Книги символические лютеранства

Books symbolic of Lutheranism. The dogma of justification by faith alone without good works, which puts a person into a direct mystical union with Jesus Christ Himself, demanded and demands the destruction of any outwardly legal forms, both in the sphere of the church in general and in the sphere of teaching in particular. This is how it was in the early days of the Reformation. The founders of the German Reformation in the first period of their activity rejected the significance not only of Church Tradition, but also of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, as an externally written letter... The latter became for them the norm of doctrine and life, not as an externally written document, but as a living source, imparting to those who read it the Holy Spirit, guiding them to all truth both in doctrine and in life. The sad reality soon revealed, however, the impossibility of such an attitude towards the Christian revelation. Many sects of a mystical-rationalistic nature appeared, which, based on the indicated principle of the founders of the Reformation, rejected the truth not only of their writings, but also the truth of the Holy One himself. Scripture as the revealed word of the divine. The result of this was the onset of a major turn in the relations of the founders of the German Reformation both to the Holy. Scripture, so to the church. Tradition, since the latter found expression in three symbols of the ancient church: Apostolic, Athanasian [about which cf. and in K. N. Faminsky, Disputes about the use of the Athanasiev Creed in the worship of the Anglican Church in “Christ. Readings 1910, 3, 401–411] and Nicene-Constantinopolitan and in famous symbolic books. The latter now receive mandatory significance from the same founders of the German Reformation as norms in the understanding of Christian revelation. The period of heated polemics that followed in Lutheranism over the doctrine of original sin, the essence of justification and its conditions resulted in an even greater increase in respect for Lutheran symbolic books. This is explained by the fact that the main culprits of this controversy - theologians Striegel, Osiander, Major and others, wanting to smooth out the extremes of strictly Lutheran teachings on these issues, often not only retreated from strict Lutheranism, but also approached real Roman Catholicism. And since their views on these issues found more correspondence in the Holy. Scripture, then the defenders of strict Lutheranism had only one thing left to do - point out the discrepancy between the teachings of these theologians and the teachings of the founders of the Reformation, set out in symbolic books. The importance of the latter, therefore, had to rise and rose to a height unusual for Lutheranism. Strict adherents of the latter began to look at the symbolic books of Lutheranism as inspired writings and began to demand mandatory recognition of the content of the teaching in them. Already Melanchthon himself in 1533 demanded that all churches and schools contain the pure teaching of the Gospel in accordance with the Augsburg Confession. This demand of his was then confirmed by Luther, who recognized that without the fulfillment of this demand, complete religious chaos would ensue in the church. Following this, the civil authorities of various Lutheran states began to demand that members of the Lutheran community, especially pastors and teachers, recognize the obligation of the symbolic books of Lutheranism, as representing the norm in the understanding of Christian revelation. In 1535, for example, a similar command was issued in Pomerania, in 1564 in Brunswick, in 1570 in Prussia, in 1573 in Saxony, etc. Thus, from the very beginning, a contradictory attitude towards symbolic books should have been established and established in Lutheranism: the basic principle of Lutheranism demanded the complete destruction of any meaning behind these books, but living reality demanded the recognition of their normalizing significance in understanding the Christian revelation. An expression of such a contradiction can be found in one of the most important symbolic books of Lutheranism - the “Formula of Concord.” Here, on the one hand, it is proclaimed that “one Holy. Scripture should be recognized as the criterion, norm and rule of faith, symbols do not have any authoritative meaning in matters of faith, but only serve as evidence of your faith and show in what form the Christian teaching was preached at one time or another”... but, on the other hand, the same “Formula of Concord” says that “with symbols all other books should be checked as to whether Christian dogmas are presented in them correctly and in accordance with the word of God” (see. “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1875, vol. I: †Prof. P. Ya. Belyaev, The meaning of symbols in Lutheranism, p. 157). Therefore, it is quite natural that in all of later Lutheranism, ending with the present time, there were two completely opposite directions in the assessment of symbolic books. Representatives of one direction, predominantly liberal, denied and deny any significance behind these books, or if they recognize this meaning for them, they bring it to a minimum, while representatives of another direction, predominantly conservative, tried with all their might and are trying to preserve the essential meaning of symbolic books, as norms in the understanding of the Christian revelation. For some, this desire reaches the nec plus ultra: contrary to the fundamental principles of Lutheranism, they recognized and recognize the inspired meaning behind symbolic books. When treating more specifically about the symbolic books of Lutheranism, representatives of the latter usually put in the first place 1) “Augsburg Confession” (Die Augsburgische Confession). The closest reason for its origin, as is known, was the proposal of Emperor Charles to the Protestants that they present their creed to the Augsburg Reichstag in 1530. Having received such a proposal, the main representative of Lutheranism, John Elector of Saxony, on the advice of his chancellor Brück, asked the theologians subordinate to him to gather in Torgau on March 14 of the same year and by March 20 to compile a statement of Lutheran doctrine. The theologians fulfilled this order of the Elector, and the Torgaus Statement of Faith compiled in this way, discovered in 1833 by the scientist Forstemann, undoubtedly formed the basis of the second part of the Augsburg Confession. As for the first part of the same confession, it was based on the so-called second Schwabach Confession of 1529, compiled by Luther and discovered in 1714 by the scientist Frick in the archives of the city of Ulm. The primary compiler of the Augsburg Confession, on the basis of these documents, was Melanchthon, who in all likelihood wrote the confession upon his arrival in Augsburg together with the Elector of Saxony. After compilation, the Confession was sent by Melanchthon for sanction to Luther, who fully approved of it 4. However, due to the fact that other branches of Lutheranism that arrived at the Reichstag also presented their statements of faith, Melanchthon, with the participation mainly of Brück, again redid the compiled statement of faith, and thus the Augsburg Confession appeared in its present form. In terms of content, it includes a) a preface, c) two parts of a positive disclosure of Lutheran doctrine, and c) a conclusion. The preface talks about the reason for the appearance of the Confession, the purpose of its appearance and the upcoming council. The first part of the positive disclosure of Lutheran doctrine contains twenty-one elements of faith: 1) about God, 2) about original sin; 3) about Jesus Christ; 4) about justification; 5) about church teaching ministry; 6) about good deeds; 7) about the church; 8) about hypocrites; 9) about baptism; 10) about St. Eucharist; 11) about confession; 12) about repentance; 13) about the use of sacraments; 14) about church administration; 15) about church institutions; 16) about secular power and civil government; 17) about the last days of the church and the end of the world; 18) about human free will; 19) about the cause of sin; 20) about faith and good deeds; 21) about calling saints. The second part treats: 22) about both types of the sacrament of the Eucharist; 23) about the marriage life of elders; 24) about the mass; 25) about confession; 26) about food discrimination; 27) about monastic vows; 28) about the power of bishops. In conclusion, the compilers of the Augsburg Confession, pointing out that not all religious points were disclosed by them in the specified statement of faith, at the same time draw the attention of the emperor and the Reichstag to the fact that, on the basis of what has been stated, they can come to the undoubted conclusion that the Lutheran confessional system does not contain anything contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Augsburg Confession appeared simultaneously in German and Latin. Then, already during the Reichstag, translations were made into French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, and a little later into the following languages: Bohemian, Polish, Croatian, Hungarian, Danish, Swedish, etc. From the very beginning of its appearance, the Augsburg Confession bore various names: some called it the Apology, others the Saxon Proposal, others the Saxon Manual, etc. However, soon all other names gave way to the currently existing name: “Augsburg Confession”, and this was the reason for approving this name for it. in all likelihood, Melanchthon’s words to Luther when sending a copy of the Confession were the inspiration: “mittitur tibi apologia nostra, quamquam verius confessio est,” i.e. our apology is sent to you, which - or rather - is a confession ... (Phillipi, Symbolik, Gütersloh 1883, S. 243). Almost immediately after its appearance (July 23, 1530), the Augsburg Confession was sanctioned by the signature of almost all the main representatives of Lutheranism. Having sealed the Confession with their signature, the leaders of Lutheranism considered it useless to further hide it from the emperor, and therefore on July 25 it was read at the Reichstag by Chancellor Bayer in German. After reading, the emperor handed over the German copy of the Confession to the Elector of Mainz for safekeeping; he took the Latin one for himself, warning the Lutherans not to print the Confession without the special permission of the emperor. This warning from the emperor, however, turned out to be ineffective. The symbolic significance of the Augsburg Confession, according to the consciousness of the representatives of Lutheranism themselves (Köllner, Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche, Hamburg 1837, S. 384–396), is without a doubt due to the great significance that this book had in all periods of the life of Lutheran society. In particular, the significance of the Augsburg Confession is determined primarily by the fact that it, while representing a historical monument to the state of the teaching of the Lutheran Church both during the period of its founding and for all subsequent times, is at the same time “the main stone of the Evangelical Church as such,” in the sense that it lays the foundations for all the later development and existence of Lutheranism as a religious movement; further by the fact that in it all the main confessional points of Lutheranism were clearly expressed and, mainly, the most important of them, the dogma of justification by faith alone without good works, which religious points affirm the radical difference between this confession and the Roman Catholic confession and thereby protect it from the errors inherent in the latter, and, finally, by the fact that it contains data for the development and establishment of certain relations of the church to secular power in Lutheran states. It is therefore quite natural that the Augsburg Confession was recognized by the founders of the Reformation as an adequate expression of the Holy One himself. Scripture and the standard by which every other doctrine must be tested. It is also quite natural that in some historical documents of Lutheranism (for example, in the “Explanatory Note regarding the Examinations for Clergy,” Wittenberg 1555) the Augsburg Confession is placed on the same level with the prophetic and apostolic writings and the three ecumenical symbols: Apostolic, Athanasian and Nicene. 2) In close connection with the Augsburg Confession, as a direct addition to it, is the “Apology of the Augsburg Confession” (Die Apologie de Augsburgischen Confession). Its origin is due to the fact that immediately after the promulgation of the Augsburg Confession, a refutation of it (Responsio Confessionis Augustanae) appeared in the Augsburg Reichstag, by order of the emperor, compiled by the Roman Catholic theologians Faber, Eck, Wimpina and Cochleus, which refutation was then made on August 3, 1530 in the presence of the emperor in the same hall where the Augsburg Confession was promulgated, read by the imperial secretary Alexander Schweiss. This refutation criticizes the Augsburg Confession point by point, mainly on the basis of the testimony of the fathers and the acts of the conciliar. But after reading the “Refutation,” the emperor, through Count Palatine Frederick, demanded that the Lutherans, recognizing their mistakes, return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. The Lutherans, however, not only refused to fulfill this proposal of the emperor, but in addition demanded a list of “Refutations” in order to subject it to a critical assessment for their part. This demand was denied to them and instead they were asked to elect theologians from among themselves for a public debate with Roman Catholic theologians. In August (from the 16th to the end of this month) of the same 1530, the dispute took place and, it goes without saying, did not lead to any positive results. At that time, Catholics continued to spread rumors that the Augsburg Confession was completely destroyed by the “Refutation” written on it. Under these circumstances, it was decided at all costs to write an apology for the Augsburg Confession against the attacks made on it in the Refutation. The execution of this order was entrusted to Melanchthon, who, however, was put in a very difficult position, mainly because he did not know the exact content of the Roman Catholic refutation, since, firstly, he was not present when it was read and because, secondly, he could not obtain a copy from it. It was therefore necessary to write partly on the basis of fragmentary notes made by some who were present during the reading of the “Refutation” (mainly Melanchthon’s friend Camerarius), partly on the basis of other polemical works against Lutheranism. Be that as it may, the Apology was soon written by Melanchthon and already on September 22, 1530, through Brück, it was presented to the emperor; but the latter resolutely refused to accept it. During these negotiations with the emperor, Malankhton finally obtained a copy of the “Refutation” of the Augsburg Confession, written by Roman theologians, which circumstance prompted him to rework the previously compiled Apology in the sense of expanding and more thoroughly justifying its content. Having started this work in November 1530, he finished it in mid-April 1531. The purpose of this Apology, like the first, is to defend the Lutheran doctrine both against its “Refutation” and against other Roman Catholic polemical writings. According to this goal, the Apology is divided into the following sections: 1) about original sin; 2) about justification, its means and the faith that justifies; 3) about love and fulfillment of the law; 4) about the church; 5) about baptism; 6) about punishment; 7) about confession and satisfaction; 8) about the sacraments and their use; 9) about human institutions in the church; 10) about calling saints; 11) about both types of the Lord's table; 12) about the marriage of priests; 13) about the Mass, the correct use of the sacrament of the Eucharist and about sacrifice; 14) about monastic vows; 15) about the power of the church. The apology was written by Melanchthon in Latin, but a German translation was soon made by Jonah Justus [see. "Enz." VII] with the assistance of Melanchthon himself and, in all likelihood, without the participation of Luther. The ecclesiastical and symbolic meaning behind the Apology of the Augsburg Confession was recognized in Lutheranism very early, namely in 1532 by the evangelical ranks and in 1537 by the Lutheran theologians gathered in Schmalkalden. This is a sign of symbolic meaning behind the indicated book, according to Lutheran theologians (Köllner, Symbolik der lstberisehen Kirche I, S. 435–438). – is determined by its significant significance for Lutheran society. In particular, this significance is determined by two circumstances: 1, the fact that it contains a scientific substantiation of Lutheran dogmatics, 2, the fact that it contains a detailed disclosure of the main dogma of Lutheranism and original sin in connection with justification by faith alone without the works of the law. 3) Next to the indicated symbolic books - the Augsburg Confession and its Apology in Lutheranism, a third symbolic book is usually supplied - “The Schmalkaldischen Members” (Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel). The reason for its compilation was the appearance in 1536 of a message from Pope Paul III announcing the convening of a council in Mantua on May 23, 1537 and inviting Lutherans to come to this council. Having received this invitation, the main representative of Lutheranism, the Elector of Saxony, on December 11, 1536, turned to Luther with a proposal to draw up a new statement of faith and, after preliminary discussion of it with other Lutheran theologians, present it to him. Fulfilling this proposal, Luther worked the entire month of December of the same 1536 and at the end of this month he sent the compiled statement of faith to the theologians Amsdorf, Eisleben and Spalatin. Having received approval from them, Luther on January 3, 1537, sent a new creed through Spalatin to the Elector, who, in turn, presented it to the meeting of evangelical ranks and theologians in Schmalkalden in February 1537, which is why the new creed received its name “Schmalkalden members”, which, however, was adopted later - in 1553 d. Although at the said meeting the new statement of faith was accepted by all those present, nevertheless, it was not signed mainly because at the meeting in Schmalkalden in 1537 it was decided not to appear at the council in Mantua. But soon after the dissolution of the Schmalkalden Assembly, the Elector of Saxony realized that the absence of signatures could sadly reflect on the authority of the new creed, and therefore began to seek that the “Smalkalden Members” be signed by both evangelical ranks and evangelical theologians. This wish, of course, was fulfilled. Some of the ranks and theologians signed their membership back in Schmalkalden, and some a little later in Wittenberg. All these signatures affirm the unconditional recognition of the authority of the “Schmalkaldic Members”. A certain exception is the signature of Melanchthon, which reads: “I, Philip Melanchthon, recognize the doctrine contained in the above members as true. As for the pope, if he turns to the Gospel, I recognize that we, for the sake of peace and unity of all Christians, will submit to him both now and in the future and recognize his supremacy de jure humano over the bishops” (Philippi, Symbolik, S. 267) ... This signature was not caused by the turn of Melanchthon’s religious views towards Roman Catholicism, as some believed and still believe, but solely by consciousness the heavy oppression of secular power over church power in Lutheranism. – According to its content, “The Schmalkaldic Members”, in addition to the introduction, which explains the reason for writing the book, falls into three parts, of which the first part contains the doctrine of the trinity of Divine Persons and the Face of Jesus Christ; the second part contains the doctrine of justification by faith alone without good works, about the Mass, about the invocation of saints, about nunneries and monasteries, and about the papacy; the third part contains the teaching about original sin, about the law, about true repentance, about the false repentance of the papists, about the Gospel, baptism, about the sacrament of the altar, about the power of the keys, about confession, about excommunication, about dedication and calling (to pastoral service), about the marriage of clergy, about the church, about how justification before God is accomplished, and about good works, about monastic vows and about human institutions. At the end of the Members of Schmalkalden, a treatise is usually placed as a special appendix: De potestate et primatu papae (“On the power and primacy of the pope”). The compiler of this application is Melanchthon. The reason for writing it was the desire to justify the absence of representatives of Lutheranism at the Council in Mantua. Recognizing the main reason for this absence of leadership at the council of papal power, as an illegal and anti-religious power, the compiler, appendices, devotes his treatise to the characteristics of the papacy. In terms of content, the appendix to the “Schmalkaldic Members” is divided into two parts, of which the first proves the inconsistency of the papal claims to supreme supremacy over all other bishops and over representatives of secular power; in the second part, the position is proven that the rights of all church ministers are identical in content, and therefore the destruction of these rights by secular authorities is illegal. The symbolic meaning of the Schmalkaldic members and their applications are undeniable. It is confirmed not only internally - by the complete agreement of the teachings set forth in them with the teachings of other symbolic books of Lutheranism, especially the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, but also externally - by inclusion in the Corpora doctrinae and in the “Formula of Concord”. Such decisiveness in asserting symbolic significance for the Schmalkaldic members, according to the views of representatives of Lutheranism (Köllner, Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche I, S. 469–472), is due to the fact that in this symbolic book a decisive and firm polemical attitude towards the Roman Catholic religious system is established. 4–5) The “Greater” and “Small” Catechisms (Der grosse und der kleine Katechismus) are no less significant in comparison with other symbolic books in the Lutheran world. Their compilation by Luther was prompted by the desire to give the clergy and ordinary believers suitable guidance in the matter of religious education, which desire especially intensified in the German reformer after his church visit to Saxony in 1527–1529, when he was convinced by personal experience of the extremely low mental and religious level of both the clergy and ordinary believers. Hence the appearance in 1529 of Luther’s two Catechisms - the Greater and the Lesser for ordinary believers. When deciding which Catechism appeared earlier, scholars disagree among themselves. Some say that first (in January 1529) the Small Catechism appeared, and then (in October of the same 1529) the Large Catechism. Others think quite the opposite: the origin of the Large Catechism is attributed to January, the Small - to October 1529. Both assumptions, according to Kellner, should be recognized as incorrect. Luther came up with the idea of ​​composing the Catechism during his visit to the Saxon possessions in 1528. Working from December 1828 to March 1529, the German reformer compiled the Catechism. But then, using it, he became convinced that the Catechism was too extensive for the common people and school education. This circumstance forced the German reformer to rework the already compiled Catechism. While reworking the latter, Luther came up with the idea of ​​publishing it in a double form - complete for the clergy and abbreviated for ordinary believers. – As for the arrangement of the material itself, in both Catechisms, according to Luther’s plan, it should be the same with only minor differences of a purely formal nature. The first full edition of the Catechism appeared on April 23, 1529, and the second, an abridged edition, appeared in the first half of the same 1529 (the month and date are not precisely established). The first edition is known as the Large Catechism, the second under the name of the Small Catechism. In terms of content, it is the first, i.e. The Greater Catechism, in addition to a brief preface interpreting the meaning of the Catechism, is divided into four parts, of which the first - after the presentation of the Ten Commandments of God, the Apostolic Symbol, the Lord's Prayer and a brief definition of the sacrament of baptism and the Eucharist - sets out in detail the content of the Ten Commandments with a brief conclusion about this content; the second part sets out the content of the Apostolic Symbol; in the third the contents of “Our Father”...; the fourth sets out the doctrine of baptism: a) adults and b) children and the doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is also the content of the Small Catechism. The only difference between it and the Greater Catechism is that it presents the same material in a more abbreviated form. Later editions had little effect on the content of the Larger Catechism. The only difference between the first and later editions is the following. In the first edition of the Greater Catechism, as we have already said, there was only a short introduction; in later editions, starting with the second, this short introduction was supplemented by a large introduction, compiled by Luther himself, in which he calls on the clergy to more diligently teach the people. Then, in the first edition of the Greater Catechism there was no exhortation to confession; in later editions, starting with the second, this exhortation appeared, again written by Luther himself. – As for the Small Catechism, three editions can be noted in its history. The first edition includes the following five parts: 1) preface; 2) a statement of the five main religious points; 3) morning and evening blessings; 4) table prayers; 5) several moral instructions to persons of various social positions (Haustafel etlicher Spröche). The second edition includes the following parts: 1) preface; 2) a statement of the five main points of Christian doctrine; 3) morning and evening blessings; 4) table prayers; 5) moral instructions; 6) marriage ceremony (Traubüchlein); 7) metric book (Taufbüchlein) and 8) a short formula for secret confession of sins before the pastor. The third edition contains: 1) preface; 2) a presentation of the five main confessional points with a new formula for confession before the Eucharist; 3) morning and evening blessings; 4) table prayers; 5) moral instructions: 6) marriage rite and 7) registry book (Philippi, Symbolik, S. 278–279). This latest edition of the Small Catechism is considered the most perfect and therefore it was included in the Corpus Thuringiense and in the “Formula of Concord.” As regards further the symbolic meaning of all these additions to the Large and Small Catechisms, in the first a similar meaning is assigned to both introductions and the exhortation to repentance. In the Small Catechism, the following have a symbolic meaning: in addition to the main content (i.e., an explanation of the Ten Commandments, the Apostolic Symbol, “Our Father” ... and the teaching about the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist) from the additions: 1) morning and evening blessings; 2) table prayers and 3) moral instructions. The rite of marriage and the registry book, although written by Luther, however, due to the fact that they were included only in later editions of the “Formula of Concord,” are not of significant importance. The so-called “Resolution” included in the later editions of the Small Catechism, starting in 1564, which is placed between the teaching on the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist and which belongs not to Luther, as Gase believes, but to the Lutheran theologian Knipstrov, does not have the same symbolic meaning. Finally, the addition included in later editions of the Small Catechism under the title: “Some fragmentary instructions with questions for persons approaching the sacraments” does not have a symbolic meaning, although this addition, in all likelihood, belongs to Luther himself. Although the compilation of the Catechism was undertaken by Luther on a private initiative, without the general consent of the church, nevertheless, both of them undoubtedly have a symbolic meaning in Lutheranism. Their significance is determined by the fact that the Lutheran Church has repeatedly recommended them for use in schools, in churches and in general for religious education, and by the fact that both of them are included in the Corpus doctrinae and in the “Formula of Concord”, of which in the first the Catechism is placed before all other Lutheran symbols and immediately after the ecumenical symbols, and in the second immediately after the “Schmalkaldic Members”, as a general church presentation of symbolic teaching churches. This attitude of the Lutheran world to Luther’s Catechisms is explained, according to its representatives (Köllner, Symbolic der lutherischen Kirche I, S. 518–522), by the fact that they represent the first guides to the planting of Lutheranism in the Christian world, moreover, a guide written with deep knowledge of the people’s soul [On the catechisms, see also “Enz.” IX.] 6) The last of the symbolic books of Lutheranism in terms of time of origin is the “Formula of Concord” (Die Concordienformel). The reason for writing it was the controversy that arose during Luther’s lifetime on many religious points and, above all, about original sin. One of Luther’s extreme disciples, Flatius, based on the central dogma of the Lutheran confessional system, argued that original sin constitutes the substance of the fallen nature of man, so that the latter has absolutely no freedom to do good, inevitably bowing to evil in all spheres of his life and activity. This view of his, supported by the scientists Gesgusius, Wieland, Amsdorf and others, met with decisive opposition from other Lutheran theologians of the moderate trend - Striegel, Major, Eber, Krell, Pfeffinger, who, on the contrary, based on the position that original sin is only an accident of human nature, taught that in the fallen nature of man there is some freedom to do good. The second point of disagreement between Lutheran theologians was the question of good works. Some of the Lutheran theologians: Nicholas Amsdorf and Agricola of Eisleben [see. "Enz." I, 316–317], based on the above-mentioned teaching of Flatius about original sin, they argued that good deeds are not only not useful, but even harmful for the justification of a person, as carried out (justification) exclusively by divine grace. Hence, the above-mentioned theologians not only draw a sharp line between the Gospel, as the gospel of the salvation of man, and the law, as a set of moral instructions for man, but also impossibly humiliate the latter before the former, proving the idea that the law has no meaning in the life of redeemed humanity. On the contrary, other Lutheran theologians, for example, Georg Mayor and Justus Menius, based on the above-stated teaching of Striegel about the essence of original sin, proved the position that good works are necessary for the salvation of a justified person, and therefore there is no contradiction between the Gospel and the law in terms of their significance in the justification of a person. The third point of disagreement between Lutheran theologians was the question of the essence of human justification. Some of the Lutheran theologians, for example, Stankarus, Merlin, Flatius, Chelnitz, based on the strictly Lutheran teaching on the essence of original sin, argued that the essence of the justification of fallen man accomplished by Jesus Christ lies only in the fact that a person is only declared right, without essentially changing in his sinful nature, which, thus, remains sinful even after redemption. Connecting this teaching with the teaching about the incarnation of Jesus Christ, these theologians proved the idea that the Son of God took on not real, but ghostly human flesh and that, therefore, the act of redemption was performed by Jesus Christ not according to His human and divine nature in the aggregate, but exclusively according to the divine nature, while human nature, being ghostly, did not take any part in the redemption. Other Lutheran theologians, led by Andrei Osiander, on the contrary, based on Striegel’s teaching on the essence of original sin, proved the position that the essence of justification lies not only in recognizing the human nature as righteous, but also in actually making it so, and that, therefore, Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer of fallen humanity, accepted not illusory, but real human flesh and the redemption of fallen humanity was not accomplished by Him according to divine nature only, but also according to human nature. The fourth point of disagreement between Lutheran theologians was the question of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The fact is that some of the Lutheran theologians, for example, Brenz (see “Enz.” II) and Andreae, in their souls sympathized with the teaching of Zwingli and Calvin about the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, they denied the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic gifts, and therefore decisively rejected the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum in the Person of Jesus Christ, i.e. internal, substantial union in Jesus Christ of the divine and human natures. On the contrary, other Lutheran theologians, led by Bullinger (see Enz. II) and Beza (see Enz. II) recognized and proved the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic gifts and therefore firmly defended the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum. Finally, there were other points of disagreement between Lutheran theologians, for example, in deciding the question of whether Jesus Christ descended into hell according to deity or humanity, before or after death, whether adiafora exists or does not exist in Lutheranism, etc. Under such circumstances, one of the most prominent Lutheran theologians of the 16th century, Jacob Andreae (see Enz. I) came up with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bdeveloping a creed on which all the above differences could be reconciled. Pursuing this goal, Andreae, back in 1568, while on a visit to the domain of Julius Duke of Brunswick, drew up a draft agreement between Lutheran theologians on five controversial points: on justification, on good works, on the free will of man, on adiafora and on St. Eucharist. This project pleased Julius of Brunswick and Wilhelm Landgrave of Hesse, who sent Andree with his project to the main representative of Lutheranism - Augustus, Elector of Saxony. The latter, in turn, sent Andreae to Wittenberg for a conference with the theologians there. The result of this was the convening of a convention in Zerbst in 1570, at which, before the project itself was announced, it was established which books should be recognized as the norm when developing a draft agreement. The following year, 1571, a new convention was convened in Dresden, at which the “Dresden Formula of Agreement” (Consensus Dresdensis) was drawn up. The main representatives of this conciliatory confession were the Wittenbergers, who were strongly influenced by the ideas of Calvin. It is quite natural, therefore, that they introduced crypto-Calvinistic ideas into this document. Elector Augustus, who himself did not understand theology, for a long time considered this statement of faith to be an accurate expression of truly Lutheran teaching, and only in 1574, with the advent of Exegesis perspicna de coena Domini, compiled by opponents of the Wittenbergers, did the Elector understand the actual content of the “Dresden Formula of Agreement.” The result of this was the subsequent persecution of crypto-Calvinists in Lutheran society and the emergence of new intensified strife. In the heat of heated controversy, the already mentioned Jacob Andreae again acted as a conciliator of the parties. In 1573, he drew up a formula of agreement in eleven points under the title: “Explanation of the churches in Swabia and the Duchy of Württenberg.” This document, called the "Swabian-Saxon Formula of Agreement", after some corrections on the part of Chemnitz and Hythraeus, was sent to Elector Augustus, who was determined to reconcile with its help the differences of opinion in the Lutheran world. For this purpose, at his suggestion, a convention was held in 1576 in Lichtenburg, at which it was decided: 1) to forget all hitherto disputes on various religious points, 2) to recognize the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Larger and Smaller Catechisms, the Schmalkalden members and Luther's Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians as the norm of religious doctrine. Around the same time, two Wittenberg theologians, Osiander and Biedenbach, were commissioned to examine the Swabian-Saxon formula of agreement and establish how much it agrees with the teaching contained in the indicated symbolic books of Lutheranism. These theologians, together with some others in the Maulbrunn monastery, diligently took up the task entrusted to them, and, in turn, on the basis of the specified document, they compiled a new statement of faith, which later received the name “Maulbrunn Formula of Agreement.” Having received this new statement of faith, Elector Augustus sent it to Andreae for review along with the Swabian-Saxon formula of agreement and then, on the advice of the same Andreae, in 1576 he convened a new convention of Lutheran theologians in the city of Torgau, which, on the basis of the two indicated documents, compiled a new formula of agreement, called the “Torgaus Book”, in the compilation of which Andreae and Chemnitz took part mainly. This Torgaus book, first printed by Jacob Baumgarten and then Zemler in 1760, formed the basis of the famous “Formula of Concord”. Having reviewed this book with the theologians under his supervision, the Elector of Saxony sent it to all other Lutheran states with instructions to carefully review it and send appropriate reviews. Upon receipt of these reviews, the Elector again commissioned the three theologians Andreae, Chemnitz and Sellnecker to revise the Torgaus Book, which the latter did. The result of this was the appearance on March 14, 1577 of a new edition of the Torgau Book. In April and May of the same year, a new revision of the said book was carried out with the participation of Chemnitz, Andreae, Sellnecker, Musculus, Cornerus, Hytraeus, and finally, on May 27 of the same 1577, the so-called “Formula of Concord” appeared, which has a symbolic meaning in Lutheranism. In 1579, the theologians who took part in its compilation wrote a preface to it, in which, outlining the history of the origin of the book, they asked government officials and Lutheran theologians to sanction it with their consent. On June 25, 1580, princes, government officials and theologians sealed the new book with their signatures, and it acquired symbolic meaning. According to its content, the “Formula of Concord,” in addition to an appeal to government officials and two introductions about the norm of Christian doctrine, is divided into twelve chapters, of which the first contains the doctrine of original sin; 2nd about human free will; 3rd about justifying faith before God; 4th about good deeds; 5th about law and gospel; 6th about the threefold use of the law; 7th about St. the sacrament of the Eucharist; 8th about the face of Jesus Christ; 9th about the descent of Jesus Christ into hell; 10th about church customs, about the so-called adiafora; 11th about the eternal foreknowledge and pre-election of God; 12th about sects that do not recognize the Augsburg Confession. To the eighth member, the theologians Andreae and Chemnitz made an addition under the title: Catalogs testimonoram or a collection of patristic passages speaking about the union of both natures in Jesus Christ and about the communicatio idiomatum - about the internally substantial communion of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. This application, however, does not have a symbolic meaning and therefore is absent from some editions of symbolic books. The “Formula of Concord” contained in some editions of the “Formula of Concord” - Appeal to Elector Christian II also has no symbolic meaning. The symbolic meaning of the “Formula of Concord” is undeniable. It is certified by the signatures of about 90 (86) secular rulers and 8,000 clergy. True, the Calvinists tried in every possible way to win back the symbolic meaning of this book, but without success - and little by little it acquired a similar meaning throughout the Lutheran world. [Cm. Theodor Kolde, Die alteste Redaction der Augsburger Konfession mit Melanchtons Einleitung zum erstenmal herausgegeben und geschiehtlich gewürdigt, Gütersloh 1906.