metrical. They are not defensive, but aggressive; not an overture of peace, but a declaration of war. They scorn all compromises, and made a reconciliation impossible. They were, therefore, poorly calculated to be a basis of negotiation at a general Council, and were, in fact, never used for that purpose. The Convent at Smalcald resolved not to send any delegates to the Council. But the Smalcald Articles define the position of Lutheranism towards the Papacy, and give the strongest expression to the doctrine of justification by faith. They accordingly took their place, together with the Appendix, among the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, and were received into various Corpora Doctrinæ, and at last into the 'Book of Concord."1

TEXT.2

Luther prepared the Smalcald Articles at Wittenberg in the German language, and edited them, in 1538, with a preface and considerable changes and additions, but without the signatures, and without the Appendix of Melanchthon. In 1543 and 1545 he issued new editions with slight changes. The first draft, as copied by Spalatin, and signed at Smalcald, was published from the archives of Weimar in 1553, together with Luther's additions and Melanchthon's Appendix, and embodied in the 'Book of Concord.'3

The Latin text, as it appeared in the first edition of the 'Book of Concord,' was a poor translation, but was much improved in the edition of 1584.

Melanchthon wrote the Appendix at Smalcald in Latin, but a German translation by Dietrich was signed there, and passed, as the supposed original, into the works of Luther and the first edition of the 'Book of Concord' (1580). The corrected Latin edition of 1584 gave the Latin original, but as the work of all the theologians convened at Smalcald. This error prevailed nearly two hundred years, until the careful researches of Bertram dispelled it.

1 Comp. Plitt and Heppe, above quoted (p. 254).

2 See the minor particulars in Bertram, 1. c., , and Köllner, pp. 454 sqq.

The original MS. of Luther, from which Spalatin made his copy before Luther added his changes, was discovered in the Palatinate Library at Heidelberg in 1817, and edited by Marheineke, with notes, Berlin, 1817.

Under the title 'De Potestate et Primatu Papæ. Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldia congregatos conscriptus.'

§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD. A.D. 1577.

Literature.

I. The text of the 'Form of Concord' is found in all the editions of the 'Book of Concord' (Concor@ten buch), see p. 220.

HEINR. LUDW. JUL. HEPPE (Professor in Marburg, an indefatigable investigator of the early history of German Protestantism in the interest of Melanchthonianism): Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel, verglichen mit dem Text der Schwäbischen Concordie, der Schwäbisch-Sächsischen Concordie und des Torgauer Buches. Marburg, 1857, 2d ed. 1860.

II. JACOB ANDREA: Sechs christlicher Predig von den Spaltungen, so sich zwischen den Theologen Augspurgischer Confession von Anno 1548 bis auf diess 1573 Jar, nach und nach erhoben, etc. Tübingen, 1573. Republished by Professor Heppe in Appendix I. to the third volume of his History of German Protestantism (see below). In the same volume Heppe published also 'the Swabian and Saxon Form of Concord,' the 'Maulbronu Formula,' and other important documents.

Apologia oder Verantwortung des christl. Concordienbuchs, etc. (usually called the Erfurt Book, an offcial Apology, prepared at Erfurt and Quedlinburg by Kirchner, SELNEOKER, CHEMNITZ, and other Lutheran divines). Heidelb. 1583; Dresden, 1584, etc.

RUD. HOSPINIAN (Reformed, d. at Zurich 1626): CONCORDIA DISCORS; h. e. de origine et progressu Formulæ Bergensis, etc., ex actis tum publicis, tum privatis... Tig. 1607; Genev. 1678, folio. (The chief work against the 'Form of Concord.")

LEONH. HUTTER (Lutheran, d. at Wittenberg 1616): CONCORDIA CONCORS; de origine et progressu Formulæ Concordiæ ecclesiarum Conf. Aug.... in quo eius ORTHODOXIA... demonstratur: et Rud. Hospiniani Tigurini Helvetii convitia, mendacia, et manifesta crimina falsi deteguntur ac solide refutantur .. ... ex actis publicis. Vitemb. 1614; Francof. and Lips. 1690. (This is the most elaborate defense of the 'Form of Concord' called forth by Hospinian's Conc. discors, and covers 1460 pp., exclusive of Proleg.)

J. MUSEUS: Prælectiones in Epitom. Form. Conc. Jen. 1701.

VAL. LÖSCHER: Historia motuum, etc. Leipz. 1723, Tom. III. Lib. VI. c. 5 and 9.

JAO. H. BALTHASAR: Historie des Torgischen Buchs als des nächsten Entwurfs des Bergischen Concordienbuchs, etc. Greifswald, 1741-56. (In nine parts or dissertations.)

J. NIO. ANTON: Geschichte der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1779.

G. J. PLANOK: Geschichte der Entstehung, etc., unseres Protest. Lehrbegriffs... bis zur Einführung der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1791-1800. Vols. IV. VI. A work of thorough learning, independent judgment, but without proper appreciation of the doctrinal differences.

GOTTFR. THOMASIUS (Lutheran): Das Bekenntniss der evangel. luther. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips. Nürnberg, 1848.

K. FR. GÖSCHEL (Lutheran): Die Concordienformel nach ihrer Geschichte, Lehre und kirchlichen Bedeutung. Leipz. 1858.

H. L. J. HEPPE (Reformed): Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555–81. Marburg, 1852-58. 4 vols. (The last two volumes contain the history of the 'Form of Concord' and of the 'Book of Concord,' and are also published under the separate title 'Geschichte der lutherischen Concordienformel und Concordie.')

GIESELER: Text-Book of Church History. American edition, by H. B. Smith, Vol. IV. (New York, 1862), pp. 423-490; German edition, Vol. III. P. II. (Bonn, 1853), pp. 187-310. (A condensed, careful, and impartial statement of the controversies, with citations from the original anthorities.)

DAN. SCHENKEL: Art. Concordienformel, in Herzog's Real-Encykl., Vol. III. (1855), pp. 87–105.

WILI. GASS: Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik in ihrem Zurammenhang mit der Theologie überhaupt. Berlin, 1854-67, 4 vols. Vol. I. pp. 21–80.

GUSTAV FRANK (of Jena): Geschichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. 1862. Vol. I. pp. 92–290.

F. H. R. FRANK (Lutheran): Die Theologie der Concordienformel hist. dogmatisch entwichelt und beleuch tet. Erlangen, 1858-65. 4 vols. (Chiefly doctrinal.)

H. F. A. KAHNIS (Lutheran): Die Luther. Dogmatik, Vol. II. (Leipzig, 1864), pp. 515–560.

Is. A. DORNER: Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie (München, 1867), pp. 330-374.

CHAS. P. KRAUTH (Lutheran). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Phila. 1872), pp. 288–328. Denkmal der dritten Jubelfeier der Concordienformel, 1877. St. Louis, 1877.

NAME. ORIGIN AND OCCASION.

The FORM OF CONCORD (Formula Concordia), the last of the Lutheran Confessions, completed in 1577 and first published in 1580, is named from its aim to give doctrinal unity and peace to the Lutheran

Church, after long and bitter contention. The work was occasioned by a series of doctrinal controversies, which raged in the Lutheran Church for thirty years with as much passion and violence as the trinitarian and christological controversies in the Nicene age. They form a humiliating and unrefreshing, yet instructive and important chapter in the history of Protestantism. The free spirit of the Reformation, which had fought the battles against the tyranny of the Papacy and brought to light the pure doctrines of the Gospel, gave way to bigotry and intolerance among Protestants themselves. Calumny, abuse, intrigue, deposition, and exile were unsparingly employed as means to achieve victory. Religion was confounded with theology, piety with orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism. Doctrine was overrated, and the practice of Christianity neglected. The contending parties were terribly in earnest, and as honest and pious in their curses as in their blessings; they fought as if the salvation of the world depended on their disputes. Yet these controversies were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the consolidation and completion of the Lutheran system of doctrine. All phases and types of Christianity must develop themselves, and God overrules the wrath of theologians for the advancement of truth.

LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON.

The seeds of these controversies lay partly and chiefly in the theological differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their later years, partly in the relations of Lutheranism to Romanism and Calvinism.

Luther the Reformer, and Melanchthon the Teacher of Germany, essentially one and inseparable in mind and heart, in doctrine and life, represented in their later period, which may be dated from the year 1533, two types of Lutheranism, the one the conclusive and exclusive, the other the expansive and unionistic type. Luther, at first more heand conservative; while

roic and progressive, became more cautious

'The name was chosen after older formularies (e. g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the Formula Concordiæ Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordiæ inter Suevicas et Saxonicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio princeps (1580) the book is called 'Das Buch der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols ('Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordiæ,' ' Book of Concord'). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition.

Melanchthon, at first following the lead of the older and stronger Luther, became more independent and liberal.

Luther, as the Reformer of the Romish Church, acted in the geueral interest of evangelical religion, and enjoys the admiration and gratitude of all Protestants; Luther, as the leader of a particular denomination, assumed a hostile attitude towards other churches, even such as rested on the same foundation of the renewed gospel. After his bold destructive and constructive movements, which resulted step by step in the emancipation from popery, he felt disposed to rest in his achievements. His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of Carlstadt and Münzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dissatisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years. He had so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises. He was equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel.1

The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lord's Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally 'ringeteufelte [ivdiaßodiofévreç], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,' and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475 : ‘Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum æɛpi deiπvov kupiakov instaurat;' comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin behaved admirably on that occasion; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said: 'Even if he should call me a devil, I would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God.' And to Melanchthon he wrote (June 28, 1545): 'I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheer

Melanchthon, on the other hand, with less genius but more learning, with less force but more elasticity, with less intuition but more logic and system than Luther, and with a most delicate and conscientious regard for truth and peace, yet not free from the weakness of a compromising and temporizing disposition, continued to progress in theology, and modified his views on two points-the freedom of the will and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; exchanging his Augustinianisin for Synergism, and relaxing his Lutheranism in favor of Calvinism; in both instances he followed the ethical, practical, and unionistic bent of his mind. A minor difference on the human right of the papacy and episcopacy appeared in private letters and in his qualified subscription to the Smalcald Articles (1537), but never assumed a serious, practical aspect, except indirectly in the adiaphoristic controversy.1 These changes were neither sudden nor arbitrary, but the result of profound and constant study, and represented a legitimate and necessary phase in the development of Protestant theology, which was publicly recognized in various ways before the formation of the 'Form of Concord.' If there ever was a modest, cautious, and scrupulously conscientious scholar, it was Melanchthon. There is not a day nor a night for the last ten years,' he assures an intimate friend, 'that I did not meditate upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.'2

fully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!' Melanchthon entirely agreed with him.

1 Kahnis (Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to ‘a truly evangelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Conservative Reformation, p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says: 'Melanchthon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with melancholy; his aversion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his anxiety that the whole communion of the West should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.' Comp. on this whole subject the works of GALLE: Characteristik Melanchthon's als Theologen und Entwicklung seines Lehrbegriff's (Halle, 1840), pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; MATTHES: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); EBRARD: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.; GIESELER: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq.; HEPPE: Die confessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq.; CARL SCHMIDT: Philipp Melanchthon (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq.; KAHNIS, I. c. pp. 515 sqq.

* Ep. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537): ‘Scias, am plius decennio nullum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, quin hac de re cogitarim.'