I

XVI.

in popish countries, and particularly in the Au-CENT strian territories, under the gloomy shade of as CT. L dubious toleration; and it so animated the Lu-PARTIL theran pastors, though surrounded on all sides by their cruel adversaries, that they could neither be restrained by the dictates of prudence, nor by the sense of danger []. Many are of opinion, that an ignorance of philosophical distinctions and definitions threw FLACIUS inconsiderately into the extravagant hypothesis he maintained with such obstinacy, and that his greatest heresy was no more than a foolish attachment to an unusual term. But FLACIUS seems to have fully refuted this plea in his behalf, by declaring boldly, in several parts of his writings, that he knew perfectly well the philosophical signification and the whole energy of the word substance, and was by no means ignorant of the consequences that would be drawn from the doctrine he had embraced [k]. Be that as it may, we cannot but wonder at the senseless and excessive obstinacy of this turbulent man, who chose rather to sacrifice his fortune, and disturb the tranquillity of the church, than to abandon a word, which was entirely foreign to the subject in debate, and renounce an hypothesis, that was composed of the most palpable contradictions.

XXXV. The

[] See a German work of Bern. Raupach, entitled, Zwiefache Zugabe zu dem Evangelisch. Oesterrich. p. 25. 29. 32. 34. 43. 64. The same author speaks of the friends of Flacius in Austria; and particularly of Irenæus, in his Presbyterol. Austriace, p. 69.-For an account of Calestine, see the Ger man work mentioned at the end of the preceding note.

[k] This will appear evident to such as will be at the pains to consult the letters which Westphal wrote to his friend Flacius, in order to persuade him to abstain from the use of the word substance, with the answers of the latter. These Lettere and ANSWERS are published by Arnold Grevius, in his Memoria Jo. Westphali, p. 186.

XVI.

SECT. III.

The dis

putes kin died by O

siander.

CENT. XXXV. The last controversy that we shall mention, of those that were occasioned by the PART 11. excessive lenity of MELANCTHON, was set on foot by OSIANDER, in the year 1549, and produced much discord and animosity in the church. Had its first founder been yet alive, his influence and authority would have suppressed in their birth these wretched disputes; nor would OSIANDER, who despised the moderation of MELANCTHON, have dared either to publish or defend his crude and chimerical opinions within the reach of LUTHER. Arrogance and singularity were the principal lines in OSIANDER's character, he loved to strike out new notions; but his views seemed always involved in an intricate obscurity. The disputes that arose concerning the Interim, induced him to retire from Nuremberg, where he had exercised the pastoral charge, to Konigsberg, where he was chosen professor of divinity. In this new station he began his academical functions, by propagating notions concerning the Divine Image, and the nature of Repentance, very different from the doctrine that LUTHER had taught on these interesting subjects; and, not contented with this deviation from the common track, he thought proper, in the year 1550, to introduce considerable alterations and corrections into the doctrine that had been generally received in the Lutheran church, with respect to the means of our justification before God. When we examine his discussion of this important point, we shall find it much more easy to perceive the opinions he rejected, than to understand the system he had invented or adopted; for, as was but too usual in this age, he not only expressed his notions in an obscure manner, but seemed moreover perpetually in contradiction with himself. His doctrine, however, when carefully examined, will appear to amount to the following propositions: "CHRIST, considered

XVI.

"considered in his human nature only, could not, CENT by his obedience to the divine law, obtains T. III. justification and pardon for sinners; neither can PART II. "we be justified before God by embracing and

86

66

applying to ourselves, through faith, the right"eousness and obedience of the man CHRIST. It is

66

only through that eternal and essential right"eousness, which dwells in CHRIST considered as "God, and which resides in his divine nature, "that is united to the human, that mankind can "obtain complete justification. Man becomes a

66

66

partaker of this divine righteousness by faith; "since it is in consequence of this uniting principle that CHRIST dwells in the heart of man, "with his divine righteousness dwells, there God "can behold no sin, and therefore, when it is present with CHRIST in the hearts of the regener"ate, they are, on its account, considered by the Deity as righteous, although they be sinners. "Moreover, this divine and justifying righteousness "of CHRIST excites the faithful to the pursuit of holiness, and to the practice of virtue." doctrine was zealously opposed by the most eminent doctors of the Lutheran church, and, in a more especial manner, by MELANCTHON and his colleagues. On the other hand, OSIANDER and his sentiments were supported by persons of considerable weight. But, upon the death of this rigid and fanciful divine, the flane of controversy was cooled, and dwindled by degrees into nothing [7.]

This

XXXVI. The

[1] See SCHLUSSELBURGII Catalogus Hæreticor. lib. vi.ARNOLDI Histor. Eccles. lib. xvi. cap. xxiv. p. 804.-CHRIST. HARTKNOCH. Preussische Kirchen-Historie, p. 309.-SALIG. Historia August. Confession, tom. ii. p. 922. The judgment that was formed of this controversy by the divines of Wittemberg, may be seen in the German work entitled, Unschuldige VOL. IV. Nachrichten,

CENT.

SECT. III.

XXXVI. The doctrine of OSIANDER, concern

XVI. ing the method of being justified before God, apPART II. peared so absurd to STANCARUS, professor of Hebrew at Konigsberg, that he undertook to refute bates excit. it. But while this turbulent and impetuous doced by Stan- tor was exerting all the vehemence of his zeal a

The de

carus.

gainst the opinion of his colleague, he was hurried, by his violence, into the opposite extreme, and fell into an hypothesis, that appeared equally groundless, and not less dangerous in its tendency and consequences. OSIANDER had maintained, that the man CHRIST, in his character of moral agent, was obliged to obey, for himself, the divine law, and therefore could not, by the imputation of this obedience, obtain righteousness or justification for others. From hence he concluded, that the Saviour of the world had been empowered, not by his character as man, but by his nature as God, to make expiation for our sins, and reconcile us to the favour of an offended Deity. STANCARUS, on the other hand, excluded entirely CHRIST's divine nature from all concern in the satisfaction he made, and in the redemption he procured for offending mortals, and maintained, that the sacred office of a mediator between God and man belonged to JESUS, considered in his human nature alone. Having perceived, however, that this doctrine exposed him to the enmity of many divines, and even rendered him the object of popular resentment and indignation; he retired from Konigsberg into Germany, and from thence into Poland,

Nachrichten, p. 141. and that of the doctors of Copenhagen, in der Dänischen Bibliothec. part. vii. p. 150. where there is an ample list of the writings published on this subject.-To form a just idea of the insolence and arrogance of Osiander, those who understand the German language will do well to consult Hischius, Nuremberg Interims-Historie, p. 44. 59, 60, &c.

Poland, where he excited no small commotions C E N T. `[m], and where also he concluded his days in the S. c T. llf. year 1574 [n].

XVI.

PARTH

The me

XXXVII. All those who had the cause of. virtue, and the advancement of the Reformation thods that really at heart, looked with an impatient ardour were em ployed to for an end to these bitter and uncharitable con- heal these tentions; and their desires of peace and concord divisions. in the church were still increased by their perceiving the industrious assiduity with which Rome turned these unhappy divisions to the advancement of her interests. But during the life of MELANCTHON, who was principally concerned in these warm debates, no effectual method could be found to bring them to a conclusion. The death of this great man, which happened in the year 1560, changed, indeed, the face of things, and enabled those who were disposed to terminate the present contests, to act with more resoluZ 2 tion,

[m] See a German work of Chr. Hartknoch, entitled, Preussische Kirken geschichte, p. 340.-Schlusselburgii Catalog. He reticor. lib. ix.-Dictionaire du Bayle, at the article Stancarus. -Before the arrival of Stancarus at Konigsberg, in the year 1548, he had lived for some time in Switzerland, where also he had occasioned religious disputes; for he adopted several doctrines of Luther, particularly that concerning the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, which were rejected by the Swiss and Grisons. See the Museum Helveticum, tom. v. p. 484. 490, 491. For an acccount of the disturbances he occasioned in Poland in 1556. see Bullinger, in Jo. Conr. Fueslini Centuria I. Epistolar à Reformator. Helvetic. scriptor. p. 371. 459.

[] The main argument alleged by Stancarus, in favour of his hypothesis, was this, that, if Christ was mediator by his divine nature only, then it followed evidently, that even considered as God, he was inferior to the Father; and thus, accor ding to him, the doctrine of his adversary Osiander led directly to the Unitarian system. This difficulty, which was presented with great subtilty, engaged many to strike into a middle road, and to maintain, that both the divine and human natures of Christ were immediately concerned in the work of Redemption.