Concerning the Lord's Supper, Schwenckfeldt taught that the deified humanity of Christ is really imparted and appropriated, not indeed through bread and wine, but immediately (without the intervention of any medium), internally, spiritually. The words of inst.i.tution mean: My body, which is given for you, is what bread is, a food, _i.e._, a food for souls; and the new testament in My blood is a chalice, _i.e._, a drink for the elect to drink in the kingdom of G.o.d. Baptism, says Schwenckfeldt, is the "baptizing of the heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ, which occurs in the believing soul by the Holy Ghost and by fire. Infant baptism is a human ordinance, not merely useless, but detrimental to the baptism of Christ." (Tschackert, 159ff.)

264. The Ant.i.trinitarians.

The first article of the _Augsburg Confession_ makes a special point of rejecting not only the ancient, but also the "modern Samosatenes,"

_i.e._, the Ant.i.trinitarians, who in the beginning of the Reformation began their activity in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Most of these "modern Arians and Ant.i.trinitarians," as they are called in the Twelfth Article of the _Formula of Concord_ came from the skeptical circles of Humanists in Italy. Concerning these rationalists and Epicureans the _Apology_ remarks: "Many [in Italy and elsewhere] even publicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve anything, they approve such things only as are in harmony with human reason, and regard the rest as fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets." (CONC.

TRIGL., 235, 28; _C. R._ 9, 763.) Pope Leo X was generally regarded as being one of those who spoke of the profitable "fables concerning Christ."

According to a letter of warning to the Christians in Antwerp, 1525, a fanatic (_Rumpelgeist_) there taught: "Every man has the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is our reason and understanding (_ingenium et ratio naturalis_). Every man believes. There is neither h.e.l.l nor d.a.m.nation.

Every one will obtain eternal life. Nature teaches that I should do unto my neighbor as I would have him do unto me--to desire which is faith.

The Law is not violated by evil l.u.s.t as long as I do not consent to l.u.s.t. Who has not the Holy Ghost has no sin for he has no reason." (E.

53, 344; St. L. 21a 730; Enders 5, 147.)

In his report on the Marburg Colloquy, October 5, 1529, Melanchthon remarks: "We have heard that some of them [the Stra.s.sburgers] speak of the Deity as the Jews do, as though Christ were not G.o.d by nature. (_C.

R._ 1, 1099.) At Marburg, Zwingli remarked that some had spoken incorrectly concerning the Trinity, and that Haetzer had written a book against the divinity of Christ, which he, Zwingli, had not permitted to be published." (1103.)

In a letter of Luther to Bugenhagen, 1532 we read: "Your undertaking [of publishing a writing of Athanasius concerning the Trinity] is Christian and wholesome in this our most corrupt time, in which all articles of faith in general are attacked by the servants of Satan, and the one concerning the Trinity is in particular beginning to be derided confidently by some skeptics and Epicureans. These are ably a.s.sisted not only by those Italian grammarians [Humanists] and orators, which they flatter themselves to be, but also by some Italico-German vipers and others, or, as you are accustomed to call them, viper-aspides, who sow their seed here and there in their discourses and writings, and, as Paul says [2 Tim. 2, 17], eat as doth a canker (_gar sehr um sich fressen_) and promote G.o.dlessness, about which they, when among themselves, laugh so complacently and are so happy that one can hardly believe it." (St.

L. 14, 326; Enders 9, 252.)

Some Ant.i.trinitarians who affiliated with the Anabaptists have already been referred to. Denk, Haetzer, and others rejected the Apostles' Creed because of their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Haetzer, as stated wrote a book against the deity of Christ in which he denied the tripersonality of G.o.d and the preexistence of the Logos, and blasphemously designated the belief in the deity of Christ as "superst.i.tion" and the trust in His satisfaction as "drinking on the score of Christ (_ein Zechen auf die Kreide Christi_)." According to Denk, Christ is merely an example showing us how to redeem ourselves which we are all able to do because there is still within us a seed of the divine Word and light. (Tschackert, 143, 461.) It was of Denk that Capito wrote, 1526: "At Nuernberg the schoolteacher at St. Sebald denied that the Holy Ghost and the Son are equal to the Father, and for this reason he was expelled." (Plitt, _Augustana_ 1, 153.)

At Stra.s.sburg the Anabaptists were publicly charged, in 1526, with denying the Trinity; in 1529, with denying the deity of Christ. In 1527 Urban Regius spoke of the Anabaptists in Augsburg as maintaining that Christ was merely a teacher of a Christian life. In the same year Althamer of Nuernberg published his book _Against the New Jews and Arians under the Christian Name Who Deny the Deity of Christ_. In 1529 Osiander wrote concerning Anabaptists in Nuernberg: "It is well known, and may be proved by their own writings, that they deny and contradict the sublime article of our faith concerning the Holy Trinity, from which it follows immediately that they also deny the deity of Christ." "Christ is not the natural, true Son of G.o.d," such was also the accusation made by Justus Menius in his book concerning the _Doctrines and Secrets of the Anabaptists_. In his _Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius said "Now the Anabaptists speak most contemptuously of the deity of Jesus Christ.... This was their chief article that they despised the written Word, the Holy Bible, and believed nothing or very little of Jesus Christ the eternal Son of G.o.d."

265. Franck, Campa.n.u.s, Ochino, Servetus, Blandrata, etc.

Sebastian Franck and John Campa.n.u.s must also be numbered among the Ant.i.trinitarians. Franck was a pantheist, who had been pastor in the vicinity of Nuernberg till 1528, when he resigned and engaged in soap manufacturing, writing, and printing. Campa.n.u.s appeared in Wittenberg, 1527. At the Colloquy of Marburg he endeavored to unite Luther and Zwingli by explaining the words: "This is My body" to mean: This is a body created by Me. In 1530 he published a book: "Against the Entire World after the Apostles--_Contra Totum post Apostolos Mundum_," in which he taught that the Son is inferior to the Father, and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit. "He argues," says Melanchthon, who in his letters frequently refers to the "blasphemies of Campa.n.u.s," "that Christ is not G.o.d; that the Holy Spirit is not G.o.d; that original sin is an empty word. Finally there is nothing which he does not transform into philosophy." (_C. R._ 2, 33. 34. 93. 29. 513; 9, 763; 10, 132.) When Campa.n.u.s endeavored to spread his doctrines, he was banished from Saxony, 1531. He returned to Juelich, where he preached on the imminence of Judgment Day, with the result that the peasants sold their property and declined to work any longer. Campa.n.u.s was imprisoned for twenty years and died 1575.

Prominent among the numerous Ant.i.trinitarians who came from Italy were Ochino, Servetus, Gribaldo, Gentile, Blandrata, and Alciati. Bernardino Ochino, born 1487, was Vicar-General of the Capuchins and a renowned pulpit orator in Siena. In 1542 he was compelled to leave Italy in order to escape the Inquisition. He served the Italian congregation in Zurich from 1555 to 1564, when he was banished because he had defended polygamy. He died in Austerlitz, 1665. In his _Thirty Dialogs_, published 1563, he rejects the doctrines of the Trinity, of the deity of Christ, and of the atonement. (_Herzog R_. 14, 256.)--Michael Servetus was born in 1511 and educated at Saragossa and Toulouse. In 1531, at Hagenau, Alsace, he published _De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII_. He was opposed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius. In 1540 he wrote his _Christianismi Rest.i.tutio_, a voluminous book, which he published in 1553. In it he opposes the Trinity as an unbiblical and satanic doctrine, and at the same time rejects original sin and infant baptism.

The result was that, while pa.s.sing through Geneva on his way to Italy, he was arrested at the instance of Calvin, tried, condemned, and burned at the stake, October 27, 1553--an act which was approved also by Melanchthon. (_C. R._ 8, 362; 9, 763.)--Matteo Gribaldo, in 1554, uttered tritheistic views concerning the Trinity in the Italian congregation at Geneva. Arrested in Bern, he retracted his doctrine. He died 1564.--John Valentine Gentile also belonged to the Italian fugitives in Geneva. In 1558 he signed an orthodox confession concerning the Trinity. Before long, however, he relapsed into his Ant.i.trinitarian errors. He was finally beheaded at Bern. (_Herzog R_. 6, 518.)

George Blandrata, born 1515, was influenced by Gribaldo. Fearing for his liberty, he left Geneva and went to Poland and thence to Transylvania.

Here he published his _Confessio Ant.i.trinitaria_, and was instrumental in introducing Unitarianism into Transylvania. He died after 1585. In 1558 Gianpaolo Alciati of Piedmont accompanied Blandrata to Poland. He taught that Christ was inferior to the Father, and denied that there were two natures in Christ.

266. Davidis and Socinus.

Francis Davidis in Transylvania was an Ant.i.trinitarian of the most radical stripe. He had studied in Wittenberg 1545 and 1548. In 1552 he joined the Lutherans, in 1559 the Calvinists. Secretly after 1560 and publicly since 1566 he cooperated with Blandrata to introduce Unitarianism in Transylvania. In numerous disputations he attacked the doctrine of the Trinity as unscriptural and contradictory. In 1567 he published his views in _De Falso et Vera Unius Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti Cognitione Libri Duo_. He contended that the doctrine of the Trinity was the source of all idolatry in the Church; that Christ, though born of Mary in a supernatural way, was preexistent only in the decree of G.o.d, and that the Holy Spirit was merely a power emanating from G.o.d for our sanctification. He also rejected infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. After the prince and the greater part of the n.o.bility had been won for Unitarianism, Davidis, in 1568, was made Superintendent of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. In 1571 religious liberty was proclaimed, and Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were tolerated equally. Before long, however, a reaction set in. The Catholic Stephan Bathory, who succeeded to the throne, removed the Unitarians from his court and surrounded himself with Jesuits. On March 29, 1579, Davidis delivered a sermon against the adoration of Christ, declaring it to be the same idolatry as the invocation of Mary and the saints. Three days after he was deposed and imprisoned. In the proceedings inst.i.tuted against him he was convicted as a blasphemer and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He died in prison, November 15, 1579, prophesying the final downfall of all "false dogmas," meaning, of course, the doctrines which he had combated.

In Poland, especially since 1548, the humanistic and liberal-minded n.o.bility opposed the Catholic clergy and protected Protestants and later on also fugitive Ant.i.trinitarians. Among these were the Italians Francis Lismanio, Gregory Pauli, and Peter Statorius. These Unitarians, however, lacked unity and harmony. They disagreed on infant baptism, the preexistence and adoration of Christ, etc. These dissensions continued until Faustus Socinus (born at Siena 1539, died 1604 in Poland) arrived.

He was the nephew of the skeptical and liberal-minded Laelius Socinus (Lelio Sozzini) who left Italy in 1542, when the Inquisition was established there, and died in Zurich, 1562.

Faustus Socinus claimed that he had received his ideas from his uncle Laelius. In 1562 he published anonymously an explanation of the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, which, contained the entire program of Unitarianism. In 1578 he followed an invitation of Blandrata to oppose non-adorantism (the doctrine that Christ must not be adored) as taught by Davidis. In the following year Faustus removed to Poland, where he endeavored to unite the various Unitarian parties: the Anabaptists, Non-adorantes, the believers in the preexistence of Christ, etc., and their opponents. The growth of Unitarianism in Poland was rapid. A school flourished in Rakow numbering in its palmy days about 1,000 scholars. However here, too, a Jesuitic reaction set in. In 1638 the school at Rakow was destroyed, the printery closed, and the teachers and ministers expelled. In 1658 the Unitarians generally were banished as traitors, and in 1661 the rigorous laws against Unitarianism were confirmed.

The chief source of the Ant.i.trinitarian and Socinian doctrine is the Racovian Catechism, published 1605 in the Polish and 1609 in the Latin language under the t.i.tle: "_Catechism of the Churches in the Kingdom of Poland_ which affirm that no one besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that One G.o.d of Israel." It teaches: There is but one divine person; Christ is a mere man; the doctrine concerning the deity of Christ is false; as a reward for His sinless life, G.o.d has given Christ all power in heaven and on earth; as such, as G.o.d's representative (_h.o.m.o Deus factus_, the man made G.o.d), He may be adored; there is no original sin; with the help of G.o.d, that is to say, with the commandments and promises of G.o.d revealed by Christ, man may acquire salvation; he is able to keep these commandments, though not perfectly; man's shortcomings are pardoned by G.o.d on account of his good intention; an atonement by Christ is not required for this purpose; moreover, the doctrine of atonement must be opposed as false and pernicious; by His death Christ merely sealed His doctrine; all who obey His commandments are adherents of Christ; these will partic.i.p.ate in His dominion; the wicked and the devils will be annihilated; there is no such thing as eternal punishment; whatever in the Bible comports with human reason and serves moral ends is inspired; the Old Testament is superfluous for Christians, because all matters pertaining to religion are contained better and clearer in the New Testament. (Tschackert, 473.)

Evidently, in every detail, Ant.i.trinitarianism and Socinianism are absolutely incompatible with, and destructive of, the very essence of Christianity. The _Apology_ declares that the deniers of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity "are outside of the Church of Christ and are idolaters, and insult G.o.d." (103, 1.) This verdict is confirmed by Article XII of the _Formula of Concord_. (843, 30; 1103, 39.)

XXIII. Origin, Subscription, Character, etc., of Formula of Concord.

267. Lutherans Yearning for a G.o.dly Peace.

A holy zeal for the purity and unity of doctrine is not at all incompatible, rather always and of necessity connected with an earnest desire for peace; not, indeed, a peace at any price, but a truly Christian and G.o.dly peace, a peace consistent with the divine truth.

Also in the loyal Lutherans, who during the controversies after Luther's death faithfully adhered to their Confessions, the fervent desire for such a G.o.dly peace grew in proportion as the dissensions increased.

While Calvinists and Crypto-Calvinists were the advocates of a unionistic compromise, true Lutherans everywhere stood for a union based on the truth as taught by Luther and contained in the Lutheran Confessions. Though yearning for peace and praying that the controversies might cease, they were determined that the Lutheran Church should never be contaminated with indifferentism or unionism, nor with any teaching deviating in the least from the divine truth.

As a result, earnest and repeated efforts to restore unity and peace were made everywhere by Lutheran princes as well as by theologians, especially the theologians who had not partic.i.p.ated in the controversies, but for all that were no less concerned about the maintenance of pure Lutheranism and no less opposed to a peace at the expense of the divine truth than the others. As early as 1553 Flacius and Gallus published their _Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen Sachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen_. In this Appeal they urged that ten or twenty competent men who hitherto had not partic.i.p.ated in the public controversy be appointed to decide the chief differences between themselves and the Interimists. In the two following years Flacius and Gallus continued their endeavors to interest influential men in Saxony and other places for their plan. Melanchthon and his Wittenberg colleagues, however, maintained silence in the matter.

At the behest of the dukes of Thuringia, Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber, Schnepf, and Strigel met at Weimar in the early part of 1553 to discuss the conditions of peace. Opposed as they were to a peace by agreeing to disagree or by ignoring the differences and past contentions, they demanded that synergism, Majorism, adiaphorism, as also the doctrines of Zwingli, Osiander, and Schwenckfeldt, be publicly rejected by the Wittenbergers. (Preger 2, 4. 7.)

268. Pacific Overtures of Flacius.

Soon after the convention in Weimar, Gottschalk Praetorius, rector of the school in Magdeburg, and Hubertus Languet from Burgundy (an intimate friend of Melanchthon and a guest at his table, who later on maliciously slandered Flacius) had an interview with Flacius, in which the latter submitted the conditions on which peace might be established. However, a letter written in this matter by Praetorius, in April, 1556, was not answered by Melanchthon, who, moreover, insinuated that Flacius's object merely was to kindle hatred. (_C. R._ 8, 794.)

In May, 1556, Flacius, continuing his peace efforts, forwarded to Paul Eber his "Mild Proposals, _Linde Vorschlaege_, dadurch man gottselige und notwendige friedliche Vergleichung machen koennte zwischen den Wittenbergischen und Leipzigischen Theologen in causa Adiaphoristica und den andern, so wider sie geschrieben haben." According to these _Proposals_, Flacius demanded that, in a publication signed by the theologians of both parties, the Pope be denounced as the true Antichrist, the Augsburg Interim be rejected, the proposition: "Good works are necessary to salvation," be condemned, also the errors of Zwingli and Osiander. "The good Lord knows," said Flacius, "that every day and hour I consider and plan earnestly how the affair of the Adiaphorists might be settled in a Christian manner." But he added that he could not be satisfied until, by repentance, "they wipe out their sin, denial, apostasy, and persecution, instead of increasing them by their excuses." But Flacius received an answer neither from Eber nor from Melanchthon. Instead, the Wittenbergers, with the silent consent of Melanchthon, circulated a caricature in which Flacius was accorded the role of a braying a.s.s being crowned by other a.s.ses with a soiled crown. (Preger 2, 11. 13.)

Another offer of Flacius to meet Melanchthon in Wittenberg and discuss the matter personally was also declined. July 15, 1556, Melanchthon wrote: "I enjoyed a sweet friendship and familiarity with Illyricus, and I would gladly confer with him on the entire doctrine. But before this he has spread things which I had neither said nor thought, wherefore now, too, I fear treachery (_insidias metuo_)." Timid as he was, Melanchthon really feared for his life at the contemplated colloquy, because the statement of Chytraeus: "As long as Flacius and Melanchthon are alive, unity will not be restored," had been reported to him in the form: unless Philip were put out of the way, unity would not be possible. "None of my friends," he wrote, "is willing to attend the colloquy, and they believe that it is not safe for me to confer with him [Flacius] alone." (_C. R._ 8, 798.) Considering Melanchthon's answer as insincere and sophistical, Flacius declared that, after having earnestly sought peace in a private way, he would now appeal to the Church. He did so by publishing "_Von der Einigkeit_, Concerning Unity," a book which he had written before he made his pacific overtures to Melanchthon.

(Preger 2, 17. 22.)

However, induced by a letter of Fabricius of Meissen (August 24, 1556), Flacius made a further effort, addressing Melanchthon in a letter of September 1, 1556, in which he implored him to make his peace with G.o.d and the Church by an unequivocal disavowal of Adiaphorism. As a result, Melanchthon wrote his famous letter of September 5, 1556, referred to in our chapter on the Adiaphoristic Controversy, in which he admitted in a qualified way that he had sinned in the matter. In his reply of September 16, 1556, Flacius again declared that his object was not any triumph or glory for himself, but "only the maintenance of truth and the rooting out of error," and that nothing was able to remove the offense given by Melanchthon and the Adiaphorists but a clear confession of the truth and an unequivocal rejection of error. Melanchthon, however, broke off the correspondence and continued to nurse his animosity against Flacius. (Preger 2, 29f.)

269. Lower Saxons Endeavoring to Mediate between Melanchthon and Flacius.

Despite his experiences with Melanchthon, Flacius did not allow himself to be discouraged in his efforts to bring about unity and peace.

Embracing an opportunity which a correspondence with the clergy of Lower Saxony concerning Schwenckfeldt offered him, he requested the Lower Saxons to mediate between himself and Melanchthon, submitting for this purpose articles, differing from the _Mild Proposals_ only in expressly mentioning also the Leipzig Interim. The request was granted, and four superintendents, accompanied by four ministers, were delegated for the purpose to Wittenberg. The delegates were: from Luebeck: Valentin Curtius and Dionysius Schunemann; from Hamburg: Paul von Eitzen and Westphal; from Lueneburg: F. Henning and Antonius Wippermann; from Brunswick: Moerlin and Chemnitz. After agreeing, at Brunswick, January 14, 1557, on theses based on those of Flacius, and after conferring with Flacius in Magdeburg, January 17, 1557 they unexpectedly, January 19, arrived in Wlttenberg, offering their services as mediators.

Melanchthon received them in a friendly manner, but when, on the following day, Moerlin read the articles of agreement, he denounced Flacius and Gallus as having slandered him, and declined to treat with the Lower Saxons on the basis of the "Flacian theses." On January 21 the delegation submitted eight new articles. Of these the third read: "All corruptions which militate against the pure apostolic doctrine and that of the _Augsburg Confession_ shall be eliminated from the article of justification, in particular the corruption concerning the necessity of good works to salvation." Article VII requested Melanchthon to make a public statement concerning the adiaphora and the necessity of good works, declaring his agreement with the confession of our Church.

(Preger 2, 37.)

The presentation of these articles had a most unfavorable effect on Melanchthon. The Saxon mediators report that he was excited to such an extent that they feared he would be taken seriously ill. In a most violent manner Melanchthon charged the delegation with treacherously conspiring with Flacius to ensnare him. However, appeased by Paul Eber, he finally consented to reply in writing on the morrow, January 22. In his answer Melanchthon declared: For thirty years he had borne the heavy burdens of the Church and encountered most insidious conflicts; they therefore ought now to have had compa.s.sion with him instead of a.s.saulting him alone; it was being fulfilled what Sturm had once told him on leaving: We shall meet again to crucify you. Sparing Flacius, they had presented articles with the sole purpose of forcing him and others to cut their own throats. As to the articles themselves, Melanchthon objected to the third, because, he said, it falsely charged him and others with having taught and defended errors regarding justification. He declined Article VII because the publication there required was unnecessary, since it might easily be learned from his many writings what he had taught in the matter there referred to. (Preger 2, 38. 40.)

Fearing that the Lower Saxon mediators might yield and make concessions detrimental to the truth, Flacius and his adherents (Wigand, Baumgartner, Judex, Albert Christiani, P. Arbiter, H. Brenz, Antonius Otto) a.s.sembled in Coswig, a place not very far from Wittenberg. In a letter, dated January 21, 1557, they admonished the Saxon mediators not to yield anything contrary to the divine truth but firmly to insist on the elimination of the errors connected with the Interim (_ut id iugulum recte iuguletis_). Flacius also requested Count of Ungnad first to meet them in Coswig, and then go to Wittenberg in order to a.s.sist in winning Melanchthon for his peace proposals. In the letter to the Count, Flacius remarked: he feared that the mediators were administering to Melanchthon "sweet rather than wholesome and strong medicine." (Preger 2, 42.) In a similar manner Pastor Michael Stiefel was urged to go to Wittenberg to influence Melanchthon. At the same time Judex was sent to implore the Saxon delegates not to discontinue their efforts, and adopt no resolution before submitting it also to them [the Magdeburgers] for consideration. No news having arrived by Sat.u.r.day, January 23, an additional letter was dispatched to Wittenberg, written in the same spirit of anxiety, and urging the mediators to stand firm, not to yield, and to continue their efforts until successful, since failure, they said would not only expose them to ridicule, but greatly damage the Church.

(2, 42f.)

On the evening of the same day Moerlin Hennig, and Westphal arrived in Coswig. Moerlin reported on their discussions, and submitted the articles presented to Melanchthon together with the latter's answer. At the same time he requested the Flacians to overlook the harsh language of Philip, telling also of the animosity and general opposition they had met with in Wittenberg, where the students, he said, had even threatened to stone them. Having heard the report the Flacians withdrew for a brief consultation. Their impression was (which they neither made any efforts to hide) that in deference to Melanchthon the Saxons had not been sufficiently careful in seeking only the honor of G.o.d, the welfare of the Church, and the true conversion of sinners. In a meeting held on Sunday, January 24, Wigand and Flacius declared their dissatisfaction with the proceedings in Wittenberg. Referring particularly to the shocking stubbornness of Melanchthon, the former urged the Saxon delegates to regard G.o.d higher than men, and earnestly and openly to call the Wittenbergers to repentance. He thereupon handed the delegates, besides a list of Adiaphoristic errors and of offensive statements culled from Major's homilies, two sealed letters, which contained their strictures on the eight articles presented to Melanchthon, their answer to Melanchthon's charges, etc. Flacius said in the meeting: This matter troubled him day and night; hope for the conversion of the Adiaphorists who had despised the admonition, not of men but of the Holy Spirit, was constantly decreasing; having already yielded more than he should have done, he now must insist that, in a publication signed by both parties, the Leipzig Interim be condemned by name, and that also in the future the people be warned against such sins and be called to repentance.

Flacius furthermore declared that his theses should have been either retained or refuted. In this he was supported by Otto of Nordhausen.

Moerlin answered, irritated: They had presented other articles because Melanchthon had declined the first; if any one was able to frame better theses, he was at liberty to do so. Discouraged and ill-humored, the delegation returned to Wittenberg, where, too, animosity had reached its climax. For in his sermon, delivered Sunday in Bugenhagen's pulpit, and in the presence of Melanchthon and the other professors, John Curio had spoken of Flacius as "the rascal and knave (_Schalk und Bube_)," and even referred to the Lower Saxon delegates in unfriendly terms. Also a filthy and insulting pasquil, perhaps composed by Paul Crell, in which Flacius and the Saxon delegates were reviled, was circulated in Wittenberg and even sent to Coswig. (Preger 2, 49.) The first lines of the pasquil ran thus; "_Qui huc venistis legati Illyrici permerdati, Ab illo concacati, Polypragmones inflati, Illius natibus nati, Quae communio veritati, Mendacio et vanitati?_" (_C. R._ 9, 50. 235.)

Having read the sealed letters and convinced themselves that Melanchthon could never be induced to accede to the demands of the Magdeburgers, the delegation (with the exception of Chemnitz) immediately returned to Coswig, January 25. Here they declared: They had not delivered the list of errors to Melanchthon; if they had done so, deliberations would have been broken off immediately; only the charges with respect to justification had been transmitted; they therefore requested the Magdeburgers to declare their agreement with the articles already submitted to Melanchthon. Seeing no other course, the Magdeburgers finally yielded, though reluctantly, and not without protests and some changes in the articles. Flacius, too, consented, but "only with a wounded conscience," as he declared. Having returned to Wittenberg, the delegates transmitted the modified articles together with the additions of the Magdeburgers to Melanchthon.

In his answer of January 27 to the Lower Saxon pastors, Melanchthon said in part: "You know that in the last thirty years a great confusion of opinions obtained in which it was difficult not to stumble somewhere.

And many hypocrites have been, and still are, hostile in particular to me. I was also drawn into the insidious deliberations of the princes.

If, therefore, I have either stumbled anywhere or been too lukewarm in any matter, I ask G.o.d and the churches to forgive me and shall submit to the verdict of the Church.... As to the Flacian quarrels, however, concerning which you are now treating with me so eagerly, and into which Flacius has injected many foreign matters, you yourselves know that this affair pertains also to many others, and that, without offending them, I cannot decide and settle anything (_me aliquid statuere posse_).... This now I desire to be my last answer (_hanc volo nunc meam postremam responsionem esse_); if it does not satisfy you, I appeal to the verdict of the Church in which you, too, will be judges. May the Son of G.o.d govern all of us, and grant that we be one in Him!" As to the articles submitted by the delegates, Melanchthon rejected all the changes and additions suggested by the Magdeburgers. He declared that he was not willing to enter into a discussion of the adiaphora, nor in any way to censure the honorable men who had partic.i.p.ated in the deliberations concerning the Leipzig Interim. (_C. R._ 9, 62.)

Toward evening Flacius received Melanchthon's answer, together with the information that the Saxon delegates would depart on the morrow, and that now the Magdeburgers might do what seemed best to them. Early next morning they dispatched another letter written by Flacius, in which they modified their demands, and urged the Saxon delegates to continues their efforts to induce the Wittenbergers to reject the Adiaphoristic errors.

"We call upon G.o.d as our witness," they said, "that we most earnestly desire a G.o.dly peace, and that, if it is not brought about, the fault lies not with us, but with them, who expressly say and confess concerning themselves that they absolutely refuse to condemn the Adiaphoristic errors--the real issue of the entire controversy." (_C.

R._ 9, 67.) But the messenger arrived too late; he met the delegation when they were about to leave the gates of Wittenberg. Increased animosity on both sides was the only result of the mediation-efforts of the Lower Saxon theologians.

270. Futile Efforts of Duke John Albrecht.