The Contribution of Martin Chemnitzto Our Lutheran Heritage By: Mork Hanna

[Preparedfor the South Central District of the WisconsinEvangelical Lutheran Synod Friendswood,Texas, October 19, 20041

Sitting in Church History Classone day at the seminary,listening to the namesof the recommendedhistorians, this essayistwas a bit proud of the usedhistory books he had bought over the previous years. They were not all at the top of the list, but most of them were on the list. There were nameslike Grimm, Latourette,Durant and Hausser,and most of their books specifically coveredthe Reformationperiod. There was no needto worry about resourcesin the church history areaof my library. . . that is, until receiving the assignmentforthis essayon . There was no panic after looking in the first two books and coming up empty. However, after going through the four historianslisted above,anxiety beganto set in. The only notable historian left was Schaff,but in the only mention of Chemnitznanrre,hedemeaned Chemnitz for taking ten yearsto respondto Trent, whereasCalvin was done in three. All thosebooks, and therewas all but nothing about Chemnitz. There was still hope. There were sureto be books on Chemnitz somewhereon the internet. And, as it turned out, there were a bunch. But all of them had the samename, The SecondMortin. And all of them had the sameauthor, J. A. O. Preus. It never got any better. As a secondcareer student at MLC and the Seminary,there was no Germanor Latin in the curriculum, only Greek and Hebrew. And after getting all the translatedbooks !y Chemnitz, the searchfor translatedbooks (or even essays)about Chemnitz kept coming up with that samename, The SecondMartin,by J. A. O. Preus. Needlessto say,the resonrcesforthis paperleft me very dependenton TheSecond Martin,by J. A. O. Preus. To myrelief though,Preus did write athorough biographyof Chemnitz. As aresult of his work and a few essaysavailable, there was more than enoughinformation to fill in the pages. However, ffiy hope is that you will not be offended that the biographicalsketch of Chemnitzthat follows is little more than a book report. My hope is that you will seeon the next ten or so pages that Martin Chemnitzhas left an imprint on our church that is still visible. Our heritageas confessionalLutherans is, to a sizeabledegree, the result of Chemnitz efforts to bring unity and peaceto the LutheranChurch by way of common confessionsknown as corporadoctrinae. Becauseof the limited time and space,this essaywill only cover Chemnitz' biography and his confessionalwork. So as not to needlesslyclutter the essaywith in-text citations,all credit for the biographicalinformation on Chemnitz is given to The SecondMartin, by J. A. O. Preus(only quotesand points of specific interestwill be cited). A Sketch of Chemnitz' Life

Martin Chemnitz was born to Paul and Euphemia Kemnitz on the ninth of November 1522in the town of Treuenbrietzenin Brandenburg. He was one of three children, with a sister, Ursala,and a brother,Matthew. Luther was by that time, 38 yearsold, and during that year, left his seclusionat Wartburg and returnedto , respondedto Henry VIII's Defenseof the SevenSacraments, and published his GermanNew Testament. Chemnitz was born at a time of greatchange, much of which would shapehis life and his work. In his autobiography,Chemnitz doesnot mention much about his childhood, exceptthat when Martin was but elevenyears old, his father passedaway. Chemnitzbeganhis educationat Wittenberg at the age of fourteen. However, becauseof financial challenges,his educationalprocess would start and stop on many occasionsuntil, at the age of 26,and after changingschools five times, Chemnitzreceived his Masters of Arts degree. For the following four years,he then took up his study of , albeit on a private level. Three of those yearsincluded his time as the librarian at the ducal library in Konigsberg. The financial challengeswere largely due to his father's death,after which the family businesssuffered atthe handsof his brother, Matthew. Afterbeginning his educationat Wittenberg,Martin attendedschools at ,Calbe, Frankfurt on the Oder, back to Wittenberg (until SmalcaldWar temporarily closedit), and then to Konigsberg. During most of his schooling,Chemnitz worked his way through, usually as a tutor or teacher. One of his more interesting(as well as substantial)moneymaking endeavors, which, given his careerappears almost like an aberration,was writing astrology for somewealthy, high profile people. Preus even mentionsthat when Chemnitz decidedto leaveKonigsberg, "the duke who had come to rely on his astrologicalworks prevailed on him to stay by offering him the position of librarian at a good salary" Q2). After remaining three years,which he describedas a time when he "was botheredby nothing, and studied [theology] with delight" (ibid), there is no other mention of astrology. Leaving Konigsbergand his three years of independenttheological study, he returnedto Wittenbergonce more, but within a short period of time, found himself on the faculty instead being a student. This lastedroughly one year, upon which Chemnitz accepteda call to be coadjutorin the city of Braunschweigand pastor of Martin Church. Later Chemnitz would acceptthe position of superintendentin ,aplace and position at which he would remain until, at age 62, poor health forced him to retire. When he becameSuperintendent, the city council paid for him to travel to Rostock and get his doctorate. Chemnitzmarried when he was 33 years old. He and his wife, Anna, were good Lutherans,having ten children. Six survived to adulthood,two sonsand four daughters.

The Influence in Chemnitz' Life

Among the many people who had some influence in Chemnitz' life, Joachim Moerlin was, by far, the most prominent. However, some would say that by virrue of Chemnitz teaching Melanchthon'sLoci Communesand incorporatingthem into his own Loci Theologici that Melanchthonwas Chemnitz' primary influence. Looking at the end-productof Chemnitz' theologicalwork might suggestthat both were true, Moerlin (and by extension,Luther) in regardsto theology and Melanchthon,in regardsto methodologyand expressionof thought. Early in his life, Chemnitz' relative, George Schuler(who also went by GeorgeSabinus) seemsto have beeninvolved in Chemnitz' education,as well as employment. Sabinus' father was also Chemnitz' guardianafter his father died. It was through an arrangementby Sabinus that Chemnitzwas introducedto Melanchthon. Sabinus,though well educatedand accomplished in his own right (a professor,rector and noted poet), was the son-in-law of . However, ratherthan any theological influence, Preusnotes a suggestionin an historicaljournal article which insiststhat "Chemnitz was drawn to Sabinusjust becauseof their mutual interestin poetry" (358), which discountsany close connectionto Melanchthon. Sabinuswas a professorat Frankfurt during the time that Chemnitz studiedthere, and a professor(and rector) at Konigsberg while Chemnitzwas there. For a brief period in 1545,during his secondattendance at Wittenberg, Chemnitz got to hear Luther preachand teach. Chemnitz wrote in his autobiography,"During this time I heard Luther lecturing,preaching, and for the last time leadinga disputation. But as I was then intent on other studies,I did not hear him with due attention."' It was at this time also, that Chemnitz and Melanchthonbecame acquainted. Melanchthonwas impressedwith Chemnitz andtried to help him get his master'sdegree there at Wittenberg. However, the SmalcaldWar got in the way, and Chemnitz endedup at Konigsberg. When he returnedto study at Wittenberg in 1553,Chemnitzboarded at Melanchthon'shouse. Melanchthon thought enough of Chemnitz to not only recommendhim for a faculty position at the university, he also arrangeda specialclass in which Chemnitz lecturedon the Loci communes.Although his lectureswere popular, after only ayear, Chemnitzleft Wittenbergfor the coadjutorposition in Braunschweig. Preusconvincingly suggeststhat Melanchthon's influenceof Chemnitz would have to be limited to methodologyinsofar as theological differenceswere behind Chemnitz' deparfiire(98-9). As to theologicalinfluence (asidefrom the obvious influence of Luther's writings), JoachimMoerlin seemsto be the one who influencedChemnitzthe most. Chemnitz servedas coadjutorunder Moerlin at Braunschweigfor thirteen years(1554-67). Moerlin was only eight yearsolder than Chemnitz,buthad studiedunder Luther. He attainedhis master'sdegree from Wittenbergin 1537,became Luther's chaplainin 1539,and receivedhis doctoratein 1540(at age26). Moerlin and Chemnitz had met when both were refuting Osiander in Konigsberg. After Moerlin becamesuperintendent at Braunschweig,he arrangedfor Chemnitz to be his coadjutor(not to mention, arrangingChemnitz' marnageless that a year later). They developeda friendship and worked well togetherthroughout Moerlin's time there. Moerlin and Chemnitzwere often at the forefront of many of the controversiesfollowing the Interims, always solidly defendingLuther and the true teachingsof Scripture. Moerlin eventuallytook a call to Prussiain 1567where he died four years later.

Chemnitz' Contribution of Unifving the Lutheran Church

If the secondMartin had not come, the first Martin would not have stood. J. A. O. Preus in his Translator'sPreface to Chemnitz' Loci Theologici attributedthis saying to the Romanists after Chemnitz' publication of the Examination of the (ECT). Undoubtedly, this could not only apply to the ECT, but all Chemnitz' writings. And not only could this saying apply to his writing, it is just as applicableto the work of Chemnitz in uniffing the Lutheran Church in the yearsafter the "first" Martin's death. Writing the bulk of the (FC) was and is a significant contribution of Chemnitz,but in many respects,this writing was the final product of a lot of good old fashion hard work as a faithful pastor,coadjutor, superintendent and respectedtheologian.

Chemnitz Work as Coadiutor and Superintendent

Somewould seeit as a small contribution to our Lutheranheritage, and maybe not even worth mentioning,that Chemnitz was a faithful pastor,a hard worker and well-organized coadjutorand superintendent.Nonetheless, this was the foundation of his overall contribution, and partly what earnedthe respectof leadersand other theologians. Chemnitzreceivedover twenty prominentcalls; a few to be a professor,most as a superintendent. When Chemnitzbeganhis work as coadjutorin the city of Braunschweig,he was an assistantto Moerlin, who had beenthere only about one year. The city of Braunschweigwas locatedin the duchy of the samename. Bugenhagenhad brought the to the city in 1528,but the duchy of Braunschweig,under Duke Henry the Younger, remainedCatholic, ffid would so until I 568. The city of Braunschweigwas a free city, which enabledthe churchto remain Lutheran. No doubt though, being surroundedby Catholicskept the superintendentand coadjutoron their toes. : The position of coadjutor (assistantto the superintendent)was a new position when Chemnitz acceptedthe call, but Moerlin gavehim plenty to do. Preuslists the following: He preachedregularly, conductedhis lectures on Melanchthon's Loci Communesfor the pastors and theological students, handed down theological opinions for other churchesand faculties, and was active in the daily life of the church of Braunschweig. Not only did Chemnitzpreachand teach solid Lutherandoctrine in the midst of the surrounding Catholicism,as the yearswent by, also in the midst of an encroachingCalvinism. As a matter of fact, one of the first controversiesthat he and Moerlin tackled after Chemnitz got to Braunschweigwas part of the Crypto-Calvinistic controversy. It beganwith Albert Hardenbergof , whom Bente describesas "a secret,but decidedCalvinist" (Bente, 180). It endedup with a confrontationof Melanchthonat Wittenberg. Moerlin, as a part of a delegation,put it to Melanchthonpoint blank. Melanchthonwas to "show from the heart whetherhe held that John Calvin was an enemy of the Lord's Supper" (Preus, I l0). Melanchthonhad his way that day, avoiding the questionby accusingthem of coming to "destroy him" (ibid). Moerlin and Chemnitz returnedwith written articles to which Melanchthon selectivelyand tacitly agreed,but nothing cameof it. Additionally, with regardto the Crypto- Calvinistic controversy,both Chemnitz andMoerlin supplied opinions with which Joachim Westphalmight refuteCalvin's falseview of the Lord's Supper(Bente, 182). During their time togetherat Braunschweig,Moerlin and Chemnitz fought againstmost all the major controversiessettled by the FC,and a put out a number of fires beforethey even got going. Though the Majoristic controversybegan before either of them got to Braunschweig,as the controversyover good works being necessaryfor salvationdragged out, both Moerlin and Chemnitzwere "chief amongthe theologianswho opposedhim" (Bente, I 18). In the Adiaphoristic controversy,Moerlin @resumablywith his assistan0drew up the Eight Articles that were meant to give Melanchthonthe opportunity to repent of the sins and elrors of the Leipzig Interim and achievepiece betweenMelanchthon and Flacius. Moerlin and Chemnitzdelivered these Eight Articles to Wittenberg and, with a party of other superintendents and pastors,served as mediatorsbetween Melanchthon and Flacius. They were unsuccessfulas mediators(due to the opponents'belligerence), but the eight articles becamea startingpoint for future confessionalactivities. In the secondAntinomistic controversy(which took place while Chemnitz andMoerlin worked together),Bente lists Moerlin as one of the "most prominent opponents"to Andrew Poach. Chemnitzwould later addressthis rejection of the "third use" of the law very succinctly in Article IV of the FC. In the Flacian controversy,Bente points out that Chemnitzand Moerlin werethe first to opposeFlacius' publishedtract(1567) aboutoriginal sin beingthe "substance" of man. Though their respor^lseat that time was short, eachof them would later write more substantialpieces against it.' In the Synergisticcontroversy, Moerlin is mentionedas writing a thorough explanationof Strigel's ambiguousdeclaration of orthodoxy following the Weimar Disputation(1560). In virtually all thesecontroversies, the dynamic duo faced Lutherantheologians who claimed to be teachingLuther, but somehowhad skewedone or anotherteaching; some intentionally, othersunintentionally. How could they confront all thesefalse teachingsand not seethe need for a confessionthat would addressthese new controversies?How could they wrestlewith all theseissues and not seethat such a confession,as an addendumto the previous confessions,would needto be corpora doctrinae, recognizedand subscribedto by all who would considerthemselves to be Lutheran. Obviously, they did seethe need,but not all at once. The completedFormula of Concord wasn't hatchedfrom a brain storming sessionin the middle of the night. The Formula's gestationperiod lastedfor years. Someof its beginningscan be found in the successof the local churcheshaving their own collection of writings they consideredas standardsof Christian Doctrine. This local corpus doctrinae,which Preusrepeatedly refers to as the centerpieceor heart of the church order (Kirchenordnung) was implemented at the visitations of the churches duringthe reformation of the Braunschweigduchy (1568) afterthe deathof the ardentCatholic Duke Henry the Younger. The city of Braunschweig, under Moerlin and Chemnitz had one in place for years. In regardsto both church orders and corpora doctrinae, Chemnitz' contibution to our Lutheran heritage involves him making substantial improvement on the labors that others had begun. Someof theseimprovements were on works begunby his contemporaries,while other improvementsinvolved the work of those who came before him. The conceptof corporo doctrinae is attributedto Melanchthon3(1550's - Preus, 121),andthe church order in Braunschweigis attributedto Bugenhagen(1528-31 - Preus, 123). Somemight add that both of thesehave their roots in the visitations that Luther began. Nonetheless,Chemnitz built upon their models and advancedthe use of corpora doctrinae as the core of the church order. If the corpora doctrinae weren't the pavementon the road to the Formula and ,they were at leastthe road markersthat pointed the way. Chemnitz' earliestwork on church orders and corpora doctrinae occurred during his time as Moerlin's assistant.After Moerlin's departurein 1567,Chemnitz producedseveral others on his own. The following is a list of his more significant work: . 1563 Moerlin and Chemnitz revised the corpus doctrinae of the city of Braunschweig. This revision contained the Liineburg Articles, a revision of Bugenhagen'schurch order of I 528-31, the UAC, the Apology, the , Melanchthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and Luther's Small and Large Catechism(Preus, 123). The LunebtngArticles (1561) addressed and condemned the false teaching of the ongoing and recent controversies. o 1567- Moerlin and Chemnitztravel to Prussiato restoresome order in the wake of Osiandreanism. They produced a corpus doctrinae for the duchy entitled the CorpusDoctrinae Pruthenicum. This corpus included the UAC, the Apology, the SmalcaldArticles, and a writing of Chemnitz entitled A Repetition of the Sum and Contentof the True, Universal Christian Doctrine of the Christian Church, in which Chemnitz addressesthe controversies of that time and the need for a commonand binding confession(Preus, 126-7). 1568-The duchy of Braunschweigwas the last of the German statesto which the reformation came. Andreae and Selnecker assisted Chemnitz in the process. Chemnitz producedthe church order for the duchy at the requestof the new Duke Julius. The corpus doctrinae is much the sameas the corpus of the city, including the Ltineburg Articles, a revision of Bugenhagen'schurch order of 1528-31,the UAC, the Apology, the SmalcaldArticles, Melanchthon'sTreatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and Luther's Small and Large Catechism(Preus, 157). Preus also mentions two works of Moerlin in connection with this corpus: the Eight Articles regarding ,and the Six Rules for Normative Doctrines (ibid). Becausethe church order was new to the duchy, it also included directives for worship, conduct of called workers, ceremonies,agendas and other church work, as well as various rites. 1576- Chemnitzproduced the Corpus Doctrinae Wilhelminumfor Duke Wilhelm of Ltineburg-Celle. This corpus containsthe Creeds,the UAC, the Apology, the SmalcaldArticles, Melanchthon'sTreatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther's Catechisms,Chemnitz' Kurzer Bericht (of 1569) and a document entitled Formulae Quaedam Caute Et Citra Scandalum Loquendi . . . (Certain Formulas for Speaking Careful and without Offense). This last document had been written by Dr. Urbanus Rhegius in 1535. Chemnitz added a lengthy appendix in 1575 with the English title, "An appendix concerning formulas for believing colrectly and speakingpiously, carefully, and without scandalregarding the major controversiesof thesetimes." The original of this document as well as the appendix were written in Latin, but for the corpus, Chemnitz produced a Germanedition (Preus, 162-4). 1576 - Chemnitz produces the Corpus Doctrinae Julium for Duke Julius of Braunschweig. This corpus is much the same as the Corpus Doctrinqe TTilhelminum,except that it included Chemnitz' church order of 1569 (Preus, r65).

Preussays that "it would not be an exaggerationto say that Chemnitz was the author of more confessionalstatements than anyoneof his age" (165). And althoughthe confessional statementslisted aboveare not as well known as Chemnitz' otherwritings, they are nonetheless significant. Dr. EugeneKlug, in his essayabout Chemnitz andthe authority of Scripture,says that, "While they fthe corpora doctrinaef may be said to cover essentiallythe samedoctrinal matterstreated in the Enchiridion, their importancewas in the servicethey renderedas confessionsor symbols for the churchesfor which they were prepared" (p. 33). Klug calls them "significant precursors"to the Formula of Concord (ibid). Klug also quotesDr. TheodoreMahlmann as saying that as early as 1567,ten years beforethe Formula, it was evident that "Chemnitz [had] clearly in mind someof the issuesthat neededto be addressedby the torn church, including such things as Christology (in view of what was happeningon the Lord's Supperamong Crypto Calvinistic Lutherans),also the natureof sin, free will, ffid tangentarticles, all of which came to be involved through the Philippist and Flacian controversies"(p. 35). Chemnitz's efforts to bring unity may not have beenas high profile as the doggedly determinedtravels of Andreae, but they were effective and seemedto improve with eachattempt. Mahlmann suggeststhat by 1576,Chemnitz' Corpus Doctrinae Julium "parallels closely the appearanceof the Formula, I 577" (p. 34). Chemnitz' corpora doctrinae served as the foundation of the Formula in another way as well. Not only did they servethe churchesthat subscribedto them, thoseterritories became demilitarized,so to speak,real estatewon in the war for Lutheranconfessionalism and the truth of God's Word. Preusnotes the Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum"provided a significant step toward the Formula of Concord in that . . . it establishedthe conceptof a binding doctrinal standard"(127). Political peacewas not the objective of these"binding doctrinal standards," althoughthat was a beneficial consequence.Chemnitzhad a more important goal. Richard Balge say that Chemnitz' "chief interestin all the union efforts was that the individual person's assuranceof salvationshould be safeguarded"(OGH,415). Chemnitz knew of one sureway to safeguardthat :to remain faithful to God's Word. In the Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicumof 1567,Chemnitzhad addeda summaryof the Christian faith entitled,A Repetitionof the Body of EcclesiasticalDoctrine (Repetitio). As he had in all his other writings, heretoo, ChemnitzemphasizedScripture as of first importance. Mahlmann saysthat it containsa "well formulated doctrine of the Holy Scripture."a Preus quotesChemnitz from his Repetitioas saying,"'We poor, incompetent,poverty-stricken people must hold captive our shamefulreason in subjectionand submit our wisdom to the Word of God" (127). In his church ordersforthe duchy of Braunschweigin 1569, Chemnitz states, "Where a thoroughly lasting church order is to be establishedand set up, it is a foremostconcern that therg be a proper foundationor basis,in order that the teachingbe pure and in perfect accord."t Klug says,"Chemnitz' concernfor Scripture's integrity, purity, ffid authority was not a mere personal fixation or arbitrary stance. He saw how all of doctrine hung from that thread. . . . The confessionswhich Chemnitzwrote prior to the Formula bear witness to the deepregard which he maintainedalways for the Scriptureas the Word of God . . ." G,. 4l-2). The samecan be said not only of the prior confessions,but also of the Formula itself.

Chemnitz Work on the Formula of Concord

By far, the most important and distinguishedconfessional statement authored primarily by Chemnitzwas a logical progressionof his localized work, the Formula of Concord. Here again,by appearances,someone could demeaninglysay that Chemnitz only improved upon the work of others. However, it is reasonableto say that Chemnitzwould not have wantedthe Formula of Concordto have the baggageof being anyone'spersonal work, leastof all, his. In responseto Melanchthon'sCorpus Doctrinae Philippicum, which containedthe Variata and other writings of Melanchthon,Chemnitz is quoted as saying: . . . a corpus doctrinae darenot consist of private documents. But rather it must consistof documentsissued in the name of the people, approvedand acceptedby them; they must be documentslike the ,its Apology, and the Smalcald Articles, among which must also be consideredthe Small and Large Catechismsof Luther."6 Consistentwith this view, Chemnitz, alongwith David Chyraeus, encouragedAndreae not only to changethe form of his Six Christian Sermons,but also to issuethe new documentin the name of the Tiibingen faculty rather than his own name (Preus, 184). Whetherby his own designor through the requestof others,Chemnitz did work with a numberof othersto producethe Formula of Concord. Andreae, Selnecker,Chytraeus, Musculus, Kdrner,' and otherscontributed to the various formulas that were ultimately recastby Chemnitz into the Solid Declaration. Among these"other contributors" are someof the more highly respectedtheologians of that day. Yet, as Bente points out, "it is Chemnitz who, more than Andreae or any other theologian,must be creditedwith the theologicalclarity and correctness which characterizesthe Formula" (243). Time and spacelimitations in this essaydo not allow for a substantivetreatment of the Formula, or for that matter,the history behind the Formula. Perhaps,a brief summaryof the major eventsin which Chemnitz is involved will suffice. With the major controversiesalready listed, and the confessionalwork of Chemnitzdealtwith, the exposureof the Crypto-Calvinist at Wittenberg (l 573-4)is a convenientstarting place. At about the sametime as this watershedevent, Andreae produced his Six Sermonson the Controversieswithin the Lutheran Churchfrom 1548-73,and submittedthem with the hope that they could be usedto bring abouttnrity. Chemnitz, Chyraeus and Duke Julius (the latter to whom they were dedicated)approved of the content,but recommendedthat he use the form of thesesffid, as mentioned before, issue them through the Ti.ibingenfaculty rather than in his own name. Andreae followed their advice and producedthe new documentknown as the Swabian Concord(1574). Preussays that it "followed the Braunschweigcorpus doctrinae closely" (184). 'first Balge saysthat it "was the draft' of the Thorough Declarationas we know it" (OGH,4l5). The Swabian Concord was sent to Chemnitz and to Chytraeusand fellow faculty at Rostock for possiblerevisions. Preuscomments that "Chemnitz incorporatedinto [his] revision many statementsfrom official documentspreviously adoptedby the Lower Saxons,thus giving to the Formula of Concord a historic tie with previous doctrinal endeavors"(184). Chytraeus and company also made a numberof changes,even revising two of the articles. The result of the revisions was the Swabian- SaxonFormula. After the subscriptionsto this Formula by the Saxonsand Swabians,it was sentto Elector August of Saxony. After the exposureof the Crypto-Calvinist, the previously-blindedElector August sincerelywanted to right the wrong, so to speak,and commissionedtwo men, Lucas Osiander and BalthasarBidembach to produceone corpus doctrinaeto replaceall the others. Thesetwo theologiansworked under ordersnot to name namesor quote Melanchthon,but to draw support for their position only from Scripture,the UAC, the Apology, SC Articles, the catechismsand other writings by Luther. They produceda formula containing nine articles called the Maulbronn Formula,which, along with the Saxon-swabianFormula just received,Elector August sentto Andreae. Andreae,in turr, suggesteda meeting of the top theologiansso that the two formulas could be madeone. Elector August convenedhis own theologiansheaded by Selnecker,at Lichtenberg,who approvedof Andreae's idea. They also addedtheir own recommendationsof replacingany trace of Melanchthon, his corpus, and any Crypto-Calvinistic effors by adoptinga corpus consistingof the Three Ecumenical Creeds,the UAC, Apology, SC Articles, two Catechismsand Luther's commentary on Galatians. The meetingof the top theologianswas held at Torgauin May,1576, wherethey revampedthe Swabian- SaxonFormula, using what they could from the Maulbronn Formula, to createone satisfactorycorpus. They also omitted or translatedall the Latin phrases. The finished product becameappropriately known as the Torgau Book. According to Preus,it is "primarily the work of Chemnitz" (186). Upon completion, the meeting closedwith a serviceof thanksgiving. The new confessionwas circulated for review and reaction. The Torgau Book received widespreadapproval, discounting the predictable pro- and anti-Melanchthoncrowd. However, along with a few suggestionsfor minor changes,there was a recurring criticism as to its lenEh, which naturally brought about the suggestionfor a shorterversion. Consequently,in March of 1577,Chemnitz, Andreaeand Selneckermet at Bergento give the book a thorough review and make the necessarychanges. They were laterjoined by Chytraeus,Musculus, and Korner. Andreae suppliedthe shortersurnmary version (Epitome) which, when addedto the final revision of the Torgau Book madeat Bergen,completed what we know as the Formula of Concord. Known initially as the Bergen Book, its overwhelmingsubscription by two-thirds of GermanLutheranism did indeedwarrant the name,Formula of Concord. It was signedby 3 electors,20 dukesand princes,24 counts,4 barons,35 imperial cities and 8000 pastorsand teachers. For Chemnitz, what had startedin the city of Braunschweigas an effort to insure true unity and peacebased upon a set corpus doctrinae,had endedwith the writing of THE Corpus Doctrinae that, by the graceof God, brought true unity and peaceto Lutheransall acrossthe Germanterritories. Dr. JobstEbel credits Chemnitz in this way: In general the Saxon-SwabianConcord, therefore bears the stamp of Chemnitz' earlier efforts on behalf of unity. And since the Saxon-SwabianConcord became the basis of the Torgau Book and since the Formula of Concord was basedon the Torgau Book, he must be considered the primary author of the Formula of Concord so far as its generalconcept and its contentsare concerned.8 The accomplishmentsof Chemnitz in authoringthe Formula of Concord and the local confessionsbeforehand can be creditedto his determinationas well as his theological gifts, both of which presupposesa deepand sincerefaith. If Chemnitz'chief interestin his efforts for union was, as Balge concludes,the individual person's assuranceof salvation,his yearsof dedication say a lot about howmuch Chemnitztreasured the assuranceof salvationthat he himself enjoyed.

Chemnitz' Writings

By all accounts,an essayon the contribution of Martin Chemnitzto our Lutheran heritageshould include a considerablesection on the theologicalcontribution of Chemnitz' major writings. However, to do justice to any one of Chemnitz' works would be a dauntingtask within the scopeof a completeessay, let alone covering all of them in a single sectionof an essay.As a result,the remainderof this essaywill simply list Chemnitz'theological contributionsrather than detailing the extent to which they contribute. o 1566-73- Examinationof the Council of Trent In the Examin, Chemnitz scrutinizesthe canonsand decreesof the Council of Trent againstthe Word of God and the history of the church. Volume I - ExaminesSacred Scripture,Free Will, Original Sin, And Good Works. Volume II - Examines the ,including: , Confirmation, and The Sacramentof the , Communionunder Both Kinds, The Mass, Penance,Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders Matrimony. Volume III - ExaminesVirginity, Celibacy,Purgatory, And The Invocation Of Saints.Volume IV - ExaminesRelics Of The Saints,Images, Indulgences, Fasting, DistinctionOf Foods,And Festivals. o 1569- TheEnchiridion (Ministry, Word and Sacraments) Chemnitzcovers the fundamentalsof pastoraltheology and ministry: the call, the Word, administeringthe sacraments,confession and absolution,etc. Chemnitz offers a PT courseusing 333 questionand answers. o 1570- TheLord's Supper Chemnitz makesa comprehensivedefense of the doctrine of the real presenceagainst the .Roughly one third of the book defendsthe real presenceon the basis of Scripture. In addition, Chemnitz makesuse of terminology and definitions, a "witness of antiquity" and a convincing refutation of the "argumentsof the adversaries." o 1570- The Two Natures in Christ Robert Preussays, "we find in this work a systematicand convincing presentationof the entire doctrine of Christology, a presentationthat hasnever been surpassedand has becomenormative for all subsequenttreatment of Christology." Chemnitz also shows an incredibleknowledge of the church fathersand makesa solid connectionbetween their Christology and that of the Reformation. o 1591- Loci Theologici (edited and publishedby Leyser after Chemnitz' death) Taken by someto be Chemnitz' gteatestwork, the LT continuedto be the loci of choice amongthe Lutherandogmaticians until about 1700. The LT is understoodmy most to be the fruit of Chemnitz' lectureson Melanchthon's Communes,but it differs in some respectsand offers unique material. Robert Preusrefers to it as "the most important contribution to dogmatic theology in the Lutheran Church in the 16th century."

Other Writines:

. Harmony of the Gospels- Interestingly,Chemnitz' Harmony was begun in 1570,continued after his deathby Leyser, and completedby John Gerhard. According to R. Preus,this was not so much a harmony as it was an exegeticalwork aimed at producing a meaningful interpretationof the gospels. Preusadds, "It was very popular in the 17th centuryffid, along with Calov's Biblia lllustrata, is the outstandingexegetical contribution of the orthodox period. . TheLord's Prayer -Chemnitz's original Latin was lost, but the work showed up in English at the University of Cambridgein 1598. Its title was noticeably German,A Substantialand Godly Expositionof the PrayerCommonly Calledthe Lord's Prayer. o Formulae QuaedamCaute Et Citra ScandalumLoquendi. . . (Cerlain Formulas For Speaking Careful And Without Offense). This documenthad beenwritten by Dr. UrbanusRhegius in 1535. Chemnitzaddeda lengthyappendix in 1575with the English title, "[n appendixconcerning formulas for believing correctly and speakingpiously, carefully, and without scandalregarding the major controversiesof thesetimes." Though only an appendix,this may be one of Chemnitz more important writings. Dr. Rhegius,one of the signersof the SmalcaldArticles and Melanchthon'sTreatise onthe Power and Primacy of the Pope, had writtenhis Formulae Caute Loquendi to help train pastors. That Chemnitz would utilize it and improve on it with his appendixreveals an attitudeon the part of Chemnitzthat rejectedpolemics, favoring instead,a winsome tone in keepingwith the Gospel he was defending. Chemnitz saw value in circumspection. Later, in his will, he reflected on this appendix as one of his best works (Preus,163). Undoubtedly,the thousandsof people who signedthe Formula would agree!

Martin Chemnitz' theological contributionsto our Lutheran heritageare treasuresthat have stoodthe test of time. As mentionedbefore, any one of them is worthy of an essay. However, therewould have been little to appreciateif the post-Reformationperiod had begun in

10 1546. Without the work of men like Chemnitz for true peaceand unity among Lutheranson the basisof a common confession,instead of the WELS, we might be the W E C S, with the C standingfor Calvinist or Catholic. If the secondMartin had not also been a determinedpromoter of corporadoctrinae, the first Martin might not have prevailed. But by the graceof God, he was that determinedpromoter, and by the graceof God, the first Martin has prevailed. As a result, our heritageas confessionalLutherans continues. Through the hard work of Martin Chemnitz and faithful, hardworking men like him, God's Word has been handed down to us in its truth and purity. We can be thankful to God for Martin Chemnitz; tharkful to God that Chemnitz heardPaul's instructionto Timothy to, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Perseverein them, becauseif you do, you will saveboth yourself and your hearers"(1 Tim 4:16) Even now, we hear it too. Thanksbe to God!

' From seminaryChurch History notes. ' 1570- Moerlin's Thematade Imagine Dei and Chemnitz' Resolutio (Bente,149). 3 Bente merely atffibutesthe use ofitre term corpora doctrinaeto Melanchthon(6). a Quoted in Klug's Chemnitzand AuthoriQ t lbid u From Inge Mager, professorof church history at Gottingen (quoted in Preus,pg.12l). ' Bente- "Cornerus" 8 Quotedin Preus,pg. 190.

Works Cited Allbreck, Willard Dow. Studiesin the LutheranConfessions. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1952. Balge,Richard. "The Formula of Concord." Our GreatHeritage. Eds. Lyle W. Lange,G. JeromeAlbrecht. Milwaukee:NPH, 1991. Bente,F., Historical Introductionsto the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical LutheranChurch, St. Louis, MO: ConcordiaPublishing House. 2000. Chemnitz,Martin, Examination of the Council of Trent. Trans.Fred Kramer. St. Louis: CPH, 1999. Chemnitz,MartinLoci Theologici. Trans. J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: CPH, 1999,c1989. Chemnitz,Martin The Lord's Supper. Trans. J. A. O. Preus. Saint Louis: CPH, 1979. Chemnitz,Martin The Two Naturesin Christ. St. Louis: CPH, 7999, cl97l. Klug, Dr. Eugene. Chemnitz And Authority. Lecture I of the Reformation Lectures:Bethany LutheranCollege and BethanyLutheran Theological Seminary: October 30, 1985. Preus,J. A. O., The SecondMartin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz. (St. Louis: cPH) 1994 Preus,Robert D., "The Hermeneuticsof the Formula of Concord." No Other Gospel.Arnold Koelpin. Milwaukee: NPH, 1980. 390-325. Preus,Robert D., The Theologyof Post-ReformationLutheranism. St Louis, MO: Concordia PublishingHous e 1999. Chemnitz,Martin, Examination of the Council of Trent. Trans. Fred Kramer. St. Louis: CPH, 1999.

l1