittenberg in 1540 and studied there, in Frankfurt/Oder and in Leipzig, supported by a stipend from Duke Albrecht. Returning to the newly opened University of Königsberg as a teacher of 155 Rechte, wahre und christliche Auslegung uber die wort des Herrn Johannis am 16 … Wider die neuen ketzerey, die die göttlichen gerechtigkeit unsers herrn Jhesu Christi verwirft und verlestert, als sey sie nicht durch den glauben unser und in uns (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 20 September 1551), now in GA 10: 307 –​16, and GA 10: 398 – ​413. Of course, these debates always included interpretations of biblical texts.

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

393

Mathematics (astrology) in the arts faculty in 1549, he quickly ran into trouble with Andreas Osiander by attempting to defend theological theses. Osiander brought a case against him that Bishop Paul Speratus decided in Osiander’s favor, and Lauterwald was forced to leave Königsberg for Wittenberg, where he stayed until he became superintendent in Schulpforta. In 1552 he departed for Hungary, where he died.156 At the end of this short tract, Lauterwald promised to write further explanation of his theses against Osiander.157 The colophon to the book suggests that Lauterwald could actually have presented these theses publicly at the University of Wittenberg. F/G 02 (1552): Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]). Fligge, no. 81.

Once Osiander’s Schmeckbier hit the bookstalls of Germany in late June or early July, Flacius and Gallus, whose Verlegung had been one of Osiander’s targets, prepared, as the title proclaimed, an antidote. Early on they announced that they were preparing another writing on justification, Von der Gerechtigkeit, which in fact appeared on 24 September, giving the terminus ad quem for this writing.158 This “antidote” examined the basic charges that Osiander made in his Schmeckbier and refuted them point for point. Fla 04 Matthias Flacius, Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier … DEVT. 6. Es wird vnser gerechtigkeit sein für dem HERRN vnserm Gott/ so wir halten vnd thun alle diese gebott/ wie er vns geboten hat. Item Esa. Am 48. spricht das so einer die gebot Gottes halte/ es jhm seine gerechtigkeit sey/ wie Meers wellen. Ezech. 18. stehet/ das der/ so recht vnd wol thut/ vmb der gerechtigkeit willen/ so er thut/ leben solle. Item Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luce 10. 18. Leuit. 19 Rom. 10. Gal. 3. Wiltu leben/ so halt die gebot. Rom. 2. die Theter des Gesetzes werden gerecht für Gott. Zwar heist alhie Herr Heiligman Gerechtigkeit, das nemlich so einen recht zu thun treibt, oder das recht thun selbs. Ein solche gerechtigkeit haben wir Gott vnd seinem Gesetze nicht konne leisten. Es hat sie aber Christus mit seinem gehorsam vnnd leiden, das ist, durch seine gantze erfullung des Gesetzes gethan, darumb ist dasselbig vnsers Gerechtigkeit, Matth. 5. Rom. 8. 10 (Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]). Fligge, no. 82a. Fla 04.1 (1552?): Zwo fürnemlich gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier (?). In the library of the Franckische Stiftungen, Halle. See Fligge, no. 82b. Fla 04.2 (1553): Zwo fürnemlich gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier (Magdeburg: [?], 1553). Bibliothek der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Sigel: 19).

As if not content with one refutation of Osiander’s Schmeckbier and as further proof of just how important he viewed the printing press, Flacius prepared a 156 WBIS Online from Christian Krollmann, ed., Altpreußische Biographie, vol. 1 (Königsberg: Gräfe & Unzer, 1941). See also Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 36 – ​53. For Melanchthon’s correspondence about him, see MBW 6078, 6553 and 6638. 157 See below Lau 02 (1553). 158 Flacius and Gallus, Antidotum, A 4r.

394

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

second pamphlet, later mentioned in his publication of 1 September, Kurtze und klare erzelung (see below).159 Osiander had challenged his opponents to explain a passage from Augustine and was of the opinion that they were not up to the task.160 That was all it took to bring Flacius back into the ring, and the tract examined Osiander’s citation both of Augustine’s Consentio ad quaestiones de trinitate sibi propositas (Ep. 120) and of Luther’s Kirchenpostil.161 Wal 03 (1552): Wolf Waldner, Antwort auff des Osianders Schmeckbier ([Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552]). Appearing after 24 June 1552. Fligge, no. 158.

Flacius and Gallus were not the only ones attacked in the Schmeckbier, nor were they the only ones who wrote responses. With this tract, Waldner entered the fray for a third time (see Wal 01 [1551] and Wal 02 [1552]). Because the preface to his excerpts of Luther’s works was signed simply with his initials, W. W., Osiander had nicknamed him an “Uhu” (owl) as a play on words. In response, Waldner especially criticized Osiander’s brutal language, which the Nuremberg preacher labeled as unworthy of a Christian leader. Waldner then examined each of Osiander’s charges against him and ended his refutation again with a personal rebuke: If justification were a matter of the indwelling of divine righteousness, why did Osiander’s behavior reflect so little of it? M/Am 01 (1552) Justus Menius, Nicholas von Amsdorf et al., eds., Censurae der fürstlichen Sechsischen Theologen zu Weymar und Koburg auff die Bekendtnis des Andreae Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens (Erfurt: Stürmer, 1552). The preface by Menius is dated 1 August 1552 and contains confessions drafted by Menius and von Amsdorf and signed by other theologians as well. Fligge, no. 159.

One of the most interesting literary aspects of this controversy involves the official statements generated by various Evangelical consistories and synods around the Empire. We know from von Kötzeritz’s list that by 6 June 1552 he had received opinions on Osiander’s Confession from seven churches. Of these, as many as three saw the light of day immediately after it became clear that Duke Albrecht would not or could not restrain Osiander from publishing against his opponents. Now, in August, despite the fact that both von Amsdorf and Menius had published their own refutations of Osiander’s teaching, the Ernestine Saxon theologians published their official response. Given that Osiander offered refutations of both von Amsdorf and Menius in his Schmeckbier, the publication of this official response was a direct rebuke for his attacks. Indeed, in his preface, Menius stated as much, referring to the Widerlegung of Melanchthon’s writing, the attack on the title of Mörlin’s book, and the Schmeckbier itself.162 He also included a remarkable contrast between Mörlin’s and OsiKurtze und klare erzelung, A 1v. quoted the passage from GA 10: 783, 31– ​37. 161 See above chapter 6. 162 Menius, et al., Censurae, AA 2r – v. 159 Flacius, 160 Flacius

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

395

ander’s styles of preaching. At the end of his lengthy preface, Menius came back to the question of why this material was now being published, pointing to Osiander’s unfairness in dealing with other people (including, of course, Menius and von Amsdorf) and fearing that he would do the same to these Censurae. As to why three separate documents were being published, Menius indicated that this showed not disunity but rather the fact that a variety of theologians, working independently could come to such a unified position.163 The three tracts were [Justus Menius], Censurae: Das ist Erkendtnis aus Gottes Wort und heiliger Schrifft: uber die Bekendtnis Andreae Osiandri, Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, und von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens; [Nicholas von Amsdorf??], Vorlegung der fürnemsten Stück/ in dem gifftigen Buch Osiandri/ Von der Rechtfertigung; and [Nicholas von Amsdorf], Confutatio, das ist, Widerlegung aus heiliger Schrifft der jrthumen Andreae Osiandri Von dem Articul der Rechtfertigung and Vorlegung der fürnemsten Stück, in dem gifftigen Buch Osiandri, Von der Rechtfertigung.164 Although Menius’s testimony made it clear that different theologians wrote these three pieces, it still not clear who wrote the Vorlegung. VI. The Fall of Osiander Osiander was now dying. Already in August he had fallen ill and, although he seemed at first to be on the mend, he quickly took a turn for the worst and died on 17 October 1552, after a nineteen-day illness.165 Throughout the fall, however, both before and after his death, the presses, especially in Magdeburg and Wittenberg, kept turning out refutations of Osiander’s teaching, to which in death he remained true (according to Duke Albrecht’s report) or with which he departed this life for the nether regions (according to his opponents). Fla 05 (1552): Matthias Flacius, Kurtze und klare erzelung der argument Osiandri mit jhrer verlegung, und unserer beweisung wider jhn, von der gerechtigkeit des glaubens (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1 September 1552). Fligge, no. 84.

It would be easy to ignore the massive output of one theologian or to chalk it up to psychological needs or social circumstances. But calling Flacius an argumentative person or imagining that he, unlike many others, had more time on his hands there in Magdeburg and access to a “free press,” does not finally encompass what Flacius’s writings represented. It would also be easy to reduce Flacius to an 163 Menius,

Censurae, DD 2r – v.

164 See Menius, Censurae, A 1r – F 4v, Aa 1r – Ff 2v, a 1r – n 4v, respectively. English: “Censures:

That is, Judgments from God’s Word and the Holy Scriptures upon Andreas Osiander’s Confession of the Only Mediator Jesus Christ and of Justification of Faith; [Nicholas von Amsdorf?], Refutation of the Most Important Parts in Osiander’s Poisonous Book, On Justification; and [Nicholas von Amsdorf], Confutation, That Is, Refutation from Holy Scriptures of the Errors of Andreas Osiander on the Article of Justification and Rebuttal of the Most Important Parts in the Poisonous Book of Osiander, On Justification.” 165 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 352 – ​55.

396

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

angry student, who took out his disappointment at Melanchthon’s behavior during the adiaphoristic controversy on his erstwhile teacher. Or one could simply mistake his drive to take original sin too seriously as revealing a basic flaw in both his character and theology. All these explanations, however, would result in dismissing his writings and the earnestness with which he took the situation in Königsberg. This tract especially represented one attempt to summarize his various arguments against Osiander in a form that a wider audience could read and understand. Thus, Flacius put thirty statements of Osiander on trial and proved them wrong and then, reversing the process, stated thirty of his own theses about justification that reflected for him the true Evangelical doctrine.166 Gal 01 (1552): Nicholas Gallus, Proba des geists Osiandri von der rechtfertigung, durch die eingegossne wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes … I Joan. IIII. Ihr lieben/ gleubet nicht einem yeglichen Geist/ sondern prüfet die Geister/ ob sie von Gott sind. (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1552). The preface to Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg is dated 14 September 1552. Fligge, no. 99.

After having provided both a postscript to Flacius’s judgment against Osiander’s Confession and a joint response to Osiander’s Schmeckbier, Gallus finally published a tract of his own against the Königsberg professor. If Flacius went after Osiander’s theology in his tract from 1 September, then Gallus, as he stated in his preface, wanted to demonstrate Osiander’s overweaning pride, making several tests [Proba] to prove his point. However, Gallus did not reduce Osiander’s theology to a psychological abberation but at the same time took the measure of his teaching and, not surprisingly, found it wanting. Fla 06 (1552): Matthias Flacius, Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum, nützlich zu lesen (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 24 September 1552). Fligge, no. 85.

The approach in this the sixth independently written tract and the eighth overall in which Flacius was involved demonstrated just how much Flacius was still a student of Melanchthon. Like his teacher, Flacius concentrated in this tract on the definition of Iustitia and showed just how far off the mark Osiander had strayed from the biblical meaning of the term. Already a comment on the title page of the little tract made this clear. “What does the same Mr. Holyman [Osiander] mean by righteousness? Namely, what motivates one to do right or is itself the doing of right things. [This] we are unable to achieve with God and His laws. This Christ did with his obedience and suffering, that is, through his entire fulfilling of the law. Therefore the same is our righteousness (Matthew 5 and Romans 8 & 10).”167 166 At

about this time, Flacius also printed a brief, single-leaf chart (Fla 16), dedicated to Margravess Anna Sophia von Brandenburg. See, Fligge, 887, who dates it before 1 September 1552. I am grateful to Dr. Luka Ilic for this information. There is a copy in the Cambridge University Library. 167 Flacius, Von der Gerechtigkeit, A 1r: “Was heist alhie Herr Heiligmann Gerechtigkeit, das nemlich so einen recht zu thun treibt, oder das recht thun selbs? Ein solche gerechtigkeit habe

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

397

To the very point with which Melanchthon began his published comments on Osiander’s position in 1551 Flacius now returned with a vengeance, showing at every turn why Osiander’s definition of righteousness failed to provide the proper teaching or comfort needed in life. What Flacius had earlier done with a very close reading of the Hebrew text, he now provided for that central word of the New Testament: iustitia. Lau 02 (1552): Matthias Lauterwald, Was unser Gerechtigkeit heisse, kürtzlich und einfeltiglich, … angezeiget, wider des wesentichters Andree Osiandri, schwermerische entzuckung, die er darff vermessentlich Gottes wesentliche gerechtigkeit nennen, die Gott selbs ist, Vnd sein allmechtiges vngeworden, vnd vngemachte Wesen, darff one scheu vnser geboten vnd geworden Gerechtigkeit in vns heissen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552). Dated on E 4v: 25 September 1552. Fligge, no. 110.

On the following day, from a very different city and press, came a very similar work by another theologian who owed a great deal to Philip Melanchthon’s theological method. Again, as he had promised in July, Matthias Lauterwald, a scholar who had felt the heat of Osiander’s wrath already in 1549 with his dismissal from Königsberg, published his understanding of the word righteousness and contrasted it at every turn with Osiander’s position. The entire tract, like Flacius’s, was an address to the Christian readers, begging them to abandon Osiander’s false definition, which drove believers back to their own resources and robbed them of comfort. It was Lauterwald’s connection between the definition of a thing and its effect that most clearly marked him as Melanchthon’s student. Yet, above and beyond anything Melanchthon said, Lauterwald’s most significant contribution was to argue that Osiander’s worry that forensic justification would make a person lazy about doing works – a charge that drove most writers to distinguish justification and sanctification – showed instead to Lauterwald another weakness in Osiander’s theology: he did not like God’s mercy. F/G 03 (1552): Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, Ermanung an alle Stende der Christlichen Kirchen in Preußen Osianders lere halben … 1. Theß. 5. Den Geist dempffet nicht/ die Weissagung verachtet nicht/ prüfet aber alles/ vnd das gute behaltet/ Meidet allen bösen schein (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552). Fligge, no. 80.

Duke Albrecht and some (though not all) of his advisors had thought it might be possible to attract Flacius, the chief opponent of Melanchthon, to Osiander’s side. Although eight tracts later proved that just the opposite had happened and that Flacius had become Osiander’s worst nightmare, nevertheless, at about the time Osiander was succumbing to a mortal illness, Flacius and Gallus produced what can only be described as a proposal on how to solve the current crisis in wir Gott vnd seinem Gesetze nicht konnen leisten. Es hat sie aber Christus mit seinem gehorsam vnd leiden, das ist, durch seine gantze erfullung des Gesetzes gethan, darumb ist dasselbig vnsere Gerechtigkeit, Matth. 5. Rom. 8. 10.” The nickname “Holyman” was a play on the Greek name Osi-ander.

398

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Prussia.168 After listing (almost all) of their writings against Osiander to this point (they missed only the De Iesu nomine Christi and the Antidotum), they then proceeded to give some friendly advice. They praised the notion of assembling the positions of many churches but noted that many of the tracts revealed their opinion on the title page and thus were probably dismissed by Osiander and his supporters without giving them a fair reading. That Flacius, who had no direct access to the opinions sent directly to Königsberg, explicitly relied on the published record again underscored the public, literary nature of this dispute. That published record included, by way of an offhand remark by Osiander in his attack on the title of Mörlin’s writing, Osiander’s vow to follow the mediating position of Johannes Brenz – something that Gallus and Flacius noticed and on which they commented.169 Without criticizing the content of Brenz’s comments (they seemed not to know exactly what he said, since this opinion had not yet been published), they criticize the approach as useless, suggesting that the Königsbergers use the approach the Magdeburgers had employed in their struggle against the Augsburg Interim and the adiaphorists (namely, all-out attack), leaving to God to establish harmony. Since the Duke asked for theological opinions, the other theologians in Prussia could either stand firm and hope to convince the prince through their solidarity or call for an assembly of like-minded (true) theologians in a neutral place who could point the way to true teaching for the duchy. Outside of these options, they argued, there remained only one: staying true to their confession of faith.170 Bar 01 (1552): Georg Barth, Eine korte und gründtlike Declaration, up dat Bock Andreae Osiandri van der Justification, und enigen midler Jhesu Christo, unsen leuen Heylande vor de entfoldigen … 1. Jo. 1. Dat Blodt Jhesu Christi Gades Söne hefft vns gereiniget/ van aller sünde (Lübeck: Jürgen Richolff, 1552). Fligge, no. 72.

Only two writings from 1552 and one other “stray” from 1552 –​1555 could not be more precisely dated. This one, written in Low German and published in Lübeck for the simple folk (de entfoldigen), was the work of Georg Barth (? – 1595). Barth was born in Osnabrück, enrolled at the University of Wittenberg in 1539 and returned to Osnabrück as a teacher before moving to Lübeck. In his 1552 tract on the immorality of the soul, he testified to being a Master of Arts (from Wittenberg?) and a preacher in Lübeck. He became a deacon at the Marienkirche in Lübeck in 1553, a pastor at St. Aegidian in 1557 and the superintendent for Lübeck in 1578. In later years he wrote, among other things, hymns for the appointed gospel lessons (1575, with a preface by David Chytraeus) and a Christian

especially Flacius and Gallus, Ermanung, B 2r. and Gallus, Ermanung, A 4r, where they referred to GA 10: 703, 16 – ​704, 15. 170 Kolb, Confessing the Faith, demonstrates how powerful this call to confession remained throughout this period, especially among the gnesio-Lutherans. 168 See

169 Flacius

E. 1552: Batten down the Hatches!

399

hymnbook (1578).171 In his introduction to this writing, he stressed that he was writing this not so much against Osiander as for the sake of the church. Buc 01 (1552): Georg Buchholzer, ed., Drei Sermon D. Martini Lutheri, darin man spüren kan wie ein herlicher Prophetischer Geist in dem manne gewesen ist, das er das, was itzt vngötlich vom Andrea Osiandro geleret wird lengst zuuor als würd es bald geschehen gesehen hat. Itzt new vnd zuuor niemal gedruckt (Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichorn, 1552). Fligge, no. 139

Georg Buchholzer (1503 –​1566) studied in Wittenberg in the 1520s and served in various posts in Berlin before becoming Provost of the Nikolaikirche, where he wrote the first Evangelical church order for Brandenburg in 1539. He opposed Elector Joachim and his advisor Johann Agricola’s support for the Augsburg Interim but also complained to Melanchthon about the so-called Leipzig Interim. Buchholzer was in constant conflict with Agricola until a fight with Abdias Praetorius over the necessity of good works led to his dismissal in 1565.172 It would seem that the publication of these sermons of Luther, which appear to have been completely reworked by Buchholzer (see above, chapter 6), probably occurred around the time that the other anti-Osiander writings were published, that is, in May 1552. When compared to Georg Rörer’s notes on Luther’s sermons from the same day and given the technical language (in concreto and in abstracto), these sermons seem to be far more the work of Buchholzer than the words of Luther. Arb 01 (1552?): Peter Arbiter, Wieder die newe Sophisterey/ da nicht allein von den Feinden/ sondern auch von etlichen der vnsern/ der Arickel von der Justification/ wodurch wir für Gott gerecht werden/ angefochten wird/ Ein kurtzer vnd einfeltiger vnterricht. Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, [no date].

Fligge notes that Arbiter (German: Richter), a pastor in Münchewurmburg, focused on the Christological matters, and he rightly counts him among the ardent gnesio-Lutherans.173 Born in Baruth, Brandenburg, he matriculated at the University of Wittenberg in 1538, under the rectorate of Philip Melanchthon.174 The library in Augsburg, Leipzig, Dresden and Wolfenbüttel date this piece to around 1550. Libraries in Jena and Weimar date it to 1565. The title alone, how171 This information from Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog, Germany, from Förstermann, Album, 1: 176, and from WBIS Online from Rudolf Eckart, Lexikon der niedersächsischen Schriftsteller (Osterwieck: Zickfeldt, 1891), s. v. He should not be confused with (probably) his son, who matriculated in Rostock in 1588, received an MA in 1594, for whom his friends prepared a book of farewell poems (propemtica) in 1594. The son seems to have published a prayer booklet with Luther’s prayer against the Turks in the following year. 172 WBIS Online from RRG3 1 (1957) and Johann Gottlob Wilhelm Dunkel, Historischkritische Nachrichten von verstorbenen Gelehrten und deren Schriften, vol. 2, pt. 1 (1755), s. v. 173 Fligge, 129, 374 f., 884. He worked for some time in Magdeburg, where he got to know Flacius, Gallus and others. 174 Karl Eduard Förstemann, ed., Album Academiae Vitebergensis ab A. Ch. MDII usque ad A. MDLX (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1841), 172, col. b, l. 11.

400

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

ever, would seem to fix this in 1552 or thereabouts. Arbiter wrote this piece in the form of a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as true God and true human being, and as priest (mediator) and king. The tract mentioned that some will fall away and either deny or make fun of this confession. That some would attack it was a sign of its correctness. There is unfortunately no clear way to tell who exactly is being attacked here, but an early dating seems to fit the height of the Osiandrian controversy in 1552.

F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553 With the death of Osiander in October, the presses of the Empire suddenly went silent, and for two months nothing was published. As we saw in chapter 4, however, the continuing strife in Prussia, the publication of Albrecht’s attempt to end the dispute and the tenuous position and final dismissal of Mörlin led to yet more publications. Melanchthon’s contributions during this period revealed another side to the equation: an interest in continuing to refute ideas that threatened the good teaching and consolation of Germany’s Evangelicals. To this mix were added attempts by Brenz and the Württemberg theologians to bring about reconciliation, which others – notably Flacius – used instead to shore up Mörlin’s position. This new stage in the controversy was characterized by consolidation. Already the final writings of Flacius and Gallus from 1552 attempted to summarize the disagreements and to end the confrontation with Osiander. When ducal intransigence (as it appeared to the opponents) made this impossible, some – especially Flacius with his free-running press and Melanchthon with his declamations and prefaces – found ways to underscore what (in their eyes at least) were the horrors of Osiander’s position and the truth in the their own. This culminated in 1555 with the purge in Nuremberg and the publication in 1556 of Melanchthon’s commentary on Romans, both of which broached no compromise with the Osiandrists. Aep 02 (1552): Johannes Aepinus, Responsio ministrorum ecclesiae Christi, quae est Hamburgi et Luneburgi, ad confessionem D. Andreae Osiandri, de mediatore Jesu Christo et iustificatione fidei, inclyto Hamburgensis et Luneburgensis reip: senatui exhibita, anno Do. 1552 mense Febr. scripta (Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1 January 1553). Fligge, no. 63.

With the exception of Württemberg’s contributions, this was the last publication of official memoranda to Duke Albrecht, namely, the work of the Hamburg and Lüneburg pastors, led by Johannes Aepinus.175 This group of clergy may not have 175 The other “official” published responses include from Wittenberg B/F 01 (1552), from Küstrin K/M 01 (1552), from Pomerania Kni 01 (1552), from ducal Saxony M/Am 01 (1552), and from Electoral Brandenburg M/Ag (1552).

F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553

401

been able to agree about Christ’s descent into hell, but they had no doubt about the nature of justification by faith alone. Led by Johannes Aepinus, the man who had written the book on justification (see above, Aep 01 [1551], a book whose preface was dated two years to the day before the publication of this writing), these pastors may not have actually given permission for its publication (especially since it was printed in Magdeburg), but their position had certainly piqued the interests of others, including Philip Melanchthon, who asked his contact in Hamburg, Heinrich Moller for either an outline of their opinion or the entire memorandum.176 We know from von Köteritz that it had arrived in Königsberg by 6 June 1552. The method of these theologians, which consisted of arguing that the problem was one of biblical definition and of including lengthy citations from Luther’s works, bespoke (as seen in chapter 6) a developing commitment to the use of Luther, spurred in part by Osiander’s own claims and in part by an internal movement toward defining Luther’s authority that culminated in the use of Luther by the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. Mel 04 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Prefatory Epistle to Thomas Cranmer, in: Alexander Alesius, Omnes Disputationes D. Alexandri Alesii de tota Epistola ad Romanos diversis temporibus propositae ab ipso in celebri Academia Lipsensi et a multis doctis viris expetitae. Iam tandem collectae per Georgium Hantsch et editae in gratiam studiosorum. Cum prae­ fatione Philippi Melanchthonis (Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1553). See MBW 6696 (CR 8: 8 –​11). Fligge, no. 67b.

Aepinus was not the only voice heard from on the first day of the New Year. Melanchthon also continued to stir the pot by writing a preface to the Alexander Alesius’s disputations on Romans. No less a person than Alesius himself wrote to Melanchthon shortly thereafter, suggesting a republication of the Wittenberger’s Antwort along with this preface as a further attack against Osiander.177 Nothing came of his suggestion, but his letter showed just how carefully Melanchthon’s writings were examined and how clearly his readers made the connection between his comments and struggles against Osiander. Fla 07 (1553): Matthias Flacius, Beweisung, das Osiander helt vnd leret, das die Gottheit eben also in den rechtgleubigen wone, wie in der menscheit Christi selbst. Vnd das weiter daraus folge, das die Christen eben also ware Götter sein, vnd angebetet müssen werden, als der mensch Jhesus selbst (Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1 January 1553). Fligge, no. 86.

On the same day in January but from the other press in Magdeburg, yet another work of Flacius appeared. In this relatively short piece, filling only one sheet of paper (four leaves in quarto), Flacius made reference to his earlier writing, Wider die Götter in Preussen and again insisted that Osiander’s position would lead to self worship. Indeed, it was one of Flacius’s most succinct explanations of the 176 MBW 6507

(CR 7: 1037), dated 23 July [1552].

177 MBW 6708 (unpublished; Cod. Guelf. 108 Noviss., 2o, 216r – 217v), dated 14 January [1553].

402

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Christological consequences of Osiander’s thought and of the worries that he had about the continuing support that the now-deceased theologian was receiving. Aur 01 (1553): Andreas Aurifaber, ed., Von Gottes Gnaden Vnser Alberten des Eltern … Ausschreiben (Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 24 January 1553). Fligge, no. 5a.178

After lengthy negotiations at Duke Albrecht’s court among his most trusted advisors, the old prince finally was ready to decide the case. In that connection he instructed Andreas Aurifaber to assemble and publish not only his decree (Ausschreiben) but also a large number of the supporting documents. Despite Matthias Flacius’s “free advice,” Albrecht attempted to find middle ground in the controversy, using especially the two opinions from Johannes Brenz and the other Württemberg theologians (dated 5 December 1551 and 1 June 1552). Yet the Duke’s skepticism regarding Osiander’s opponents and their rejection of these overtures gave public testimony to the seriousness of the breach and the impossibility of accommodation. The publication had in effect the opposite result for Duke Albrecht, although for Osiander’s closest supporters (especially Andreas Aurifaber and Johannes Funck) it represented a victory and, as it turned out, the first step toward the dismissal of Joachim Mörlin.179 This collection was as important for what it left out (all of the other churches’ official judgments) as what it included. Whatever the motives of Albrecht and his advisors might have been, the public forum in which this debate took place had already decided the matter. The Duke’s decree was oil, all right – not oil on water but fuel for a theological conflagration out of control. Anh 02 (1553): Georg von Anhalt, Eine Predigt von der Menschwerdung vnd Geburt vnsers lieben HERRN Jhesu Christ/ Geschehen zu Warmsdorff/ Anno 1553. [=1552] (Leipzig: Wolff Günther, 1553). The preface was dated 22 February 1553. Anh 02.1 (1555): In: Predigten vnd andere Schrifften, darinn die Summa Christlicher leer trewlich vnd rein gefasset vnd erklert ist (Wittenberg: Hans Krafft, 1555), 1r – 30v. The preface by Melanchthon (MBW 7594 [CR 8: 542 – ​45]) was dated 29 September 1555.

This “sermon” of Georg von Anhalt bore many similarities to the earlier ones, with the added advantage that in the preface Prince Georg mentioned how he had expanded the original sermon.180 Indeed, there were lengthy marginal glosses and other additions sprinkled throughout the text. Although von Anhalt made clear in the preface that he had decided not to attack heretics and ravers (Schwärmer), yet his explication of orthodox Christology addressed quite Osiandrismus, 860, notes a second printing on 25 March 1553 (no. 5b). This “proOsiander” tract is included here to note the supporting documents and especially Brenz’s letters, which first became a part of the published record at this point in time. 179 For the details, see above, chapter 4 and Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 355 – ​59. 180 Maintaining the practice of dating the new year with Christmas, the title page proclaims that the sermon was given on Christmas Day, 1553, meaning, in fact, Christmas Day 1552. 178 Fligge,

F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553

403

squarely the secondary debate in the Osiandrian controversy over that topic and at one point used a long excerpt from Melanchthon’s 1543 Latin Loci communes. In fact, the sermon was only tangentially related to the controversy. Without referring directly to Osiander, it explained disputed texts, such as Jeremiah 23, and offered interpretations opposed to his. Mel 05 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere, im latin genandt Loci Theologici, Etwa von Doctor Justo Jona in Deutsche sprach gebracht, jetzund aber im M. D. LIII. jar, von Philippo Melanthon widerumb durchsehen (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1553). Especially the preface (to Anna Camerarius, dated 24 February 1553 [MBW 6742]) and the locus on justification.181 Mel 06 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553.: in: Loci praecipui theologici, nunc denuo cura et diligentia summa recogniti … his additae sunt recens Definitiones … (Leipzig: Valentin Papst, 1553). Printed in CR 21: 1075 –​1102. Mel 06.1 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553. (Wittenberg: Seitz, 1554). Mel 06.2 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553. (Wittenberg: Seitz, 1556). This version has more information.

At around the time Melanchthon was beginning preparations to lecture on Romans, he published a revised German translation of his 1543 Loci communes theologici. However, as was his wont, he did not merely repeat or even revise what he said in 1543 but altered it radically, especially to answer some of his most recent critics and opponents, including (by name!) Andreas Osiander. In fact, given his criticism of Duke Albrecht’s unwillingness to content himself with the churches’ judgments against Osiander (or, at least, with Brenz’s Declaratio of January 1553), Melanchthon’s comments about his enemies took on new meaning. “And although many have written against this doctrine and, more specifically, against me, as Cochlaeus, Alfonso [de Virués], [Joachim] Peronius, [Andreas] Osiander and others have, nevertheless I comfort myself with the judgment of the true church.”182 This appeal to the judgment of others formed an important aspect to Melanchthon’s ecclesiology and was reflected in his extremely harsh oration aimed at Osiander and published later in the year. Also at nearly the same time, Melanchthon provided the Leipzig printer with a set of updated definitions of important phrases used in the Latin Loci communes theologici, which were either first printed there and then excerpted or, more likely 181 For

other printings in the sixteenth century, see VD 16: M 3677 – ​85. 34. “Und obgleich Viel wider diese Lehre, und nämlich wider mich geschrieben haben, als Cocleus, Alfonsus, Perionius, Osiander und Andere, [so] tröste [ich] mich doch der wahrhaftigen Kirchen Urtheil.” 182 CR 8:

404

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

(given the title) collected from his various lectures of the time (including lectures on Romans) and printed first separately and then appended to the 1553 printing of the Loci, and every subsequent version.183 These definitions did not mention Osiander directly but offered the very definitions (including a critical reference to Clement of Alexandria) that Melanchthon had developed in his arguments against the Königsberg theologian, especially in his lectures on Romans, published in 1556 (Mel 10 [1556]). Bren 01 (1553): Johannes Brenz, et al., Des ernwirdigen Herrn Johannis Brentij Declaratio von Osiandri Disputatio. Darin er klar enzeigt was er strefflich urteilt, geschribe zu Tübingen Anno 1553. Die Januarij 30 (Wittenberg: Thomas Klug, 1553). Published shortly after 8 March 1553. Fligge, no. 22a. Bren 01.1 (1553): Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus, eds., Des Herrn Johan Brentij vnnd anderer Virtenbergischen Theologen, Declaration vber Osianders Disputation von der Rechtfertigung, sampt ihres glaubens bekentnis. Mit einer Vorrede Matth. Fla. Jllyrici vnd Nicolai Galli/ an die Preussischen Kirchen. Daraus leicht jedem zuuernemen/ was Brentius vnd genante Theologen/ im grunde von Osianders newen lere halten. Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1553. [With a preface by Flacius and Gallus to the Prussian church, dated 1 May 1553.] This includes both the Declaratio and the Bekenntnis of April 1553. Fligge, no. 88. Bren 01.2 (1554): Johannes Brenz, et al., Der Ehrnwirdigenn … Herren Johannis Brentij und anderer jm zugeordenten Theologen vonn der Rechtfertigung des Menschen, Confession und Declaration, Wie sie dem … Fürsten … Albrechten dem Eltern, Marggraffen zu Brandenburg, inn Preussen … Hertzogen … zugeschickt seind worden. Anno 1553. Mense Aprili (Königsberg: Daubmann, 1554). VD 16: B 7931. Fligge, no. 22b.

One of the most important and surprising publications in this dispute came at the end of January with the publication of Brenz’s Declaratio in Wittenberg and under Philip Melanchthon’s supervision.184 As demonstrated in chapter 5, this was not an indication of Melanchthon’s weakness but rather his realization that Brenz’s position, when not mixed in with other (ducal) attempts at reconciliation, provided the best chance for ending the dispute. In Melanchthon’s eyes, the problem lay not so much with Brenz and his presumed inability to comprehend the serious distortion of Evangelical teaching on justification, but with Albrecht and his advisors (Osiandrists all!), who saw in Brenz’s more irenic statement an opportunity to rescue the reputation and theology of their recently departed hero. For all of the differences between Melanchthon and Brenz, Germany’s Praeceptor publicly maintained that Brenz’s Declaratio offered the best possibility 183 For the publication of the Latin Loci containing this text, see VD 16: M 2927 – ​28; 2930 – ​32, 2938, 2940 – ​41, 2943 – ​44, 2946 – ​47, 2950, 2957, 2959 – ​60, 2963, 2973 and 2975. It was also included in the Examen ordinandorum (VD 16: M 2935 – ​37, 2939, 2942, 2945, 2948 – ​49, 2951– ​56, 2958, 2961– ​62, 2964 – ​72, 2974, 2976 – ​77). 184 Bren 01 (1553). We know that Melanchthon oversaw its publication through a later comment he made in a letter to Brenz, dated 4 October 1555 (MBW 7601 [CR 8: 588 f., here 589]): “existimo autem, congruere nostram diiudicationem cum tua declaratione, quam ego edidi.”

F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553

405

for concord. Thus, in a letter to Duke Albrecht, dated 27 September 1554, he chastised the old prince with these words, “If your Excellency had been content to publish the Declaratio of Brenz before [i.e., immediately in January 1553], concord with the churches would have quickly been restored.”185 Flacius’s reprint with a joint preface from him and Gallus bore the date 1 May 1553 and referred to the Wittenberg printing, indicating that the original must have been published by April, but probably as soon as Melanchthon had access to a copy.186 The preface of Flacius and Gallus, addressed to the Prussian church, was dated 1 May 1553. The document included both Brenz’s Declaratio of January and his Bekenntnis of April 1553. The motivation for publishing this text was one with Melanchthon’s, with one important historical difference. Whereas Melanchthon had hoped that simply using Brenz’s confession might bring peace to the Prussian church – advice of his that was not followed – Flacius had already learned of Mörlin’s removal from office.187 He provided not only the Württembergers’ Confession and Declaration, with glosses and boldfaced type emphasizing the parts he most approved, but also their earlier letters to Albrecht, contained in the January Ausschreiben, with the intention of using them to defend Mörlin. The preface also mentioned Flacius and Gallus’s suggestion for achieving peace, contained in their Ermanung of 29 September 1552. The authors pointed out the literary fact known to everyone: that when Osiander’s Confession was turned over to the churches for their opinions, all but one (the Württembergers) rejected it completely. Putting the best construction possible on the Württemberg position, the Magdeburgers did not so much criticize its content as they did the Württemberg church’s mistaken notion that they could remain neutral in this dispute. Here, too, they mirrored Melanchthon’s own skepticism about Brenz’s attempts at mediation,188 although they stated it far more radically. According to them, the Württemberg theologians needed to remember that In religious matters, which chiefly touch upon matters of doctrine and its chief points as in this case, no one can remain neutral any longer than for the time that he does not un185  MBW 7268: (CR 8: 333): “… si Celsitudo vertra declaratione Brentii antea edita contenta esset, Concordia Ecclesiis citius restitueretur.” 186 Melanchthon received a copy of the Declaratio on 8 March 1553. See Melanchthon’s comment on his copy of Brenz’s writing, which constituted a letter to Christoph Jonas [in Königsberg], dated after 8 March [1553] (MBW 6754; Regesten 7: 41). See also MBW 6757 (CR 8: 45), to David Chytraeus, dated 10 March [1553]. On 18 March 1553, in a letter to Duke Christoph of Württemberg (MBW 6765 [CR 8: 50 f.]), Melanchthon referred to both Brenz’s Declaratio and Confessio. CR 8: 50: “Zum andern von der Declaration, die zu Tübingen auf den 30. Januarii Anno 1552 [sic!], gestellet ist, und von der beigelegten Confession, welcher Anfang ist: wir glauben, bekennen und lehren usw. Sage ich, daß die beiden Schriften recht sind …” It is not clear why Melanchthon only published the Declaratio. 187 See Flacius and Gallus, Declaratio und Bekentnis, A 3r. 188 See, for example, already in 1552, two letters of Melanchthon to Jerome Besold from [6 April] (MBW 6403 [CR 7: 976 f., here 977: “Brentii conciliatione praegravamur”]) and from 9 October (MBW 6493 [CR 7: 1101 f.]).

406

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

derstand the matters fully or correctly. However, as soon as these matters are understood, then he is duty bound to take sides and, when he is specifically asked about it, to confess and to demonstrate what is black or white, light or darkness, right or wrong.189

Here not only did these two gnesio-Lutherans give testimony to a central tenet of their theology,190 but they also provided an insight into why they published so many more responses than anyone else. Given Flacius’s lack of a secure office, he especially had to get the word out. But “getting the word out” also matched their understanding of the proclamation of God’s Word. They could not keep quiet but had to, in each case, testify to their faith, especially once Duke Albrecht specifically asked them. Thus, for Flacius and Gallus, responding to Osiander’s theology became a matter of conscience. But they also managed, by giving their particular reading of Brenz’s statements, to insist that Brenz stood on their side and not Osiander’s. Melanchthon published Brenz’s Declaratio for much the same reason. A/S 01 (1553) Johannes Aurifaber and Johannes Stoltz, eds., Artikel der Euangelischen Lere/ so da hetten sollen auffs Concilium uberantwort werden/ wo es sein würde/ Vnd vom gewalt des Bapsts/ vnd seiner Bischoffe/ was in dem allen/ vnd wie etwas zugeben/ oder nicht/ zuuor also nie aussgangen. Gestellet auff dem Tage zu Schmalkalden. Anno. 1537. Mit vnterschreibung vieler Lande vnd Stedte Theologen. Jtzt alles aus vrsachen/ in der Vorrede vermeldet/ aus Fürstlichem befehl zu Weymar/ durch die Hoffprediger daselbst in druck geben. M. D. Liij ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1553). (A printing of Luther’s Smalcald Articles.)

Already in 1552 Aurifaber, better known for publishing Luther’s Table Talk, and Stoltz, both court preachers in Weimar, had signed the Confutatio of the Ernestine Saxon theologians, so there was no doubt where their sympathies lay. However, 1553 gave them the opportunity again to attack Osiander, who especially in his Beweisung had claimed that his teaching had not changed in thirty years – a hard thing to maintain, in Aurifaber and Stoltz’s opinion, given that he had subscribed to the Smalcald Articles. Thus, this printing of these articles aimed above all else at showing what the common Evangelical faith looked like not only in the Augsburg Confession (the meaning of which the Osiandrists disputed) but also in Luther’s own theological testament. This claim had become all the more important, now that Osiander’s followers were insisting that, on the basis of Osiander’s sermons (being published right and left by them), his teaching coincided with Luther’s.191 The lengthy preface, dated 27 March 1553, while 189 Flacius and Gallus, Declaratio und Bekenntnis, A 3v: “das in Religions sachen fürnemlich die lere vnd heubtstücke/ als hie/ betreffend/ niemand lenger vnparteisch sein kan/ denn so lang er die sachen noch nicht gnugsam oder recht erkennet/ bald sie aber erkant ist/ so ist er schüldig auff eine seiten zutreten/ vnd so er sonderlich darumb gefragt wird/ zubekennen vnnd zubezeugen/ was schwartz oder weis/ liecht oder finsternis/ recht oder vnrecht ist.” 190 See Kolb, Confessing the Faith, 71– ​82. 191 A sermon on Matthew 17, dated 12 April 1553; two on Romans 6, dated 29 January and 11 February 1553; and one on Romans 8, dated 10 June 1553.

F. Ringing in the New Year, 1553

407

addressing a variety of contemporary “heresies” in the church, spent most of its time refuting Osiander and his followers. Ale 02 (1553): Alexander Alesius, Disputatio de iustitia Dei et iustitia hominis mediatore Christo Alexander Alesius (Leipzig: Hantsch, 1553).192

Copies of the other disputations held on this topic, presumably also in 1553, do not seem to have survived. As with Georg von Anhalt’s sermon, these focused more squarely on the Christological issues connected to the dispute, as Stancaro’s idiosyncratic positions became more widely known and criticized.193 References in the third disputation to the arrest and imprisonment of Hugh Latimer but not yet Thomas Cranmer (who was arrested on 14 September 1553) indicate that the third of these disputations took place around that time. Fla 08 (1553): Matthias Flacius, ed., Brentij vnd Osiandri meinung vom ampt Christi vnd rechtfertigung des Sünders, Mit einer Vorr. M. Flac. Illyr. (Magdeburg: Lotter, 1553). Fligge, no. 89.

Very shortly after Flacius and Gallus published the Württemberger’s Declaratio and Bekenntnis, Flacius followed up with annotated excerpts of the teachings of Brenz and Osiander in the Nuremberg church order of 1533.194 On 28 January 1552, when Osiander published Des … Brentii lehr von der rechtfertigung des glaubens, a tract that came to very different conclusions, Flacius had (surprisingly) not replied immediately. Now that it had become clear how the Osiandrists, especially Johannes Funck in his Auszug und kurtzer Bericht,195 were using Brenz’s words to support their own cause, Flacius offerred not only a reading of the Württembergers’ statements, which in his view showed how far they were from Osiander, but he also called on Osiander and Brenz’s own earlier comments on justification from their church order for Nuremberg and Ansbach to witness against the deceased Königsberg professor. He also criticized the way in which Osiander had manipulated that very document in his Beweisung.196 192 See

below, Ale 03 (1554), for the publication of this and two other disputations on this topic. 193 See MBW 6854 (autograph unpublished; radically edited versions in CR 23: 87 –​102 and MSA 6: 260 – ​77), Melanchthon’s memorandum for Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg, written from Dessau on 14 June 1553. Melanchthon was working on his response as early as 25 January [1553], as a letter to Joachim Camerarius of that date attested (MBW 6723 [not published]). 194 See the preface by Flacius to Brentii und Osiandri Meinung, A 1v: How far Osiander and Brenz really were “zeigt gnug an/ die negste schrifft der Wirtemberger/ so newlich allhie mit vnser vorrede vnd scholijs ist ausgangen.” 195 Johannes Funck, Auszug vnd kurtzer bericht: von der Gerechtigkeit der Christen fur Gott/ aus einer predig/ vber die wort Johannis. 1 Johan. 5. Vnd das ist das zeugnus das vns Gott das ewige Leben hat gegeben/ vnd solches Leben ist in seinem Son/ Wer den Son Gottes nicht hat/ der hat das Leben nicht (Königsberg: [Lufft], 1552). 196 Flacius, Brentii und Osiandri Meinung, A 2v, where he criticized the Beweisung, GA 10: 441, 18 – ​23. “Eine Schrifft recht wol vnd grüntlich zuuerstehen/ ist sehr nötig/ das man dieselbige nicht schlefferig vnnd oben hin lese/ oder aber nur stückweis fleißig mercke/ sondern

408

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Mel 07 (1553): Philip Melanchthon, Oratio in qua refutatur calumnia Osiandri, reprehendentis promißionem eorum, quibus tribuitur testimonium doctrinae, recitata cum decerneretur gradus Doctroi Tilemanno Heshusio Wesaliensi. Wittebergae. M. D. LIII (Wittenberg: Crato, May 1553). Koehn, no. 181 (CR 12: 5), delivered by Tilemann Heshus on 16 May 1553.

This declamation with its rather peculiar theme (defending Wittenberg’s doctoral oath) was written by Melanchthon and delivered by Tilemann Heshus at the occasion of his receiving a doctorate in theology. On the face of it, it concerned an issue secondary at best: Osiander’s attack on those who received Wittenberg doctorates.197 Unfortunately, due to a misconstrual of Melanchthon’s comments in his letters of 1552, Martin Stupperich theorized that this was the attack in Latin that Melanchthon was promising throughout 1552.198 It is far more likely that that attack was his 1553 preface to and comments in a new edition of his commentary on De anima, as Briskina has shown.199 The oration, on the contrary, was not delivered or printed until 16 May 1553 and was thus a highly unlikely candidate for Melanchthon’s earlier comments. The date of this oration, however, matched more closely Joachim Mörlin’s dismissal from his position in Königsberg, which occurred on 14 February 1553. Mörlin, who had received his doctorate in theology from Wittenberg at Luther’s hands, had already gotten a letter from Melanchthon and Bugenhagen in March 1553, where the two leading theologians at Wittenberg commiserated with him at his fate and suggested a position in Lübeck as Superintendent and professor of theology.200 An attack on Mörlin and his dismissal without cause (since, in Melanchthon’s eyes, he was in complete agreement with his alma mater on the question of justification) man mus die gantze form derselbigen wol betrachten vnd einbilden/ Denn wenn man sihet (so zu reden) was die füsse/ hende/ vnnd brust sey/ so kan man auch desto leichter vnd klerer vernemen vnd ausrechnen/ was auch der Kopff sey. Derhalben soltu lieber leser vleißig mercken/ die ordnung vnd teil dieser capittel. Der titel ist vom Euangelio/ Die stücke aber oder teile des capitels sind an jren ortern angezeigt vnd erinnert.” 197 Especially in Osiander’s Widerlegung Philipp Melanchthons (GA 10: 582, 9 –​17). 198 See Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 258 – ​59. The letters are MBW 6461 (CR 7: 1009; to Georg Major, dated 1 June 1552), MBW 6463 (CR 7: 1009 f.; to David Chytraeus, dated 2 June 1552), MBW 6484 (CR 7: 1019 f.; to Albert Hardenberg, dated 3 July 1552), MBW 6576 (CR 7: 1085 f.; to John Calvin, dated 1 October 1552), MBW 6235 (CR 7: 1105; to Georg von Anhalt, redated by MBW to 13 October 1551, and thus referring to Melanchthon’s Antwort), MBW 6616 (CR 7: 1115 f.; to Albert Hardenberg, dated 26 October 1552), MBW 5931 (CR 7: 1119; to Georg von Anhalt, redated by MBW to 28 October 1550 and thus referring to Osiander’s disputation), MBW 7641 (CR 7: 1142 f.; to Georg Buchholzer, redated in MBW [but already in 1913 by Gustav Kawerau on the basis of the original] to 25 November 1555, thus referring to writings from the 1555 Osiandrian controversy in Nuremberg), and MBW 6668 (CR 7: 1149 f., to Jerome Baumgartner, dated 11 December 1552, but with reference to a new printing of Melanchthon’s De anima). For a thorough rebuttal of Stupperich, see Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 243 – ​53. 199 See Briskina, Melanchthon und Osiander, 260 – ​65. It could also refer to his preface to Alesius’ commentary on Romans. 200 MBW 6771 (CR 8: 52 f.), dated 25 March 1553 to Mörlin in Danzig.

G. A Lull in the Action: 1554

409

could only be viewed as an attack on Wittenberg itself and the reliability of its doctorates. Fla 09 (1553): Matthias Flacius, EXPLICATIO LOCI SANCTI PAVLI Rom. 3. Nunc autem reuelata est Iusticia Dei sine lege &c. In quo tum propositio ac scopus Epistolae ad Romanos continetur, tum tota ratio Iusticiae ac Iustificationis exponitur, Contra Osiandrum, Matth. Flacij Illyrici (Wittenberg: J. Lufft, 5 August 1553). Fligge, no. 90.

The timing of this tract (August 1553) and its origins (the second tract printed in Wittenberg) made this an especially important example of just how seriously Melanchthon took building a consensus against Osiander and his followers. Published while Melanchthon was lecturing on Romans, it and Alesius’s work on the same epistle must be regarded as sources for some of the arguments that Melanchthon himself developed in his own commentary. At very least, the three documents demonstrated the centrality of Romans and the unanimity of approach among these three very different theologians. Musc 02 (1553): Andreas Musculus, ed., Von der vnzertrenlichen voreynigung in einer Person beider naturn vnsers Herrn Jesu Christi Gottes vnd Marien Son, Docto. Martini Lutheri bekentnis, Glaub, vnd Leer, aus seinen büchern zusam getragen wieder den neulichen erregten Nestorischen vnd Eutichischen miesvorstandt vnd jrthum (Frankfurt/Oder: Johan. Eichorn, 1553). Fligge, no. 133.

This collection of excerpts from Luther’s works, which included the sermons edited by Buchholzer the previous year, was more directly aimed at Musculus’s current enemy, Stancaro, than simply at Osiander and his followers. However, it also demonstrated again Musculus’s own interests in the Christological problems raised by Osiander’s and Stancaro’s teachings.

G. A Lull in the Action: 1554 The strife was over. Osiander was dead; Mörlin had been removed from office and was exiled; Duke Albrecht had spoken. The struggle over the central teaching of Evangelical Christians in German-speaking lands was now a thing of the past. Or so it might have seemed to some careless observers. Osiandrists were ensconced in Königsberg. A handful of Osiander’s supporters remained in Nuremberg. For the most part, however, the Evangelicals without the help of a univocal magisterium or a general council had expressed remarkable unity on the issue. To be sure, some were still a bit skeptical of Johannes Brenz and his cohorts in Württemberg, but this more ambivalent position did not come under direct, public attack. As a result, 1554 saw, in addition to the Streitschriften that had filled the bookstalls in 1551–​1553, the publication of tracts designed to insure that this battle royal remained in the collective memory of Evangelical Christians. On the one hand, university teachers continued to produce materials that arose out of

410

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

their pedagogy: disputations and declamations expounding correct doctrine.201 On the other, several of the most important participants produced histories that defended their behavior.202 In addition, however, two tracts actually opened a new front in the battle, one that would inspire a spate of writings in 1555. Ale 03 (1554): Alexander Alesius (1500 –​1565), Tres disputationes de mediatore et reconciliatione ac iustificatione hominis, ante seorsim vt in dispvtatione propositae fverant ab Alexandro Alesio D. Impressae, nvnc vero simvl editae in Gratiam eorvm qvi exemplaria invenire non poterant. Anno 1554. Calendis Ianuarij. (Leipzig: Georg Hantzsch, 1554). Fligge, no. 67a.

Alesius prosecuted his attacks against Osiander in the context of university debate and lectures. Here three disputations, at least one of which had been published separately in 1553, were now brought together by the Leipzig printer, Georg Hantzsch (who had also collected Alesius’s disputations on Romans and published them the previous year).203 Now, again on 1 January, another set of Alesius’s disputations against Osiander appeared. The comments in the first disputation, however, indicated that Stancaro was also a target. Indeed, in the third disputation Alesius even omitted extensive comments on justification, because it was rightly taught “in our academies” – a sure sign that this dispute was beginning to fade into history. Although the first disputation appeared in a separate version (Ale 02 [1553]), probably published in March 1553, the third referred to the death of Edward VI (6 July 1553) and the beginning of persecution by Queen Mary, but Alesius had heard only of the deposition and not of the imprisonment of Thomas Cranmer (14 September 1553). Fla 10 (1554): Matthias Flacius, Verlegung des unwahrhaftigen ungegründten berichts Hansen Funckens, von der Osiandrischen schwermerey … Die grewliche vnerhorte schwermerey der Osiandrischen Götter inn Preussen/ so im newen jarstag dieses 1554. jars ist offentlich vom Eichorn gepredigt worden [Magdeburg, Rödinger, 1554]. In the title there is a reference to the New Year 1554. Fligge, no. 92.

Another New Year’s contribution to the controversy in 1554 came from the most prolific writer on the subject, Matthias Flacius. Written in response to Johannes 201 For the continuing use of this genre in the seventeenth century, see Kenneth Appold, Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung: Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Of course, some of the earliest published documents in this controversy (Osiander’s disputations and Melanchthon’s declamations) were also of this type. 202 To my knowledge, no one has ever examined this material as a genre in itself. These works were not the same as histories of the world or church (Chronicon Carionis or Magdeburg Centuries). The most famous and well-studied examples appeared around the time of and after the publication of The Book of Concord in 1580. In the Osiandrian controversy, the material seemed to have been sparked by the publication of Duke Albrecht’s Ausschreiben and Johannes Funck’s Bericht. 203 Here Fligge, Osiandrismus, 883 – ​84, views these two separate publications as one.

G. A Lull in the Action: 1554

411

Funck’s Bericht,204 which was completed on 22 March 1553, the preface also railed against an unpublished sermon by Johann Sciurus [German: Eichhorn].205 Sciurus had entered the lists on Osiander’s side with a defense of his theology published in the summer of 1552.206 Flacius’s interest, however, was far more in refuting Funck’s account of the controversy. This he did in two parts, concentrating first on Funck’s distortions of the history and then on his attacks against the theology of those opposing Osiander. Mör 02 (1554): Joachim Mörlin, Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1 April 1554). Fligge, no. 121.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Mörlin’s history of the controversy was that up to this point it was only the second publication produced by Mörlin alone! The first was the small collection of letters between Osiander and Mörlin, published in 1551, which Mörlin may or may not have published. In May 1552, Mörlin, Hegemon and Venediger had published a joint account of their theological position. The preface of this lengthy, new work (over 200 pages), dated 27 January 1554, showed that this, too, was scheduled to appear early in 1554 and indeed made its appearance on 1 April. It, too, was designed to combat the distorted histories coming from Königsberg and to defend the city’s deposed pastor, Mörlin. Since part of the controversy was, as we have seen, over Wittenberg’s doctoral oaths, Mörlin was clever enough to include Osiander’s oath, yet another attack on the consistency of Osiander’s argumentation and an indirect defense of Wittenberg and Melanchthon. It was first in this document of 1554, after having had Osiander’s Antidotum in print for several years, that readers had access to the Antilogia.207 204 Warhafftiger vnd grundlicher Bericht wie vnd was gestalt die Ergerliche Spaltung von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sich anfenglich im Lande Preussen erhaben vnd was eigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit Christlich/ nach brauch der heiligen Schrifft/ vnd der rechtschaffnen Lehrer alter vnd vnserer zeit/ gehalten werden müge : den armen gewissen so diser Zeit durch mancherley Schreiben/ affterreden/ vnd erdicht der vnbestendigen Geister/ erirret sind zu Trost/ den andern jre jrthumb zuerkennen/ zur vermanung geschriben  / durch Johan. Funck (Königsberg: Hans Weinreich, 28 March 1553). 205 Johannes Sciurus (d. 1564), from Nuremberg, studied in Wittenberg where he received an MA. He then came to Königsberg in 1546 to teach at the university, first mathematics (astrology), then Greek and later ethics and Hebrew, when he was also court preacher. From 1554 until 1558 he was professor of theology. See WBIS Online from Georg Andreas Will, Nürnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexikon, 3 (1757) and 8 (1808), s. v. 206 Apologia oder Schützred wieder bede/ Bartolomaeum Wagner vnd Johannem Hoppium/ Magistros/ von denen ich öffentlich beschüldigt worden bin/ als solt ich in Christo waren GOTT vnd Menschen/ wen wir jn anruffen vnd anbeten/ die Menschliche Natur ausschlisen/ Sampt einem kurtzen vnd Christlichen Bekantnus von dem Artickel der Rechtfertigung (Königsberg: [Daubmann], 22 July 1552). 207 As Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 130, n. 132, states, the Antilogia was most probably not that of Staphylus (against GA 9: 574, n. 3). The reference to Staphylus in Funck’s Bericht was to

412

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Fla 11 (1554): Matthias Flacius, Das das thewre Bludt oder gehorsamlich leiden Christi die ware / rechte / vnd einige Gerechtigkeit sey / dadurch wir fur Gott gerecht / jm wolgefellig / vnd seelig werden. Geschrieben an F. D. in Preussen (Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg, 1554). Fligge, no. 91.

Shortly after the appearance of a new decree from Duke Albrecht (in which the prince finally took Melanchthon’s advice and reduced correct theology to the Württemberg Bekenntnis and Declaratio)208 but with no clear connection to it, Flacius produced his eleventh tract in this clash (not including the three tracts written jointly with Nicholas Gallus) with a preface dated 1 October 1554. Directed to Duke Albrecht, it allowed Flacius to defend himself against the Königsberg Osiandrists (he mentioned Funck, Sciurus, Jagenteuffel and Aurifaber specifically). However, it also included, for the first time in the entire controversy, mention of “the adiaphorist” Leonard Culmann, a Nuremberg Osiandrist of sorts, although Flacius admitted that he was not sure whether Culmann really knew what he was talking about.209 Moreover, the fact that this publication of Flacius appeared in Nuremberg (the first of his tracts to do so) indicated an important shift in the action. Here Flacius actually appeared as one of the shock troops for a new outbreak of this war in Nuremberg, overseen by Philip Melanchthon himself. Fla 12 (1554): Matthias Flacius. Widder drei Gottislesterische vnnd Sophistische Argumenta des Funckens/ welche er newlich in Preussen widder das tewre blut Christi vnter die Leute gestrewet hat … Ein Canon fur etlichen jaren in Preussen von den kirchen vnd Regenten geordnet. Wer etwas widder die Augssburgische Confession leren würde/ der sol excommunicirt, vnd/ wo er nicht widderrufet/ aus der Kirchen gantz verworffen werden. Das ist die rechte Execution, hat man anders lust dazu [Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1554]. Fligge, no. 95; Forschungsbibliothek Gotha: Theol. 8o 3160/1 [7].210

Shortly after Flacius had published his essay on the precious blood of Jesus, Johannes Funck attacked it in a sermon and then in a widely distributed note [Zettel]. After refuting Funck’s charges, Flacius ended the tract with a section entitled “Aus der newen Confession” and then “Aus der Formula der Reuocation his “party,” which, because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism, did not imply that Sta­phylus wrote the Antilogia but that Mörlin was in cahoots with a traitor of the gospel. See chapter 4. 208 Albrecht, Abschied Des Durchlauchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern/ … darnach sich alle vnnd jedere jhrer F. G. Fürstenthumbs Pfarherrn vnwegerlich laten sollen. Gegeben zu Königßperg den 24. Septembris im 1554. Jar (Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 27 September 1554). 209 Flacius, Das das thewre Blut, C 1v. In the margin to his copy, Johannes Wigand noted the dates of Culmann’s publications from 1548 –​1552. See HAB: 1187 Theol. (3). 210 The initial “W” on A 1v is the same as in Biblia: Dat ys De gantze Hillige Schrifft/ Vordüdeschet dorch D. Mart. Luth. Vch der lesten Correctur mercklick vorbetert/ vnd mic grotem vlyte corrigert. (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1554), CCLXXVr, the initial letter for the Psalm 52 (HAB: Bibel-S 4o 76). To the dating, see below, Fla 13 (1555), which contains a reference to this specific issue.

G. A Lull in the Action: 1554

413

… von dem Praesident vnd den Gesandten gestellet.”211 The Revocation was part of the Abschied promulgated by Duke Albrecht on 24 September 1554. Flacius had recently begun to reflect on the consequences of that document, contrasting a proper “execution” of good doctrine by adhering to the Augsburg Confession to the decree and “execution” proposed by Albrecht. The “Gesandten” refer to the Württemberg and Saxon delegations, which were active in Prussia from June through September 1554. Bes 01 (1554): Jerome Besold, ed., preface to: In Genesin enarrationum … Martini Lutheri … Quartus tomus (Nuremberg: Berg und Neuber), 1554. (VD 16: B 2998).

The Nuremberg-born Jerome Besold (ca. 1500 –​1566) studied in Wittenberg where he received his MA in 1544. He returned to Nuremberg and in 1547 became preacher at the Spitalkirche and Superintendent. He married Osiander’s daughter, Katharina, the following year but, unlike his father-in-law, remained in Nuremberg despite the Interim. In the struggle with Osiander, he quickly went from being his father-in-law’s “man-on-the-spot” to an opponent.212 Although Besold published very little, his greatest contribution to the Reformation may have been the completion of Veit Dietrich’s edition of Luther’s Genesis lectures. His preface to Luther’s final lectures contained a sharp attack against some Osiandrists, most likely Leonard Culmann. The connection to Culmann is supported by an allusion from Melanchthon’s correspondence with Besold, in which on one occasion in 1554 the older man commiserated with the Nuremberg pastor over Culmann’s antics.213 Sche 01 (1554): [Georg Schermer], DE IVSTI=FICATIONE HOMI=nis coram Deo, propositiones, quibus & summa uerae sententiae pie exponitur, & contouersia de Iustitia fidei, ab Osiandro mota, erudite dijudicatur (Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1554).

A note in a sixteenth-century hand on the title page of this anonymous writing allows identification of its author with some level of certainty as Georg Schermer,214 a teacher in Stargard, Pomerania. He was matriculated at Wittenberg in 1536, where the register noted that he was born in Freiwald, Pomerania.215 In an April 1567 entry in the matriculation book of the University of Rostock, he was listed as a Master and Superintendent in Neu-Brandenburg, where he was still in 211 A 7v

and A 8r, respectively. Online from Jöcher/Adelung, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexikon, 1 (1784), s. v. See also MBW 11: 149. 213 See MBW 7340 (CR 8: 374), dated 25 November [1554], where the editor interprets “vinces τῶν ἀντιδίκων κραυγὰς” (“you will defeat the screams of the anti-righteous ones”) as a reference to Culmann. (Cf. MBW 7479 [CR 8: 475 f.], to Johannes Fabricius in Nuremberg, dated 30 April 1555, and MBW 7553 [unpublished], to Joachim Camerarius, dated [18 August 1555].) Even if Culmann was not the intended target, Besold clearly was taking on the Osiandrists in Nuremberg, as had Flacius. 214 HAB 748.8 Theol. (6): “Autor est Georgius Schermer Ludimagister Stargardiae.” 215 Album, 1:162, under Justus Jonas, where he was listed as “de Freywalde in Pomerania.” 212 WBIS

414

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

1570.216 Despite its printing in 1554, the theses themselves seemed to assume that Osiander was still alive. Whether Schermer needed to defend himself against the charge of being Osiander’s follower or whether the theses simply represented a scholastic attempt to warn students away from Osiander’s errors is unclear. The result, however, was a typically Melanchthonian, logical tour-de-force, in which Schermer defended the central doctrine of forensic justification. In fact, the tightness of the argumentation might make this a perfect candidate for theses debated in Wittenberg or Rostock around that time.

H. The End of the Line: 1555 Fla 13 (1555): Matthias Flacius, Christliche warnunge vnd vermanunge Matthiae Flacij Illyrici an die Kirche Christi in Preussen den nechsten Abschied belangende ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter,] 1 January 1555). Fligge, no. 93.

It would seem that every January Matthias Flacius had something to say about Osiander or his followers. In this case, Flacius felt compelled to respond more fully to Duke Albrecht’s decree of 24 September 1554.217 He went after Königsberg’s Osiandrists and also criticized Brenz’s Bekenntnis and Declaratio for reducing the conflict to a war of words and for being too obscure in its own formulations.218 Among the list of heresies was their dishonoring Christ’s blood, an indirect reference to two of Flacius’s tracts from the previous year.219 Instead of being in control of the churches and schools in Prussia, Flacius concluded, “Hundartz” [Andreas Aurifaber, the ducal physician] should be sent to lala-land (Schlauraffenland) or Calcutta.220 216 See Adolph Hofmeister, ed., Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock, vol. 2: Mich. 1499  – Ost. 1611 (Rostock: Stiller, 1891) 162, where he is listed as Mgr. [Magister] Frienuualdensis, superintendens Neobrandenburgensis. (The pastor of Stargard, Joachim Balcke is listed next.) In 1570 Schermer still held that position (cf. http://portal.hsb.hs-wismar.de/pub/lbmv/mjb/ jb022/355143224.html, accessed on 11 July 2006). For more details, see Georg Krüger, “Die Pastoren im Lande Stargard seit der Reformation,” in: Jahrbücher des Vereins für mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (Schwerin, 1904), 1– ​270, esp. 116 –​17. Krüger gives his promotion to Master of Arts as 1566. 217 Abschied Des Durchlauchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern/ … darnach sich alle vnnd jedere jhrer F. G. Fürstenthumbs Pfarherrn vnwegerlich laten sollen. Gegeben zu Königßperg den 24. Septembris im 1554. Jar (Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 27 September 1554). 218 Flacius, Christliche Warnung, A 4v: “Es ist furwar nicht ein Grammaticale bellum oder worgetzenck/ Sondern reale vnd realissimum von dem aller hochwichtigsten stück vnser Seeligkeit.” 219 Flacius, Christliche Warnung, B 3r: “Es haben ja die Osiandristen Gottes sons ehre offentlich verletzt/ vnd sein tewres werdes blut scheuslich verlestert/ beide in predigten vnd offentlichen gedrückten Büchern.” See above, Fla 11 (1554) and Fla 12 (1554). 220 Flacius, Christliche Warnung, B 7v.

H. The End of the Line: 1555

415

Musa 01 (1555): Simon Musaeus, Ein Sermon von der Verklerung vnsers lieben HErrn Jhesu Christi/ aus den dreien Euangelisten/ Matth. 17. Marci. 9. Luce. 9. Gestellet vnd geprediget/ Durch D. Simonem Musaeum zu Breßlaw/ Am 25. Sontag nach Trinitatis. 1555. Antwort auff das Buch Andreae Osiandri/ Von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen/ Durch Philip. Melanth. (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1555).

Along with the second printing of Melanchthon’s Antwort, Simon Musaeus published a sermon on the Transfiguration. He dated the preface, addressed to Johannes, Margrave of Stettin and Pomerania, 23 May 1555 from Breslau, the city in which Musaeus had landed after having been forced to leave his parish in Crossen, Pomerania after criticizing its citizens for oppressing the peasants. Musaeus (1521–​1576) studied at Frankfurt/Oder and Wittenberg, was a short time teacher of Greek in Nuremberg (1547), before receiving a call as pastor in Fürstenwalde (1549), then in Crossen (1552) and Breslau (1555). On 8 May 1554 he received his doctorate in theology at Wittenberg.221 In 1559 he was co-author of the Weimarer Confutationsbuch.222 Musaeus’s sermon focused its attention more on Caspar Schwenckfeld, the spiritualist of noble birth whose roots were in Silesia, than on Osiander (although Musaeus probably saw many similarities between them). The facts that this book was addressed to one of the important princely players in the attempt to bring the Osiandrists in Prussia to heel, attacked Schwenckfeld (whose contempt of Wittenberg’s doctrine of justification was well-known) and included Melanchthon’s Antwort showed that its publication was also connected to the deepening problems with Osiandrists in Nuremberg that had surfaced around this time.223 Musaeus may also have been the chief author of the official Pomeranian response from 1552. Mör 03 (1555): Joachim Mörlin, Trewliche warnung vnd trost an die Kirchen in Preussen. Joachimus Mörlin D. Roma. XII. Nemet euch der heiligen nodturfft an (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1555). Fligge, no. 123.

Freed from obedience to Duke Albrecht but still feeling beholden to his flock in Königsberg, Joachim Mörlin wrote a piece criticizing Albrecht’s decree of 24 September 1554, probably publishing it some time in the first half of 1555 (but certainly before 11 August). Mörlin better than anyone else in this controversy thought he knew the intentions of his enemies. Thus, even when Albrecht reverted to the position of the Württemberg church in his decree, Mörlin thought he knew what the results would be, especially given the pro-Osiander publications still emanating from Prussia. The problem, as Flacius had also realized, was not simply that Mörlin’s teaching was no longer condemned in this decree but 221 MBW 7174

(CR 8: 276) to Joachim Camerarius, dated 8 May [1554]. WBIS from RGG3 4 (1960), s. v. 223 See MBW 7479 (CR 8: 475 f.) to Johannes Fabricius in Nuremberg, dated 30 April 1555, which includes a reference to Osiander’s teaching, to Leonhard Culmann, and to Melanchthon’s Antwort. 222 See

416

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

that Osiander’s teaching would now be reinterpreted in such a way as to allow its continued acceptance.224 Schn 01 (1555): Erhart Schnepf, Propositiones, complectentes summam verae & incorruptae Doctrinae, de Iustificatione, & de bonis operibus: ad disputandum propositae in Schola Ihenensi, die XXVI. Iulij, Anno M. D. LV. Praeside Erharto Schnepffio, & Respondente Baltasare Vuintero (Jena: Christian Rödinger, 1555). Fligge, no. 153.

Erhard Schnepf (1495 –​1558), born in Heilbronn, studied first in Erfurt and then in Heidelberg where he received his MA in 1513 (and perhaps was later present for Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation). He became a preacher first in Weinsberg, where he was removed for Lutheran tendencies, then in 1522 in Wimpfen, 1525 in Nassau-Weilburg until finally called in 1527 to Marburg as a professor of theology. In 1534, as Württemberg became Evangelical, he was called to Stuttgart and became a professor of theology at Tübingen in 1544, where in the same year he received his doctorate. As a result of the Interim, he lost his position in Tübingen and fled to Saxony, and in 1549 he became professor at the University of Jena, where he died in 1558.225 Erhart Schnepf was nothing if not a gnesio-Lutheran. Yet, on the question of Andreas Osiander, he was in close contact with Philip Melanchthon, having sent him a thank-you note on 4 November 1551 informing Melanchthon that he had received (and cursed) Osiander’s writings.226 He was a signer of the Ernestine Saxon Censurae and perhaps the author of one of its three sections. On 11 May 1552, Melanchthon sent Schnepf a copy of the Greifswald statement of Johann Knipstro. In November of the same year, Melanchthon was asking Schnepf for advice on how best to counter Stancaro’s Christology.227 This collection of theses debated on 26 July 1555 consisted of academic theses combating Osiander’s teaching. Yet, the attack on Osiander was imbedded in a wide-ranging set of arguments that took issue with other threats facing the Evangelical theologians on the doctrine of justification, particularly the Tridentine decrees. This link between Trent and Osiander, also found in Melanchthon’s works among others, would continue through to article three of the Formula of Concord, where not only Osiander and Stancaro but also Trent received hefty criticism. 224 Even Melanchthon had advised August of Saxony (MBW 7312 [Bds. 366 – ​68], dated [24 October 1554]) that, as a result of the 24 September decree, Johannes Funck needed to be dismissed. 225 WBIS Online from Johannes Günther, Lebensskizzen der Professoren der Universität Jena (1858), s. v., and from Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Alfred Hauck, 3rd ed., vol. 17 (1906), s. v. 226 MBW 6253 (unpublished). For the synopsis, see MBW, Regesten 6: 228 f. 227 MBW 6637 (CR 7: 1133 f.), dated 13 November [1552]. See also his letter to Schnepf of [22/23 July 1553], MBW 6909 (CR 8: 16), where he discussed the completed memorandum sent to Elector Joachim II, his letter of 10 November [1553], MBW 7021 (CR 8: 171 f.), where he sent a copy of the published version of the text, and his letter of 17 December [1553], MBW 7042 (CR 8: 184), where he thanked Schnepf for his support in this matter.

H. The End of the Line: 1555

417

Mör 04 (1555): Joachim Mörlin, Das Osiandri Jrthumb mit keiner vorgessenheit zustillen / oder hin zulegen sey. Joachimus Mörlin. D. Jere. 8. Keiner ist / dem seine bossheit leidt were /vnd spreche  / was mach ich doch? ([Magdeburg]: Michael Lotter, 23 September 1555). Fligge, no. 122.

On 11 August 1555, Albrecht tried one last time to bring the dispute over Osiander to a close, publishing his Mandat. Of course, this simply gave Mörlin, by now superintendent in Braunschweig, an opportunity, once again, to criticize his former prince and to attack the Osiandrists, who, Mörlin was convinced, were hiding behind the old duke’s decrees. He detailed the errors of his enemies against the three articles of the creed, countered their attacks on the Augsburg Confession and rejected the Mandat for not dismissing those guilty of Osiander’s errors. The result of the Osiandrists’ behavior was that the confused consciences in Prussia no longer knew what was right or wrong. F/G 04 (1555): Matthias Flacius [and Nicholas Gallus?], Das das Preusische Mandat/ den XI. Augusti dieses 55. Jars ausgegeben/ Betreffende die Amnistia oder vergessung der Osiandrischen Ketzerey mit gutem gewissen nicht kan angenomen werden etc. grüntliche vrsachen. Item vom weichen oder fliehen der Prediger in verfolgung durch Matthiam Flacium Jllyricum. Ein Canon von allen stenden in Preusen verwilliget. So jemand was wider die Augspurgische Confession leren wird/ der soll entweder widerruffen/ oder aber gentzlich verbannent vnd verworffen werden ([Magdeburg? after 11 August 1555]). Fligge, no. 96.

What Philip Melanchthon had feared, namely, that Johannes Funck and the other Osiandrists would not be dismissed, had now become reality with the Prussian Mandat. As a result of the decree, Nicholas Gallus, whose name was inscribed as author on a copy found in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, and Matthias Flacius, who wrote the second piece on fleeing persecution, weighed in against Albrecht’s “amnesty,” which the duke had offered to his leading (Osiandrian) theologians. Gallus took great pains to compare Brenz’s (acceptable) theology to Osiander’s unacceptable teaching and thus followed the lead of Melanchthon, who had argued that any attempt to reconcile Brenz’s statement with Osiander’s theology would lead to more unrest. Or, in Gallus’s colorful language, one could not make peace with Eden’s snake.228 Fla 14 (1555): Matthias Flacius, Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri fein kurtz und klar jedermann zur warnung aus seinen eigenen Büchern gezogen und erzelet durch Matthias Flacius Illyricus (Eisleben: Ulrich Gaubisch, 1555).. Fligge, no. 94. Fla 14.1 (1555/6): Matthias Flacius, Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri/ sampt einer vormanung an die Christen in Preussen durch M. F. Illyricum. Die wesentliche gerechtmachende gerechtigkeit Gottes ist seine gnedige barmhertzigkeit oder gutthetige frumbkeyt/ Osiander im Nachtrab. ([Magdeburg: Lotther, 1555/6]) Fligge, no. 94.229 and Gallus, Das das Preusische Mandat, A 4v. the initial “D” in the title was also used in Mör 04 (1555) and in Das die Euangelischen Prediger gute wercke nicht verbieten noch verwerffen … (Magdeburg: Michael 228 Flacius

229 Identification:

418

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

In late 1555 Flacius wrote a short description of Osiander’s errors, which was published in Eisleben.230 In it, he listed thirty-one errors, providing specific references to the places in Osiander’s works where they occurred. At the same time, in the other printing (from Magdeburg), Flacius took the same list and added a section to the end (cf. the title: sampt einer vormanung an die Christen in Preussen), in which he discussed at greater length the 1555 Mandat and its amnesty. This reflected a second reaction to the Mandat and thus came slightly after the joint writing of Flacius and Gallus, to which Flacius referred.231 Mel 08 (1555): Philip Melanchthon et al., Das der Mensch in || der Bekerung zu Gott/ in diesem || Leben Gerecht werde fur Gott/ von wegen || des Gehorsams des MITTLERS/ || durch Glauben/ nicht von we= || gen der || Wesentlichen Ge= || rechtigkeit. || Geschrieben zu Nürnberg/ Anno || 1555. Vnd vnterschrieben von den || Personen/ welcher namen zu || ende verzeichnet sind.|| Ein Predigt Ja= || cobi Rungij Pomerani/ von der || Gerechtigkeit/ zu Nornberg || gepredigt. || Gedruckt zu Wittemberg/ durch || Peter Seitzen Erben. || 1555. (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz Heirs, 1555). Fligge, no. 151. Mel 08.1 (1556): Philip Melanchthon, et al., Das der Mensch in der || Bekerung zu Gott/ in diesem Leben Ge= || recht werde fur Gott/ von wegen des || Gehorsams des MITTLERS/ durch || Glauben/ nicht von wegen der || Wesentlichen Ge= || rechtigkeit. || Geschrieben zu Nürnberg/ Anno || M. D.LV. Vnd vnterschrieben von den || Personen/ welcher namen zu ende|| verzeichnet sind.|| Ein Predigt Jacobi || Rungij Pomerani/ von der Ge= || rechtigkeit/ zu Nornberg gepredigt. || Gedruckt zu Nürnberg durch Jo= || hann vom Berg/ vnd Vlrich Newber. (Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg and Ulrich Newber, [1556]). Run 01 (1555) and Run 01.1 (1556): In Melanchthon, Das der Mensch, H 1v – I 4v., Jakob Runge, Ein Predigt Jacobi || Rungij Pomerani/ von der Ge= || rechtigkeit/ zu Nornberg gepredigt (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz Heirs, 1555; reprint: Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg and Ulrich Newber [1556]). Mel 09 (1556?): Philip Melanchthon, Antwort vnd bericht. HErrn Philippi Melanchtonis/ auff die bekentnussen vnnd schrifften Leonhardi Culmans vnd Johannis vetters weylandt Predicanten zuo Nürnbergk, von wegen der newen Lehr Osiandri in Preüssen entsprungen in Latein gestelt vnd yetzundt durch Christianum Martyrem verdeuscht [sic!] ([Augsburg: Otmar], [ca. 1556]). The Latin is MBW 7591 (CR 8: 579 – ​87), dated [ca. 27] September 1555 to [Jerome Baumgartner]. Fligge, no. 117. Lotther, n.d.), HAB: Ts 408 (14), in Der Prediger zu Magdeburgk wahre gegründte Antwort auff das rühmen ihrer Feinde (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1551), HAB: 193 Theol. (4); and in Des h. Hulrichs etwa vor sechshundert jaren Bischoffs zu Augspurg schrifft … (Magdeburg: Lotther, 1553). 230 It is uncertain whether Fla 13 or Fla 13.1 was the first published. The odd place of publication of Fla 13 (Eisleben) speaks for the priority of the latter. However, the addition of material directed especially to the situation in Königsberg and referred to directly in the title, makes it more likely that Fla 13 was published first, perhaps at the instance of friends in Eisleben who published it there. 231 See F/G 04 [1555], above. See Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri, A 5r: “Jch aber in meiner warnunge/ wie auch oben gesagt/ vnd die Magdeburgische Prediger [=F/G 04 (1555)] haben von der Preussischen Execution auffs deutlichst das widerspiel aus Gottes word bewiese ….”

H. The End of the Line: 1555

419

If Flacius, Gallus and Mörlin had Königsberg’s Osiandrists in their sites during 1555, Melanchthon took aim at Nuremberg. The events there during 1555 had heated up as the work of Leonhard Culmann and Johannes Vetter came into more and more conflict with that of Waldner, Besold, Roting and others. Indeed, Besold’s sharp criticism of the Osiandrists in his preface to the fourth and final volume of Luther’s Genesis commentary might have brought matters to a boil. The events of late September/early October 1555 demonstrated another way to deal with Osiander’s disciples, one that differed dramatically from Brenz’s attempt at compromise and with which Brenz was hardly in total agreement but also from Mörlin and Flacius’s approach, which was purely literary. Here Melanchthon was in charge. Although he had from time to time advocated other approaches, even a meeting of a wide range of theologians, when Melanchthon was asked by the city council of Nuremberg and its pastors and convinced by the Saxon court to intervene, he did several things worth noting. First, he did not travel alone but included theologians from Greifswald (Jakob Runge) and Leipzig (Alexander Alesius and Joachim Camerarius). He even invited Johannes Brenz to the meeting.232 Second, unlike his (undeserved) reputation, he did not pussyfoot around but make it quite clear that, while Besold’s theology was completely acceptable, Culmann’s and Vetter’s positions were not.233 This was particularly the point of his letter to Baumgartner. Third, Melanchthon expanded the published record, in part at the strong suggestion of Jerome Baumgartner, to include the sermon of the young north German theologian, Jakob Runge. Runge, who wrote a preface for an anticipated publication, dated 4 October 1555 and addressed to the Mecklenburg Duchess Anna von Pommern, most probably wrote this sermon himself but perhaps with access to Melanchthon’s commentary on Romans from 1556.234 Thus, in this tract the reader had access to the agreement of Nuremberg’s pastors from around 28 September, Runge’s sermon from 29 September, and Melanchthon’s speech to the pastors from around 2 October.235 That a Greifswald pastor should be involved in this way comes as no surprise, given the proximity to Prussia and the involvement of the Pomeranian dukes in finding a way out of the impass. There were also a few Osiandrists among the 232 Brenz gave the excuse that with his prince out of the country, he could not come. More likely, Brenz realized that his position might also come under attack. See MBW 7590 (CR 8: 540 f.), Melanchthon to Brenz dated 24 September 1555, and MBW 7595 (Bds. 567 – ​69), Brenz to Melanchthon dated 29 September 1555. See chapter 5. 233 MBW 7591 and 7592 (CR 8: 579 – ​87 and 555 – ​64, respectively), dated ca. 27 and ca. 28 September 1555, respectively. 234 For questions about Melanchthon’s authorship, see MBW 7593 in the Regesten, 7:347. Only a much later and unreliable source counted it as Melanchthon’s own work. 235 MBW 7592, 7593, and 7600 (CR 8: 555 – ​64, 564 – ​78, and 546 – ​55, respectively). See MBW, Regesten, 7: 345 – ​50 for the dating.

420

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

clergy there, some of whom were giving Runge trouble.236 Jakob Runge (1527 –​ 1595) was born in Stargard and came to the University of Wittenberg in 1544 and to Greifswald in 1547, where he received his MA in 1548 (to be professor of rhetoric). In 1552 he became a professor of theology and pastor and in 1553 city superintendent. At the death of Knipstro, he was promoted to general superintendent for Western Pomerania [Vorpommern] in 1557. He received his doctorate in 1558.237 The work of Schermer and Knipstro (the latter signed by other pastors) had already built up Pomeranian resistance to Osiander and his followers. Runge’s sermon provided the capstone. Fourth, and most important for this chapter, Melanchthon was also fully in charge of the publication of this material. Whereas Jerome Baumgartner and Melanchthon were uncertain about printing it in Nuremberg, Melanchthon, despite having received a less than lukewarm assessment of the agreement from Johannes Brenz, saw to its publication in Wittenberg. By 11 November (a few weeks after the receipt of Brenz’s review), he was promising Paul Eber that he would publish it. On 10 November, the manuscript was at the printer, and in accordance with Baumgartner’s request Melanchthon added Runge’s sermon. Then, on 28 November in another letter to Baumgartner, Melanchthon assured his former student and Nuremberg’s powerful patrician that he had indeed added Runge’s sermon. Assuming that the finished product was sent to Baumgartner around this time (he received the 28 November letter on 9 December), then the Nuremberg reprint must have hit the bookstalls some time shortly after 1 January 1556.238 Hey 01 (1555): Sebald Heyden, Assertio Christiana, quod per sanguinem, mortem et obedientiam Christi Iesu filij hominis, omnes credentes iustificentur. Contra novam et Antichristianam sectam Osiandristarum, qui essentiali & aeternae Dei iusticiae peccatoris ius­ tificationem, ita proprie attribuunt, ut Christo homini eam prorsus adimant (Nuremberg: Johann Montanus & Ulrich Neuber, 1555). Fligge, no. 102. 236 See,

especially MBW 7612 (CR 7: 782 f.), Melanchthon’s letter to Runge containing a memorandum for Duke Philip of Pomerania, dated before 26 October 1555. See MBW, Regesten 7: 355 f. for the redating of this material. For a discussion of the Pomeranian problems, see Fligge, Osiandrismus, 339 – ​46. 237 WBIS Online from RGG3 vol. 5 (1961), s. v., and Amandus Carolus Vanselow, Gelehrtes Pommern (1728), s. v., and Christian Gottlieb Jöcher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexikon, 3 (1751), s. v. 238 For Brenz’s review, see MBW 7608 (Bds. 569 – ​72), dated 15 October 1555. For the dating of publication, see MBW 7623 (Melanchthon to Eber, 4 XI. [1555] in CR 7: 1128 f.: “Nos cogitamus scriptum nostrum”) and 7627 (Melanchthon in Leipzig to Baumgartner in Nuremberg dated 10 November [1555]; CR 8: 602 f., here 602: “Itaque … tradidi scriptum nostrum typographis [in Wittenberg], et addo Iacobi [Rungii] concionem [which he had promised to publish already 4 October], et nostram adhortationem, quam flagitasti [demanded earnestly]. Haec minore periculo a nobis eduntur, quam a vobis.”). In MBW 7646 (to Baumgartner, dated 28 November and received on 9 December 1555; CR 8: 618 –​19), Melanchthon mentioned that he had added the “adhortatio” to the libello, according to Baumgartner’s demands.

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –1559 (1567)

421

Hey 01.T1 (1555): Sebald Heyden, Christliche Beweysung/ das durch das leiden/ sterben/ vnd blut vergiessen Christi Jesu/ des menschen sons/ alle glaubige sollen vnnd müssen Gerechtfertigt werden. Wider die newe vnd Antichristische Secten der Osiandristen/ welche die Rechtfertigung des Sünders der wesentlichen vnd ewigen gerechtigkeyt Gottes/ also gar eygen machen/ das sie die selben Christo/ des menschen Son gantz weck nemen (Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg & Ulrich Newber, [1555]). Fligge, no. 103. Hey 01.T2 (1562): Sebald Heyden, Christliche Beweysung, in: Nicholas Gallus, Confutationes Etzlicher gegewertiger Secten vnd Corruptelen/ Magistri Nicolai Galli, Pfarrherr vnd Superintendenten/ der Stad Regespurg. Jtem Widerlegung des Jrrthum Osiandri/ durch einen trewen guthertzigen Christen geschehen. Jtem bekantnus von dem Nachtmal des HErrn Jhesu Christi/ Tilemani Heßhusij/ der Heiligen Schrifft Doctoris (Jena: [Donat Richtzenhan], 1562).

Sebald Heyden (1499 –​1561) was the rector of the Sebald School in Nuremberg from 1524. In 1523, leading one of the liturgies for the Diet of Nuremberg, he replaced a “Salve, Regina” with a “Salve, Jesu” and a fight ensued. He was stenographer for the religious colloquies in Nuremberg in 1525 and again at the Osiandrian talks in 1555. Today he is, best known for his hymnody.239 This Latin tract consisted of sixty-two anti-Osiandrian theses and a letter to the reader at the end. It was probably first published after Melanchthon’s intervention in late September. (Heyden was among the signers of the agreement.) The theses were among the most law-oriented of any of the rebuttals of Osiander’s theology. The letter not only attacked Nuremberg’s Osiandrists but also, in probably the plainest language used anywhere in this controversy, railed against Brenz.240

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –​1559 (1567) With the meeting in Nuremberg, the Osiandrian controversy faded from the front pages or at least from most of the printeries and bookshops of the Holy Roman Empire. A new phase, already begun with the declamations, disputations and histories of 1554 and 1555, continued apace. More and more, Osiander’s heresy became a matter of memory, a thing to oppose because of its content and not necessarily because anyone was teaching it. The one exception remained Prussia. By 1555, the ringleaders had been forced to profess allegiance to Brenz’s position but without having to admit to having ever taught false doctrine. The result was that around Königsberg the controversy continued to simmer. A new set of authors found their way into print, led by Matthias Vogel, the Melanchthon student who took over Mörlin’s position in the Kneiphof cathedral, and Otmar Epplin, the Prussian court preacher since 1555.241 Both held steadfastly to Duke 239 ADB 12:352 – ​53. 240 See

241 For

above, chapter 5. the publications see Fligge, nos. 40 – ​44 & 56 – ​62.

422

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Albrecht’s decrees only to find themselves at odds with most of the Evangelical theologians of the Empire, but especially Matthias Flacius and Joachim Mörlin. Joh 01 (1556) Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, EPISTOLA ILLVSTRISSIMI Principis, Ioannis Alberti Mechelb. ad Illyricum, de Osiandrica haeresi, pie, Dei beneficio sopita. 1. Corint. 10. Fidelis est Deus, qui non sinit suos tentari, supra id, quod ferre possunt, imo facit una cum tentatione euentum, ut possint sufferre. Multas Satanae cribrationes, & horas potestatis tenebrarum, eiusque ignita tela, hoc breui tempore, a uiri Dei Luth. Morte perpessi sumus. Sed & diuinae inopinataeque liberationes consequutae sunt. Quas proh dolor ne agnoscimus quidem, nedum ut Deo serio gratias agamus (Magdeburg: Lotter, after 1 April 1556). Joh 01.T1 (1556): Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Ein sendtbrieff des durchleuchtigen vnd Hochgeboren Fursten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Johannes Albrecht/ Herzogen zu Mechelburgk etc. an Illyricum/ der Osiandrischen Ketzerey oder schwermerey halben/ wie sie Christlich durch Gottis gnade sey gedempfft vnd widerruffen ([Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1556]). Fligge, no. 107b. Joh 01.T2 (1556): Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, Ein Sendtbrieff des Durchleuchtigen/ Hochgebornen Fürsten/ vnd Herrn/ Herrn Johann Albrechten von Mechelburg an Illyricum geschriben/ von der Osiandrischen Ketzerey wie die ist durch sondere Gottes gnade in Preussen gestillet worden. Auß dem Latein das Deutsch gebracht I. Corinth. 10. Gott ist trew/ der euch nicht lesset versuchen vber ewer vermögen/ sondern machet/ das die versuchung so ein ende gewinne/ das jhrs kündt ertragen. Wir sein bißher/ sind der Man Gottes Martinus Luther gestorben/ vom Teuffel wol gesichert worden/ vnd haben vil stund des gewalts der Finsterniß/ vnd manche feurige pfeyl in kurtzer zeyt empfinden müssen. Aber gleichwol dagegen manche vnuersehene Gotteshülff auch gespüret/ welches wir dennoch (leider zuerbarmen) nicht erkennen wöllen/ will geschweigen/ das wir Gott darumb dancketen (Nuremberg: Georg Merckel, [1556]). Fligge, no. 107a.

As indicated in previous chapters, there were two foci in the later phases of the Osiandrian controversy: one in Nuremberg settled with Melanchthon’s intervention in 1555, and the other in the north, centered in Prussia but involving the neighboring territories as well, especially Pomerania and Mecklenburg. In this case, a meeting or inquest, so to speak, involving Duke Albrecht of Prussia, Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg and the Osiandrian ringleader, Johannes Funck among other pastors, took place in Risenburg.242 Funck and Matthias Vogel were forced to recant, although (at least according to Johann Albrecht’s account) the recantation took place only under extreme pressure. The prince dismissed the Brenzian formula as too permissive.243 In his view, Funck’s teach242 Risenburg is located today between Prabuty and Julianowo in northern Poland. For more on the disputes in Prussia during this period, see Fligge, Herzog Albrecht. 243 Johann Albrecht, Epistola, A 2v: “Ac uit in eo ipso mandato, & LENIBVS nonnullorum Theologorum de hac controuersia, & AMBIGVIS sententijs, difficultas rei transigendae non MINIMA, nobisque non parum molesta. Non enim tam ab istis erroris defendendi ratio, quam penitus tacite sepeliendi occasio quaesita est, & hanc se hoc mandato adeptos esse laetabantur.” Cf. one of the German translations: “Es hetten vns aber in dem selbigen mandat etliche Theologi mit jren LINDEN vnd ZWEIFFELHAFFTIGEN sententzen/ ob disem strit von sich gegeben/ die sach nicht gut/ sondern zimlich schwer gemacht/ vnd verderbet. Sintemal sie nicht alleyn

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –1559 (1567)

423

ings contradicted not just the Augsburg Confession but also Melanchthon’s Loci communes.244 The letter was dated 1 April 1556 from Schwerin and, in all versions, was followed by an appendix penned by Flacius, pointing out the difference between confessing one’s faith and the amnesty proclaimed by Albrecht in his decrees. In the German edition from Magdeburg there was also a letter of Flacius to the Christian reader, where Flacius attempted to put this controversy in its proper historical perspective. He pointed out that after Luther’s death, despite the wiles of Satan, the archangel Michael was also at work preparing for the End. He then listed four woes: persecution after Luther’s death [he meant the Smalcald War], the Council of Trent, the Interim, and the adiaphoristic controversies. “In the fifth place came Osiander with his Funck [German for spark] that ignited a horrible fire in God’s house,” which God was slowly extinguishing.245 The sixth attack was coming from Caspar Schwenckfeld. Flacius even announced his intention to write a history of the events after Luther’s death – a further indication that this letter, too, marked the new phase of consolidation and remembrance in this controversy. Mel 10 (1556): Philip Melanchthon, Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio (Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1556). Preface from the first half of April 1556 now in MBW 7785 (CR 8: 737 – ​41, with CR 20: 786 f.); text now in CR 15: 797 –​1052. Mel 10.1 (1564): Philip Melanchthon, Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio, in: Opera, vol. 4 (Wittenberg: Kraft, 1564), 35 – ​209.

The lengthiest excursus of any kind found in Melanchthon’s last (of five) published commentaries on Romans was an all-out exegetical and theological assault on Andreas Osiander’s theology. Beginning with an introduction to Romans 3:21 and continuing through much of the remaining comments on Romans 3, Melanchthon’s exposition fills eighteen columns in the Corpus Reformatorum.246 The lectures themselves, from 1553, were born in the heat of the conflict but were published when, throughout the Holy Roman Empire and in Prussia, Osian­ drianism had been successfully contained if not rooted out. Even the preface to Ulrich Mordeisen in Dresden, dated by MBW to the first half of April (the printing having been completed by the end of the month),247 besides listing all of the usual Roman Catholic suspects, mentioned Osiander and Friedrich Staphylus by name. Indeed, these comments represented Melanchthon’s most thorough gelegenheyt gesuch/ wie diser jrthumb zuuerteydigen/ sondern gantz vnd gar in der stil zu begraben were/ vnd waren fro/ das sie durch das mandat dasselbige erlanget hetten.” 244 Johann Albrecht, Epistola, A 3r. 245 Johann Albrecht, Ein Sendbrief, A 6v –A 7r. 246 For details, see chapter 7. 247 See MBW 7795 (CR 8: 741 f.), a letter to Heinrich Buscoducensis [in Copenhagen], dated 30 April 1556, in which Melanchthon included a copy of his commentary.

424

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

refutation of Osiander, and yet they occurred no longer in a polemical tract or a reasoned response to a princely request but back in the classroom, in that coetus theodidaktos (God-taught assembly) that formed the heart of Melanchthon’s ecclesiology: a fellowship of teachers and learners. Thus, this commentary also represented another way that the Osiandrian controversy became routinized as the stuff of classroom investigation and polemic. The fact that these lectures became a published commentary, however, also indicated that the assembly went beyond Wittenberg’s walls to include not just the university’s alumni but also other like-minded teachers and learners throughout Europe. Fla 15 (1556): Matthias Flacius, Trost vnd vnterricht M. Flac. Jllyrici/ an die verfolgten Christen in Preussen ([Magdeburg: Lotter, 1556]). Fligge, no. 97.

Sometime after the publication of Duke Johann Albrecht’s letter, Flacius penned a small tract offering comfort and instruction to the persecuted Prussian Christians. References to Johann Albrecht’s letter, to Funck’s disavowal of his previous position, and to the translation and publication of the letter, allow us to fix the date of this tract to some time not long after Johann Albrecht’s letter was published. Indeed, a further reference to another tract of Flacius published in 1556 and to the rumor that Funck had recanted his recantation allows us to date this short piece to the late summer 1556. Flacius also attacked some published sermons of Otmar Epplin, the court preacher.248 Disappointed in the sudden reversal in the dispute, Flacius urged his readers to demand a real and not merely a verbal unity. In the meantime, Funck and his ilk were to be treated as if they were under the ban. Mör 05 (1556): Joachim Mörlin, Ein Sendtbrieff D. Doctoris Joachimi Morlini an den Vogel/ eingedrungenen Prediger in der Stiftskirchen des Kniphoffs zu Künigsberg in Preussen. ([no place or printer: Magdeburg??: Lotter??] 1556). The letter was dated 25 September 1556. Mör 05.1 (1557): Joachim Mörlin, Ein Sendtbrieff … an den Vogel, in: Dialogvs oder Gesprech eines armen Sünders mit Moyse vnnd Christo/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ auß Heyliger Schrifft gegründt vnnd gestelt … Sampt seinem Bedencken von der zugetragenen zwispalt vber solche Artickel. Vnd einer antwort auff D. Joachim Mörlein vngestümmen Sendbrieff … ([Königsberg: Hans Daubmann], 1557), k 3r – o 3v.

At a distance of 450 years, it would be easy to forget just how personal these conflicts were. The next phase of the dispute between Mörlin and the Königsberg 248 Otmar Epplin, Drey Predigten vber das Euangelium Johannis am Ersten Capittel/ Jm anfang war das Wort/ etc. Gepredigt zu Königsperg in Preussen auff dem Schloß Anno 1555. In den Weynacht Feiertagen. Durch M. Otthomarum Epplinum Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeyt daselbst Hoffprediger. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen durch Johann Daubman. M. D. LVI (Königsberg: Daubmann, 1556). The preface was dated 7 January 1556. Otmar Epplin (ca. 1515 –​1567) had an MA and had been pastor in Görlitz until 1554, when he was removed from his post for marital indiscretions. In 1555 he was called as court preacher to Königsberg. (See WBIS Online from Gottlieb Friedrich Otto, Lexikon der Oberlausizschen Schriftsteller und Künstler, vol. 1 (1801), s. v.)

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –1559 (1567)

425

Osiandrists involved Mörlin’s replacement, Matthias Vogel (1519 –1​ 591). Born in Nuremberg, he studied first in Tübingen and then came to Wittenberg in 1534, where he received the MA in 1543. In 1544 he received a call to Lauffen, near Nuremberg and in 1548 was deacon in the Jacobi Church in Nuremberg, a position that he had to leave in the aftermath of the Smalcald War. In 1550 he was pastor in Wehlau, Prussia and in 1554 succeeded Mörlin in Kneiphof. In 1556, he was enrolled in the matriculation book at the university and in 1558 became the second ranking theology professor, lecturing on the New Testament. He was the author of the 1558 Prussian Church Order but in 1566, with the return of Mörlin, left Prussia to become a counselor in Württemberg and the abbot in Albersbach, where he died.249 The spark that ignited the controversy between Vogel and Mörlin came in connection with a visit Vogel made to Nuremberg, where he saw his old friend, Wolf Waldner. Accompanied by Waldner and others to an inn outside the city on his way back to Königsberg, Vogel made some unkind remarks about Mörlin’s preaching against Osiander and insisted that his predecessor had been forced to leave because of disobedience to Duke Albrecht and not for theological reasons.250 Having heard an account of these matters from Waldner  – and here one must wonder why Vogel would have thought that Waldner, who had been personally attacked by Osiander and returned the favor, would not have reported these untoward remarks to Mörlin – Mörlin not only sent a letter to Vogel demanding an apology but also published that very letter, dated 25 September 1556. (It could be that, having sent a copy of the letter to Flacius or Gallus, one of those two gave it to the printer in Magdeburg.)251 M/F 01 (1557): Joachim Mörlin with Matthias Flacius, Antwort auff das Buch des Osiandrischen schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ darinnen er sein beduncken anzeiget von der fürgefallenen zwispalt/ vnd meinen Brieff an jn … Item Matth. Fl. Jllyrici von dem Gebet einer Osiandrischen Person/ vber den lxxj. Psalm ([Magdeburg: Ambrosius Kirchner, 1557]). Fligge, no. 124.

When Matthias Vogel responded in January 1557,252 with a defense of his theology and a line-by-line attack on Mörlin’s published letter, Mörlin was ready to respond in kind. Moreover, on 1 January 1557 an anonymous interpretation of Psalm 71 rolled off Königsberg’s presses, to which Flacius was only too happy to

249 Gerd Brausch, Altpreußische Biographie, ed. Christian Krollmann, vol. 2 (Marburg: Elwert, 1967), 305, accessed through WBIS. 250 Such as, whether, when the divine righteousness was infused, was it poured in the front or back? 251 The only copy of the original printed letter to have survived is in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, call no. 19.M.76. 252 Cf. the preface to Vogel, Dialogus, where he wished the readers a happy New Year.

426

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

pen a rebuttal.253 The result was this tract, with a preface dated 14 March 1557, in which the two archenemies of the Osiandrists refuted their opponents. For Mörlin, the chief accusations from Vogel were, first, that the dispute with Osiander arose because some people taught only forgiveness but not sanctification and, second, that Mörlin’s attacks made Osiander bitter. Mörlin also addressed the grounds for his dismissal, using some pithy quotes from Luther to show how unjust a thing it was.254 To Mörlin’s thoroughgoing dismissal of Vogel, Flacius added a short repudiation of the tract on Psalm 71, in which he concluded that the recurrence of Osiandrian theology in Königsberg simply proved that dogs and pigs would die in their own excrement.255 Pal 01 (1557): Peter Palladius, Catalogvs aliquot haeresium huius aetatis, et earvm refutatio, Scripta, a Petro Palladio doctore theologiae gvbernante ecclesiam Dei in inclyto Regno Danico (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1557). The preface is dated 5 August 1557. Fligge, no. 146.

Peter Palladius (ca. 1503 –​1560), born in Denmark, matriculated at the University Wittenberg in 1531, receiving his MA in 1533 and his doctorate in theology (at King Christian III’s request) under Luther’s presidency in 1537. Under Bugenhagen’s reform of Denmark, he became superintendent, bishop of Seeland and professor of theology in Copenhagen.256 He had already drafted the official Danish response to Osiander in response to Albrecht’s initial request in 1551. Unlike most of the other negative responses, however, the Danish position remained unpublished.257 Finally, however, Philip Melanchthon arranged for Palladius to break his silence on the affair by seeing to the publishing in Wittenberg of this work, a catalog of current heresies, Melanchthon’s preface to Herluf Trolle, dated 5 August, compared this work to the catalogs of heretics assembled by the church fathers and included swipes at the papists, enthusiasts and Schwenckfelders. The section on Osiander ran for sixteen pages and, as with the other “modern” heresies discussed in the book, began with a historical description before listing and refuting his errors.258 In the 253  Anonymous, Der 71. Psalm in ein Gebet gestellet/ vonn einer hohen Person des Ampts halben/ gegen Gott aber/ anders nichts als ein ander Mann/ allein das ijm Gott die Ehre gahn. Zur anreytzung gemeiner Christenheyt/ für die hohen für augen schwebenden noth/ der Kirchen zu biten. Mit vorgehendem Summario vnnd einer Vermanung an die gemeine Christenheyt/ etc ([Königsberg: Daubmann], 1557). It included an excerpt from Luther’s commentary on the Last Words of David (WA 54: 46, 18 – ​32). The preface was dated 1 January 1557. 254 Mörlin and Flacius, Antwortt, D 4r, quoting WA Br 6: 76 – ​79 (no. 1804) and WA Br 10: 252 – ​58 (no. 3844). 255 Mörlin and Flacius, Antwortt, E 4r. 256 WBIS Online from C. F. Bricka, Dansk Biografisk Lexikon, 19 vols. (Copenhagen, 1887 –​ 1905), s. v. 257 For more on this document and Osiander’s response, see Stupperich, Osiander in Preussen, 283 (n. 93), 288 – ​89, and 310 (where he discusses negotiations regarding the printing of Palladius’s memorandum), and GA 10: 732 – ​41, Osiander’s reaction to Palladius’s work. 258 Palladius, Catalogus, D 5r – E 4v.

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –1559 (1567)

427

midst of his refutation, Palladius referred the readers to Melanchthon’s Enarratio of the previous year, as well as Brenz, Mörlin and Menius’s works, contrasting their erudition to Osiander’s Schmeckbier.259 Palladius’s work represented yet another step in cementing this controversy within the collective consciousness of Evangelicals. Both Palladius’s approach (history and refutation) and Melanchthon’s preface demonstrated that this move toward recollection happened as a conscious decision on the part of those involved, lest their theological progeny might forget. Mör 06 (1558) Joachim Mörlin, Apologia Auff die vermeinte widerlegung des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels. Sampt gründlichem kurtzen bericht/ Was der Haubstreit vnd die Lere Osiandri gewesen sey/ Allen Christen nützlich zu lesen/ sich fur dem Grewel zu Hüten. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1558]. Fligge, no. 125.

Meanwhile, the fight between Vogel and Mörlin continued unabated. Vogel answered the joint attack of Flacius and Mörlin in his own tract, published some time in 1557.260 Not only did Vogel defend himself against the charge of following Osiander, but he threw down the gauntlet near the end of the tract, challenging Mörlin to prove that he, Vogel, had ever taught heresy. Mörlin, as one might imagine, was only too happy to oblige. Thus, sometime early in 1558 Mörlin published his defense, the Apologia.261 Yet even Mörlin must have sensed that folks were tired with this dispute, by now passé in most of the Empire. As a result, he listed his reasons for responding: a pastoral one (for the sake of weak consciences who might be fooled by Vogel’s comments), a personal one (he had been charged with blasphemy) and an historical one (so that people would not imagine this were an insignificant controversy).262 Once again, Mörlin’s defense included a (partial) recitation of the history of the case, showing (to his satisfaction at least) how Osiander had caused the whole affair. Mörlin then provided a description and defense of his own position. He also took time to reposition Brenz in this affair, contrasting statements by both Luther and Brenz against Osiander’s own.

259 Palladius, Catalogus, D 7v: “Sed haec & similia argumenta soluit ac refutat Philippus Melanthon in nouissima enarratione Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, quae edita est Anno 1556. seorsim in 3, Cap. sub litera K: Item Iohannes Brentius, & praeter hos duos, alij quoque doctissimi uiri contra deliria Doctoris Osiandri scripserunt, ut seorsim & praecipue inter alios omnes D. Ioachimus Morlinus. Item, Iustus Menius & alij quoque praestantissimi uiri, quos edito libro formoso, cui nomen indidit Schmeckbier salse deridet & tanquam ebrius contra sobrios crapulam suam foedissimam eructat ac euomit, ita ut plenem Cachinnis [those who laugh immoderately] & irrisionibus idoneum habuisse uideatur.” 260 Matthias Vogel, Widerlegung der vngegründten Antwort D. Mörlins auff mein Buch/ welchs ich wider jn zuschreyben durch seinen Lesterbrieff bin gedrungen worden ([Königsberg: Daubmann], 1557). 261 For the dating to January, see Mörlin, Apologia, J 2r, where he wished his readers a happy New Year. 262 Mörlin, Apologia, A 4r.

428

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

At the same time, he dismissed (Brenz’s!) claim that this was only a war of words, pitting Paul’s comments against Osiander’s. Pra 01 (1558): Peter Praetorius, Kurtze Erinnerung von dem hohen Artickel der Menschwerdung/ vnd Geburt vnsers HErrn vnd Heilands Jhesu Christi. Durch Petrum Pretorium/ Doctorem/ Pastorn/ vnd Superintendenten der Kirchen zu Künigsbergk/ in der newen Marck (Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1558).

There are several things about this work that made it an important, albeit late, contribution to the dispute. For one thing, it was published in Wittenberg, which probably meant that Melanchthon or other Wittenberg professors had allowed its printing. For another thing, the author, Peter Praetorius (1514/15 –​1588), had just received a call to the other northern city of Königsberg (in the Neumark).263 Praetorius, born in Cottbus, received his doctorate at Wittenberg on Ascension Day (5 May) 1554. He immediately received a call as preacher at the Castle Church, from whence he was called in 1558 to Königsberg in the Neumark as pastor and superintendent, where in 1577 he subscribed to the Torgau Articles. However, in 1578 he left for Danzig where, suspected of crypto-Calvinism, he was stripped of his office in 1586.264 He dedicated the sermon to Katharina, born duchess of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, now margravess of Brandenburg-Küstrin (Stettin-Pommern), whose husband was Johann (see above), and dated it 6 January 1558. Thus, Praetorius represented yet another Pomeranian pastor to take a shot at Osiander’s teaching. But he also was thoroughly Melanchthonian. The essay’s direct attack against Osiander read like a translation of parts of Melanchthon’s Enarratio on Romans – not surprisingly, given that he was doubtless in Wittenberg at the time the Romans lectures were delivered. The piece concluded with a metric version of Psalm 23, to the tune of “Aus tiefer Not.” Gal 02 (1558): Nicholas Gallus, Vonn Irthummen vnnd Secten Theses vnd Hypotheses/ das ist/ gemeine erwiesene Sprüche/ auff gegenwertige zeit vnd hendel gezogen/ zu erhaltung wares verstands vnser Christlichen Augpurgischen Confession/ vnd absonderung der Secten/ Dieser zeit nötig. (Jena: Thomas Rewart, 1558). Fligge, no. 100.

On 1 April 1558, Gallus penned his dedication of this work to Prince Frederick, count palatine and administrator of Amberg (later Reformed elector of the Palatinate as Frederick III, the Pious). It was written in the wake of the breakdown of talks at the Colloquy of Worms because of fighting among the Lutherans. By his own admission, Gallus wrote this to silence Roman calumnies (that took great pleasure in the breakdown) and to help simple Christians come to terms with these differences, using Scripture and the Augsburg Confession. Thus, this 263 This

Königsberg is halfway between Berlin and Stettin, not too far from Wittstock/Dosse. WBIS Online, from Christian Gottlieb Jöcher, Allgemeines Gelehrtes-Lexikon, expansions and continuation by H. W. Rotermund, vol. 6 (1819), s. v. He also wrote dramas (his “Marriage of Isaac and Rebecca,” was published in Wittenberg in 1559). 264 See

I. The Last Hurrah: 1556 –1559 (1567)

429

could be viewed as a first attempt by Lutherans to overcome their differences by carefully defining the controversies and their errors. The first thing Gallus did was to prove on the basis of Scripture that divisions were bound to arise. Thus, as in other documents that arose at this time, the Osiandrian controversy had now become one of several that had arisen among the Lutherans. Mör 07 (1559): Joachim Mörlin, Wieder die Antwort des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ Auff meine APOLOGIAM. Sampt gründlichem Bericht/ das zwisschen vns vnd Osiandro kein Grammaticale, sondern reale certamen gewesen sey ([Magdeburg: Lotther], 1559). Fligge, no. 126.

Not surprisingly, Mörlin’s counterattack on Vogel resulted in yet more ink being spilled in this fight. In Vogel’s Antwort, the author referred to the recent publication of some sermons (the preface to which was dated 17 April 1558).265 By Pentecost (29 May 1558) Mörlin had heard of its appearance in Königsberg. Vogel’s Antwort consisted in large measure of a defense of his call and his fidelity to Wittenberg’s theology. Although Mörlin signed his tract Braunschweig 1558, the Magdeburg printer dated it 1559, showing that it most likely was published in early January 1559. For as tired as the arguments could have become, Mörlin, by stepping back and examining once again the roots of Osiander’s theology and Vogel’s defense of it, was able to challenge any and all attempts (whether from Brenz, who remained unnamed, or from Vogel) to put the best construction on Osiander’s wilder statements. Mörlin wrote that Vogel tried to read Osiander “secundum quid” (i.e., in context). “Mein lieber Magister secundum quid,” Mörlin (who was not just a master but a doctor) exclaimed, urging Vogel to take a look at Osiander’s books and to see that when Osiander said these things, he was attacking justification by faith as forgiveness of sins, that is, the very heart of the Evangelical faith.266 With this tract, the struggle between the two Königsberg pastors drew to a close, until, of course, Mörlin returned triumphantly in 1567. Sar 01 (1559): Erasmus Sarcerius, Bekendtnis der Prediger in der Graffschafft Mansfelt/ vnter den jungen Herren gesessen. Wider alle Secten/ Rotten/ vnd falsche Leren/ wider Gottes wort/ die reine Lere D. Luthers seligen/ vnd der Augspurgischen Confession/ an etlichen örten eingeschlichen/ mit notwendiger widerlegunge derselbigen (Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1559). The preface was signed 20 August 1559. The refutation of Osiander is on 225v – 254v.

With Mörlin’s final word in the dispute with Vogel the literary controversy came to an end. However, it continued to play a role in the collective memory of the 265 Matthias Vogel, Antwort M. Matthei Vogels auff Joachim Mörlins zu Braunschweig nechst außgegangene Apologiam/ 1558 (Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 1558). The sermons are titled: Matthias Vogel, Zwo tröstliche predig aus dem 13. Capitel des Heyligen Euangelisten Joannis von dem Füßwaschen vnsers lieben Herrn/ vnd Erlösers Jesu Christi. Gethon in der Thumkirchen zu Königsperg in Preußen. Durch Matheum Vogel Pharherrn daselbst. 1. Joan. 3. Meyne Kindlein/ last vns nicht lieben mit worten/ noch mit der zungen/ sondern mit der that/ vnd mit der warheit (Königsberg: Johan Daubman, 1558). 266 Mörlin, Wieder die Antwort, C 2v.

430

Chapter 8: Writing against Osiander

Evangelicals. This important confession of faith by the gnesio-Lutheran pastors in the county of Mansfeld provides a single example (among many) of the way in which the controversy transformed itself slowly into a vital memory of Evangelical confessors, one that would finally find its way into the Formula of Concord itself.267 Thus, this Bekenntnis included sixty pages on the history and refutation of Osiander’s heresy. The difference between this work and that of Palladius is not so much its content as its intent; Sarcerius provided a confession of faith for a forensic understanding of justification by faith alone and against Osiander’s notions of the indwelling of Christ’s divinity. M/C 01 (1567): Joachim Mörlin and Martin Chemnitz, Repetitio Corporis Doctrinae Ecclesiasticae. Oder Widerholung der Summa vnd jnhalt/ der rechten/ allgemeynen/ Christlichen Kirche Lehre/ wie die selbige aus Gottes wort/ in der Augspurgischen Confession/ Apologia/ vnd Schmalkaldischen artickeln begriffen/ Vnd von Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeit zu Preussen/ etc. Auch allen derselbigen getrewen Landtstenden vnd Vnderthanen/ Geistlichen vnd Weltlichen/ im Hertzogthumb Preussen/ einhellig/ vnd bestendiglichen/ gewilliget vnd angenommen/ Kürtzlich zusammen verfasset. Zum Zeugnis eintrechtiger/ bestendiger Bekentnus reiner Lehr/ Wider allerley Corruptelen, Rotten/ vnd Secten/ so hin vnnd wider/ vnter dem Scheindeckel der Augspurgischen Confession/ die Kirchen zurütten. Psalm: CXIX. Jch hasse die Fladdergeister/ vnd allen falschen weg/ Lügen bin ich gram/ vnd liebe dein Gesetze. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen/ bey Johann Daubman/ Anno 1567 (Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1567). The material on Osiander ran from 20r – 24v. The preface, by Mörlin, was dated 9 June 1567.

Although this publication takes us far beyond the scope of this bibliography, it needs to be included both because of the authors (especially Mörlin) and the genre of this book. By 1567, Mörlin had been invited back by Albrecht and given free rein in reconstituting Prussia’s Evangelical churches. Mörlin and his close colleague, Martin Chemnitz, published a Corpus doctrinae, modeled after Melanchthon’s from 1560 but aimed more specifically at the particular needs of the Prussian church. This became an important forerunner of The Book of Concord itself.268 Here, for a final time, Mörlin could dismiss Osiander from Prussia. This remarkable literary and theological incident now became the stuff of doctrine and confessions, histories and formulas for concord and, in the twenty-first century, scholarly analysis.

Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in the Parish (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 47 – ​61. For the early work of Jakob Andreae, see Robert Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), 34 – ​36 & 67 – ​77. 268 Irene Dingel, “Melanchthon und die Normierung des Bekenntnisses,” in: Günter Frank, ed., Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000), 195 – ​211. 267 See

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts1 Aep 01 (1551): Aepinus, Johannes. Liber de iustificationis hominis operibus legis. Fidei iustitia & origine. Fidei discrimine & virtute. Notis signis iustificantis fidei et hominum iustificatorum. Imbecillitate et peccatis sanctorum. Discrimine peccatorum. Praemijs fidei et bonorum operarum. His addita est confutatio argumentorum, quae adversarijs opponi solent iustificatione fidei. Frankfurt/Main: Brubach, 1551. The prefatory letter is dated 1 January 1551. Aep 01.1 (1557): Aepinus, Johannes. De Iustificatione hominis, et operibus legis etc. liber Vna cum confutatione Argumentorum, quae ab aduersariis opponi solent Iustificationi fidei, His praemissa sunt argumenta de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem, ex ipsis autoribus et defensoribus huius dogmatis pio studio collecta et perspicue refutata per Ioan Wigandum. Frankfurt/Main: Brubach, 1557. Aep 01.2 (1557): Aepinus, Johannes. De Iustificatione hominis, et operibus legis etc. liber Vna cum confutatione Argumentorum, quae ab aduersariis opponi solent Iustificationi fidei, His praemissa sunt argumenta de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem, ex ipsis autoribus et defensoribus huius dogmatis pio studio collecta et perspicue refutata per Ioan Wigandum. Magdeburg: [no printer], 1557. Aep 01.3 (1565): Aepinus, Johannes. Liber de iustificationis hominis operibus legis. Fidei iustitia & origine Vna cum confutatione Argumentorum. [No place: no printer], 1565. Aepinus: See also A/W. A/W 01 (1553): Aepinus, Johannes, Joachim Westphal, et al. Responsio ministrorum ecclesiae Christi, quae est Hamburgi et Luneburgi, ad confessionem D. Andreae Osiandri, de mediatore Jesu Christo et iustificatione fidei, inclyto Hamburgensis et Luneburgensis reip: senatui exhibita, anno Do. 1552 mense Febr. scripta. Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1 January 1553. Agricola: See M/Ag Alb 01 (1551): Alber, Erasmus. Widder das Lesterbuch des hochfliehenden Osiandri, darinnen er das gerechte Blut unsers Herrn Jesu Christi verwirfft, als untüchtig zu unser Gerechtigkeit etc. An den Hertzogen in preussen geschrieben. [Hamburg]: Joachim Leo, [1551]. The preface is dated November 1551, and the book had been received by Duke Albrecht by the thirteenth of that month. Ale 01 (1552): Alesius, Alexander. Diligens Refutatio errorum quos sparsit nuper Andreas Osiander in libro, cui titulum fecit: De unico mediatore Christo. Wittenberg: Lufft, 1552. Refuted by Osiander in his Schmeckbier of 24 June and mentioned in von Köteritz’s letter of 6 June. 1 The nomenclature for this bibliography is comprised of three parts: the first three (occasionally four) letters of the author’s name (or pseudonym), the number of his publication, and the year it first appeared in parentheses. Later printings of the same document will be indicated by a period and the printing (e.g. 01.1). Translations are designated by the letter T.

432

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

Ale 02 (1553): Alesius, Alexander. Disputatio de iustitia Dei et iustitia hominis mediatore Christo Alexander Alesius. Leipzig: Hantsch, 1553. Ale 03 (1554): Alesius, Alexander. Tres disputationes de mediatore et reconciliatione ac iustificatione hominis, ante seorsim vt in dispvtatione propositae fverant ab Alexandro Alesio D. Impressae, nvnc vero simvl editae in Gratiam eorvm qvi exemplaria invenire non poterant. Anno 1554. Calendis Ianuarij. Leipzig: Georg Hantzsch, 1554. The printer’s preface is dated 1 March 1553. Alesius: See also Mel 04. Ams 01 (1552): Amsdorf, Nicholas von. Auff Osianders Bekentnis ein Vnterricht vnd zeugnis, Das die Gerechtigkeit der menscheit Christi darinnen sie entpfangen vnd geboren ist allen Gleubigen Sündern geschanckt vnd zugerechent wird, vnd für ihr Person hie auff Erden nimmermehr Gerecht vnd heilig werden. Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552. In the anonymous Tröstliche Gegensprüche there is a marginal notation that this tract appeared in April. Amsdorf: See also M/Am. Anh 01 (1552): Anhalt, Georg von. Zwo predigten über das Evangelium Matth. VII von falschen Propheten: in 2 Tractate gebracht, in welchen die fürnembsten … misbreuche, die jtziger zeit vorhanden, in sonderheit gezeigt; sampt einer Vorrede … durch Fürsten Georgen zu Anhalt. Leipzig: Günter, 1552. Anh 01.1 (1555): Anhalt, Georg von. Zwo predigten über das Evangelium Matth. VII von falschen Propheten: in 2 Tractate gebracht, in welchen die fürnembsten … misbreuche, die jtziger zeit vorhanden, in sonderheit gezeigt; sampt einer Vorrede. In: Des Hochwirdigen Durchleuchten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnd Herrn, Herrn Georgen Fürsten zu Anhalt … Predigten vnd andere Schrifften, darinn die Summa Christlicher leer trewlich vnd rein gefasset vnd erklert ist … Mit einer Vorrede Philippi Melanthonis. Wittenberg: Hans Krafft, 1555. Pp. 206v – 301v. The preface (MBW 7594) dated 29 September 1555. Anh 02 (1553): Anhalt, Georg von. Eine Predigt von der Menschwerdung vnd Geburt vnsers lieben HERRN Jhesu Christ/ Geschehen zu Warmsdorff/ Anno 1553 [=1552]. Leipzig: Wolff Günther, 1553. The preface bears the date 22 February 1553. Anh 02.1 (1555): Anhalt, Georg von. Eine Predigt von der Menschwerdung vnd Geburt vnsers lieben HErrn Jhesu Christ/ Geschehen zu Warmsdorff/ … Anno 1553. [=1552]. In: Predigten vnd andere Schrifften, darinn die Summa Christlicher leer trewlich vnd rein gefasset vnd erklert ist … Mit einer Vorrede Philippi Melanthonis (Wittenberg: Hans Krafft, 1555), 1r – 30v. Ano 01 (1551): Anon., ed. Wie fein der rabe Osiander primarius mit dem ehrwirdigen, hochgelarten herrn doctor Martino Luther seliger gedechtnis ubereinstimmet im artickel von der rechtfertigung, nach dem er rhümet widerumb seine lere sey des Luthers. [Wittenberg?: 1551]. A single-sheet publication in two columns with contrasting quotes of Luther and Osiander, appearing between 8 September and 5 November 1551. Ano 02 (1552): Anon., ed. Tröstliche Gegensprüch … Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch. Wittenberg [Peter Seitz Heirs], 1552. It contains citations from Luther, von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius. Ano 02.1 (1552): Anon., ed. Tröstliche Gegensprüch … Martini Lutheri und Matthie Illyrici, wider des Rabe Osiandri Primarii spruch. [Magdeburg?], 1552. Anonymous: See also Aqu 01 & 02 and Pas. Aqu 01 (1552): [Aquila, Caspar?]. Pasquillus auß || Preussen || Anno. 1552. ||. [Place and printer unknown], 1552. Copy in HAB: S 228 4o Helmst. (25). Published shortly after 10 January 1552.

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

433

Aqu 01.l (1552): [Aquila, Caspar?]. Pasquillus auß || Preussen. || Anno 1552. ||. [Place and printer unknown], 1552. Copy in HAB: 127.10 Theol. (7). Aqu 02 (1552): [Aquila, Caspar?]. Der Narren= || fresser in || Preussen. || Anno. 1552. [Place and printer unknown], 1552. Copy in HAB: S 228 4o Helmst. (24) Published with Aqu 01 (1552). Aqu 02.1 (1552): [Aquila, Caspar?]. ♠Der Narren=♠  || fresser inn  || Preussen.  || [Three leaves] || Anno M. D. Lij. [Place and printer unknown], 1552. Copy in HAB: 127.10 Theol. (6). Arb 01 (1552?): Arbiter, Peter. Wieder die newe Sophisterey/ da nicht allein von den Feinden/ sondern auch von etlichen der vnsern/ der Arickel von der Justification/ wodurch wir für Gott gerecht werden/ angefochten wird/ Ein kurtzer vnd einfeltiger vnterricht. Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, [no date]. The libraries in Augsburg, Leipzig, Dresden and Wolfenbüttel date it to 1550. Jena and Weimar date it 1565. AurA 01 (1553): Aurifaber, Andreas, ed. Von Gottes Gnaden Vnser Alberten des Eltern … Ausschreiben. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 24 January 1553. This included many documents in the dispute written by Mörlin and others. AurJ 01 (1552) Aurifaber, Johannes (Vratislaviensis). Eine Predigt von der geburt vnsere Herrn Jhesu Christi. Aus dem j. Cap: S. Johannis. Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1552. A/S 01 (1553): Aurifaber, Johannes (Vinariensis) and Johann Stoltz, eds. Artikel der Euangelischen Lere/ so da hetten sollen auffs Concilium uberantwort werden/ wo es sein würde/ Vnd vom gewalt des Bapsts/ vnd seiner Bischoffe/ was in dem allen/ vnd wie etwas zugeben/ oder nicht/ zuuor also nie aussgangen. Gestellet auff dem Tage zu Schmalkalden. Anno. 1537. Mit vnterschreibung vieler Lande vnd Stedte Theologen. Jtzt alles aus vrsachen/ in der Vorrede vermeldet/ aus Fürstlichem befehl zu Weymar/ durch die Hoffprediger daselbst in druck geben. M. D. Liij. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1553. A printing of Luther’s Smalcald Articles. Bar 01 (1552): Barth, Georg. Eine korte und gründtlike Declaration, up dat Bock Andreae Osiandri van der Justification, und enigen midler Jhesu Christo, unsen leuen Heylande vor de entfoldigen … 1. Jo. 1. Dat Blodt Jhesu Christi Gades Söne hefft vns gereiniget/ van aller sünde. Lübeck: Jürgen Richolff, 1552. Bes 01 (1554): Besold, Jerome, ed. Preface to: In Genesin enarrationum … Martini Lutheri … Quartus tomus. Nuremberg: Berg und Neuber, 1554. Reprints include: Frankfurt/Main (1555) and Nuremberg (1560). Bren 01 (1553): Brenz, Johannes et al. Des ernwirdigen Herrn Johannis Brentij Declaratio von Osiandri Disputatio. Darin er klar enzeigt was er strefflich urteilt, geschribe zu Tübingen Anno 1553. Die Januarij 30. Wittenberg: Thomas Klug, 1553. Published shortly after 8 March 1553. Bren 01.1 (1553): Brenz, Johannes et al. Des Herrn Johan Brentij vnnd anderer Virtenbergischen Theologen, Declaration vber Osianders Disputation von der Rechtfertigung, sampt ihres glaubens bekentnis. Mit einer Vorrede Matth. Fla. Jllyrici vnd Nicolai Galli/ an die Preussischen Kirchen. Daraus leicht jedem zuuernemen/ was Brentius vnd genante Theologen/ im grunde von Osianders newen lere halten. Edited by Matthias Flacius and Nicholas Gallus. Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1553. With a preface by Flacius and Gallus to the Prussian church, dated 1 May 1553. This includes both the Declaratio and the Bekenntnis of April 1553. Bren 01.2 (1554): Brenz, Johannes et al. Der Ehrnwirdigenn … Herren Johannis Brentij und anderer jm zugeordenten Theologen vonn der Rechtfertigung des Menschen, Confession und Declaration, Wie sie dem … Fürsten … Albrechten dem Eltern, Marggraffen zu

434

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

Brandenburg, inn Preussen … Hertzogen … zugeschickt seind worden. Anno 1553. Mense Aprili. Königsberg: Daubmann, 1554. Bren 02 (1553): Bekentnis Brentij vnd andern Wirtebergischen Theologen von der Rechtfertigung. Mit einer Vorreden M. Illyr. Vnd Nic. Galli an de Preusische Kirchen (Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1553). A Separate printing of a portion of Bren 01.1 (1553). See VD 16: B 7589. Brenz: See also Fla 08 (1553). Bret 01 (1552): Bretschneider [Placotomus], Johannes. De incarnatione Christi conclusiones quaedam contra novam, minime necessariam, inutilem, & impiam opinionem Andr. Osiandri asseuerantis, Christum oportuisse fieri hominem, etiamsi Adam lapsus non fuisset. Lübeck: Georg Richolff, 1552. The Latin poem referred to in Aqu 01 (1552) and “translated” in Aqu 02 (1552), may be the one appended to the end of this document. Buc 01 (1552): Buchholzer, Georg, ed. Drei Sermon D. Martini Lutheri, darin man spüren kan wie ein herlicher Prophetischer Geist in dem manne gewesen ist, das er das, was itzt vngötlich vom Andrea Osiandro geleret wird lengst zuuor als würd es bald geschehen gesehen hat. Itzt new vnd zuuor niemal gedruckt. Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichorn, 1552. B/F 01 (1552): Bugenhagen, Johannes, Johann Forster and Paul Eber, Iudicium Ecclesiae Witebergensis de hoc ipso libro nostro contra Osiandrum. [Königsberg: Weinrich], 1552. B/F 01 T (1552): Bugenhagen, Johannes, Johann Forster and Paul Eber. Der Kirchen zu Witteberg jr IVDICIVM von diesem vnserm buch wider Osiandrum. [Königsberg: Hans Weinreich] 1552. Bugenhagen/Forster: See also Mel 02 (1552). Bül 01 (1552): Bülau, Stephan. Ein Bekentnis und kurtzer bericht widder die irrige lehr Andree Osiandri, von dem Artickel der Rechtfertigunge, auff vordechtige anforderunge etlicher von Dantzk und Königisperck durch M. Steffanum Bilaw von Osthatz/ einfeltig geschriben. [Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn], 1552. Written in January/March and published before 6 June 1552. Chemnitz: See M/C Fla 01 (1552): Flacius, Matthias. De Iesu, nomine Christi servatoris nostri proprio, contra Osiandrum, De Iehova nomine veri Dei proprio. Wittenberg: Johann Krafft, 1552. Fla 02 (1552): Flacius, Matthias. Wider die neue Ketzerey der Dikaeu[i]sten, vom spruch Christi Joan. Am XVI. Der Heilig Geist wird die Welt straffen vmb die gerechtigkeit, das ich zum Vater gehe. Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, [1552]. Fla 02 T (1552): Flacius, Matthias. Contra Haereticum Dikaeusiastam de dicto Ioannis: Spiritus arguet munde iustitia, quia trado ad Patrem … Audio editam esse meam Confutationem confessionis Osiandri latine, sic mutilam & inemendatam, ut eam initio quibusdam amicis petentibus exhibueram, Quae editio quoniam sine meo iussu facta est, ideo remitto lectorem ad Germanicum exemplar quod & integrum est & meo iussu editum. Quod facere me necesse est, ut aduersarij cauillationes cauere possim. Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]. Fla 03 (1552): Flacius, Matthias. Wider die Götter in Preussen. Das nur eine einige wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes sey, die nemlich so inn den Zehen geboten offenbaret ist. Ein kurtzer, heller vnnd klarer bericht von verdienst vnd gerechtigkeit Christi. [Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552]. Fla 04 Flacius, Matthias. Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier … DEVT. 6. Es wird vnser gerechtigkeit sein für dem HERRN vnserm Gott/ so wir halten vnd thun alle diese gebott/ wie er vns geboten hat. Item Esa. Am 48. spricht das so einer die gebot Gottes halte/ es jhm seine gerechtigkeit sey/ wie Meers wellen. Ezech. 18. stehet/

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

435

das der/ so recht vnd wol thut/ vmb der gerechtigkeit willen/ so er thut/ leben solle. Item Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luce 10. 18. Leuit. 19 Rom. 10. Gal. 3. Wiltu leben/ so halt die gebot. Rom. 2. die Theter des Gesetzes werden gerecht für Gott. Zwar heist alhie Herr Heiligman Gerechtigkeit, das nemlich so einen recht zu thun treibt, oder das recht thun selbs. Ein solche gerechtigkeit haben wir Gott vnd seinem Gesetze nicht konne leisten. Es hat sie aber Christus mit seinem gehorsam vnnd leiden, das ist, durch seine gantze erfullung des Gesetzes gethan, darumb ist dasselbig vnsers Gerechtigkeit, Matth. 5. Rom. 8. 10. Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]. Fla 04.1 (ca. 1552): Flacius, Matthias. Zwo fürnemliche Gründe Osiandri verlegt, zu einem Schmeckbier [no place: no printer, no date]. Fla 05 (1552): Flacius, Matthias. Kurtze und klare erzelung der argument Osiandri mit jhrer verlegung, und unserer beweisung wider jhn, von der gerechtigkeit des glaubens. Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1 September 1552. Fla 06 (1552): Flacius, Matthias. Von der Gerechtigkeit wider Osiandrum, nützlich zu lesen. Magdeburg: Rödinger, 24 September 1552. Fla 07 (1553): Flacius, Matthias. Beweisung, das Osiander helt vnd leret, das die Gottheit eben also in den rechtgleubigen wone, wie in der menscheit Christi selbst. Vnd das weiter daraus folge, das die Christen eben also ware Götter sein, vnd angebetet müssen werden, als der mensch Jhesus selbst. Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1 January 1553. Fla 08 (1553): Flacius, Matthias, ed. Brentij vnd Osiandri meinung vom ampt Christi vnd rechtfertigung des Sünders, Mit einer Vorr. M. Flac. Illyr. Magdeburg: Lotter, 1553. Fla 09 (1553): Flacius, Matthias. EXPLICATIO LOCI SANCTI PAVLI Rom. 3. Nunc autem reuelata est Iusticia Dei sine lege &c. In quo tum propositio ac scopus Epistolae ad Romanos continetur, tum tota ratio Iusticiae ac Iustificationis exponitur, Contra Osiandrum, Matth. Flacij Illyrici. Wittenberg: J. Lufft, 5 August 1553. Fla 10 (1554): Flacius, Matthias. Verlegung des unwahrhaftigen ungegründten berichts Hansen Funckens, von der Osiandrischen schwermerey … Die grewliche vnerhorte schwermerey der Osiandrischen Götter inn Preussen/ so im newen jarstag dieses 1554. jars ist offentlich vom Eichorn gepredigt worden. Magdeburg, Rödinger, 1554. In the title there is a reference to the New Year 1554. Fla 11 (1554): Flacius, Matthias. Das das thewre Bludt oder gehorsamlich leiden Christi die ware  / rechte  / vnd einige Gerechtigkeit sey  / dadurch wir fur Gott gerecht  / jm wolgefellig  / vnd seelig werden. Geschrieben an F. D. in Preussen. Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg, 1554. Fla 12 (1554) Flacius, Matthias. Widder drei Gottislesterische vnnd Sophistische Argumenta des Funckens/ welche er newlich in Preussen widder das tewre blut Christi vnter die Leute gestrewet hat … Ein Canon fur etlichen jaren in Preussen von den kirchen vnd Regenten geordnet. Wer etwas widder die Augssburgische Confession leren würde/ der sol excommunicirt, vnd/ wo er nicht widderrufet/ aus der Kirchen gantz verworffen werden. Das ist die rechte Execution, hat man anders lust dazu [Magdeburg: Lotther, 1554]. Fla 13 (1555): Flacius, Matthias. Christliche warnunge vnd vermanunge Matthiae Flacij Illyrici an die Kirche Christi in Preussen den nechsten Abschied belangende [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter,] 1 January 1555. Fla 14 (1555): Flacius, Matthias. Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri fein kurtz und klar jedermann zur warnung aus seinen eigenen Büchern gezogen und erzelet durch Matthias Flacius Illyricus. Eisleben: Ulrich Gaubisch, 1555. Fla 14.1 (1555): Flacius, Matthias. Die fürnemste vnd gröbste jrthumb Osiandri/ sampt einer vormanung an die Christen in Preussen durch M. F. Illyricum. Die wesentliche

436

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

gerechtmachende gerechtigkeit Gottes ist seine gnedige barmhertzigkeit oder gutthetige frumbkeyt/ Osiander im Nachtrab. [Magdeburg: Lotther, 1555]. Fla 15 (1556): Flacius, Matthias. Trost vnd vnterricht M. Flac. Jllyrici/ an die verfolgten Christen in Preussen. [Magdeburg: Lotter, 1556]. Fla 16 (Before Sept. 1552?): Eine kurtze Tafel M. Fla. Illyrici, widder Osiandrum auf einem gantzen ausgeschlagenen Bogen (no printer, place or date). Dedicated to Margravess Anna Sophia von Brandenburg. See Fligge, 887. This publication was not available to the author. Flacius: See also F/G, Joh and M/F. F/G 01 (1552): Flacius, Matthias and Nicholas Gallus. Verlegung des Bekentnis Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung der armen sünder durch die wesentliche Gerechtigkeit der hohen Maiestet Gottes allein Durch Matth. Fla. Illyr. Mit vnterschreibung Nicolai Galj/ darin der grund des jrthums Osiandri sampt seiner verlegung auffs kürzest verfast ist. Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552. The preface to Duke Albrecht is dated 1 March 1552. F/G 01 T (1552): Flacius, Matthias and Nicholas Gallus. Confessionis An. Osiandri de iustificatione, in qua acerbe et impie insectatur adflictas ecclesias earumque ministros, qui hactenus doctrinam in Augustana confessione compraehensam sonuerunt, Refutatio erudita et pia scripta Magdeburgi. Frankfurt: P. Brubach, 1552. F/G 02 (1552): Flacius, Matthias and Nicholas Gallus. Antidotum auff Osiandri gifftiges Schmeckbier. Magdeburg: Rödinger, [1552]. F/G 03 (1552): Flacius, Matthias and Nicholas Gallus. Ermanung an alle Stende der Christlichen Kirchen in Preußen Osianders lere halben … 1. Theß. 5. Den Geist dempffet nicht/ die Weissagung verachtet nicht/ prüfet aber alles/ vnd das gute behaltet/ Meidet allen bösen schein. Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552. F/G 04 (1555): Flacius, Matthias [and Nicholas Gallus?]. Das das Preusische Mandat/ den XI. Augusti dieses 55. Jars ausgegeben/ Betreffende die Amnistia oder vergessung der Osiandrischen Ketzerey mit gutem gewissen nicht kan angenomen werden etc. grüntliche vrsachen. Item vom weichen oder fliehen der Prediger in verfolgung durch Matthiam Flacium Jllyricum. Ein Canon von allen stenden in Preusen verwilliget. So jemand was wider die Augspurgische Confession leren wird/ der soll entweder widerruffen/ oder aber gentzlich verbannent vnd verworffen werden. [Magdeburg? after 11 August 1555]. Flacius/Gallus: See also: Bren 01.1 (1553). Gal 01 (1552): Gallus, Nicholas. Proba des geists Osiandri von der rechtfertigung, durch die eingegossne wesentliche gerechtigkeit Gottes … I Joan. IIII. Ihr lieben/ gleubet nicht einem yeglichen Geist/ sondern prüfet die Geister/ ob sie von Gott sind. Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1552. The preface to Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg is dated 14 September 1552. Gal 02 (1558): Gallus, Nicholas. Vonn Irthummen vnnd Secten Theses vnd Hypotheses/ das ist/ gemeine erwiesene Sprüche/ auff gegenwertige zeit vnd hendel gezogen/ zu erhaltung wares verstands vnser Christlichen Augpurgischen Confession/ vnd absonderung der Secten/ Dieser zeit nötig. Jena: Thomas Rewart, 1558. Gallus: See also F/G. Hegemon: See M/V/H Hey 01 (1555): Heyden, Sebald. Assertio Christiana, quod per sanguinem, mortem et obe­ dientiam Christi Iesu filij hominis, omnes credentes iustificentur. Contra novam et Anti­ christianam sectam Osiandristarum, qui essentiali & aeternae Dei iusticiae peccatoris iustificationem, ita proprie attribuunt, ut Christo homini eam prorsus adimant. Nuremberg: Johann Montanus & Ulrich Neuber, 1555.

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

437

Hey 01 T1 (1555): Heyden, Sebald. Christliche Beweysung/ das durch das leiden/ sterben/ vnd blut vergiessen Christi Jesu/ des menschen sons/ alle glaubige sollen vnnd müssen Gerechtfertigt werden. Wider die newe vnd Antichristische Secten der Osiandristen/ welche die Rechtfertigung des Sünders der wesentlichen vnd ewigen gerechtigkeyt Gottes/ also gar eygen machen/ das sie die selben Christo/ des menschen Son gantz weck nemen. Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg & Ulrich Newber, [1555]. Hey 01 T2 (1562): Heyden, Sebald. Christliche Beweysung, in: Nicholas Gallus, Confutationes Etzlicher gegewertiger Secten vnd Corruptelen/ Magistri Nicolai Galli, Pfarrherr vnd Superintendenten/ der Stad Regespurg. Jtem Widerlegung des Jrrthum Osiandri/ durch einen trewen guthertzigen Christen geschehen. Jtem bekantnus von dem Nachtmal des HErrn Jhesu Christi/ Tilemani Heßhusij/ der Heiligen Schrifft Doctoris. Jena: [Donat Richtzenhan], 1562. Joh 01 (1556) Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg. EPISTOLA ILLVSTRISSIMI Principis, Ioannis Alberti Mechelb. ad Illyricum, de Osiandrica haeresi, pie, Dei beneficio sopita. 1. Corint. 10. Fidelis est Deus, qui non sinit suos tentari, supra id, quod ferre possunt, imo facit una cum tentatione euentum, ut possint sufferre. Multas Satanae cribrationes, & horas potestatis tenebrarum, eiusque ignita tela, hoc breui tempore, a uiri Dei Luth. Morte perpessi sumus. Sed & diuinae inopinataeque liberationes consequutae sunt. Quas proh dolor ne agnoscimus quidem, nedum ut Deo serio gratias agamus. Magdeburg: Lotter, after 1 April 1556. Joh 01 T1 (1556): Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg. Ein sendtbrieff des durchleuchtigen vnd Hochgeboren Fursten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Johannes Albrecht/ Herzogen zu Mechelburgk etc. an Illyricum/ der Osiandrischen Ketzerey oder schwermerey halben/ wie sie Christlich durch Gottis gnade sey gedempfft vnd widerruffen. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1556]. Joh 01 T2 (1556): Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg. Ein Sendtbrieff des Durchleuchtigen/ Hochgebornen Fürsten/ vnd Herrn/ Herrn Johann Albrechten von Mechelburg an Illyricum geschriben/ von der Osiandrischen Ketzerey wie die ist durch sondere Gottes gnade in Preussen gestillet worden. Auß dem Latein das Deutsch gebracht I. Corinth. 10. Gott ist trew/ der euch nicht lesset versuchen vber ewer vermögen/ sondern machet/ das die versuchung so ein ende gewinne/ das jhrs kündt ertragen. Wir sein bißher/ sind der Man Gottes Martinus Luther gestorben/ vom Teuffel wol gesichert worden/ vnd haben vil stund des gewalts der Finsterniß/ vnd manche feurige pfeyl in kurtzer zeyt empfinden müssen. Aber gleichwol dagegen manche vnuersehene Gotteshülff auch gespüret/ welches wir dennoch (leider zuerbarmen) nicht erkennen wöllen/ will geschweigen/ das wir Gott darumb dancketen. Nuremberg: Georg Merckel, [1556]. K/M 01 (1552): Kilmann, Wenzeslaus, Simon Musaeus, et al., Widerlegung der Opinion oder Bekentnus, Osiandri, welches er nennet Von dem einigen mitler Jhesu Christo, vnd der rechtfertigung des glaubens, von F. G. Marggraff Johansen zu Brandenburgk etc. Theologen, in gehaltenem Synodo zu Custrin vorsamlett ausgangen: In massen solchs Marggraff Albrechten dem eltern, Hertzogen in Preussen, auf seiner F. D. selbst schreiben, vnd begeren, zugeschickt worden. Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn, 1552. Seen in: U. Bibliothek Erlangen 4o THL-V 111. Written by Wenzeslaus Kilmann, as first signer (?), but also signed by Simon Musaeus. Kni 01 (1552): Knipstro, Johannes, et al. Antwort der Theologen vnd Pastorn in Pommern auff die Confession Andreae Osiandri, wie der Mensch gerecht wird, durch den Glauben an den Herrn Christum. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552. The preface is dated January 1552. Kön 01 (1552): Königsbergers. Bekentnis etlicher herren zu Konigsberg inn Preussen/ wider jhren newen abgot Osiandrum [No place: no printer], 1552.

438

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

Lau 01 (1552): Lauterwald, Matthias. Fünff schlussprüche: wider Andream Osiandrum, Von Matthia Lauterwalt Elbingensi gestellet, vnd zu einem grunde geleget seinen volgenden Schrifften. Act: xv. Wir gleuben durch die gnade des HErrn Jhesu Christi selig werden. Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552. The colophon reads: “Gegeben zu Wittemberg am xv. tage Julij im iar. 1552.” Lau 02 (1552): Lauterwald, Matthias. Was unser Gerechtigkeit heisse, kürtzlich und einfeltiglich, … angezeiget, wider des wesentichters Andree Osiandri, schwermerische entzuckung, die er darff vermessentlich Gottes wesentliche gerechtigkeit nennen, die Gott selbs ist, Vnd sein allmechtiges vngeworden, vnd vngemachte Wesen, darff one scheu vnser geboten vnd geworden Gerechtigkeit in vns heissen. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552. Dated on E 4v: 25 September 1552. Mel 01 (1551): Melanchthon, Philip. Oratio de definitione iusticiae, quae extat apud Clementem Alexandrinum, recitata a Mag. Luca Hetzer, Decano, an. 1551. Wittenberg: [Kreutzer], 1551. Delivered on 11 August 1551 (Koehn, no. 177; CR 11: 993 – ​99). Mel 02 (1552): Melanchthon, Philip. Antwort auff das Buch herrn Andreae Osiandri von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen. Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1552. Republished in CR 7: 892 – ​902; Bds. 335 – ​348; MSA 6: 452 – ​61 and (the Luther material) WA Br 12: 189 – ​95. Dated in MBW 6294 to ca. 1 January 1552. Mel 02.1 (1552): Melanchthon, Philip. Antwort auff das Buch herren Andreae Osiandri von der rechtfertigung des menschen … Wittemberg. 1552. [Nuremberg]: Johann Berg & Ulrich Neuber, 1552. Mel 02.2 (1555): Melanchthon, Philip. In: Simon Musaeus, Ein Sermon von der Verklerung vnsers lieben HErrn Jhesu Christi, aus den dreien Euangelisten, Matth. 17. Marci. 9. Luce. 9. Gestellet vnd geprediget, Durch D. Simonem Musaeum zu Breßlaw, Am 25. Sontag nach Trinitatis. 1555. Antwort auff das Buch Andreae Osiandri, Von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1555. Pp. D 1v – G 3v. Mel 03 (1552): Melanchthon, Philip. Prefatory Epistle to the reader. In: Martin Luther, In Genesin enarrationum … tomus tertius. Nuremberg: von Berg & Neuber, 1552. See MBW 6316 (CR 7: 918 – ​27 and WA 44: XXIV–XXIX). Additional printings: Frankfurt/ Main (1553) and Nuremberg (1555, 1563). Mel 04 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Prefatory Epistle to Thomas Cranmer. In: Alexander Alesius, Omnes Disputationes D. Alexandri Alesii de tota Epistola ad Romanos diversis temporibus propositae ab ipso in celebri Academia Lipsensi et a multis doctis viris expetitae. Iam tandem collectae per Georgium Hantsch et editae in gratiam studiosorum. Cum praefatione Philippi Melanchthonis. Leipzig: Hantzsch, 1553. See MBW 6696 (CR 8: 8 –1​ 1). The preface to Cranmer is dated 1 January 1553; the peroration to Cranmer by Alesius is dated 1 March [1553]. Mel 05 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere, im latin genandt Loci Theologici, Etwa von Doctor Justo Jona in Deutsche sprach gebracht, jetzund aber im M. D. LIII. jar, von Philippo Melanthon widerumb durchsehen. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1553. Especially the preface (to Anna Camerarius, dated 24 February 1553 [MBW 6742]) and the locus on justification. Text in CR 22: 21– ​654. Later separate printings in Wittenberg: (1554, 1555, 1556, 1558, 1561, 1571, 1579). Mel 06 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553.: in: Loci praecipui theologici, nunc denuo cura et diligentia summa recogniti … his additae sunt recens Definitiones … Leipzig: Valentin Papst, 1553. Printed in CR 21: 1075 –​1102.

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

439

Mel 06.1 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553. Wittenberg: Seitz, 1554. Mel 06.2 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in Ecclesia usus est, traditae a Philippo Melanth. Torgae et Witebergae, Anno 1552. et 1553. Wittenberg: Seitz, 1556. Mel 07 (1553): Melanchthon, Philip. Oratio in qua refutatur calumnia Osiandri, reprehendentis promißionem eorum, quibus tribuitur testimonium doctrinae, recitata cum decerneretur gradus Doctori Tilemanno Heshusio Wesaliensi. Wittebergae. M. D. LIII. Wittenberg: Crato, May 1553. Koehn, no. 181 (CR 12: 5 –​12), delivered by Tilemann Heshus on 16 May 1553. Mel 08 (1555): Melanchthon, Philip, et al. Das der Mensch in || der Bekerung zu Gott/ in diesem || Leben Gerecht werde fur Gott/ von wegen || des Gehorsams des MITTLERS/ || durch Glauben/ nicht von we= || gen der || Wesentlichen Ge= || rechtigkeit. || Geschrieben zu Nürnberg/ Anno || 1555. Vnd vnterschrieben von den || Personen/ welcher namen zu || ende verzeichnet sind.|| Ein Predigt Ja= || cobi Rungij Pomerani/ von der || Gerechtigkeit/ zu Nornberg || gepredigt. || Gedruckt zu Wittemberg/ durch || Peter Seitzen Erben. || 1555. Wittenberg: Peter Seitz Heirs, 1555. See MBW 7592 & 7593 (CR 8: 555 – ​78). Mel 08.1 (1556): Melanchthon, Philip, et al. Das der Mensch in der || Bekerung zu Gott/ in diesem Leben Ge= || recht werde fur Gott/ von wegen des || Gehorsams des MITTLERS/ durch || Glauben/ nicht von wegen der || Wesentlichen Ge= || rechtigkeit. || Geschrieben zu Nürnberg/ Anno || M. D.LV. Vnd vnterschrieben von den || Personen/ welcher namen zu ende|| verzeichnet sind.|| Ein Predigt Jacobi || Rungij Pomerani/ von der Ge= || rechtigkeit/ zu Nornberg gepredigt. || Gedruckt zu Nürnberg durch Jo= || hann vom Berg/ vnd Vlrich Newber. Nuremberg: Johann vom Berg and Ulrich Newber, [1556]. Mel 09 (1556?): Melanchthon, Philip. Antwort vnd bericht. HErrn Philippi Melanchtonis/ auff die bekentnussen vnnd schrifften Leonhardi Culmans vnd Johannis vetters weylandt Predicanten zuo Nürnbergk, von wegen der newen Lehr Osiandri in Preüssen entsprungen in Latein gestelt vnd yetzundt durch Christianum Martyrem verdeuscht [sic!]. [Augsburg: Otmar,] [ca. 1556]. The Latin is MBW 7591 (CR 8: 579 – ​87), dated [ca. 27] September 1555 to [Jerome Baumgartner]. Mel 10 (1556): Melanchthon, Philip. Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1556. Preface from the first half of April 1556, MBW 7785 (CR 8: 737 – ​41, with CR 20: 786 f.); text now in CR 15: 797 –​1052. Mel 10.1 (1558): Melanchthon, Philip. Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1558. Mel 10.2 (1561): Melanchthon, Philip. Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio. Wittenberg: Johannes Lufft, 1561. Mel 10.3 (1564): Melanchthon, Philip. Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos enarratio. In: Philip Melanchthon. Opera. Vol. 4. Wittenberg: Kraft, 1564. Pp. 35 – ​209. Men 01 (1552): Menius, Justus. Vonn der Gerechtigkeit, die für Gott gilt: Wider die newe Alcumistische Theologiam Andreae Osiandri. Erfurt: Gervasius Stürmer, 1552. Preface to Duke Albrecht dated 16 February 1552. Menius: See also M/Am M/Am 01 (1552): Menius, Justus, Nicholas von Amsdorf et al., eds. Censurae der fürstlichen Sechsischen Theologen zu Weymar und Koburg auff die Bekendtnis des Andreae Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens. Erfurt: Stürmer, 1552. The preface by Menius is dated 1 August 1552.

440

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

Mör 01 (1551): Mörlin, Joachim. Epistolae quaedam Ioachimi Morlin Doctoris Theologiae, ad D. Andream Osiandrum. Et Responsiones. [Konigsberg?: no printer], 1551. Published between 24 April and 5 November 1551. Mör 02 (1554): Joachim Mörlin. Historia Welcher gestalt sich die Osiandrische schwermerey im lande zu Preussen erhaben, vnd wie dieselbige verhandelt ist, mit allen actis beschrieben. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter], 1 April 1554. Mör 03 (1555): Mörlin, Joachim. Trewliche warnung vnd trost an die Kirchen in Preussen. Joachimus Mörlin D. Roma. XII. Nemet euch der heiligen nodturfft an. Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1555. Mör 04 (1555): Mörlin, Joachim. Das Osiandri Jrthumb mit keiner vorgessenheit zustillen / oder hin zulegen sey. Joachimus Mörlin. D. Jere. 8. Keiner ist / dem seine bossheit leidt were /vnd spreche / was mach ich doch?. [Magdeburg]: Michael Lotther, 23 September 1555. Mör 05 (1556): Mörlin, Joachim. Ein Sendtbrieff D. Doctoris Joachimi Morlini an den Vogel/ eingedrungenen Prediger in der Stiftskirchen des Kniphoffs zu Künigsberg in Preussen. [Magdeburg??: Lotter??] 1556. The letter is dated 25 September 1556. Mör 05.1 (1557): Mörlin, Joachim. Ein Sendtbrieff … an den Vogel, in: Dialogvs oder Gesprech eines armen Sünders mit Moyse vnnd Christo/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ auß Heyliger Schrifft gegründt vnnd gestelt … Sampt seinem Bedencken von der zugetragenen zwispalt vber solche Artickel. Vnd einer antwort auff D. Joachim Mörlein vngestümmen Sendbrieff … [Königsberg: Hans Daubmann], 1557. Pp. k 3r – o 3v. Mör 06 (1558) Mörlin, Joachim. Apologia Auff die vermeinte widerlegung des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels. Sampt gründlichem kurtzen bericht/ Was der Haubstreit vnd die Lere Osiandri gewesen sey/ Allen Christen nützlich zu lesen/ sich fur dem Grewel zu Hüten. [Magdeburg: Michael Lotter, 1558]. Mör 07 (1559): Mörlin, Joachim. Wieder die Antwort des Osiandrischen Schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ Auff meine APOLOGIAM. Sampt gründlichem Bericht/ das zwi­ sschen vns vnd Osiandro kein Grammaticale, sondern reale certamen gewesen sey. [Magdeburg: Lotter], 1559. Mörlin: See also M/C, M/F and M/V/H. M/C 01 (1567): Mörlin, Joachim and Martin Chemnitz. Repetitio Corporis Doctrinae Ecclesiasticae. Oder Widerholung der Summa vnd jnhalt/ der rechten/ allgemeynen/ Christlichen Kirche Lehre/ wie die selbige aus Gottes wort/ in der Augspurgischen Confession/ Apologia/ vnd Schmalkaldischen artickeln begriffen/ Vnd von Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeit zu Preussen/ etc. Auch allen derselbigen getrewen Landtstenden vnd Vnderthanen/ Geistlichen vnd Weltlichen/ im Hertzogthumb Preussen/ einhellig/ vnd bestendiglichen/ gewilliget vnd angenommen/ Kürtzlich zusammen verfasset. Zum Zeugnis eintrechtiger/ bestendiger Bekentnus reiner Lehr/ Wider allerley Corruptelen, Rotten/ vnd Secten/ so hin vnnd wider/ vnter dem Scheindeckel der Augspurgischen Confession/ die Kirchen zurütten. Psalm: CXIX. Jch hasse die Fladdergeister/ vnd allen falschen weg/ Lügen bin ich gram/ vnd liebe dein Gesetze. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen/ bey Johann Daubman/ Anno 1567. Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1567. The material on Osiander runs from pp. 20r – 24v. The preface, by Mörlin, was dated 9 June 1567. M/F 01 (1557): Mörlin, Joachim with Matthias Flacius. Antwort auff das Buch des Osiandrischen schwermers in Preussen/ M. Vogels/ darinnen er sein beduncken anzeiget von der fürgefallenen zwispalt/ vnd meinen Brieff an jn … Item Matth. Fl. Jllyrici von dem Gebet einer Osiandrischen Person/ vber den lxxj. Psalm. [Magdeburg: Ambrosius Kirchner, 1557].

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

441

M/V/H 01 (1552): Mörlin, Joachim, Georg von Venediger, and Peter Hegemon. Von der Rechtfertigung des glaubens gründtlicher warhafftiger bericht/ auß Gottes Wort/ etlicher Theologen zu Künigsberg in Preussen: Wider die newe verfürische und Antichristische Lehr Andreae Osiandri, Darinnen er leugnet das Christus jn seinem vnschüldigen Leiden vnd sterben/ vnser Gerechtigkeit sey. Königsberg: Lufft, 23 May 1552. Musa 01 (1555): Musaeus, Simon. Ein Sermon von der Verklerung vnsers lieben HErrn Jhesu Christi/ aus den dreien Euangelisten/ Matth. 17. Marci. 9. Luce. 9. Gestellet vnd geprediget/ Durch D. Simonem Musaeum zu Breßlaw/ Am 25. Sontag nach Trinitatis. 1555. Antwort auff das Buch Andreae Osiandri/ Von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen/ Durch Philip. Melanth. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1555. Musaeus: See also K/M 01. Musc 01 (1552): Musculus, Andreas. De adorando summa veneratione et fide inconcussa amplectendo mysterio Vnitionis duarum naturarum Christi, in unam personam, contra Antichristum septentrionis Osiandrum. Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552. The preface is dated 2 May. Available on-line at http://luther.hki.uni-koeln.de/luther-cgi/ kleioc/0010KlLuther/exec/druckseite/ Musc 01.1 (1558): Musculus, Andreas. Responsio ad virulentum ac maledicum [sic?] scriptum, ex meris calumnijs & mendacijs conflatum: Friderici Staphyli, edita ab Andrea Musculo Anno 1558. 1 Ioan. 2. E nobis egressi sunt, sed non erant ex nobis. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, permanissent utique nobiscum &c. [Frankfurt/Oder: Eichorn], 1558. Pp. C 1v – D 6v. Musc 02 (1553): Musculus, Andreas, ed. Von der vnzertrenlichen voreynigung in einer Person beider naturn vnsers Herrn Jesu Christi Gottes vnd Marien Son, Docto. Martini Lutheri bekentnis, Glaub, vnd Leer, aus seinen büchern zusam getragen wieder den neulichen erregten Nestorischen vnd Eutichischen miesvorstandt vnd jrthum. Frankfurt/Oder: Johan. Eichorn, 1553. Musculus: See also M/Ag M/Ag 01 (1552): Musculus, Andreas, Johann Agricola, et al., Grüntliche anzeigung was die theologen des Churfürstenthumbs der Marck zu Brandenburgk von der Christlichen Euangelischen Lehr halten, lehren vnnd bekennen. Auch warinne Andreas Osiander wider solche Lehr vnrecht lehret, Welchs auch in diesem Buch aus Heiliger schrift nottürfftiglich gestrafft, vnd widerleget wird Roma. I. Reuelatur ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem & iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui ueritatem Dei in iniustitia detinent. Frankfurt/ Oder: Johann Eichhorn, 1552. Ott 01 (1552): Otto, Anton. Wider die tieffgesuchten vnd Scharffgespitzten aber doch nichtigen Vrsachen Osianders, darmit er den Artikel von der Gerechtigkeit lestiget vnd verkeret kleglich. Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552. The afterword to Otto’s congregation is dated 16 May [1552]. Ott 02 (1552): Otto, Anton. Etliche Propheceysprüche D. Martini Lutheri/ Des dritten Elias. [Magdeburg: Lotter], 1552. The epistle dedicatory, to Christoph von Hagen, is dated 16 May 1552. Pal 01 (1557): Palladius, Peter. Catalogvs aliquot haeresium huius aetatis, et earvm refutatio, Scripta, a Petro Palladio doctore theologiae gvbernante ecclesiam Dei in inclyto Regno Danico. Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1557. The preface is dated 5 August 1557. Pas 01 (1552): Pasquillus [pseud.]. Ein Colloquium oder Gesprech wider die Antichristische und verfürische lere, Andree Osiandri, Pfarherren zu Königspergk in Preussen Vom Artickel der Rechtfertigung etc. [No place: no printer], 1552.

442

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

Pol 01 (1552): Pollicarius, Johannes. Antwort auff das Buch Osiandri, von der Rechtfertigung des Menschen. Wittenberg: Veit Kreutzer, 1552. The preface is dated 10 February 1552. Pra 01 (1558): Praetorius, Peter. Kurtze Erinnerung von dem hohen Artickel der Menschwerdung/ vnd Geburt vnsers HErrn vnd Heilands Jhesu Christi. Durch Petrum Pretorium/ Doctorem/ Pastorn/ vnd Superintendenten der Kirchen zu Künigsbergk/ in der newen Marck. Wittenberg: Veit Creutzer, 1558. Richter: See Arb 01 Rot 01 (1551): Roting, Michael. Testimonium optimi ac doctissimi viri D. Michaelis Rotingi unius e populo ecclesiastico contra falsam Andreae Osiandri de iustificatione sententiam, quam in Prussia libellis ac propositionibus spargit. [Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann], 1551. Roting: See also Wal 02 (1552). Runge: See Mel 07. Sar 01 (1559): Sarcerius, Erasmus, et al. Bekendtnis der Prediger in der Graffschafft Mansfelt/ vnter den jungen Herren gesessen. Wider alle Secten/ Rotten/ vnd falsche Leren/ wider Gottes wort/ die reine Lere D. Luthers seligen/ vnd der Augspurgischen Confession/ an etlichen örten eingeschlichen/ mit notwendiger widerlegunge derselbigen. Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1559. The preface was signed 20 August 1559. The refutation of Osiander is on 225v – 254v. Sar 01.1 (1560): Sarcerius, Erasmus, et al. Bekendtnis der Prediger in der Graffschafft Mansfelt/ vnter den jungen Herren gesessen. Wider alle Secten/ Rotten/ vnd falsche Leren/ wider Gottes wort/ die reine Lere D. Luthers seligen/ vnd der Augspurgischen Confession/ an etlichen örten eingeschlichen/ mit notwendiger widerlegunge derselbigen. Eisleben: Urban Gaubisch, 1560. Sar 01 T (1560): Sarcerius, Erasmus, et al. Confessio ecclesiae quae est in ditione Comitum Mansfeltiorum, qui iuniores vocantur, adversus praecipuas haereses, errores & sectas eorum, qui hactenus a verbo Dei & Confessione Augustana, sive repurgata per Lutherum doctrina discedunt. Eisleben: Gaubisch, 1560. Sche 01 (1554): [Schermer, Georg]. DE IVSTI=FICATIONE HOMI=nis coram Deo, propositiones, quibus & summa uerae sententiae pie exponitur, & contouersia de Iustitia fidei, ab Osiandro mota, erudite dijudicatur. Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1554. Schn 01 (1555): Schnepf, Erhart. Propositiones, complectentes summam verae & incorruptae Doctrinae, de Iustificatione, & de bonis operibus: ad disputandum propositae in Schola Ihenensi, die XXVI. Iulij, Anno M. D. LV. Praeside Erharto Schnepffio, & Respondente Baltasare Vuintero. Jena: Christian Rödinger, 1555. Sta 01 (1552): Staphylus, Friedrich. Synodus Sanctorum Patrum antiquorum contra noua dogmata Andreae Osiandri. Nuremberg: Peter Fabricius, 1552. The preface to the senate in Danzig was dated 6 March 1552. Sta 01.1 (1553): Staphylus, Friedrich. Synodus Sanctorum Patrum antiquorum contra noua dogmata Andreae Osiandri. Nuremberg: Peter Fabricius, September 1553. Sta 01.2 (1555): Staphylus, Friedrich. Illustres Synodorum Antiquarum Sanctorum Patrum sententiae, noua et impia dogmata Andreae Osiandri refutantes. Nuremberg: Fabricius, 1555. Stolz: See A/S. Venediger: See M/V/H 01 Wal 01 (1551): Waldner, Wolf. Christlicher vnd Gründtlicher bericht, Von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens, Einwonung Gottes vnd Christi in vns Der Ehrwirdigen/ Gottseligen Herrn vnnd Euangelischer warheyt Lehrern. D. Martini Luthers heyliger gedechtnuß/

Bibliography of Anti-Osiander Tracts

443

Johannis Brentzij/ vnnd Vrbani Regij Seligen. I. Thessa. 2. Vnser Ermanung ist nicht gewesen zu irrthumb/ noch zu vnreynigkeyt/ noch mit list/ Sondern wie wir von Gott bewerdt sindt/ daß vns das Euangelium vertrawet ist zu predigen/ also redden wir/ nicht als wolten wir den Menschen gefallen/ sondern Gotte/ der vnser hertz prüfet. Dann wir nie mit Schmeychelworten sindt vmbgegangen/ (wie ihr wisest) noch dem Geytz gestellet/ Gott ist de  / Zeuge/ haben auch nicht Ehre gesucht von den Leuthen/ weder von euch/ noch von andern. [Nuremberg: Hans Daubmann], 1551. Wal 02 (1552): Waldner, Wolff (Jerome Besold? and Michael Roting?). Etlicher Jungen Prediger zu Nürnberg verantwortung gegen der anklag Andreae Osiandri, so newlich im druck widder sie ist ausgangen. [Magdeburg: Christian Rödinger, 1552]. Published in February or March 1552. Wal 03 (1552): Waldner, Wolf. Antwort auff des Osianders Schmeckbier. [Magdeburg: Rödinger, 1552]. Appeared after 24 June 1552. Waldner: See also R/W. Westphal: See A/W. Zie 01 (1549): Ziegler, Bernhard. De hac sententia, fide iustificari homines coram deo absque merito operum, capita ad disputandum proposita … ad diem XV. Februar. Leipzig: [V. Bapst, 1549]. Reprinted as part of Z 02 (1549). The disputation was held on 15 February 1549. Zie 01.1 (1549): Ziegler, Bernhard. Disputationes duae prima de iusticia fidei, secunda de bonis operibus … habitae Bernardo Ziglero. Leipzig: Bapst, 1549. Reprinted in CR 12: 664 – ​77. Zie 01.2 (1564): Ziegler, Bernhard. Disputationes duae prima de iusticia fidei, secunda de bonis operibus … habitae Bernardo Ziglero, in: Operum … Philippi Melanthonis pars quarta. Wittenberg: Johann Crato, 1564. CR 12: 624 – ​28. Zie 02 (1549): Ziegler, Bernhard. De dicto quod extat in capite XIII. Iohannis, si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit etc. Capita ad disputandum proposita a Bernardo Ziglero D. Theologiae. Ad diem Iunij sextum. Leipzig: Bapst, 1549. The disputation was held on 6 June 1549. Zie 03 (1551): Ziegler, Bernhard, ed. Zwo Predigten des Ehrwirdigen Herren Doctoris Martini Lutheri. Die Erste von Jhesu Christo/ darin der heubt artickel vnsers heiligen Christlichen glaubens (Ich gleube an Jhesum Christum etc.) gehandelt vnd erkleret wird. Die Andere vber den Spruch S. Pauli zun Galatern am Ersten/ Christus hat sich selbs fur vnser sunde gegeben/ darinn der Apostel den Haubtartickel des Christlichen glaubens von Jhesu Christo/ (das der Mensch gerecht werde/ ohne des Gesetzs werck/ allein durch den glauben an jhn) handelt. Mit einer Vorred/ Zu diesen grewlichen letzten zeiten sehr nützlich vnd tröstlich zulesen. Leipzig: Georg Hantzsch, 1551. After 21 March 1551 and perhaps by September 1551.

Bibliography Primary Literature1 Albrecht von Preussen. Abschied Des Durchlauchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern/ … darnach sich alle vnnd jedere jhrer F. G. Fürstenthumbs Pfarherrn vnwegerlich laten sollen. Gegeben zu Königßperg den 24. Septembris im 1554. Jar. Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 27 September 1554. –. Des Durchleüchtigsten Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn/ Herrn Albrechten des Eltern … Mandat An jhr Fürstlichen Durchleüchtigkeyt Vnderthanen außgangen den 11 Augusti. Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1555. –. Von Gottes Gnaden/ Wir Albrecht der Elter/ Marggraff zu Brandenburg/ Jn Preussen/ zu Stetin/ Pommern/ der Cassuben vnd Wenden Hertzog/ Burggraff zu Nürmberg/ vnd Fürst zu Rugen. Vnsern gnedigen Grus zuuor/. Königsberg: [No printer], 1555. Ancoratus. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. Vol. 25. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Pp. 1–​149. On-line (accessed 26 July 2009) at: http://patrologia.narod.ru/patrolog/ epiphan/ancorat.htm. Anonymous. Der 71. Psalm in ein Gebet gestellet/ vonn einer hohen Person des Ampts halben/ gegen Gott aber/ anders nichts als ein ander Mann/ allein das ijm Gott die Ehre gahn. Zur anreytzung gemeiner Christenheyt/ für die hohen für augen schwebenden noth/ der Kirchen zu biten. Mit vorgehendem Summario vnnd einer Vermanung an die gemeine Christenheyt/ etc. [Königsberg: Daubmann], 1557. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. 10th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. The Book of Concord. Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Brenz, Johannes. Confessio Virtembergica 1552. Edited by Martin Brecht and Hermann Ehmer. Holzgerlingen: Hänssler, 1999. Culmann, Leonhard. Confabvlatio sev dispvtatio pia et religiosa hominis euangelici et papistici de verae religionis articulis, utilissima ijs qui novo iam dogmate, ut uocant, offenduntur. Nuremberg: Wachter, 1545. Reprinted in Königsberg by Daubmann in 1555. –. Thesaurus locorum communium Copiossimus ex Vetero et Novo Testamento cum fideli ac perspicua interpretatione … quo argumenta, de quocunque rerum proposito in facultate Theologica prae manibus esse solent. Nuremberg: Daubmann, 1551. Daubmann published letter “B” in 1551. –. Thesavri Theologici. Tertia pars de variis locis communibus iuxta literam C. a Leonhardo Culmanno Chraeylsheimense collecta ac dedicata. Vere nobili et generoso Domino domino

1 For

the tracts of the opponents to Osiander, see the preceding bibliography.

Bibliography

445

Michaeli Comiti in Vuertheim, Domino in Preiburg Domino suo clementissimo. Nuremberg: Johannes Daubmann, 1553. –. Qvarta Pars Thesavri Theologici. Hoc est, uariorum communium locorum, iuxta literam D. Pastoribus ruri uerbum Dei docentibus, ad discendum & docendum seruiens. Collecta per Leonhardum Culmannum Craeylsheimensem dedicata vere nobili et generoso Domino domino Michaeli Comiti in Vuertheim, Domino in Preyburg Domino suo clementissimo. Nuremberg: Gabriel Hayn, 1554. –. Thesavri Theologici. Quinta pars iuxta literam alphabeti E. in usum eorum, qui Euangelium Iesu Christi pure praedicant, congesta per Leonhardum Culmannum Craylsheimensem Nuremberg: Gabriel Hayn, 1554. –. Thesavri Theologici. De litera F, Sexta pars, locorum communium copia iucundissima, lectio vtilissima, pro miseris parrochis, Christi Euangelium in miseria & inopia librorum, docentibus, collecta per Leonhardum Culmannum Craylßheimensem verbi Dei ministrum. Charitas seruit proximo & aedificat, inuidia nec seruit, nec aedificat. Nuremberg: Gabriel Hayn, 1554. –. De sola fide iustificante, seu iustificatione hominis, quid de ea sit purè sentiendum atque docendum, aliquot formulae, collectae. Basel: [Oporinus, ca. 1555]. –. Zeugknuß. Auß Gottes wort vnd Schrifften der Christenlichen lehrern – D. Martin Luthers/ Vrban Regij/ Johann Bugenhagen/ Georgen Maiors/ Philippen Melanchtons gezogen/ Was des Menschen gerechtigkeit sey/ vnnd wie der Gotloß für Gott soll fromm vnnd gerecht werden: Allen frommen Christen zur Lehr vnnd nutz gestellet. [Augsburg: Han Gregler], 1558. Dingel, Irene, ed. Controversia et Confessio: Theologische Kontroversen 1548 –​1577/80, kritische Auswahledition. Vol. 1: Reaktionen auf das Augsburger Interim: Der Interimistische Streit (1548 –​1549). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Epplin, Otmar. Drey Predigten vber das Euangelium Johannis am Ersten Capittel/ Jm anfang war das Wort/ etc. Gepredigt zu Königsperg in Preussen auff dem Schloß Anno 1555. In den Weynacht Feiertagen. Durch M. Otthomarum Epplinum Fürstlicher Durchleuchtigkeyt daselbst Hoffprediger. Gedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen durch Johann Daubman. M. D. LVI. Königsberg: Daubmann, 1556. –. Ursach/ Warumb unser einiger Trost unnd Heylandt Jesus Christus/ inn Einer Person/ habe sollen und müssen zwo Naturen haben/ vnd wie Christus Gottes vnd Marien Son/ sey vnser ewiges Leben/ Liecht vnnd Gerechtigkeyt. Auß den Predigten M. Ottomari Epplini/ inn Preussen Hoffpredigers/ so er in den Weynacht Feyertagen zu Königsperg daselbst auff dem Schloß gethan Anno 1557. Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1557. Förstemann, Karl Eduard, ed. Album Academiae Vitebergensis ab A. Ch. MDII usque ad A. MDLX. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1841. Funck, Johannes. Der neunde Psalm gepredigt vnd einfeltiglich ausgeleget. Ein Gebet der christlichen Kirchen in gegenwertiger Not, aus dem selben neunden Psalm gestellet … Mit e. kurtzen Bekentnis, wie wir fur Gott gerecht werden in d. Vorr. Mit eingefüret. Königsberg: Lufft?, 1551. –. Auszug vnd kurtzer bericht: von der Gerechtigkeit der Christen fur Gott/ aus einer predig/ vber die wort Johannis. 1 Johan. 5. Vnd das ist das zeugnus das vns Gott das ewige Leben hat gegeben/ vnd solches Leben ist in seinem Son/ Wer den Son Gottes nicht hat/ der hat das Leben nicht. Königsberg: Lufft?, 1552. –. Warhafftiger vnd grundlicher Bericht wie vnd was gestalt die Ergerliche Spaltung von der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens sich anfenglich im Lande Preussen erhaben vnd was eigentlich von der Gerechtigkeit Christlich/ nach brauch der heiligen Schrifft/ vnd der rechtschaffnen

446

Bibliography

Lehrer alter vnd vnserer zeit/ gehalten werden müge : den armen gewissen so diser Zeit durch mancherley Schreiben/ affterreden/ vnd erdicht der vnbestendigen Geister/ erirret sind zu Trost/ den andern jre jrthumb zuerkennen/ zur vermanung geschriben  / durch Johan. Funck. Königsberg: Hans Weinreich, 28 March 1553. Gnapheus, Wilhelm. Gvilielmi Gnaphei Ab Haga Comitis Hollandiae aduersus temerariam, ne dicam impiam excommunicationis censuram … a quibusdam Academiae Regiomontanae apud Prutenos … professoribus et concionatoribus, ex mera inuidia et malignandi libidine in ipsum latam, extemporalis quaedam Antilogia. In eiusdem G. Gnaphei insignia eruditissimi iuuenis, D. Alexandri a Suchten [Alexander von Suchten, 1546 –​1560] Gedanensis epigramma. [Königsberg: no publisher], 1551. Jonas, Justus. Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas. Edited by Gustav Kawerau. 2 vols. Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. Lull, Raymond. De secretis naturae sive quinta essentia libri 2. Edited by Walther Hermann Ryff. Strasbourg: Beck, 1541. Luther, Martin. Etliche warhafftige weissagung/ vnd fürneme spruce des Ehrwirdigen Vaters/ Hern Doctor Martini Luthers/ des dritten Heilie/ vom trübsal/ abfal/ finsternissen/ oder aber verfelschungen reiner Lere/ so Deudtschlandt künfftiglich nach seinem Tode widerfaren sol. Edited by Johann Timann and translated into German by Albert Christianus [pseudonym?]. Magdeburg: Lotter, 1552. –. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Schriften]. 65 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883 –​ 1993. –. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Bibel. 12 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1906 – ​61. –. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel. 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930 –​1985. –. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden. 6 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1912 – ​ 21. –. Luther’s Works [American edition]. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955 – ​86. Major, Georg. Auslegung des Glaubens. Wittenberg: Rhau Erben, 1550. Melanchthon, Philip. Corpus Reformatorum: Philippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil. 28 vols. Halle: A. Schwetschke & Sons,1834 –1​ 860. –. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe]. Edited by Robert Stupperich. 7 vols. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1951–​1975. –. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Regesten. Edited by Heinz Scheible. 12+ vols. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–. –. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: Kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Texte. Edited by Heinz Scheible, et al. 11+ vols. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991–. –. Elementa rhetorices: Grundbegriffe der Rhetorik. Edited and translated by Volkhard Wels. Berlin: Weidler, 2001. –. Heubtartikel Christlicher Lere: Melanchthon s deutsche Fassung seiner Loci theologici, nach dem Autograph und dem Originaldruck von 1553. Edited by Ralf Jenett and Johannes Schilling. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002. Musculus, Andreas. Thesavrvs: Hochnutzlicher tewrer Schatz vnd Gülden Kleinot/ aller frommen Gottes Kinder/ aus allen anfechtungen/ streit vnd kampff des Gewissens/ im leben vnd sterben/ sich zu entbrechen/ Vnd endlich friedlich/ frölich vnd seliglich von hinnen abzuscheiden. Aus den Büchern vnd Schrifften des heiligen Mans Gottes Lutheri/ zusammen bracht/ Durch Andream Musculum D. Frankfurt/Oder: Johan Eichorn, 1577.

Bibliography

447

Osiander, Andreas. Gesamtausgabe. 10 Vols. Edited by Gerhard Müller & Gottfried Seebaß. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975 –​1997. –. Ein schöne: fast nützliche Sermon vber das Euangelium Math. Am XVII. Da Christus den zolpfenning bezalet etc. Die der Ehrwirdig vnd Achtbar herr Andreas Osiander seligen/ etc. gethan hat zu Nürnberg/ Anno 1525. Von gehorsam weltlicher Obrigkeit. Vom gebrauch Christenlicher vnd weltlicher Freiheit. Von Göttlicher fürsichtigkeit. Nachgedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen. Anno M. D. LIII. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 12 April 1553. –. Ein tröstliche predigt des Ehrwirdigen vnd Achtbarn herrn Andreae Osiandri etc. seeligen/ vber die wort S. Pauli/ Roma. 6. Wisset jr nicht/ das alle die wir in Jesum Christum getaufft sind etc. Die er gethan hat/ den 28 Decembris des 1551 Jars. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 11 February 1553. –. Ein Tröstliche predigt des Ehrwirdigen vnd Achtbarn Herrn Andreae Osiandri etc. seeligen/ vber die wort Pauli zun Römern am 6. Denn wer gestorben ist/ ist gerechtfertigt von der Sünde. Die er gethan hat/ den 29. Decembris 1551. Vnd ist jm mit fleis nachgeschrieben worden. … Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 29 January 1553. –. Ein sehr tröstliche vnd nützliche predigt/ des Ehrwirdigen vnd Achtbarn Herrn Andreae Osiandri seligen/ vber die wort S. Pauli/ zu den Römern am 8 cap. So ist nu nichts verdamlich an denen/ etc. am 9 Febraurij des 1552 jars geschehen. … Königberg: Lufft, 1553. –. Ein schöne predigt des Ehrwirdigen vnd Achbarn herrn Andreae Osiandri Seligen etc. vber die wort S. Pauli/ zun Römern am 8. Jr aber seid nicht Fleischlich/ etc. den 22 Februarij/ des 1552 Jars geschehen. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 10 June 1553. –. Zwo schoner predigten des Ehrwirdigen/ vnd Achtbarn Herren Andreae Osiandri etc. seligen/ so er zum eingang der Paßion/ vber die wort des heiligen Pauli zun Philippern am andern/ Ein jeder sey gesinnet/ wie Jesus Christus auch war etc. In der marter wochen des 1552 jars gethan hat. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 1553. Osiander, Andreas, et al. Handlung eines Ersamen weisen Rats zu Nürnberg mit jren Predicanten geschehen etc. M. D. XXV. Nachgedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen. Anno M. D. LIII. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 21 April 1553. –. Ein gut vnterricht vnd getrewer Rathschlag/ aus heiliger Göttlicher schrifft/ wes man sich in diesen zwitrachten/ vnsern heilign Glauben vnd Christliche lere betreffend/ halten sol/ darin was Gottes wort vnd menschen lere: Was Christus vnd der Antichrist sey/ fürnemlich gehandelt wird. Geschriben an ein Erbarn Weisen Rath der löblichen Stadt Nörnberg durch jre prediger. M. D. XXV. Nachgedruckt zu Königsperg in Preussen. Königsberg: Hans Lufft, 18 May 1553. Otto, Anton. Eine Einfeltige vnnd Christliche Trostschrifft Antonij Otthonis/ an die Christen/ so hin vnd wider vmb der Reinen Relligion Jesu Christi willen/ von den Papisten verfolget werden. Item/ Ein Trostschrifft D. M. Lutheri/ an die verjagten Christen/etc. [Eisleben: Andreas Petri], 1564. Pfeffinger, Johannes. Von den Traditionibus, ceremoniis oder Mitteldingen christlicher wahrer Bericht. [Frankfurt/Oder: Wolrab], 1550. Pollicarius, Johannes. HISTORIA DE VITA ET ACTIS REVERENDISS. VIRI D. MART. Lutheri, uerae Theologiae Doctoris, bona fide conscripta, a PHILIPPO MELANTHONE. ADIECTA SVNT A IOANNE POLlicario Carmina quaedam de beneficijs quae Deus per Lutherum orbi terrarum contulit. ITEM DISTICHA ALIQVOT DE Actis LVTHERI, quae simul annorum numerum comprehendunt. M. D. XLVIII. Erfurt: Gervasius Sthurmer, 1548. –. Trostspiegel der armen Sünder. Das ist/ Vom warhafftigen Erkendtnus vnsers Herrn Jhesu Christi/ vnd vom seligen Trost/ Fried vnd Freud desselbigen/ wider die verzweiff-

448

Bibliography

lung/ angst/ trawrigkeit/ vnd anfechtung des hertzens vnd Gewissens/ Vnd wider alle erschreckliche Bildnisen des Teufels/ Todtes vnd Sünden/ Durch Sprüche vnd Exempel der H. Schrifft. Aus den Büchern des Ehrwirdigen Herrn D. Martini seligers zusamen gezogen. Durch M. Johannem Policarium. [sic!] Prediger zu Weissenfels. 1556. Leipzig: Jakob Berwald, 1556. Schwenckfeld, Caspar. Vom worte Gottes. Das khein ander wort Gottes sei/ aigentlich zureden/ denn der Suon Gottes Jesus Christus/ Bewerung. Damit auch auff Matthie Flacij Jllyrici schmachbüchlen/ mit auffdeckung seiner vilfaltigen Jrrthumb wirt geanthwurt. Item/ Judicium vber Osianders leere von der Iustification. Durch Caspar Schenckfeldt von Ossing. [Ulm: Hans Varnier d. J., 1554/55]. –. Judicium Caspar Schwenckfelds. Vber Herrn Johann Brentzen leere vom Nachtmal des Herrn Christi/ auß seinem Catechismo getruckt zuo Nüremberg 1552. Vnnd Ein bedencken vber seine schrifft inn Osianders sache/ Von der Justification. Item/ Ableinung des Tractetlens: Anthwort auff Schwenckfeldts suochung/ deme sich auch Brentz hat vnderschriben. [Ulm: Hans Varnier, Jr.], 1558. Sciurus, Johannes. Apologia oder Schützred wieder bede/ Bartolomaeum Wagner vnd Johannem Hoppium/ Magistros/ von denen ich öffentlich beschüldigt worden bin/ als solt ich in Christo waren GOTT vnd Menschen/ wen wir jn anruffen vnd anbeten/ die Menschliche Natur ausschlisen/ Sampt einem kurtzen vnd Christlichen Bekantnus von dem Artickel der Rechtfertigung. Königsberg: no printer, 22 July 1552. Vogel, Matthias. Dialogvs oder Gesprech eines armen Sünders mit Moyse vnnd Christo/ von der Rechtfertigung des Glaubens/ auß Heyliger Schrifft gegründt vnnd gestelt … Sampt seinem Bedencken von der zugetragenen zwispalt vber solche Artickel. Vnd einer antwort auff D. Joachim Mörlein vngestümmen Sendbrieff …. [Königsberg: Hans Daubmann], 1557. –. Widerlegung der vngegründten Antwort D. Mörlins auff mein Buch/ welchs ich wider jn zuschreyben durch seinen Lesterbrieff bin gedrungen worden. [Königsberg: Daubmann], 1557. –. Zwo tröstliche predig aus dem 13. Capitel des Heyligen Euangelisten Joannis von dem Füßwaschen vnsers lieben Herrn/ vnd Erlösers Jesu Christi. Gethon in der Thumkirchen zu Königsperg in Preußen. Durch Matheum Vogel Pharherrn daselbst. 1. Joan. 3. Meyne Kindlein/ last vns nicht lieben mit worten/ noch mit der zungen/ sondern mit der that/ vnd mit der warheit. Königsberg: Johan Daubman, 1558. –. Antwort M. Matthei Vogels auff Joachim Mörlins zu Braunschweig nechst außgegangene Apologiam/ 1558. Königsberg: Johann Daubmann, 1558.

Secondary Literature Aulén, Gustav. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement. Translated by A. G. Hebert. Foreword by Jaroslav Pelikan. New York: MacMillan, 1969. Bachmann, Claus. Die Selbstherrlichkeit Gottes: Studien zur Theologie des Nürnberger Reformators Andreas Osiander. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. Bagchi, David. Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518 –​1525. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Bibliography

449

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Translated by R. H. Fuller. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 1959. Braaten, Carl, and Robert Jenson, eds. Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Briskina, Anna. Philipp Melanchthon und Andreas Osiander im Ringen um die Rechtfertigungslehre: Ein reformatorischer Streit aus der ostkirchlichen Perspektive. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang, 2006. –. “An Orthodox View of Finnish Luther Research.” Lutheran Quarterly 22 (2008): 16 – ​39. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas. New York: Oxford, 2011. Diestelmann, Jürgen. Joachim Mörlin: Luthers Kaplan – “Papst der Lutheraner”: Ein Zeit‑ und Lebensbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert. Neuendettelsau: Freimund, 2002. Dingel, Irene. Concordia controversa: Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996. Dingel, Irene. “Strukturen der Lutherrezeption am Beispiel einer Lutherzitatensammlung von Joachim Westphal.” In: Wolfgang Sommer, ed., Kommunikationsstruturen im europäischen Luthertum der Frühen Neuzeit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005. Pp. 32 – ​50. –. “Streitkultur und Kontroversschrifttum im späten 16. Jahrhundert: Versuch einer methodischen Standortbestimmung.” In: Irene Dingel and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele, eds. Kommunikation und Transfer im Christentum der frühen Neuzeit. Mainz: von Zabern, 2007. Pp. 95 –​112. Dingel, Irene, and Günther Wartenberg, eds. Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Estes, James. Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518 –​1559. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Fligge, Jörg Rainer. Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und der Osiandrismus: 1522 –​1568. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1972. Forde, Gerhard O. The Law-Gospel Debate: An Interpretation of Its Historical Development. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969. –. Justification by Faith: A Matter of Death and Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. –. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. Geneva: Droz, 1961. Frank, Günter. Die theologische Philosophie Philipp Melanchthons (1497 –​1560). Leipzig: Benno, 1995. Frymire, John M. The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Greschat, Martin. Melanchthon neben Luther: Studien zur Gestalt der Rechtfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537. Witten: Luther Verlag, 1965. Hase, Hans Christoph von. Die Gestalt der Kirche Luthers: Der casus confessionis im Kampf des Matthias Flacius gegen das Interim von 1548. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1940. Heen, Erik. “A Lutheran Response to the New Perspective on Paul.” Lutheran Quarterly 24 (2010): 263 – ​91. Hendrix, Scott. Luther and the Papacy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

450

Bibliography

Hirsch, Emanuel. Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919. Holl, Karl. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewißheit.” In: Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte. Vol. 1: Luther. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1932. Pp. 111– ​54. Ilić, Luka. “Praeceptor Humanissimus et duo Illyri: Garbitius et Flacius.” In: Irene Dingel and Armin Kohnle, eds. Philipp Melanchthon – ein europäischer Reformator. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011. Pp. 65 – ​79. Kammerling, Joy. “Andreas Osiander, the Jews, and Judaism.” In: Dean Phillip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett, eds. Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany. Brill: Leiden, 2006. Pp. 219 – ​47. Kaufmann, Thomas. Universität und lutherische Konfessionalisierung. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997. –. Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548 –​1551/2). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. Konfession und Kultur: Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Koch, Ernst. “‘Das Geheimnis unserer Erlösung’: Die Christologie des Andreas Musculus als Beitrag zur Formulierung verbindlicher christlicher Lehre im späten 16. Jahrhundert.” In: Heiko Franke, et al., eds. Veritas et Communicatio. Ökumenische Theologie auf der Suche nach einem verbindlichen Zeugnis. FS zum 60. Geburtstag von Ulrich Kühn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Pp. 143 –​56. Koehler, Walter. Zwingli und Luther: Ihre Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen. 2 vols. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924, 1953. Koehn, Horst. “Philip Melanchthons Reden: Verzeichnis der im 16. Jahrhundert erschienenen Drucke.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 25 (1984): 1277 –​1495. Kohnle, Armin. “Die Folgen des Interims am Beispiel Württembergs.” In: Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg, eds. Politik und Bekenntnis. Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Pp. 83 – ​96. Kolb, Robert. Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity. St. Louis: Concordia, 1977. –. Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 1530 –​1580. St. Louis: Concordia, 1991. –. “Philipp’s Foes, but Followers Nonetheless: Late Humanism among the Gnesio-Lutherans.” In: Manfred P. Fleischer, ed., The Harvest of Humanism in Central Europe: Essays in Honor of Lewis W. Spitz. St. Louis: Concordia, 1992. Pp. 159 – ​77. –. “The Fathers in the Service of Lutheran Teaching: Andreas Musculus’ Use of Patristic Sources.” In: Leif Grane, et al., eds. Auctoritas patrum II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Mainz: Zabern, 1998. Pp. 105 – ​23. –. Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520 –1​ 620. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. –. Luther’s Heirs Define His Legacy: Studies on Lutheran Confessionalization. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996. –. “The Braunschweig Resolution: The Corpus Doctrinae Prutenicum of Joachim Mörlin and Martin Chemnitz as an Interpretation of Wittenberg Theology.” In: John M. Headly, et al., eds. Confessionalization in Europe, 1555 –1​ 700, Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004. Pp. 67 – ​89.

Bibliography

451

–. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross Fifteen Years after Heidelberg: Lectures on the Psalms of Ascent.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010): 69 – ​85. Loewenich, Walther von. Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Translated by Herbert J. A. Bouman. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. Lohrmann, Martin. “Johannes Bugenhagen’s Commentary on Jonah (1550): Biblical Interpretation as Public Theology in the Reformation.” Unpublished dissertation: The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, 2010. Mahlmann, Theodor. Das neue Dogma der lutherischen Christologie: Problem und Geschichte seiner Begründung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969. Moeller, Bernd. Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays. Edited and translated by H. C. Erik Midelfort and Mark U. Edwards. 2nd edition. Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1982. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ As the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Translated by R. A. Wilson & John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974. Moritz, Anja. Die religiösen Vereinheitlichungsversuche Karls V. im Spiegel der magdeburgischen Publizistik 1548 –​1551/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Mühlen, Karl-Heinz zur. Nos extra nos: Luthers Theologie zwischen Mystik und Scholastik. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1972. Nischan, Bodo. Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Oberman, Heiko A. The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation. Translated by James I. Porter. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Pereira, Michela. The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull. London: Warburg, 1989. Preus, James S. From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1969. Rein, Nathan. The Chancery of God: Protestant Print, Polemic and Propaganda against the Empire, Magdeburg 1546 –​1551. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Richter, Matthias. Gesetz und Heil: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte und zum Verlauf des sogenannten Zweiten Antinomistischen Streits. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Rittgers, Ronald K. The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience and Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Saarinen, Risto. “Wohltaten, Medizin, Theologie: Melanchthon im ‘oikumenischen’ Gespräch mit Seneca und Galen.” In: Günter Frank and Stephan Meier-Oeser, eds. Konfrontation und Dialog: Philipp Melanchthons Beitrag zu einer ökumenischen Hermeneutik. Leipzig: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Pp. 203 –​17. Schäfer, Rolf. “Melanchthons Hermeneutik im Römerbriefkommentar von 1532.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 60 (1963): 216 – ​35. –. “Melanchthon’s Interpretation of Romans 5:15: His Departure from the Augustinian Concept of Grace Compared to Luther’s.” In: Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, eds. Philip Melanchthon (1497 –​1560) and the Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Pp. 79 –​104. Scheible, Heinz. “Luther and Melanchthon.” Lutheran Quarterly, 4 (1990): 317 – ​339. –. “Melanchthon und Luther während des Augsburger Reichstags 1530.” In: Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon und die Reformation: Forschungsbeiträge. Edited by Gerhard May & Rolf Decot. Mainz: von Zabern, 1996. Pp. 198 – ​221.

452

Bibliography

–. Melanchthon: Eine Biographie .Munich: Beck, 1997. –. “Melanchthons ökumenischer Einsatz in Frankreich.” In: Günter Frank and Kees Meerhoff, eds. Melanchthon und Europa. Vol. 2: Westeuropa. Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2002. Pp. 195 – ​210. –. “Aristoteles und die Wittenberger Universitätsreform.” In: Heinz Scheible. Aufsätze zu Melanchthon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Pp. 125 –​151. –. “Melanchthon und Osiander über die Rechtfertigung: Zwei Versuche, die Wahrheit zu formulieren.” In: Heinz Scheible. Aufsätze zu Melanchthon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Pp. 202 – ​217. Schilling, Heinz. Konfessionskonflikt und Staatsbildung: Eine Fallstudie über das Verhältnis von religiösem und sozialem Wandel in der Frühneuzeit am Beispiel der Grafschaft Lippe. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. –. “Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich, Religiöser und gesellschaflicher Wandel in Deutschland zwischen 1555 und 1620.” Historische Zeitschrift 246 (1988): 1– ​45. Schofield, John. Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Seebaß, Gottfried. Das reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander. Nuremberg: Verein für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1967. –. Bibliographia Osiandrica: Bibliographie der gedruckten Schriften Andreas Osianders d. Ä. (1496 –​1552). Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1971. –. “Osiander, Andreas.” In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976 – ​2004. Vol. 25. Pp. 507 –1​ 5. Seeberg, Reinhold. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Vol. 4, pt. 2: Die Fortbildung der Reformatorischen Lehre und die Gegenreformatorische Lehre. Reprint: Basel/Stuttgart: Benno Schwabe, 1960. Seiler, Georg Friedrich. Biblische Hermeneutik oder Grundsätze und Regeln zur Erklärung der heiligen Schrift. Erlangen: Bibelanstalt, 1800. Slenczka, Bjorn. Das Wormser Schisma der Augsburger Konfessionsverwandten von 1557: Protestantische Konfessionspolitik und Theologie im Zusammenhang des zweiten Wormser Religionsgesprächs. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Spiess, Werner. Von Vechelde: Die Geschichte einer Braunschweiger Patrizierfamilie 1332 –​ 1864. Braunschweig: Waisenhaus-Buchdruckerei, 1951. Stupperich, Martin. Osiander in Preussen: 1549 –1​ 552. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Trueman, Carl. “Is the Finnish Line a New Beginning? A Critical Assessment of Reading of Luther Offered by the Helsinki Circle.” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 231– ​44. Vainio, Olli-Pekka. Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580). Leiden: Brill, 2008. Vogelsang, Erich. “Luthers Torgauer Predigt von Jesu Christo vom Jahre 1532.” LutherJahrbuch 13 (1931): 114 –​130. Wengert, Timothy J. Philip Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to Its Predecessors and Contemporaries. Geneva: Droz, 1987. –. “Caspar Cruciger (1504 –1​ 548): The Case of the Disappearing Reformer.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 20 (1989): 417 – ​441. –. “Caspar Cruciger Sr.’s 1546 ‘Enarratio’ on John’s Gospel: An Experiment in Ecclesiological Exegesis.” Church History 61 (1992): 60 – ​74.

Bibliography

453

–. “Georg Major (1502 –​1574): Defender of Wittenberg’s Faith and Melanchthonian Exegete.” In: Heinz Scheible, ed., Melanchthon in seinen Schülern. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997. Pp. 129 – ​56. –. Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. –. Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. –. “Melanchthon and Luther/Luther and Melanchthon.” Luther-Jahrbuch 66 (1999): 55 – ​88. –. “Philip Melanchthon’s Last Word to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, Papal Legate at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg.” In: Johanna Loehr, ed. Dona Melanchthoniana: Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2001. Pp. 457 – ​83. –. “ ‘Peace, Peace … Cross, Cross’: Reflections on How Martin Luther Relates the Theology of the Cross to Suffering.” Theology Today 59 (2002): 190 – ​205. –. “Philipp Melanchthon, biblischer Theologe der Neuzeit.” In: Günter Frank & Ulrich Köpf, eds. Melanchthon und die Neuzeit. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2003. Pp. 23 – ​42. –. “Philip Melanchthon on Time and History in the Reformation.” Consensus 30/2 (2005): 9 – ​33. –. “Famous Last Words: The Final Epistolary Exchange between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Philip Melanchthon in 1536.” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 25 (2005): 18 – ​38. –. “Philip Melanchthon and the Jews: A Reappraisal.” In: Dean Phillip Bell and Stephen G. Burnett, eds. Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pp. 105 – ​35. –. “ ‘Not by Nature Philoneikos’: Philip Melanchthon’s Initial Reactions to the Augsburg Interim.” In: Politik und Bekenntnis: Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548, edited by Irene Dingel and Günther Wartenberg. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. Pp. 33 – ​49. –. “Philip Melanchthon and Augustine of Hippo.” Lutheran Quarterly, 22 (2008): 249 – ​67. –. Philip Melanchthon, Speaker of the Reformation: Wittenberg’s Other Reformer. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010. –. “Commentary As Polemic: Philip Melanchthon’s 1556 Enarratio ad Romanos against Andreas Osiander.” In: Torbjörn Johansson, et al., eds. Hermeneutica Sacra: Studies of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Pp. 147 – ​63. –. “Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin against Andreas Osiander: Coming to Terms with Forensic Justification.” Forthcoming. Wenz, Gunther. Theologie der Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996 –1​ 998. Westhelle, Vittor. “Communication and the Transgression of Language in Martin Luther.” Lutheran Quarterly 17 (2003): 1– ​27. Wiedenhofer, Siegfried. Formalstrukturen humanistischer und reformatorischer Theologie bei Philipp Melanchthon. 2 vols. Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1976. Wolgast, Eike. Die Wittenberger Luther-Ausgabe: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Werke Luthers im 16. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. World Biographical Information System (WBIS Online). Accessed through the Herzog August Bibliothek. At: http://db.saur.de/ WBIS.

Index of Bible Verses Genesis

224–225, 230, 276, 310, 413, 419

1 1:26 2 3 3:15 3:16 15:6 22 49:10 50

31, 146, 262, 344 137 144 312 14, 87, 99, 135, 310, 350 294 109, 311 295, 312 13 340

Exodus 3 6

121, 296, 312 121

Psalms

56, 79, 80, 181, 257, 307

10:2 12 23 32 32:1 50 51

98 146 346, 428 109, 130, 274, 298, 307, 309 203 293 79, 146, 176, 200, 233, 264, 267, 281, 283, 298, 350 283 412 146 44 12 151, 425, 426 279, 374 79 19 186, 311, 430 8 300

51:12 52 67 68 68:6 71 89 90 116:11 119 119:46 129:4

130 133 139 142:2 143

298 141 187 300 108

Proverbs 10

112

Isaiah

79, 150, 200, 235, 284

26:2–3 53 60

13 44, 91, 96, 231, 270, 271 274

Jeremiah

82, 94, 124, 128, 129, 150, 231, 235, 284, 293, 318, 346

23

44, 49, 60, 87, 93, 94, 116, 121, 128, 129, 130, 134, 148, 150, 172, 276, 307, 346, 403 326 110, 131, 149, 208, 251, 378 251

23:5–6 23:6 33:16 Daniel

57, 81, 94, 152, 231, 233, 235, 346

9 9:24

172 346

Sirach 15

138

Matthew 5 5:20 6 6:24 7

136, 138, 396 128 138 120 37

456 7:16 9 11 11:13 12 16:13 17 17:20 21:1–9

Index of Bible Verses

120 233, 271, 276 31 203 182 268 406 122 108

Acts 5:21 10 15 15:7–11 20 20:30–31

152 14, 281 35 106 375 113

Romans

4, 7, 9, 22, 31, 38, 56, 66, 68, 74, 77, 81, 102, 130, 132, 144–146, 156, 175, 176, 192, 210, 211, 214, 219, 232, 234, 236, 277, 300, 305, 310, 317, 326–328, 331–336, 339, 343–345, 349, 350, 360, 389, 400, 401, 403, 404, 408–410, 419, 423, 428

1

203, 210, 214, 215, 218, 219, 335 179 160 203 203, 336 108 145 98 14, 106, 202–204, 206, 210, 214, 215, 218, 219, 231, 232, 281, 337, 344, 348, 423 157, 178 68, 126, 160, 187, 200, 343, 344 19 233 73, 108, 144, 336, 338, 344, 423 145 108, 337 82 106 305, 343 301 75 14, 96, 134, 199, 200, 203, 219, 350 189 199, 275, 281, 282, 304

Luke 10:28 17:21 18

128 203, 272, 286 128, 233

John

95, 98, 107, 151, 242, 245, 256, 287, 290, 297, 347, 348

1–4 1 1:11 1:14

44 44, 58, 81, 87, 107, 304, 367 367 60, 88, 93, 94, 98, 144, 149, 295 98, 123, 350 262 252, 280, 346 259 14, 106 198 107, 246 306 187 312, 318 250 128 245 12, 245 283 256 55, 63, 122, 126, 128, 180, 264, 267, 268, 274, 281, 289, 298, 384, 392 74, 108, 122, 123 261 250 264 245

3 3:13 3:16 3:20 5 5:25 6 6:63 10 14 14–15 14:10 14:20 14:23 15 15:7 16 16:8–11 16:10 17 17:21 17:22–23

1–5 1–4 1:16 1:16–17 1:17 1:18–3:20 1:21 3 3–5 3–4 3:4 3:20 3:21 3:21 ff. 3:22 3:24 3:24–25 3:25 4:3 4–5 4 4:16 5

457

Index of Bible Verses

5:1 5:2 5:5 5:12 5:15 5:17 5:19 5:21 6 6:13 8 8:3–4a 8:9 8:10 8:17a 8:30 8:32 10 10:3 10:17 12:1

9, 14, 31, 58, 66, 81, 132, 311, 329, 343 14 339, 341 228, 234 76, 77, 192, 282, 325 272 204, 328 272 406 128 134, 136, 215, 396, 406 127 318 195, 245, 305, 318 214 58 214 136, 138, 396 108 264 337

1 1:18–25 2:1–5 6:11 13:7 15 15:3 15:56

44, 96, 99, 112 92, 94, 111 256 208 205 281 83 172

Galatians

1, 30, 125, 145, 152, 244, 247, 249, 250, 254, 264, 270, 274, 282, 302, 312 264 282 165 206 248 248 138 264, 282 269 283 337

249 199

Ephesians 1 1:6 1:17–23 2 4:14 5

281 231 255 44 238 125

Philippians 2 2:5–11 2:7

60 94 121

Colossians

310, 331

2:14 3:16–23

126 38

1 Thessalonians 5:21

1 Corinthians

1–3 1:4 1:8–9 2 2:16 2:18 3 3:6 3:12 3:13 3:19

3:27 5

140

2 Thessalonians 1:6 2:4

137 120

Titus 1:7 3 3:4–7

329 164, 206 107

1 Timothy

303, 359

6

720

2 Timothy

303, 359

2:13 3 4:3

188 164 113

Hebrews 9:17 10:10 11:1 12:24

84 306 59, 100 158

458

Index of Bible Verses

1 Peter 3:18 4:1

282 84 110

2 Peter

215, 257, 262, 302

1:4

140, 166, 203, 214, 251

3:2 3:2–3 3:14 4 4:2 5:4–12

1 John

150, 215, 253

2 John

1 1:7 1:9 2:29 3:1–2

148, 200, 277 306 38 204 166, 214

1 7

136 78 78 293 203 265

263 120, 144

Revelation 1

200

Index of Names* Aepinus, Johannes  12, 21, 28, 65, 66, 72, 75, 80, 93, 97, 168, 218, 356, 357, 364, 367, 370, 378, 389, 400, 401 Agricola, Johannes  11, 18, 44, 52, 84, 337, 372, 381, 382, 399 Agricola, Rudolf  347 Alber, Erasmus  51, 52, 63, 65, 66, 88, 89, 363, 364, 366, 378 Alber, Matthias  213 Albrecht, Duke of Prussia  24, 32, 33, 35–37, 39, 41, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 62, 100, 104, 105, 114, 119, 141, 143, 146, 151–158, 163, 166–169, 171, 176, 186, 190, 192, 194, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 205, 206, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 220, 230, 239, 243, 244, 301, 315, 318, 324, 353, 356, 358, 360–364, 366, 367, 369, 370, 373, 375, 378, 380–385, 390–392, 394, 395, 397, 400, 402–406, 409, 410, 412–415, 417, 422, 423, 425, 426, 430 Alesius, Alexander  37, 55–59, 63–65, 81, 87, 92, 101, 110, 227, 326, 328, 339, 358, 360, 389, 390, 401, 407–410, 419 Ambrose  44, 87, 93, 148, 149, 161, 163, 297, 334, 368 Ambrosiaster (pseudo-Ambrose)  334 Amsdorf, Nicholas von  7, 11, 12, 35, 41, 49, 62–66, 74, 92, 96, 114, 177, 253, 262, 263, 266, 271, 292, 352, 358, 363, 369, 376, 378, 388, 394, 395 Andreae, Jakob  21, 30, 193, 199, 208, 213 Anselm of Canterbury  84–87, 122, 139, 186, 189, 239, 266, 320, 348 Aquila, Caspar  54, 371, 372 Aristides  137, 341 Artopoeus, Petrus  226, 227, 303, 379

Athanasius  93, 105, 107, 110, 111, 163 Augustine, bishop of Hippo  20, 38, 44, 49, 57, 68, 69, 80, 98, 105, 107, 109, 118, 129, 130, 149, 189, 192, 195, 206, 208, 244, 281, 284, 285, 289, 300, 318, 319, 327, 329, 332, 334, 337, 340, 384, 394 Aulén, Gustav  84, 107 Aurifaber, Andreas  7, 54, 147, 152, 156, 159, 161, 163, 173, 198, 203, 212, 361, 372, 373, 378, 402, 412, 414 Aurifaber, Johannes (Vinariensis)  20, 291, 292, 369, 406 Aurifaber, Johannes (Vratislaviensis)  81, 366, 367 Bachmann, Claus  11 Barth, Georg  398 Basil of Caesarea  93, 152, 334 Baumgartner, Jerome  221, 224, 227–229, 235, 358, 359, 408, 418–420 Bernard of Clairvaux  44, 49, 54, 206, 300, 334 Besold, Jerome  15, 16, 38, 221, 224–226, 229, 230, 244, 245, 322, 358, 374, 376, 377, 405, 413, 419 Beyer, Hartmann  24, 28, 357 Birnstil, Johannes  292, 369 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich  76 Braaten, Carl  2 Brenz, Johannes  4, 6, 7, 23, 26, 46, 61, 62, 68, 69, 78, 93, 100, 101, 107, 121, 129, 142, 151–153, 156, 157, 160, 161, 165– 169, 174, 179, 184, 191–194, 197–214, 220–224, 226–229, 232, 235–241, 269, 270, 274, 278, 293, 303, 307, 317, 332, 338, 352–354, 358, 366, 373, 379, 385,

*  This index does not include references to Andreas Osiander, since his name appears on almost every page.

460

Index of Names

390, 398, 400, 402–407, 409, 414, 417, 419–422, 427–429 Brettschneider, Johannes  29, 53, 63, 65, 297 Briskina, Anna  2, 7, 11, 70, 71, 102, 194, 297, 310, 317–319, 322, 326, 328, 330–332, 336, 338, 339, 343, 345, 349, 360, 364, 408 Bucer, Martin  26, 146, 293, 347 Buchholzer, Georg  85, 230, 294–297, 312, 367, 368, 399, 408, 409 Bugenhagen, Johannes  26, 33–36, 41, 65, 85, 103, 114, 197, 223, 293, 297, 299, 302, 309, 323, 324, 329, 368, 369, 372, 373, 376, 385, 386, 389, 408, 426 Bülau, Stephan  58–61, 64–66, 82, 83, 94, 99, 100, 386, 387 Burchard, Franz  13 Burnett, Amy  26 Buscoducensis, Heinrich  423 Calvin, John  5, 125, 183, 185, 318, 335, 341, 408, 428 Camerarius, Joachim  210, 221, 226, 227, 301, 358, 359, 407, 413, 415, 419 Campeggio, Lorenzo  115, 246 Canisius, Petrus  332 Carlowitz, Christoph von  308, 309 Cellarius, Andreas  213 Chemnitz, Martin  11, 15, 29, 30, 89, 109, 110, 176, 186, 189, 430 Christoph, Duke of Württemberg  197, 198, 201, 209, 224, 228, 405 Cicero  195, 298, 307, 320, 321, 329, 340, 345, 347 Cochlaeus, Johannes  403 Contarini, Gasparo  246 Corvinus, Anton  156 Cranmer, Thomas  326, 328, 401, 407, 410 Cruciger, Caspar, Sr.  39, 95, 151, 245, 246, 297, 347, 348, 359, 376, 389 Culmann, Leonard  159, 221–227, 229, 235, 317, 412, 413, 415, 419 Cyril of Alexandria  93, 107, 110 Cyprian  44 Daubmann, Hans  22, 29, 174, 178, 213, 269, 357, 359, 365, 404, 411, 424, 426, 427 Diestelmann, Jürgen  16, 186, 360

Dietrich, Veit  45, 114, 221, 413 Dingel, Irene  5, 12, 22, 27, 30, 36, 71, 113, 114, 176, 197, 243, 308, 352, 366, 377, 379, 430 Eber, Paul  35, 65, 235, 298, 322, 323, 326, 368, 385, 386, 420 Eichorn, Johannes, printer (See also Sciurus)  46, 47, 58, 163, 171, 294, 311, 381, 383, 386, 399, 409, 410 Elizabeth, Duchess of BraunschweigCalenberg  237 Engelman, Jakob  213 Epiphanius of Salamis  111, 320 Epplin, Otmar  24, 164, 165, 421, 424, 445 Erasmus of Rotterdam, Desiderius  2, 258, 266, 299, 335–337, 341, 343, 346, 347 Estes, James  164, 232 Fabricius, Johannes  413, 415 Fabricius, Theodor  381 Fefellius, Johannes  292, 369 Flacius, Matthias  4, 6–8, 12, 13, 36, 49–51, 62–67, 87, 101–103, 113–133, 135–146, 148, 152, 153, 157–173, 175– 177, 180, 186, 189–191, 193, 194, 201, 208, 212–220, 223, 247, 250, 254, 262, 263, 266–269, 277–279, 288, 305, 308, 317, 332, 352, 353, 358, 363, 365, 368, 372–378, 387, 388, 391–402, 404–407, 409–415, 417–419, 422,-427 Fligge, Jörg Rainer  1, 11, 28, 70, 119, 133, 147, 153, 171, 173, 174, 186, 193, 194, 221, 224, 228, 326, 338, 355, 357, 360, 363, 365–367, 370–386, 388–402, 407, 409–412, 414–418, 420–422, 424–429 Forde, Gerhard  84, 94, 351 Forster, Johannes  33–35, 41, 65, 197, 297, 302, 309, 323, 324, 368, 369, 377, 385, 386 Fraenkel, Peter  31, 80, 343 Frank, Günter  176, 299, 339, 340, 348, 430 Frecht, Martin  213 Frederick III, elector of the Palatinate  428 Fulgentius  44, 93, 296 Funck, Johannes  24, 54, 76, 137, 142, 147, 147, 150, 151, 153, 158–160, 163–165,

Index of Names

168–173, 212, 220, 237, 329, 344, 372, 373, 378, 402, 407, 410–412, 416, 417, 422–424 Gallus, Nicholas  8, 13, 49–51, 63–66, 101, 102, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 127, 128, 132–136, 141, 142, 153, 162, 165–168, 174, 185, 186, 189, 213–219, 226, 239, 241, 250, 266, 358, 365, 375–376, 378, 393, 394, 396–400, 404–407, 412, 417–419, 421, 425, 428, 429 Gennadius of Marseilles  38 Georg, Prince von Anhalt  37, 38, 65, 66, 86, 87, 91, 278, 355, 368, 374, 390, 391, 402, 407, 408 Gigas, Johannes  347 Glauberg, Adolf von  357 Graius, Johannes  292, 369 Gregory of Nazianzus  93, 149, 161 Greschat, Martin  68, 192, 299, 307, 316 Greter, Caspar  213 Gropper, Johannes  332 Hantzsch, Georg  254, 278, 362, 401, 410 Heen, Erik  2 Hegemon, Peter  11, 15–17, 34, 104, 152, 156, 205–207, 247, 384, 411 Heller, Joachim  22, 359, 365 Helling, Moritz  227 Heracleon  242 Herrbrand, Jakob  213 Heshus, Tileman  29, 328, 408 Hetzer, Lucas  21, 319, 359, 360 Heyden, Sebald  114, 221, 224, 226, 238–241, 420, 421 Hilary  44, 93, 110, 149, 152, 189 Hirsch, Emanuel  3, 4, 11, 107, 193 Holl, Karl  3, 20, 193, 378 Horace  341, 342 Hosius, Stanislaus  332 Hubmaier, Balthasar  200 Iamblichus  138 Ilic, Luka  36, 114, 120, 377, 396 Irenaeus  105, 107, 111 Isemann, Johann  213 Isinder, Michael  15

461

Jagenteuffel, Nikolaus  159, 412 Jenson, Robert  2 Jerome  2, 13 Joachim II, Elector of Brandenburg  43, 367, 381, 382, 399, 407, 416 Johann Albrecht, Duke of Mecklenburg  114, 133, 140, 142, 157, 164–170, 368, 396, 422–424 Johansen, Margrave of BrandenburgKüstrin  46, 47, 49, 383, 437 John Chrysostom  44, 93, 100, 281 John Damascene  44 John the Steadfast, Elector of Saxony  8 John Frederick, duke of Saxony (elector until 1547)  146, 153 Jonas, Justus  7, 68, 86, 87, 96, 292, 323, 329, 369, 413 Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von  26 Katharina, margravess of BrandenburgKüstrin  413, 428 Kaufmann, Thomas  4, 8, 12, 26, 113, 236, 242, 243, 315, 353, 354 Kawerau, Gustaf  7, 369, 381, 382, 408 Kilmann, Wenzeslaus  46, 383, 437 Knipstro, Johannes  36, 41, 42, 63–66, 74, 91, 227, 272, 358, 369, 379, 380, 416, 420 Koch, Ernst  311 Koehler, Walter  26 Kohnle, Armin  36, 114, 197, 377 Kolb, Robert  5, 6, 8, 20, 21, 27, 44, 82, 101, 143, 165, 167, 176, 178, 181, 192, 208, 216, 242, 249, 254, 352, 354, 379, 398, 406, 430 Latimer, Hugh  407 Lauterwald, Matthias  11–13, 36, 37, 65, 77, 78, 93, 301, 392, 393, 397 Leo I, pope  44, 93 Lindanus, William  332 Loewenich, Walter von  94 Lohrmann, Martin  34 Lulio, Raimundo  40, 91 Luther, Martin –– Commentary on Galatians (1535)  1, 30, 152, 244, 247, 249, 250, 254, 264, 270, 274, 282, 312

462

Index of Names

–– Commentary on Genesis  224, 225, 230, 294, 310, 312, 413, 419 –– De duplici iustitia  225, 244, 250, 251 –– Hauspostil  312 –– Kirchenpostil  244, 263, 276, 394 –– Last Words of David  110, 312, 426 –– On the Council and the Churches  91, 111, 162, 179, 315, 316 –– On Secular Authority  153 –– Preface to Romans  38, 77, 277, 344 –– Sermo de triplici iustitia  116, 225, 244, 250 –– Sermons on John  250, 256, 264, 267, 298 –– Sermons on 1 Peter  282 –– Smalcald Articles  1, 20, 253, 291, 293, 294, 406 Lufft, Hans  16, 34, 55, 63, 109, 122, 156, 170, 236, 245–247, 251, 257, 293, 330, 331, 360, 361, 384, 385, 389, 392, 402, 407, 409 Mahlmann, Theodor  89 Major, Georg  12, 18, 184, 223, 261, 334, 408 Malvenda, Pedro de  237, 334 Mannermaa, Tuomo  2 Maxentius  44, 296 Meglander, Johannes Othmar  213 Meienburg, Michael  13 Melanchthon, Philip –– Antwort auf das Buch … Osiandri  38, 245, 277, 298, 367, 374, 415, 425 –– Commentarii ad Romanos (1532)  81, 332 –– Epistolae Pauli Scriptae ad Romanos, Enarratio (1556)  331, 423, 427 –– Loci communes (1521)  59, 80, 85, 86, 102, 149–151, 170, 176, 178, 218, 245, 306, 310, 331, 344, 403, 423 –– Loci communes theologici (1543)  16, 29, 69, 86, 102, 176, 333, 335, 336, 403 –– Oratio de definitione iusticiae  21, 22, 119, 319, 359 Menius, Justus  7, 17, 39, 40, 47, 49, 63, 64, 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 91, 95–97, 99, 146, 152, 153, 254, 264, 282, 292, 293, 358, 361, 369, 375, 378, 382, 394, 395, 427

Moeller, Bernd  6 Möller, Wilhelm  259, 322 Moibanus, Ambrose  297, 325, 368, 370 Moller, Heinrich  53, 370–372, 401 Moller, Laurentius  319, 360 Moritz, Anja  354 Mörlin, Joachim  6–9, 11, 16–21, 23, 29, 31, 32, 34–36, 40, 46–48, 51, 54, 55, 58, 63–66, 83, 88, 95, 101–104, 106–112, 114, 117, 133, 141, 143, 146–157, 160–163, 166, 171, 173–190, 196, 200, 201, 203–210, 212–214, 217, 242–245, 247, 249, 251, 258, 259, 273, 274, 285, 287, 288, 303, 315–317, 352, 353, 357, 358, 360–362, 364, 369, 373, 375, 376, 378, 384–387, 394, 398, 400, 402, 405, 408, 409, 411, 412, 415, 417, 419, 421, 424–427, 429, 430 Mörlin, Maximillian  292, 369 Münster, Sebastian  13, 258, 335 Musaeus, Simon  46, 47, 367, 383, 415 Musculus, Andreas  30, 43–46, 64–67, 90–92, 150, 171, 211, 244, 248, 299, 311–314, 380–383, 387, 409 Neogeorgus, Sebastian  367 Nischan, Bodo  5, 176 Oecolampadius, Johannes  13, 26, 41, 285, 288, 290 Origen of Alexandria  53, 99, 189, 242, 266, 326, 327, 334, 336, 347 Otto, Anton  55, 64, 66, 101, 287–290, 384 Pagninus, Xantes  13 Paul of Samosatenus  347 Pelagius  347 Peronius, Joachim  403 Peter Lombard  87, 93, 339 Pfeffinger, Johannes  12 Philip I, Duke of Pomerania-Stettin  41, 42, 124, 226, 229, 230, 420 Pietsch, Paul  294 Placotomus: See Brettschneider Pole, Reginald  332 Polentz, Georg von  197 Pollicarius, Johannes  38, 39, 63, 66, 269, 271, 277–287, 297, 358, 372, 374, 387

Index of Names

Praetorius, Abdias  382, 399, 428 Prosper of Aquitaine  334 Rein, Nathan  167 Rhegius, Urbanus  93, 156, 223, 269, 270, 274, 293, 303, 307 Richter, Matthias  101, 384 Ritschl, Albrecht  342 Rittgers, Ronald K.  45, 54, 69 Roting, Michael  22, 29–32, 40, 49, 53, 62, 63, 65, 66, 81, 88, 221, 252–254, 270, 271, 297, 319, 357–359, 362, 364–366, 369, 370, 372, 376, 377, 385, 419 Runge, Jakob  226, 227, 229, 230, 232–234, 345, 379, 380, 418–420 Saarinen, Risto  340 Sabinus, Georg  11, 52, 364 Sadoleto, Jacobo  56, 246, 300, 334 Sarcerius, Erasmus  278, 429, 430 Schäfer, Rolf  77, 192, 282, 299 Scheible, Heinz  12, 61, 115, 193, 299, 324, 330, 347 Schermer, Georg  75–78, 97, 413, 414, 420 Schilling, Heinz  5 Schnepff, Erhard  228 Schofield, John  299 Schwenckfeld, Caspar von  159, 211, 232, 277, 329, 415, 423, 426 Sciurus, Johannes  54, 159, 411, 412 Seeberg, Reinhold  85 Seiler, Georg Friedrich  242 Seneca  138, 321, 340 Servetus, Michael  329, 332, 347 Simonides  137, 329 Slenczka, Bjorn  192 Socrates  45, 137, 138, 320 Sozomen  182 Speratus, Paul  54, 373, 393 Stancaro, Francesco  43, 44, 49, 66, 86, 87, 90, 156, 188, 211, 312, 313, 381, 409, 410, 416 Staphylus, Friedrich  11, 15, 63, 185, 195, 196, 243–245, 258, 298, 301, 319, 332, 360, 368, 380, 411, 412, 423 Stoltz, Johannes  20, 153, 291, 292, 369, 406, 433 Stösser, Fabian  301

463

Stupperich, Martin  3, 4, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 33, 49, 70, 119, 194, 208–210, 212, 213, 258, 297, 310, 328, 360, 361, 363, 366, 372, 373, 378, 380, 387–390, 393, 395, 402, 408, 411, 426 Tarán, Leonardo  45 Tauler, Johannes  79, 182, 334 Tertullian  152 Theognis  341 Trueman, Carl  2 Vannius, Valentin  213 Vainio, Olli-Pekka  11, 20, 23, 298, 316 Vechelde, Hermann X von  230 Venediger, Georg von  11, 16, 17, 34, 104, 152, 156, 205, 206, 247, 324, 384, 411 Vetter, Johannes  221, 224, 229, 235, 317, 418, 419 Vigilius  93 Virués, Alfonso de  403 Vogel, Matthias  7, 24, 153, 165, 169, 173–184, 187–189, 254, 421, 422, 424–427, 429 Vogelsang, Erich  254 Waldner, Wolf  51, 55, 62–66, 101, 174, 175, 178, 221, 259, 269–277, 358, 363, 365, 372, 373, 376, 377, 385, 394, 419, 425 Wartenberg, Günther  5, 27, 197, 308 Weller, Jerome  227 Wengert, Timothy J.  12, 18, 49, 68, 77, 80, 84, 94, 95, 114, 115, 125, 192, 204, 245, 282, 299, 308, 336–338, 341, 343, 346, 347, 430 Westphal, Joachim  243, 365 Wiedenhofer, Siegfried  80 Wigand, Johannes  28, 357, 412 Wolgast, Eike  243 Zeeden, Ernst Walter  5 Ziegler, Bernhard  12, 13, 15, 51, 55, 57, 119, 252, 254–256, 297, 355, 356, 362–365, 368, 377, 389 Zwingli, Ulrich  11, 13, 26, 30, 31, 66, 88, 112, 185, 246, 259, 272, 277, 285, 306, 347, 368

Subject Index Absolution  45, 56, 69, 70, 72, 74, 80, 97, 126, 131, 132, 145, 202, 204, 210, 340, 357 Adam and Eve: See Original Sin Adiaphora/Adiaphorists  4, 12, 15, 26–28, 34, 52, 65, 72, 100, 101, 103, 114, 115, 117, 119, 124, 133, 136, 141, 163–165, 170, 185, 216, 243, 291, 294, 297, 354, 357, 366, 396, 398, 412, 423 Anabaptists  30, 66, 115, 136, 144, 185, 200, 246, 327–329, 332, 335, 336, 354 Anfechtung  46, 49, 59, 78–80, 82, 118, 133, 177, 180, 201, 213, 246, 279, 280 Antinomians  101, 115, 136, 185, 294, 298, 336, 384 Apology of the Augsburg Confession  192, 337 Apostles’ Creed  19, 31, 38, 47, 48, 56, 154, 238, 254, 256, 302, 328, 417 Aristotle/Aristotelian  23, 45, 46, 56, 75, 114, 115, 118, 120, 128, 131, 134, 137, 138, 143, 150, 168, 218, 305, 321, 343–345, 347 Arius/Arianism  52, 88, 89, 106, 149, 161–163, 239, 241, 315, 316 Atonement  19, 31, 51, 66, 83, 84, 86, 87, 107, 111, 116, 122, 123, 126, 139, 173, 189, 202, 225, 255 Augsburg Confession  8, 18–20, 29, 32, 34, 47, 54, 58, 60, 66–68, 71, 82, 85, 103, 112, 133, 136, 141, 154, 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 167, 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 181, 184–186, 192, 214, 218, 253, 257, 292, 293, 302, 303, 328, 329, 337, 353, 361, 379, 382, 406, 413, 417, 423, 428 Augsburg Interim  11, 12, 15, 20, 52, 72, 136, 141, 170, 188, 198, 218, 244, 308, 364, 372, 382, 398, 399

Authority  6, 9, 18–21, 29, 30, 32, 36, 39, 42, 45, 47, 53, 54, 66, 67, 69, 81, 90, 103, 106, 108, 129, 142, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 162, 164, 165, 176, 207, 219, 232, 236, 240–243, 256, 258, 282, 287, 290, 297, 298, 316, 328, 330, 353, 361, 363, 364, 368, 401 –– Luther  6, 9, 20, 30, 32, 36, 66, 106, 108, 129, 150, 165, 242, 243, 256, 258, 282, 287, 290, 297, 298, 316, 353, 361, 363, 368, 401 –– Political  6, 39, 241 –– Scripture  6, 19, 81, 106, 142, 147, 162, 219, 256, 328 –– Tradition  20, 21, 29, 32, 47, 90, 240, 330 Book of Concord  20, 22, 30, 66, 143, 191, 293, 352, 410, 430 Braunschweig  18, 147, 162, 176, 181, 213, 230, 237, 417, 428, 429 Causation  120, 138, 168, 218 Christ, Christology  (almost every page) –– Abstract and Concrete views of  90–92, 96, 296, 399 –– Communicatio idiomatum  21, 48, 51, 88–91, 93, 104, 109, 110, 117, 382 –– Death and Resurrection  35, 42, 51, 59, 61, 66, 68, 71–73, 78, 84–89, 94, 95, 98, 99, 104, 106, 110, 112, 116, 120, 121, 123–125, 127, 129–131, 133, 134, 136, 139, 144, 147, 150, 151, 156, 158–161, 167, 172–174, 176, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 196, 199–201, 206, 210, 211, 218, 225, 226, 234, 238, 239, 244, 258, 260, 261, 265–267, 270, 272, 275–278, 288–290, 295, 304, 306, 319, 321, 322, 344, 396, 414 –– Finite/Infinite  104, 111, 112

Subject Index

–– Image of God  31, 126, 137, 172, 294 –– Indwelling of Divine Nature: See Justification –– Natures  3, 11, 21, 35, 38, 41–43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 55–57, 60, 67, 71, 73, 74, 78, 82–84, 87–94, 99, 103, 107–112, 116– 118, 121–124, 128–130, 133, 134, 140, 143, 144, 148–150, 54, 164, 166, 172, 180, 184, 185, 188, 195, 196, 198, 199, 202, 204, 206–208, 211, 218, 222, 223, 225, 231, 246, 248, 261–263, 268–270, 274, 277–279, 282, 288–290, 292–296, 304–306, 312, 314, 326, 328, 337–339, 345, 376, 430 Church, Definition of the true  326, 333, 347, 403 Comfort for Terrified Consciences  9, 14, 59, 70, 77, 86, 92, 100, 106, 126, 233, 335, 343, 351, 354 Confessions of Faith  19, 47, 65, 68, 71, 82, 83, 110, 167, 173, 178, 187, 196, 197, 213, 234, 275, 276, 398, 400, 430 –– Authority of: See Authority Confessionalization  1, 2, 4–9, 20, 23, 27, 152, 156, 176, 328, 351, 352, 379 Contrition (Contritio)  14, 80, 84, 155, 334 Creed: See Apostles’ Creed Divinization  2, 124, 143, 234 Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constan­ tinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon  43, 90, 91, 107, 292, 296 Epicureans  114, 321, 322 Eutyches/Eutycheanism  21, 51, 110, 117, 239–241, 288, 295, 297, 313, 314, 376 Existentialism  3, 342, 348 Experience  14, 34, 39, 49, 77, 79–82, 99, 105, 132, 142, 217, 223, 248, 254, 276, 325, 333–335, 338, 341, 343, 349, 350, 379 Faith  1–3, 8–10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41–45, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 59–63, 65–73, 76, 79, 81–83, 85, 94, 97, 99, 100, 104–107, 109, 110, 115, 117–119, 124, 125, 129, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 143–147, 152, 153, 155,

465

156, 161–163, 166–169, 171–173, 177–179, 181, 183, 186–189, 196–206, 210, 212–216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 225, 228–230, 232–234, 238, 240, 241, 244, 245, 247–249, 251, 252, 255–259, 263–265, 267, 269–273, 275–277, 279–286, 288–292, 299–301, 304, 306, 307, 310, 311, 314–317, 320–322, 326, 327, 331–335, 337, 339, 342–344, 346, 349–354, 364, 366, 376–380, 388, 391, 395, 398, 400, 401, 406, 423, 429, 430 Fall into sin: See Original Sin Finnish School of Luther Research  2, 3, 20, 324, 378 Gospel  8, 9, 11, 13–16, 18, 27, 28, 31, 40, 43, 51, 52, 57, 59, 70, 72, 75, 79–84, 95, 97–100, 105, 108, 112, 116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 132, 135, 142, 145, 163, 169, 179, 180 182, 184, 194, 203, 212, 220, 228, 230, 232–234, 239, 241, 242, 245, 260, 267, 271, 273, 277, 281, 290, 306, 310, 313, 316, 320, 321, 326–328, 331, 333–335, 337, 339, 341–343, 347–351, 353, 354, 356, 374, 378, 398, 412 Gnesio-Lutheran  4, 8, 22, 27, 101, 114, 141, 142, 150, 167, 189, 216, 263, 264, 291, 316, 353, 365, 376, 379, 398, 399, 406, 416, 430 Grace  77, 234, 281–283, 306 –– and Gift (gratia and donum)  45, 57, 65, 228 Gratis  14, 86, 179, 234, 299 Hermeneutics: See Scripture Hebrew Language  13, 62, 93, 98, 121, 145, 159, 254, 257, 287, 323, 335, 338, 340, 356, 368, 377, 397, 411 Interimists: See Augsburg Interim Jews/Jewish Interpretation  45, 54, 58, 60, 62, 88, 90, 94, 98, 106, 111, 139, 155, 159, 217, 263, 338, 345 Justification (See also Righteousness)  1–4, 7, 9–16, 18–24, 26–36, 38, 39, 41–45, 47–50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62–67, 69, 71–85, 87–93, 95–97, 100, 103–107,

466

Subject Index

109, 110, 113, 115, 121, 122, 125–127, 130–136, 139, 142, 143, 145–147, 151, 152, 155–158, 160, 164, 169, 172, 175– 180, 183, 185–193, 195, 196, 198–200, 204, 206, 208, 210–213, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237–241, 243–249, 253, 255–261, 263, 265, 266, 269–272, 274, 276, 277, 279, 281, 288, 290–293, 298–302, 306, 308–311, 316, 318, 319, 322–324, 326– 329, 332–345, 349–352, 354, 356, 357, 359, 360, 362, 364–367, 370, 372, 373, 376–378, 384, 388, 391–399, 401, 403, 404, 407, 408, 410, 414–416, 429, 430 –– Divine Indwelling  3, 10, 11, 31, 38, 42, 43, 54–58, 61, 66, 71–74, 78, 79, 81, 84, 87, 89, 97–100, 103, 107, 109, 110, 118, 128–130, 133, 135, 144, 156, 157, 164, 168, 169, 174–176, 179, 184, 185, 188, 195, 196, 198, 202, 204–206, 208, 210, 211, 214, 218, 222, 223, 225, 228, 230–234, 246, 248, 254, 248, 269, 272, 275, 277, 280, 281, 287, 290, 292, 303–306, 318, 319, 322, 325, 338, 339, 341, 342, 365, 391, 394, 430 –– Forensic  3, 9, 10, 20, 23, 31, 38, 122, 125, 158, 190, 192, 204, 249, 259, 339, 341, 357, 378, 397, 414, 430 –– as Relation  4, 59, 72–76, 131, 134, 185, 265, 319, 339–341, 343, 378 –– and Sanctification  28, 38, 42–44, 72, 74, 78, 112, 176, 178, 182, 195, 196, 308, 397, 426 Königsberg  1, 7, 9–13, 15–18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 53, 58, 59, 61–63, 65, 77, 79, 88, 102, 104, 107, 109, 112, 117, 119, 124, 130, 133, 134, 140, 147, 151, 153, 156, 158, 159, 164, 166, 179, 181, 189, 192, 193, 195, 197, 208, 209, 214, 215, 222, 230, 236, 244, 246, 251, 252, 262, 266, 268, 281, 293, 295, 302, 312, 315, 317–319, 332, 333, 336, 347, 349, 351, 353–355, 357, 361, 366, 369, 370, 372, 373, 380, 381, 383–387, 390, 392, 393, 396–398, 401, 404, 407–409, 411, 412, 414, 415, 418, 419, 421, 424–426, 428, 429

Law  11, 13–16, 18, 27, 28, 35, 51, 57, 58, 69, 72, 75, 78, 79, 83–86, 97–100, 103, 105, 116, 117, 121–123, 125–132, 134– 139, 144, 145, 166–169, 172, 175, 179, 180, 186, 188, 189, 199, 200, 203, 214, 215, 217–219, 228, 230, 233, 239, 248, 266, 281, 288, 292, 299–301, 305, 319, 321, 325, 327, 331, 333, 334, 337–345, 348–351, 354, 356, 396, 421 “Leipzig” Interim (See also: Adiaphora)  12, 13, 26, 39, 115, 166, 185, 253, 274, 294, 399 Lord’s Supper  6, 9, 11, 26, 31, 60, 61, 88, 100, 181, 193, 227, 246, 277, 285, 288, 292, 296, 305, 314, 354, 365 Magdeburg  8, 12, 15, 26, 35, 41, 49, 51, 52, 55, 62, 83, 91, 105, 113, 118, 119, 127, 136, 140, 141, 143, 162, 163, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 182, 208, 213–216, 218, 220, 237, 273, 297, 353, 364, 373, 376, 377, 385, 390, 395, 398, 399, 401, 405, 410, 418, 423, 425, 429 Name of God  124 Nature of Christ: See Christ, Natures Nestorius/Nestorianism  21, 51, 88–93, 103, 104, 110, 117, 288, 294, 295, 297, 311, 313, 314, 376, 409 Nicene Creed  48 Nuremberg  6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 38, 45, 47, 50, 54, 61, 62, 68, 69, 83, 93, 102, 105, 114, 119, 142, 159, 168, 169, 173–175, 192, 193, 201, 208, 215, 220–224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 241, 244, 245, 252, 269, 272, 273, 279, 288, 293, 310, 316, 317, 322, 323, 332, 338, 344, 353, 355, 357–359, 361, 365, 366, 372, 373, 376, 377, 379, 380, 383, 385, 386, 394, 400, 407–409, 411–413, 415, 419–422, 425 Ontology  3, 23, 30, 69, 75, 124, 249, 252, 264, 273, 275, 276, 316, 339, 343 Original Sin  85, 100, 101, 118, 138, 300, 365, 396 Osiandrists  7, 8, 23, 27, 58, 82, 83, 102, 133, 142, 143, 151, 153–155, 159,

Subject Index

161–165, 169–171, 178, 184, 185, 192–194, 209, 214, 215, 220, 221, 224, 226, 230, 235, 238–241, 317, 332, 344, 361, 387, 390, 392, 400, 404, 406, 407, 409, 412–415, 417, 419–421, 425, 426 Pelagian/Pelagianism  48, 118, 129 Penance, Sacrament of  26, 84 Philippist  4, 22, 101, 114, 227, 264, 291, 304, 353 Philosophy (See also Plato and Aristotle)  3, 14, 43, 46, 53, 66, 67, 71, 94, 95, 97–99, 111, 114–116, 118, 128, 134, 137, 138, 148, 158, 172, 179, 188, 189, 246, 252, 257, 258, 260, 261, 265, 276, 280, 286–289, 305, 307, 309, 316, 320, 327, 331, 334, 339, 340, 342, 343 Plato/Platonism  23, 40, 45, 46, 97, 98, 114, 131, 137, 138, 238, 248, 253, 255, 281, 287, 305, 309, 320, 321, 327, 329, 334, 339, 346 Prayer  31, 32, 81, 82, 125, 142, 159, 165, 212, 255, 271, 325, 335, 399 Printing Press  4, 8, 15, 24, 26, 32, 118, 171, 241, 354, 356, 393 Publications: See Printing Press Rabbi/Rabbis: See Jews/Jewish Interpretation Redemption (See also: Atonement)  2, 35, 36, 38, 41, 56, 57, 65–67, 71–74, 84, 87, 90–95, 106, 112, 121, 126, 130, 131, 134, 135, 139, 145, 146, 150, 151, 180, 188, 201, 206, 266, 270, 272, 274, 277, 279, 281, 288, 292, 306, 321, 323, 326, 348, 367 Righteousness (See also: Justification)  3, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37–43, 45, 48–51, 54–60, 62, 63, 66–69, 71–79, 81, 82, 84–90, 92–94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106–118, 122–140, 144–150, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171–176, 178–180, 182–189, 195, 196, 198–208, 210–215, 217–219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228–236, 238, 239, 244, 247–254, 257, 258, 260–264, 266–270, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279–293, 299, 301, 302, 304–313, 316, 318–322,

467

325, 327–329, 331, 333, 334, 337, 338, 341–346, 348, 350, 351, 358, 367, 376, 378, 391, 394, 396, 397, 425 –– Definitions of  21, 22, 31, 32, 50, 54, 57, 65, 66, 72, 73, 75, 77–80, 85, 86, 93, 107–109, 114, 115, 117, 123, 128, 131, 133, 136–139, 147, 163, 167, 169, 171, 172, 178, 179, 182, 186, 189, 211, 228, 233, 237, 238, 272, 280, 282, 317, 319–322, 324, 327, 329, 335, 338, 341–344, 346, 347, 349–351, 359, 360, 396, 397, 401 –– Essentialist  75, 131, 134, 253, 276 –– Imputed  37, 49, 56, 89, 97, 125, 132, 135, 139, 167, 179, 188, 199, 202, 211, 215, 218, 222, 233, 239, 244, 264, 269, 281, 284, 286, 287, 311, 318, 321, 329, 334, 337, 340, 350 –– Infused  14, 42, 74, 89, 96, 117, 136, 138, 174, 188, 218, 223, 225, 233, 248, 260, 289, 306, 311, 351, 425 –– Luther’s translation  40, 57, 73, 108, 115, 127, 146, 196, 252, 282 Roman (Catholic) Opponents  26, 118, 237, 354, 423 Sacraments (See also: Absolution, Baptism, Lord’s Supper)  26, 45, 84, 100, 109, 117, 169, 272, 305, 312 Sacramentarians  95, 106, 115, 136, 294, 296 Scripture  6, 9, 19, 30, 34, 36, 37, 42, 44, 47–49, 56, 59, 66, 71, 72, 75, 79, 81, 84, 92, 94–96, 98, 106–109, 112, 115, 116, 128, 131–136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 149, 150, 152, 154, 172, 173, 177, 178, 181, 185, 187, 202–204, 212, 218, 219, 239, 245, 249, 251, 254–256, 258, 259, 263, 264, 268, 274–276, 279, 281, 284–286, 294, 295, 304, 307, 310, 317, 320, 327, 331, 335, 338, 348, 350, 379, 395, 428, 429 –– Examples from  57, 59, 81, 97, 136, 152, 158–59, 236, 281, 333, 340–41, 350 –– Method of Interpretation  4, 30, 34, 44, 49, 57, 63, 71, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 92–94, 96, 108–110, 116, 121–123, 128, 129, 134, 136, 140, 144–146, 150,

468

Subject Index

160, 169, 172, 177–179, 181, 183, 192, 194, 202–204, 210, 211, 214, 220, 231, 235, 248, 249, 256, 258, 263, 264, 268, 275, 277, 282, 283, 285, 304, 308, 313, 317–319, 325, 328, 331–338, 356, 360, 392, 403, 425 Smalcald Articles  1, 20, 253, 291, 293, 294, 406 Smalcald War  11, 20, 51, 170, 254, 364, 376, 391, 423, 425 Tetragrammaton: See Name of God Theology of the Cross  38, 60, 66, 71, 94, 100, 106, 112, 144, 150, 180, 181, 189, 248, 348 Theosis  2–4 Trent, Council of  14, 21, 28, 37, 48, 56, 170, 200, 311, 318, 322, 334–336, 386, 416, 423 Tridentine: See Trent Trinity  38, 40, 42, 81, 88, 89, 109, 122–124, 133, 135, 156, 157, 195, 202, 204–206, 211, 214, 218, 225, 228, 229,

231, 232, 235, 250, 262, 267, 270, 271, 275, 276, 293, 314, 325, 337, 339, 346 War of Words  4, 6, 156, 160, 183, 184, 187, 194, 199, 227, 228, 237, 353, 414, 428 Wittenberg, University of`  35, 39, 97, 101, 104, 119, 120, 163, 226, 365, 376, 392, 393, 398, 399, 420 –– Doctorates  6, 11, 51, 52, 104, 127, 144, 189, 230, 328, 360, 364, 381, 408, 409, 415, 426, 428 Word of God (inner and outer)  21, 97, 98, 103, 203, 226, 255, 226, 277, 335, 342, 358 Württemberg  4, 7, 23, 30, 61, 101, 141, 151, 156, 157, 160, 164–168, 171, 173, 174, 190, 192, 194, 197–206, 208–220, 222, 224, 226, 228, 332, 400, 402, 405, 407, 409, 412, 413, 415, 416, 425 Württemberg Confession (1552)  214 Zwinglians: See Sacramentarians