Martin Chemnitz

← Encyclopedia

Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) was a German theologian who, in the generation after Luther’s death, did more than anyone to fix what Lutheranism would hold and how it would say it. A proverb of the time put the case bluntly: Si Martinus non fuisset, Martinus vix stetisset — had the second Martin not come, the first would scarcely have stood. The judgment was about consolidation, not invention. Luther had broken open a movement; Chemnitz was the mind that kept it from breaking apart.

Portrait of Martin Chemnitz, oil on oak panel, by Ludger tom Ring the Younger, 1569 — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

He came to theology slowly, and from an unlikely direction. Born at Treuenbrietzen in Brandenburg on 9 November 1522, he studied at Wittenberg, Magdeburg, and the university at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder before matriculating at Wittenberg again in 1545, where he formed the friendship with Philipp Melanchthon that shaped the rest of his work. His first passion was not scripture but number and the heavens. He trained in mathematics and practiced astrology — the casting and reading of nativities was then a learned discipline taught beside arithmetic and astronomy, not a folk art — and it was that reputation, as much as anything, that won him in 1550 the post of librarian to Duke Albert at the ducal castle library in Königsberg. The library gave him books and leisure; he used both to turn, deliberately and largely on his own, to theology, reading the Fathers and the scholastics and corresponding with Melanchthon and others until the older study fell away behind the new. The years at Königsberg also gave him his first taste of doctrinal combat, in the bitter quarrel over Andreas Osiander’s account of justification. Osiander, a reformer of standing whom Duke Albert protected, held that the believer is made righteous by the indwelling of Christ’s divine nature rather than declared righteous by the imputed merit of Christ crucified — a teaching most other Lutherans read as a confusion of justification with sanctification and a retreat toward a kind of infused righteousness. The dispute set Chemnitz against a powerful man at the duke’s court, taught him how a single misplaced distinction could unsettle the whole architecture of a doctrine, and decided the direction of his life: from then on he was a theologian, and one with a particular gift for finding the precise point on which a controversy actually turned.

He never held a university chair. From 1554, ordained at Wittenberg and called to Brunswick as coadjutor to the superintendent Joachim Mörlin — who had known him at Königsberg — he spent his working life as a pastor and church administrator, lecturing, examining candidates for the ministry, drafting church orders, and from 1567 governing the churches of the city as superintendent until his death there in 1586. The position mattered to the shape of his thought. The controversies that split German Protestantism after the Emperor’s victory over the Lutheran princes in 1547 were not only academic but practical, decided in pulpits, town councils, and the chanceries of princes, and Chemnitz fought them on that ground, as a man responsible for real congregations rather than for a lecture hall.

The disputes and the settlement

Engraved portrait of Chemnitz from Martin Friedrich Seidel’s collection of Brandenburg notables (1671; reissued by G. G. Küster, 1751) — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The disputes were real and bitter, and they ran along the seams that open in any movement once its founder is gone. Lutherans had divided over how far the reformed churches might accommodate Catholic ceremonies imposed by the victors (the adiaphora quarrel); over whether the human will plays any part in conversion, the question that touches free will; over whether good works are necessary to salvation; and over the meaning of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, where a current within Lutheranism had drifted toward the Reformed reading and away from the bodily presence Luther had insisted on. The party lines hardened into camps — the rigorist Gnesio-Lutherans against the more accommodating followers of Melanchthon — and for a generation it was unclear whether there would be one Lutheran church or several.

Chemnitz worked, with Jakob Andreae of Tübingen and a small group of colleagues — among them David Chytraeus, Nicholas Selnecker, and Andreas Musculus — to draft a settlement. Andreae supplied the energy and the early drafts; Chemnitz supplied the theological weight and the editorial judgment that turned a set of irenic propositions into a document precise enough to bind. The result was the Formula of Concord of 1577, a long article-by-article adjudication of each disputed point. Its method is itself a clue to Chemnitz’s mind: each article first states the question, then sets out the affirmative theses the churches were to confess, then lists by name the errors to be rejected, so that agreement is reached not by softening the difference but by defining it exactly. On the will it denied that the unconverted can cooperate in their own conversion while preserving the will’s role once grace has worked on it; on good works it held them necessary as the fruit of faith yet excluded them from the ground of salvation; on the Supper it confessed the true and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood against the Reformed reading. Throughout it affirmed Luther’s teaching while refusing the extreme positions that had grown up on either side of it. Three years later it was gathered, with the ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, and Luther’s catechisms, into the Book of Concord of 1580 — the corpus of confessional documents that still defines confessional Lutheranism.

Chemnitz’s distinctive contribution lay in the careful middle course: he was neither an irenicist willing to blur the lines for the sake of peace nor a partisan who mistook his own school for the whole, but a systematizer who could hold a position precisely enough to make agreement possible. He had spent his pastoral years writing church orders for one city after another, and he brought to the Formula the administrator’s knowledge that a doctrine only governs a church once it is stated in words congregations and pastors can be held to. The Concord did not invent the doctrine it stated; it ordered, defined, and bound it, and that ordering was Chemnitz’s particular genius.

The two great books

Two large works carry his name beyond the confessional documents. The first is the Examen Concilii Tridentini (1565–1573), a four-part, point-by-point examination of the decrees of the Council of Trent, the most thorough Protestant answer to the Catholic Counter-Reformation written in the century.

A session of the Council of Trent, sixteenth-century painting (attributed to Paolo Farinati) — the council whose decrees Chemnitz answered canon by canon in his Examen Concilii Tridentini — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Trent had restated and sharpened the Catholic position on scripture and tradition, free will, original sin, justification, faith, good works, and the sacraments; Chemnitz took the decrees one canon at a time and set against each a reading drawn from scripture and, decisively, from the Church Fathers. The work was not a pamphlet but an arsenal, and Catholic controversialists treated it as one: it became the standing Lutheran reply to Rome, and the later Jesuit polemicist Robert Bellarmine, building his own defense on the consensus patrum — the agreement of the Fathers — was in large part answering the kind of patristic case Chemnitz had built. Where the first reformers had often argued from scripture against the whole weight of the intervening centuries, Chemnitz argued from the centuries too, claiming the early church for the Reformation rather than ceding it to Trent.

The second is De Duabus Naturis in Christo (1570; enlarged 1578), on the union of the divine and human in Christ — the question that lay beneath the eucharistic dispute. If the body of Christ is truly present in the Supper, something must be said about how a human body can be where Lutherans confessed it to be, and that pressed back to the relation of the two natures. Chemnitz set out the communication of attributes (the communicatio idiomatum) in three kinds: the genus idiomaticum, by which each nature keeps its own properties; the genus apotelesmaticum, by which the two work together in the single saving acts of the one Christ; and the genus maiestaticum, by which the divine nature imparts its majesty — including a real presence not bounded by ordinary place — to the assumed human nature. He built the argument out of the conciliar definitions and the Greek and Latin Fathers as much as out of his own analysis, and De Duabus Naturis became the standard of Lutheran Christology and a chief reason the eucharistic difference with the Reformed proved so durable. His near-contemporary Peter Martyr Vermigli had drawn the opposite conclusion from much the same sources — that Christ’s body remains in heaven and is received by faith, spiritually — so that the two stood, scholar to scholar, on either side of the same question, each marshalling the Fathers against the other.

Two further labors round out the picture: the Loci Theologici, his expansion of Melanchthon’s theological commonplaces into a full Lutheran dogmatics, which appeared after his death in 1591; and the Harmonia evangelica, a harmony of the four Gospels he began editing in 1573 but, pressed by the duties of his office, never finished — it was carried on by Polycarp Leyser and completed decades later by Johann Gerhard, the great dogmatician of the next generation, so that the unfinished book itself became a relay handed down through the school Chemnitz had done so much to found.

Method: the Fathers as recovery

What distinguishes Chemnitz in the histories is method as much as doctrine. He read the Church Fathers closely and argued from them at every turn, treating the Reformation not as a rupture with the early church but as a recovery of it — the claim that the reformed confession was the old faith cleared of later accretion, and that the burden of novelty lay with Rome. This historical turn ran against an older Protestant instinct that pitted scripture alone against the whole patristic and medieval inheritance, and against the scholasticism that inheritance had produced; yet in arguing the case Chemnitz took up the very tools of his opponents. He weighed authorities, distinguished senses, and built ordered systems with a rigor that owed something to Thomas Aquinas and the schoolmen even where he rejected their conclusions, and something to the recovery of Aristotle that Melanchthon had quietly carried back into Protestant teaching after the first generation’s suspicion of pagan philosophy. The result was a Lutheran orthodoxy with a scholarly, almost academic cast — learned, citation-heavy, conscious of the whole tradition it claimed to inherit — and at a remove from the white-hot occasional writing of Luther himself or the humanist polish of Erasmus, against whom Luther had once defended the bondage of the will. Where Luther wrote to break ground, Chemnitz wrote to lay foundations, and the difference is audible on every page.

Texts, editions, and modern study

The primary record is unusually well preserved for a sixteenth-century churchman who never taught at a university. The Examen Concilii Tridentini survives in its four original Latin parts (1565–1573) and in a complete modern English translation by Fred Kramer, issued by Concordia Publishing House between 1971 and 1986; the work’s content and structure — Scripture and tradition, free will, original sin, justification, faith, good works, and the sacraments, each weighed against the patristic record — are laid out in detail in the standard descriptions of it. De Duabus Naturis in Christo (1570; enlarged 1578) and the posthumous Loci Theologici (1591) are likewise available in modern translation, the latter assembled from the lectures on Melanchthon’s commonplaces that Chemnitz delivered for the instruction of Brunswick’s clergy. The Harmonia evangelica descends in the layered form its history gave it, the work of three hands across half a century.

Scholarship on Chemnitz long lagged behind his importance, in part because he wrote in technical Latin for theologians and left no single popular work to carry his name. The first full-length study in English, J. A. O. Preus’s The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, 1994), set the life against the unraveling of the post-Lutheran settlement and then surveyed the whole body of work, and it remains the standard English entry point. The German scholar Theodor Mahlmann, whose article on Chemnitz in the Theologische Realenzyklopädie and later studies anchored the critical literature, established much of the precise dating of the works and the controversies and corrected an older devotional tradition that had flattened Chemnitz into a mere defender of orthodoxy rather than the careful constructive theologian the texts show. Between them, Preus and Mahlmann mark the recovery of Chemnitz as a thinker in his own right — not only the second Martin of a pious proverb but a systematician whose patristic method gave Protestant theology one of its enduring forms.

That difference is the measure of what he accomplished. A settlement assembled from the Fathers and the creeds, rather than improvised against them, was built to hold; the Book of Concord he helped frame has bound Lutheran confession for more than four centuries, and the Christology and the patristic case of his two great books remained the school’s standing equipment long after the controversies that occasioned them had cooled. The prophet opens a way and the consolidator paves it, and a movement that produces no second Martin to do the second work does not, as a rule, survive its first. Chemnitz did that work, and the church he ordered at Brunswick learned to recognize itself in the ordering.

→ Related: Peter Martyr Vermigli · Pierre Nicole · Martin Luther · Philipp Melanchthon · John Calvin · Astrology · Scholasticism · Thomas Aquinas · Aristotle · Erasmus · Free Will