WITTENBERG, CONCORD OF.

Efforts of Butzer (§ 1).

Meeting at Cassel (§ 3).

Butzer's Formula (§ 2).

Conference at Wittenberg (§ 4).

Result of the Conference (§ 5).

The Concord of Wittenberg was an attempt of the sixteenth century toward an agreement on the Lord's Supper between the Saxons and representatives of Upper Germany and Switzerland. The preliminary history, until the fall of 1529, is that of the

397

Marburg Conference (see Marburg, Conference of). This rather deepened the prejudices and brought to light the diversity of point of view than

paved the way for agreement. The r. Efforts diet of Schmalkald toward the end of of Butzer. 1529 led to a complete rupture with

South Germany. A renewed attempt at reconciliation at the diet at Nuremberg (1530) failed on account of the attitude of the council of that city, and an agreement was no longer deemed possible. Each estate approached the Augsburg diet (see Augsburg Confession and Its Apology) armed for its own justification; and, as it has proved, the Saxon plan contemplated at the outset a special confession in the narrowest sense. The elector and his theologians had in mind to present their domestic church affairs and their loyalty in the moat favorable light, and, in the specific renunciation of the Zwinglian teaching, to make their open appeal to the emperor as the protector of pure doctrine and religious peace. Although under the stress of circumstances and the influence of Philip of Hesse, supported by Hesse, Lüneburg, Brandenburg, Anhalt, Nuremberg, and Reutlingen, Melanchthon's preamble to the "Saxon Apology" was laid aside and the severest strictures against the "sacramentarians" were mitigated, yet the aversion to Zwingli and the South Germans remained unchanged. Melanchthon took every opportunity in public and private letters to warn against the so-called heresy, and their presumed connivance against the emperor enhanced the anxiety not to be taken in the same category as the South Germans and Zwingli. On the contrary the Strasburg delegates to the Diet of Augsburg had been ordered to emphasize that the difference on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper should be no reason for a separation among the Evangelicals. Feeling the need of the aid of their own preachers, they secured the presence of Martin Butzer and Wolfgang Capito (qq.v.), a consequence of which was the Tetrapolitan Confession (q.v.). Butzer now made the harmonizing of the parties his life purpose. A conference sought with Melanchthon was refused. Johann Brenz (q.v.) first acceded to a disputation with the Strasburg contingent, which insisted that the variance was only one of words. Butzer tried to make the same clear in a conference with the Saxon Chancellor Bruck, and further in two letters, which were passed on to Melanchthon, who finally acceded to a correspondence (July 25), with the result that he rejected the Strasburg overture with the charge that they made a "pretense" by affirming the real presence and then qualifying it with the addition, "by the contemplation of faith." Successful elsewhere, Butzer ultimately (after Aug. 22) brought it to a conference with Melanchthon. The result was that Butzer considered himself agreed with Melanchthon and wrote to that effect, while the latter advised him to transmit his views in the form of articles to Luther, and he himself informed Luther that "Butzer desires to accede to our opinion," and that he held that the body of Christ is really present in the bread by ordination. To the propositions transmitted to Luther, the latter replied to Melanchthon (Sept. 11) from Coburg that he would not reply to Butzer. Not mote encouraging were the reports of Capito who had been sent with com promise propositions to Basel and Zurich. Undaunted, the Strasburg company resolved to send

Butzer to Luther, by whom he was cordially receives at Coburg (Sept. 25). But Luther refused to be convinced that he and his associates had always

taught as Butzer now explained -his doctrine, and he could not induce Luther to a joint signature to arti cles to be proposed, as all depended upon the inter

pretation. Luther, however, was inspired with hope,

and Butzer, departing after two days, much-encour aged, proceeded by way of Nuremberg, where he had a friendly consultation with Melanchthon and

Andrews Osiander, tothetowna of Upper Germany on behalf of the concord. Here his amiable approach and eloquence overcame all hesitation. Even Zwingli's assent was yielded, upon urging, to the formula: "The real body of Christ is truly offered."

Returning home, greatly elated, by way of Basel,

where he met with the heartiest accord of (Ecolam= padius, he undertook to draft a formula satisfactory to both parties. Thus there originated a document

of concord in the form of a letter to Duke Ernst, of

Lüneburg, which stated, after reaffirm

2. Butzer's ing that the strife was one of words,

Formula. that the true body and the true blood

of Christ are truly present in the Lord's

Supper, offered with the words of the Lord and the sacrament, and that upon the minister devolved nothing but the outer service of word and token, the inner blessing and the bread of heaven being given of God alone, and being therefore alone vital.

Zwingli, meantime, had become auspicious, and personally objected to the formula on the ground that simple people would conceive the expression,

"true body of Christ," always "as if they, ate the

body, chewing it with the teeth, as Luther also

taught." He, however, would not object to the transmission of the document to. Duke Ernst, re serving, however, in case of alleged recall, the privi lege of reference to the statement made. Depend ing on this, and in view of the endorsement of his

letter put forth by the council at Strasburg (Dec.

31,1530), while a somewhat altered copy of the con

fession was forwarded to the elector of Saxony,

Butzer not only assumed to depend on the support

of the Swiss but also undertook their defense.

Luther, who received the formula from the elector

(Jan. 21, 1531), excluded the Swiss from his reply to

Butzer and the South Germans, expressed his grati fication at so much agreement, but marveled at the hesitation to admit the eating of the body also by

unbelievers, a point on which he stated that he must

remain steadfast. He would, however, await further divine guidance, without presuming a full and sound concord. Though no concord, yet a certain truce was thus accomplished, one result of which was the admission of the adherents of the Tetrapolitana to the Schmalkald League. An attempt during the early months of the League at a union with the

Swiss failed. The Wittenberg party, however; ex

pected more of Strasburg, which on account of the

Swiss internal turmoil and from political reasons

began to gravitate more northward. In the towns

of Upper Germany the work of conciliation at the

398

hands of the tireless Butzer was making notable progress, save as it was somewhat neutralized by the severe judgment of Luther on Zwingh's death. This catastrophe in Switzerland left Butzer a freer hand, and his influence, as of the foremost South German theologian and churchman, after the death of Å’colampadius, was materially increasing. A forward step was the subscription of the Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Schweinfurt (1532), on the part of the representatives of Upper Germany. Melanchthon, gradually relinquishing his distrust. toward Butzer, was warming more and more toward his project as shown by his communications from Apr., 1531, and his expressed desire for a meeting, Oct., 1533. A fruit of this meeting was Butzer's projection of a new general conference to give formal and public statement to the reconciliation that seemed now to have been practically accomplished. Soon better results were promising by a stronger inclination toward harmony in Switzerland; the agreement of the South German Ambrosius Blaurer (q.v.) at Stuttgart to a formula stating the real presence according to substance; and by the adoption, by the much-contested Augsburg, of the Confession and Apology, through Butzer's exertions.

In view of the exclusion of the "sacramentarians" by the Peace of Kadan, Philip of Hesse invited Butzer and Melanchthon to a consultation Dec. 27, 1534. Butzer obtained the consensus of the South German preachers assembled quietly at Constance (Dec. 15), which, however, to his disappointment, Zurich and other Swiss towns avoided, after handing in a communion confession previously agreed to. Melanchthon's own view as expressed to Philip, was that the body and blood of

3. Meeting Christ were truly not figuratively presat Cassel. ent with the bread and wine, and the thoughts dictated by reason were to be disregarded, but Luther's instructions were stated in as strict and crass forms as in the Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl (1528) itself. He made secure against Butzer's favorite plea of a misunderstanding of words by defining the sharp antithesis as existing between the real body to which he and his colleagues adhered and the bread as a mere sign or token, as he alleged was held by the opponents; and he maintained that to make a compromise was against conscience. Moreover, the proffering, the eating, and the chewing with the teeth of the real body, he affirmed as his absolutely unalterable position. A reconciliation was out of the question. Against Luther's strictures Butzer protested formally; namely: that his plea of mutual misunderstanding was sincere, and that he meant no compromise but to set forth the points held in common by both parties; and for the rest, he extended the discussion skilfully in terms of Luther's larger Bekenntniss, acceding that he could even assume Luther's statement of the chewing of the Lord's body. Rather as the profession of the South Germans he announced that the body is essentially and truly received; that bread and wine are only signs (signs exhibitiva), with which the body and blood are simultaneously offered and received; and that bread and body are not united by a mixture of substance, but by a "sacramental conjunction."

In the course of time there developed at Witten berg an earnest desire for peace. Luther came to find himself satisfied with Butzer's -views. Me lanchthon, himself burning with longing for unity, held consultations with the theologians, and special ly importuned Landgrave Philip, the

4. Confer- father of the idea, to spare no endeavor.

ence at Rumors of the prospective understand

Wittenberg. ing began to stir Roman Catholic and political circles. The outcome of the

Cassel conference as well as the unconditioned statements in the new edition of Luther's larger Bekennt

niss vom Aberullmahl (1535) aroused much soreness among the Swiss. The closer relations which Augsburg, hitherto indecisive, now assumed toward

Wittenberg inspired Luther the more in the hope for the speedy consummation of the concord, and he dis patched five letters to South German cities for a voluntary assembly in Hesse or Coburg. Signs of a more conciliatory spirit appeared in Switzerland.

At a meeting of theologians at Aarau, where Basel and Zurich were represented, a formula was adopted in favor of the true eating of the body in the "mys terious communion," for the salvation of the soul and the spiritual life. At a diet at Basel, to which

Butzer gained admission only after long resistance, an unpublished provisional formula was drawn up not strictly Zwinglian. When at the Diet of

Schmalkald (Dec., 1535) Württemberg, Augsburg,

Frankfort; and Kempten had been received into the

League, the way seemed to have been paved for the successful agreement with the Saxon theologians.

The meeting was called for May 14, 1536, at Eisen ach. The Swiss, who had decided at Aarau (Apr.

30) not to attend and to stand by their Basel agreement, excused themselves by the brevity of time and long distance. A large representation of South

Germans, among whom were Butzer and Capito,

arrived at Wittenberg May 21. Meanwhile,

Melanchthon was beset with great fear lest the chasm should be widened and sought till the last moment to frustrate the plan. Notice of a republi cation of Zwingli's Expositio fulei, with a eulogistic estimate of the author by H. Bullinger in the intro duction, and of the correspondence of Å’colampa dius and Zwingli, with a preface by Butzer, caused

Luther likewise to despair; so that upon the arrival of the delegates he, -more suspicious and inflexible than ever, took the attitude first of demanding proof of their sincere intentions. When Luther met But zer and Capito next day, in the presence of a number of his own colleagues, and Butzer proposed modes of proceeding and recounted his strong efforts at con cord in doctrine and order, Luther replied abruptly and emphatically that until unity was reached on the

Sacrament, he would not treat on any other article.

He stated further that the introductions (ut sup.) by Butzer and Bullinger had killed his hopes, since with men who taught one way here and another there no agreement was possible or desirable. Luther now demanded of Butzer that he renounce his former doctrine (" We hold that there is nothing in the elements but bread and wine"); and to acknowledge that the body is eaten both by the wicked and the pious. Then Luther would be willing to acknowl edge that he had been too harsh in his writings

399

against Zwingli and Å’colampadius. Butzer taken by surprise protested his innocence with respect to those publications, made appeal to his utterances and writings on every occasion in defense of his sincerity, and insisted that he and his associates could not take back that which Luther charged, which they never taught, but recall was limited to such a too gross representation as they might have entertained through misunderstanding of Luther's views. The faith of the churches in the free imperial cities with respect to eating with the mouth was in accord with Luther's teaching ("the true body and blood were set forth by the visible signs of bread and wine"), and as to the impious these were not in question, since any recognized as such were not admissible at all to the communion. Their idea, moreover, was that the godless received only the elements, whereas those gifted with faith in general, but "not that vital faith due to the grace of God," received'the body for their judgment. After protracted discussions in which Luther laid stress on the reality of the gift of grace, independent of faith and in dependence upon the institution of Christ, the session adjourned on account of Luther's feebleness. The next day, in the presence of all the representatives, including for the first time Melanchthon, Butzer reported progress, so as to be able to recall what was previously taught amiss, and revised his former profession, but declined the partaking of the body by the ungodly, although conceding the same by the unworthy, and Luther's plea that the presence of the body depended, regardless of belief or unbelief, simply on God's Word and ordinance. After so much progress, and after Luther had 'questioned Butzer's associates seriatim and had satisfied himself of their complete accord, and ascertained that in their home churches they had not tolerated the doctrine of mere bread and wine, and had even punished the same, in some places, as blasphemy, he seemed to think that he ought to be satisfied. He was joined in a private conference by his colleagues who felt likewise; only that the other party should be required to affirm once more that the body was present also for the unworthy. But Luther deemed this unnecessary and, returning, pronounced the brotherly conciliation accomplished. Melanohthon was assigned to draft a formula. Agreement on the other points of difference quickly followed. Butzer represented the scruples of the South Germans against the actual faith of infants held by Luther, but he, unwilling also to discuss such a faith, was content with an affirmation that baptism was essential to salvation, and was the medium of regeneration; and on absolution and private confession Luther's argument prevailed. Melanchthon, still doubting the outcome, presented his formula, May 26; and after Luther had called attention to the fact that such could not be binding until submitted to wider circles as well as to the sovereigns for confirmation, it was read by K. Cruciger, teaching, in substance, that there was a sacramental union of the bread and body; that the real body was taken as set forth by the bread; and that the unworthy, because they abused the sacrament availing in the Church, when they used it without penitence and faith, received it to their judgment. There

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Wittenberg

was required also assent to the Augsburg Confession and to the Apology. Butzer handed the confession of the Swiss (ut sup.) to Luther who promised to read it. As a seal of the compact Butzer was one of the preachers on the following Sunday, and he and Capito participated in the communion. On Monday the subscription took place, and the delegates departed in the most hopeful frame of mind.

In most of the cities people were indeed astonished at the new articles. In Ulm they openly spoke of a new doctrine; they quickly perceived that Luther had made not the least eonces-

5. Result sion. At Constance, where the agreeof the ments on baptism and auricular conConference. fession were offensive, a new formula on the Lord's Supper, baptism, and church discipline was planned in rebuttal, but left in abeyance. Strasburg, always the van of the movement, where all subscribed but the former abbot, P. Volzius, had a strained position. Yet by July 22, Frankfort, Worms, Landau, Weissenburg, Esslingen, Augsburg, Memmingen, and Kempten had assented, and Reutlingen followed, Sept. 13, 1536. As to the Swiss, Luther had expressed, before Butzer's departure, his pleasure concerning the confession handed to him; and sent along an amiable missive to the burgomaster of Basel, who in turn was much gratified. Basel and Mühlhausen seemed to be in accord, but after various movements a council at Basel (Nov. 14, 1536), unable to decide between the Roman and the Lutheran doctrines, declined the presence in substance. At the Diet of Schmalkald (Feb., 1537) Butzer was to confer with Luther in regard to the declaration (Jan. 12, 1537) by seven Swiss cities, including Zurich, Bern, and Basel; but this was prevented by Luther's illness, and only the fact that the official approval of Luther's articles at the diet was not called for averted a most probable breach with the South Germans. Meanwhile, a letter of Butzer to Luther (Jan. 19, 1537) in disparagement of the Swiss declaration, enabled the former's enemies to make his efforts also unpopular. Johann Zwick of Constance, who seems to have received intimation of Luther's teaching in the Schmalkald Articles of the eating of the ungodly, now made an appeal for opposition to the union and was joined by Bullinger against Butzer's movement. At a synod at Bern, during the middle of 1537, in the presence of Calvin and P. Viret, Butzer achieved a brilliant vindication, but met with the impatient inquiry concerning the delayed answer of Luther. Finally, Luther, in answer to Butzer who had urged an official reply (Dec. 3, 1539), showed that the Swiss formula was not at all satisfactory; but in his reply to the Swiss (Dec. 1), without touching the dogmatic discussion except to dispose of a misunderstanding on some point on the Lord's Supper, he again professed his adherence to the idea of concord, expressed his joy over their honest efforts and the progress made, presumed that the steps toward concord had not been completed but only opened, and recommended forbearance and good will until further progress. This answer produced great satisfaction in Switzerland. Bullinger was of the mind to suspend further procedure except that of promoting peace by writing, speech, and preach-

400

ing. But hopes were disappointed. At a synod at Zurich (May 4, 1538), in which the note was loudly voiced that the agreement should only be assumed as valid after Luther had formally recalled his written attacks against Zwingli, a reply to Luther was resolved upon, in which the Swiss asserted the partaking of the body through a believing spirit; presumed that no difference longer existed; and begged the privilege, under present circumstances, of presenting such instruction to the people as would be most intelligible to them. But before its receipt, Luther, in an answer to Bullinger, assumed the harmony to be an assured thing, and the missive of the Swiss he acknowledged briefly by referring them, regarding his scruples, to Butzer as mediator. Thus, the movement resolved itself for years into polite correspondence; of an ultimate concord, by the action of a general convention, there was no more mention; and Butzer, who had made another attempt at Wittenberg (1538), seemed to have lost his former interest. The only fruit was a temporary truce of friendliness with the cities of upper Germany. Luther's comparison of Zwingli with Nestorius (Concilien and Kirchen, 1539) caused deep resentment in Switzerland. His restrictions upon the Swiss and their orthodoxy became ever severer until by a letter (Aug. 31, 1543) he broke off all relations with them, offering to pray and teach against them until his end.

T. Kolde.

Bibliography: The sources are the official reports in Butzer's Scripta Anglicana, pp. 648 sqq., Basel, 1577, and in Walch's ed. of Luther's Werke, xvii. 2543; the matter in Tentzel, Supplementum hist. Gothanæ, pp. 114 sqq., Jena, 1716; Wolfgang Musculus' reports in his Itinerarium, given in T. Kolde, Analecta Lutherana, pp. 216 sqq., Gotha, 1883. Consult: J. C. G. Neudecker, Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit, Cassel, 1836; idem, Merkwürdige Aktenstücke aus der Zeit der Reformation, 2 parts, Nuremberg, 1838; idem, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der Reformation, Leipsic, 1841; T. Kelm, Die Reformation der Reichstadt Ulm, Stuttgart, 1851; idem, Schwäbische Reformationsgeschichte, Tübingen, 1855; C. Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, Elberfeld, 1858; J. W. Baum, Capito und Butzer, ib. 1860; G. Uhlhorn, Urbanus Rhegius, ib., 1861; F. W. Hassencamp, Hessische Reformationsgeschichte, vol. i., Frankfort, 1864; M. Lenz, Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps mit Bucer, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1880-91; G. Kawerau, Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, Halle, 1884 sqq.; H. E. Jacobs, The Book of Concord, ii. 253-259, Philadelphia, 1893; idem, Martin Luther, pp. 316 sqq., New York, 1898; W. Germann, Johann Forster, Meiningen, 1894; J. W. Richard, Philip Melanchthon, pp. 254-255, New York, 1898; E. Egli, Analecta reformatoria, Zurich, 1899 sqq.; K. Wolfart, Die Augsburger Reformation in . . . 1533-1534, Leipsic, 1901; F. Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, 3 vols., Munich, 1901-07; Cambridge Modern History, ii. 234, 339, New York, 1904; K. Schornbaum, Zur Politik des Markgrafen Georg von Brandenburg, Munich, 1906; T. Kolde, Die älteste Redaktion der Augsburger Konfession, Gütersloh, 1908; idem, Historische Einleitung in die symbolischen Bücher der evang.-lutherischen Kirche, ib. 1907; the letters and lives of Luther (see under article on him), and the literature on the later stages of the German Reformation.