12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Horst Kunze, the contemporary German authority on indexing, writes, “An index is not a tool that has its own independent existence. It is an aid for the use of another literary object. It is like a signpost. Like a signpost it has no other purpose than to point the way in certain directions.” Indices seldom attract scholarly investigation. Casual users accept the index as a more or less objective guide to the contents of a book. However, the index prepared in 1580 for the initial publication of the Book of Concord, appearing in several of its first printings, was designed to point in specific directions, to cultivate a particular way for its primary audience to read the volume and put it to use. It took the form of loci communes—topics—as they had been developed a generation earlier by Martin Luther's Wittenberg colleague Philip Melanchthon for the proper, fruitful, study of theology. By selecting the doctrinal topics and categories into which pastors and teachers were to organize the content of this volume for their own use, this index offers one of the first theological commentaries on the Book of Concord. The index also reveals how Melanchthon's theological method continued to dominate the way the heirs of the Wittenberg Reformation thought—in spite of the fact that it directs readers away from and against the theology of some of Melanchthon's followers whom scholars have dubbed with his name, “Philippists.” (In fact, some contemporaries objected to the Book because they believed it to be anti-Melanchthonian.)
1. Kunze, Horst, Über das Registermachen, 4th ed. (Munich: Sauer, 1992), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Concordia … Christliche Widerholete/ einmütige Bekentnu[e]s (Dresden: Matthes Stöckel and Gimel Bergen, 1580).Google Scholar
3. It is also contained in the editions of Magdeburg: Johannes Meißner and Joachim Walden's heirs, 1580, and Frankfurt/Oder: Johann Eichorn, 1581, but not in Tübingen: Georg Gruppenbach, 1580. A similar index was not prepared for Nikolaus Selnecker's Latin translation, Leipzig, 1580, or in the revised Latin translation of 1584 (Leipzig).
4. In a different way the preface prepared to complete the Book of Concord also offered theological, as well as historical, commentary on it, particularly on the Formula of Concord; see Dingel, Irene, “The Preface of The Book of Concord as a Reflection of Sixteenth Century Confessional Development,” Lutheran Quarterly 15 (2001): 373–95.Google Scholar
5. Ibid.
6. Dingel, Irene, Concordia controversa, Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996).Google Scholar
7. On the usage of the term and the historical development of these Corpora doctrinae, see Dingel, Irene, “Melanchthon und die Normierung des Bekenntnisses,” in Der Theologe Melanchthon, ed. Frank, Günter (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000), 195–211.Google Scholar
8. Accused of being “Crypto-Calvinistic” by opponents, in what was a shrewd polemical move, the Wittenberg theologians of the late 1560s and early 1570s who pursued a spiritualizing of Lutheran sacramental teaching were actually developing (indeed, intentionally behind the scenes, out of public view) certain elements of Melanchthon's thought, albeit in other directions than equally devoted disciples of Melanchthon, such as Martin Chemnitz, Nikolaus Selnecker, and David Chytraeus, three of the six chief authors of the Formula of Concord. See Koch, Ernst, “Der kursächsische Philippismus und seine Krise in den 1560er und 1570er Jahren,” in Die refomierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland—Das Problem der “Zweiten Reformation,” ed. Schilling, Heinz (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1986), 60–77.Google Scholar
9. Koch, Ernst, “Ökumenische Aspekte im Entstehungsprozeß der Konkordienformel,” in Aufbruch und Weg, Studien zur lutherischen Bekenntnisbildung im 16. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1983), 34–47.Google Scholar
10. On these efforts, see Dingel, “The Preface of the Book of Concord.”Google Scholar
11. Its text is found in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 11th ed. (1930; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 [henceforth BSLK]), 1103–35Google Scholar; Kolb, Robert and Nestingen, James A., eds., Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 220–44.Google Scholar
12. “Register der fu[e]membsten heuptstu[e]cke Christlicher Lere/ so in diesem Buch gehandelt werden,” Concordia (Dresden; n.p., 1580), following the Formula of Concord, preceding the signatures of the theologians who recorded their subscription to the book, [332a]–[337b].Google Scholar
13. Dingel, Irene, “Die Torgauer Artikel (1574) als Vermittlungsversuch zwischen der Theologie Luthers und der Melanchthons,” Praxis Pietatis. Beiträge zu Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Wolfgang Sommer zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Nieden, Hans-Jörg und Nieden, Marcel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999), 119–34.Google Scholar
14. The sermons he preached in various locations were published as Fu[e]nff Predigen: Von dem Wercke der Concordien/ Vnd entlicher Vergleichung der vorgefallenen streitigen Religions Artickeln (Dresden; Gimbel Bergen, 1580).Google Scholar
15. Dingel, Irene, “The Echo of Controversy. Caspar Fuger's Attempt to Propagate the Formula of Concord among the Common People,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. BSLK, XLII.
17. Grüberg, Reinhold, ed., Sächsisches Pfarrerbuch. Die Parochien und Pfarrer der Ev.-luth. Landeskirche Sachsens (1539–1939) (Freiberg: Mauckisch, 1940), 1:240.Google Scholar
18. Hasse, , Zensur theologischer Bücher in Kursachsen im konfessionellen Zeitalter. Studien zur kursächsischen Literatur- und Religionspolitik in den Jahren 1569 bis 1575 (Leipzig; Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 378, cf. 172–73, 185, 189–91, 194, 204–6Google Scholar; and Koch, Ernst, “Auseinandersetzungen um die Autorität von Philipp Melanchthon und Martin Luther in Kursachsen im Vorfeld der Konkordienformel von 1577,” Lutherjahrbuch 59 (1992): 128–59Google Scholar. On German, Glaser's translation of Lucas Osiander's Antisturmius vnus (Dresden: Matthias Stoeckel, 1580Google Scholar) against opposilion to the Formula of Concord in Strassburg, see Dingel, , Concordia controversa, 54Google Scholar. On his collection of Luther's prophecies, first issued in 1557, reissued in 1579, see ibid., 613, and Kolb, , Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero. Images of the Reformer, 1520–1620 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 180.Google Scholar
19. Hasse, , Zensur, 313.Google Scholar
20. Wie der thewre Man D. Martinus Lutherus/wider die Sacramentirer gelehret/geprediget vnd geschrieben/ausserhalben derer Bu[e]cher/darinnen er insonderheit vnd durchaus wider sie handelt (Leipzig: Jacob Berwald's heirs, 1577), A2r–B6r.Google Scholar
21. No indices are found in the Prussian Repetitio Corporis Doctrinae Ecclesiasticae (Königsberg: Johann Daubman, 1567)Google Scholar; the Corpus Doctrinae … [Wilhelminum] of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, (Ülzen: Michael Kröner, 1576)Google Scholar; the Corpus Doctrinae … [Julium] of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, (Heinrichstadt: Conrad Horn, 1576)Google Scholar; and the Corpus doctrinae Christianae … [Thuringicum] of ducal Saxony (Jena: Christian Rödinger's heirs, 1570).Google Scholar
22. Corpus doctrinae Christianae (Leipzig: Ernst Vögelin, 1560).Google Scholar
23. Corpus doctrinae Christianae (Wittenberg: Adam Krafft, 1561).Google Scholar
24. Corpus doctrinae Christianae (Leipzig: Ernst Vögelin, 1561); also in Vögelin's 1563 edition, that of Adam Krafft in Wittenberg, 1570, and Zerbst, 1588.Google Scholar
25. The index is not found in the Latin edition, Leipzig, 1572; an abridged index to the loci communes is found in the edition Strassburg: Theodosius Rihel, 1580 (along with a regular index of subjects arranged alphabetically). The German edition of Frankfurt/ Main: Martin Lechler, Hieronymus Feierabend, 1569 promises a complete index on its title page but contains none at all.
26. On the rhetorical and literary method, see Brückner, Wolfgang, “Loci communes als Denkform, Literarische Bildung und Volkstradition zwischen Humanismus und Historismus,” Daphnis 4 (1975): 1–12Google Scholar, and “Historien und Historie. Erzählliteratur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts als Forschungsaufgabe,” Volkserzählung und Reformation, ed. Brückner, Wolfgang (Berlin: Schmidt, 1974), esp. 3–75Google Scholar. The twentieth-century scholarly appraisal of Melanchthon's work on the loci method began with the work of Joachimson, Paul, “Loci communes. Eine Untersuchung zur Geistesgeschichte des Humanismus und der Reformation,” Lutherjahrbuch 8 (1926): 27–97Google Scholar; cf. Maurer, Wilhelm, “Melanchthons Loci communes von 1521 als wissenschaftliche Programmschrift,” Lutherjahrbuch 27 (1960): 1–50Google Scholar, and Der junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation, Band 1. Der Humanist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 199–209Google Scholar; Schaefer, John R., Philip Melanchthon's Rhetorical Construal of Biblical Authority, Oratio Sacra (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1990), 205–49Google Scholar. On the further use of the Melanchthonian model in sixteenth-century Lutheran theology, see Junghans, Helmar, “Philipp Melanchthons Loci theologici und ihre Rezeption in deutschen Universitäten und Schulen,” in Werk und Rezeption Philipp Melanchthons in Universität und Schule bis ins 18. Jahrhundert, ed. Wartenberg, Günther (Leipzig; Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 9–30Google Scholar, and Kolb, Robert, “The Ordering of the Loci Communes Theologici: The Structuring of the Melanchthonian Dogmatic Tradition,” Concordia Journal 23 (1997): 317–37Google Scholar. On the German translation of the Loci, see Schilling, Johannes, “Melanchthons Loci communes deutsch,” Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation. Festgabe … gewidmet Helmar Junghans, eds. Beyer, Michael, Wartenberg, Günther, and Hasse, Hans-Peter (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996), 337–52Google Scholar, and “Melanchthons deutsche Dogmatik,” Der Theologe Melanchthon, ed. Frank, Günter (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000), 243–57.Google Scholar
27. Bretschneider, C. G. and Bindweil, H. E., eds., Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia (Halle and Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1834–1860), volume 21Google Scholar, contains the three editions. The 1521 edition and the final revisions of 1559 are contained in Melanchthons Werke, II. B 1. & 2. Teile, ed. Stupperich, Robert (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1978, 1980).Google Scholar
28. Heim, Karl, Das Gewißheitsproblem in der systematischen Theologie bis zu Schleiermacher (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1911), 268–69Google Scholar; Bizer, Ernst, Theologie der Verheßung, Studien zur Theologie des jungen Melanchthon (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 50–85.Google Scholar
29. He matriculated as a student in 1550, Förstemann, Karl Eduard, ed., Album Academiae Vitebergensis ab A. Ch. MDII usque ad MDLX (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1841), 1:256a, 30.Google Scholar
30. The claim of Christoph Strohm that Martin Chemnitz's commentary on Melanchthon's Loci communes theologici was the first instance of Lutheran use and further development of Melanchthon's Loci method and that Calvinists employed this method earlier and more comprehensively than his Lutheran followers is inexplicable in view of Lutheran use of the method in the 1540s and 1550s as well as later; see Strohm, , “Melanchthon-Rezeption im frühen Calvinismus,” Dona Melanchthoniana, Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Loehr, Johanna (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromman-Holzboog, 2001), 443Google Scholar. Among many examples that demonstrate the widespread and scrupulous use of Melanchthon's loci method are Erasmus Sarcerius, Methodus in praecipuos scripturae divinae locus, ad nuda didactici generis praecepta (Basel: Bartholomaeus Westhemer, 1538)Google Scholar, revised and frequently republished, for example, Locorum communivm ex consensu divinae scripturae, & sanctorum patrum, ad certam methodum clarissima simul & copiossima confirmatio (Basel: n.p., 1557Google Scholar, and Wigand, Johannes and Judex, Matthaeus, Syntagma sev corpvs doctrinae Christi, ex nouo Testaniento tantum, Methodice ratione, singulari fide & diligentia congestum (Basel: Oporinus, 1559)Google Scholar, and Syntagma sev corpus doctrinae Veri & omnipotentis Dei ex ueteri Testamento tantum, methodice ratione, singulari studio, fide & diligentia collectum, dispositum, & concionnatum (Basel: Oporinus, 1563)Google Scholar. Cf. Kolb, Robert, “The Ordering of the Loci Communes,” and “Teaching the Text, The Commonplace Method in Sixteenth Century Lutheran Biblical Commentary,” Bibliothéque d'Humanisnie et Renaissance XLIX (1987): 571–85.Google Scholar
31. Corpvs Doctrinae Christianae. Qvae est svmma orthodoxi et catholici Dogmatis … a Reuerendo uiro D. Philippo Melanchthone (Leipzig: Ernst Vögelin, 1561), Ppp1v–Ppp2rGoogle Scholar; Corpus Doctrinae Christianae. Das ist/ Gantze Summa der rechten waren Christlichen Lehre … Durch den Ehrnwirdigen Herren Philippum Melanthonem (Leipzig: [Ernst Vögelin?], 1562), Ddd6v–Eee1r.Google Scholar
32. Fraenkel, Peter, “Ten Questions Concerning Melanchthon, the Fathers and the Eucharist,” Luther und Melanchthon, Referate und Berichte des Zweiten Internationalen Kongresses für Lutherforschung, ed. Vajta, Vilmos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961), 146–64.Google Scholar
33. Latin edition, 1561, Ppp4v; German edition, 1562, Eee6v–Fff1r.
34. For example, in Syntagma ex nouo Testamento, 21–22Google Scholar; Syntagma ex ueteri Testamento, 17–18, 23–24.Google Scholar
35. BSLK, 767–69, 833–43; Kolb, Robert and Wengert, Timothy J., eds., The Book of Concord (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2000), 486–87, 526–31.Google Scholar
36. An auxiliary support for the Lutheran confession that Christ's body and blood were offered and received in the bread and wine of the sacrament came from the Christological teaching of the “communication of attributes,” that the human and divine natures of Christ so shared their characteristics that it could be possible for body and blood—elements of the human nature—to share the divine characteristic of being present in various modes, including sacramentally. On the development of Luther's use of Christology in defense of his understanding of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper, see Hägglund, Bengt, “‘Majestas hominis Christi.’ Wie hat Martin Chemnitz die Christologie Luthers gedeutet?” Lutherjahrbuch 47 (1980): 71–88Google Scholar, Mahlmann, Theodor, Das neue Dogma der lutherischen Christologie, Problem und Geschichte seiner Begründung (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969)Google Scholar, and Brandy, Hans Christian, Die spate Christologie des Johannes Brenz (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).Google Scholar
37. Formula of Concord VIII, BSLK, 804–12, 1017–49; Book of Concord, 508–14, 616–34.
38. Formula of Concord VII, BSLK, 796–803, 970–1016; Book of Concord, 503–8, 591–615.
39. See Mahlmann, , 19–43.Google Scholar
40. Formula of Concord V, BSLK, 790–93, 951–61; Book of Concord, 500–502, 581–86.
41. Formula of Concord III, BSLK, 781–86, 913–36; Book of Concord, 494–97, 562–73.
42. Formula of Concord XII, BSLK, 822–26, 1091–99; Book of Concord, 520–23, 656–60.
43. Examinis concilli Tridentini … opvs integrvm, qvatvor partes, in quibus praecipuorum capitum totius doctrinae Papisticae, firma & solida refutatio, tum ex sacrae scripturae fontibus, turn ex orthodoxorum Patrum consensu collecta est (1566–1573); Examination of the Council of Trent, 4 vols., trans. Kramer, Fred (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1971–1986). Chemnitz's treatment of justification is found in the first volume of the work.Google Scholar
44. This last subtopic refers to changing usage of these terms over the course of the sixteenth century. Melanchthon used them as explanations for justification; his students altered their usage and applied them exclusively to sanctification. Chemnitz was concerned that readers of the Apology would become confused by its usage, which differed from that in common currency among Lutherans by the 1570s.
45. Cf., for example, the German, Concordia (Stuttgart: Johann Weyrich Rößlin, 1611)Google Scholar, which placed the “Register” after the preface at the beginning of the volume, and Concordia (Leipzig: Abraham Lamberg, 1622).Google Scholar
46. Concordia. Pia ef Unanimi consensu Repetita Confessio fidei et doctrinae electorum, principium et ordinem imperii … Qui Augustanam Confessionem amplictuuntur (Leipzig: Groß, reissued periodically between 1698 and 1732. [for example, also in 1702, 1705, 1724]).
47. Müller, J. T., ed., Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 12th [final] ed. (Gütersloh: Werner, 1928).Google Scholar
48. See note 11 above. The topical index of the BSLK was translated and expanded for the Book of Concord by Burke, Sean R..Google Scholar
49. Scholars have noted that in the period of “Lutheran Orthodoxy,” when the Book of Concord was employed in a majority of German Lutheran principalities and cities as the standard of public teaching, it was little cited in the works of the great professors of theology; see Wallmann, Johannes, “Die Rolle der Bekenntnisschriften im älteren Lutherum,” Bekenntnis und Einheit der Kirche. Studien zum Konkordienbuch, eds. Brecht, Martin and Schwarz, Reinhard (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1980), 381–92Google Scholar; Preus, Robert D., “The Influence of the Formula of Concord on the Later Lutheran Orthodoxy,” Discord, Dialog, and Politics. Studies in the Lutheran Reformation's Formula of Concord, eds. Spitz, Lewis W. and Lohff, Wenzel, (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1977), 86–101.Google Scholar
50. Kolb, Robert, Confessing the Faith, Reformers Define the Church, 1530–1580 (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1991), 13–42.Google Scholar
51. That judgment must be qualified by the fact that the Augsburg Confession did indeed present a justification of the Lutheran claim to catholicity, to be truly the church of Christ, and so its first section of twenty-one articles did endeavor to confess the Lutheran teaching on fundamental elements of the catholic tradition.
52. The contents of the Book of Concord were generally designated with the ancient Greek word for a creed or confession of faith, “symbol,” until the twentieth century. With the publication of BSLK, the designation “confession” established itself in common usage.
53. Edwards, Mark U. Jr., Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 1.Google Scholar
