cubrationes in eroangelia qute per totum anni curricu
lum leguntur. (O. ZSexLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. Simon, Hietoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. 3, chap. xv., Pads, 1875, Eng. transl., Critical History of as O. T., London, 1682; J. Qudtif and J. Eohard, Script, ordinis pradimtorum, ii. 281 eqq., Paris, 1721; H. Hurter, Nomenclator literariw; i.159‑181, Innehruolc, 1892; %L. iv. 1800‑1801.
FORMATAS LITER.See COMMENDATORY LETTERS.
FORMOSUS: Pope 891898. He was born at Rome c. 818, was elevated to the office of cardinal bishop of Porto in 864, and was employed by various popes on important missions: Nicholas 1. sent him to the Bulgarians in 866, when Prince Bogoris Asked for Roman missionaries (see BuLGARIAN6, CONVERSION OF THE). Adrian II. sent him to Gaul in 889, to negotiate with the Frankish clergy concerning the divorce of Icing Lothair, and to Trent in 872 to take part in the conferences between the Empress Engelbecga and Louis the German respecting the transfer of Italy to the latter°s eldest son. John VIII. also honored Formasus at the outset, in 875 sending him as envoy to Charles the Bald. Soon afterward, however, there set in a complete reaction in this pope's opinion of Formosus. As opponent of John's West Frankish policy, he was summoned by the pope before a Roman synod; and on failing to present himself within the appointed term, he was sentenced, at a second synod, June 30, 876, to deposition and excommunication. This severe sentence was based on allegations that Formosus had aspired to the archiepiscopate in Bulgaria; that he had created a party for himself in Rome with designs upon the apostolic see; and that he had once forsaken his
diocese ten weeks, when it was menaced by the Saracens. The fact is that Formosus fell a victim to political opposition. The excommunication was repeated at the Synod of Troyes in 878. Foimosus then submitted himself to the pope and gained reinstatement in the Church, but only under sworn promise never again to return to Rome, or to strive to recover his diocese. Till the death of John VIII. Formosus lived in the West Frankish kingdom pat Sens. But John's successor, Marinus, absolved him from the compulsory oath, permitted him to return to Rome, and restored to him the diocese of Porto. In this episcopal capacity he bestowed consecration upon Stephen V., in 885. In 891 he himself ascended the papal throne.
As pope Formosus had opportunity to display energy in several directions. He showed great strictness toward the Eastern clergy, and rejected the appeal for the reconciliation of the priests ordained by the Patriarch Photius, being ready to receive them into the fellowship of the Church merely as laymen. In the strife between Archbishop Hermann of Cologne and Archbishbp Adalgar of Hamburg‑Bremen about the relations of the dioceses of Bremen and Cologne (see ADALAAR; HAMBuRa, ARCHBisH0pRIC OF), Formosus, conformably to the synod held at Frankfort in 892, under the presidency of Archbishop Hatto of Mainz, decided that Bremen should remain united with Hamburg; only the. archbishop of Hamburg, either in person or by deputy, must be present at the provincial synods in Cologne. In the strife between Count Eudo of Paris and Charles the Simple for the throne of the West Franks, Formosus upheld the latter, and summoned to his support the German king Arnulf. The dissolution of the Frankish kingdom was a matter of great mowent for the apostolic see. At the outset, For mosm was compelled to ally himself with DukeVido of Spoleto, but the latter's aggressive attitude proved‑so formidable that even by 893 he called Arnulf to help. He invested the latter with the imperial crown in 898. Formosus died Apr. 4, 896.
The name of FormoaW, however, owes its renown not so much to his deeds as pope, as to the crimes committed against his dead body, and to the dogmatic confusions therewith connected. Under Stephen VI. (896,897), the Spoletan party again came into ascendancy at Rome, and used its power to make a repulsive exhibition of its hatred for the deceased pope on account of his German sympathies. Stephen VI. convened a synod, the corpse of Formosm was exhumed, and, arrayed in pontifical state, it was enthroned on St. Peter's cathedra,* thereupon complaint was lodged against the departed pontiff, charging him with uncanonical usurpation of the papal see; the synod pronounced him deposed, and all the consecrations he had performed null and vo(d; they tore from his body the apostolic vestments, cut off the three oath‑fingers from his right hand, and buried his body in a remote place; it was afterward sunk in the Tiber. In 897 Pope Theodore II. repealed the decisions of the synod; and in the following year John IX. expressly proclaimed, through two syn‑
Formula of Concord
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERWG
ods, the validity of the consecrations dispensed by Formosus. Nevertheless the infatuation of the anti‑German party was such that Sergius III. (904‑911) surpassed the decisions of that scandalous synod, compelling the clergy ordained by Formosus to undergo a second consecration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Epietolce of Formosus are in Bouquet,
Recueil, ix. 202‑204, and, with the Pravilegia and notes, in MPL, cxxix. 837‑854. Sources are: Lindprand, Antapodosis, i. 28 in MGH, Script., iii (1839), 282‑283; Chroniea S. Benedicti, ib. p. 204; Attnales Fuldenses, ib. i. (1826) 409 sqq.; Maraani Scotti chronicon, ib. (1844) 553; Flodoard, Hist. Remensis ecclesia, ib. xiii (1881), 559560; the writings of Auxilius and Vulgarius in defense of Formosus, in E. Diimmler, Auxilius uml Vulgarius, Leipsic, 1866. Consult: Jaff6, Regesta, i. 435‑439; E. Dummler, Geschichte des oatfrdnkischen Reichs, vols. ii.iii., Leipsie, 1887‑88; J. Langen, Geschichte der romischen Kirche . . Us Gregor VIZ., pp. 295 sqq., Bonn, 1892; F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, iii. 126‑232, London, 1895; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 93‑114; Bower, Popes, ii. 297‑299. FORMULA OF CONCORD.
Preliminary History (§ 1). Mediation of Jakob Andrea (§ 2). The Formulas of Maulbronn and Torgau (6 3). The Formula of Concord (¢ 4).
The Formula of Concord is the last of the six con
fessional books of the Lutheran Church, forming
the close of the Book of Concord. The Lutheran
Church, from the beginning, has stood for pure doc
trine; i.e., the doctrine of the three symbols of the
ancient Church, of the Augsburg Con
I. Prelimi‑ fession (or more precisely of Luther,)
nary His‑ and of the church and school of
tory. Wittenberg. Melanchthon dogmatized
and thus externalized the authority of
Luther; but he departed from LLther's doctrine.
Thus, after Luther's death dissensions arose, and two
opposite tendencies were developed. Both parties
the Melanchthonians or Crypto‑Calvinists (see PHI
LIPPISTS) and the Gnesio‑Lutherans such as Flacius
,q.v.)‑fell into extremes and exaggerations. Among
the questions in dispute may be mentioned the In
terim and the matter of adiaphora (after 1547);
Osiander's doctrine of justification (after 1550); the
Majoristic controversy (see MAJOR, GEGRG) over the
assertion of Major and Menius that good works are
necessary for salvation and the opinion of Amsdorf
that they are an obstacle to salvation (after 1552), and
in connection with it the antinomistic controversy;
the controversy on the Lord's Supper (after 1552);
early time. In 1556 Flacius issued " lenient prop
ositions " in that direction, but made them de
pendent upon a public confession of those who had
erred. Melanchthon acknowledged his fault in regard
to the Interim, but excused his attitude. The serious
nessof the situationwas generally felt at the Relig
ious Colloquy of Worms in 1557 (see WORMS), when
the Saxon theologians (i.e., the party of Flacius)
questioned the right. of their Philippist opponents
to appeal to the Augsburg Confession. The Prot
estant princes tried to establish peace by the Frank
fort Recess (q.v.) in 1558, at which the introduc‑
tion of an official censorship of writings of a religious nature was decreed; but the adherents of Flacius successfully resisted all such attempts. At the Diet of Naumburg (1561), where an open Calvinist like Frederick III. of the Palatinate was the leader, the divergence in doctrine regarding the Lord's Supper became more evident than ever. It was felt that. the Augsburg Confession was not a sufficient confessional basis. A convention at Liineburg, for instance, demanded a corpus doctrincewhich should comprise, besides the Augsburg Confession, the Augsburg Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, and Luther's catechism, as well as his other writings. Such corpora doctrines arose now in different parts of the country. The Melanclr thoniana also produced a Corpus doctrince christiante (Leipsic, 1560), in which they embodied
chiefly works of Melanchthon. In this way fixed norms of doctrine were established. The next task was to establish a common corpus doctrinte for the whole Lutheran Church of Germany. It was solved by the " Book of Concord " [the title of the Formula concordice in the editio princeps, 1580;
this name was afterward reserved for the collec
tion of all the Lutheran symbols], in which the dif
ferent corpora doctrince found their consummation.
The different collections of confessions, however,
did not wipe out the old controversies on the Phil
ippist errors. The need of a new confession as the
only satisfactory solution of the difficulty was felt
changed his position; there was no attempt any longer to conceal anything that might be disagreeable to the Philippists. The original thought of reconciling Lutherans and Philippists by a formula of compromise had been abandoned as impossible. The plan now was to draw up a formula that should consolidate all Lutherans against Philippists and Calvinists. Through the mediation of the theological faculty in Tabingen, the sermons of Andrea were not unfavorably received in North Germany by leaders like Martin Chemnitz of Brunswick, Joachim Westphal of Hamburg, David. Chytreus and the theological faculty of Rostock. Andrea was asked to put his sermons in the form of articles. Thus originated the so‑called Swabian Concordia, which showed great similarity to the later Formula of Concord. It was signed by the theologians in Tfbingen and the members of the consistory in Stuttgart, and in Mar., 1574, was sent to Duke Julius of Brunswick and to Chemnitz, that they might enter into negotiations with the churches of Lower Saxony.
After the overthrow of Philippism in Electoral Saxony, the elector himself felt the need of ending the disastrous controversies by a generally accepted formula. In Nov., 1575, at the instance of Count George Ernest of Henneberg, Duke Louis of W iirttemberg and Margrave Charles of Baden, Lucas
Osiander, court preacher of Warttem‑
3. The berg, Balthasar Bidembach, provost Formulas of at Stuttgart, and Abel Scherdinger,
Maulbronn court preacher of Henneberg, with and several theologians of Baden, com‑
Torgau. posed the Formula of Maulbronn,
which was signed in the monastery of Maulbronn Jan. 19, 1576. This formula agreed with the Swabian Concordia in content, but departed from it in that it preserved the order of articles in the Augsburg Confession. Both formulas were sent to Elector August, wlio asked Andrea for an opinion on them. Andrea gave the preference to the Formula of Maulbronn and at the same time induced the elector to convoke an assembly of theologians for the purpose of establishing a common corpus doctrince. The time was favorable, as many of the old polemical agitators had died. In Feb., 1576, there was a convention at Lichtenberg, and from May 28 to June 7 at Torgau. The leading theologians were Nicolaus Selnecker, Andrea, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, and Andreas Musculus. On the basis of the Swabian and Maulbronn formulas there was established a third one acceptable to all parties, the Book of Torgau, of which Elector August sent copies to most of the Evangelical estates of Germany. As Landgrave William and others criticized the prolixity of the Book of Torgau, Andrea made an epitome (Kurzer summariseher Auszug der Arlikel, so zvrischen den Theologen augsburgischer Konfession I Jahre slreitig, zu Torgau durch die daselbsl versammelten and untersehriebmen Theologen im Monat Junio 1676 ehristlich verglichen worden).
By Feb‑, 1577 most of the requested criticisms on the Book of Torgau had been sent to Dresden. Elector August then commissioned Andrea, Chemnitz and Selnecker to come to an agreement on the
Formula of Concord
final form of the confession. After having been joined later by Andreas Musculus and Christof
Kbrner of Electoral Brandenburg, and
4. The by David Chytr~eus of Rostock, they
Formula of began their meetings at Bergen, near Concord. Magdeburg; and on May 28, 1577, there was laid before the elector the Book of Bergen (Bergen Formula), which is identical with the Solids declaratio of the Formula of Concord. At the same time Andrea's epitome of the Book of Torgau was carefully read, article by article, and approved. The electors of Saxony and Brandenburg now sent copies of the Book of Bergen for approbation and subscription to all estates whose consent to the new plan was undoubted. It is not strange that the confession was not received everywhere with the same willingness. Churches which had gone through a different process of confessional development and had adopted the later doctrines of Melanchthon, in order to retain their connection with the Calvinistic Church, rejected the confession of Bergen and were driven to the Reformed confession. At the instigation of Queen Elizabeth of England, Count Palatine John Casimir, an adherent of the Reformed faith, attempted to obstruct the acceptance of the Formula of Concord by forming a counterunion of all the Reformed Churches at the Convention of Frankfort (1577), but without success.
The " Book of Concord " was published, in German, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession (June 25, 1580). The first authorized Latin text appeared in 1584, in Leipsic. The confession was signed by three electors, twenty dukes and princes, twenty‑four counts, four barons, thirty‑eight free cities, and nearly eight thousand preachers and teachers. It was rejected by Hesse, Anhalt, Pfalz‑Zweibrucken, Brunswick, SchleswigHolstein, Denmark, Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main, Danzig, Bremen, Speyer, Worms, Nuremberg, Strasburg, Magdeburg, and Nordhausen. Silesia did not take part in the negotiations. Some of the dissenting State Churches accepted the Formula of Concord at a later time. Although it does not and can not speak the last word of the religious knowledge of Lutheranism, it was a historical necessity. The doctrinal differences produced by Melanchthonian ideas necessitated a separation of churches. The more Philippism approached Calvinism and GnesioLutheranism stepped out of the limits of a party, the less possible was a union. Andrea perceived this at the right moment. A concord among the friends of Lutheranism and the establishment of a uniform corpus doctrince was possible only if the extreme Philippists together with the Calvinists were excluded. The great importance of the Formula of Concord and of the Book of Concord lies in the fact that by them the Lutheran Church maintained its independence over against Calvinism. It must not be imagined that a theological party had here merely obtruded its views upon the Lutheran Church; in the Formula of Concord there have come to their full development the germs of a really existing consensus of belief. Not only the extremes of Philippism, but also those of the Gnesio‑Lutherans, such as Flacius, Amsdorf, and
Foil natus THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 844
Osiander, were cut off. Thus the Formula of Concord brought peace to the Lutheran Church, and for along time gave direction to the efforts of the Church in the sphere of dogmatics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. T. Muller, Die eymbolisehen Bilcher der
evangeliach‑lutheriaehen Kirche, Gatersloh, 1877 (text and
introduction); Schaff, Creeds, i. 258‑340 (history and
discussion, list of literature), iii. 93‑180 (text); H. E.
Jacobs, The Book of Concord, i. 487 sqq., ii. 245 sqq.,
Philadelphia. 1893. Consult: J. G. Planck, Geed tichts
der Entatehung . . proteatantisdhen Lehrbegriffa, vols.
iv.‑vi., 8 vols., Leipsic, 1791‑1800; H. L. J. Heppe, Ge
achichle des deutadhen Protestantismus, 1666‑1681, 4 vols.,
Marburg, 1852‑58; K. F. GSsehel, Die Concordienformel
nach Arer Geachichte, Leipsie, 1858; F. H. R. Frank, Die
Theolagie der Concordienformel, 4 vols., Erlangen, 1858
1865; G. Frank, Geschidete der proteatantischen Theologie,
pp. 330‑374, Leipsie, 1862; C. P. Kmuth, The Conserva
tive Reformation and its Theology, pp. 288‑328, Phila
delphia, 1872; G. Wolf, Zur Geachidhts des deutschen
Proteatantiemm, 1666‑69, Berlin, 1888; and in general
the works on the church history of the period.
FORNEY, CHRISTIAN HENRY:Church of God; b. at West Hanover, Pa., Oct. 17, 1839. He studied at Oberlin College, but left before taking a degree, and was ordained to the ministry in 1860. After being professor in Mount Joy Academy, ^a., and also pastor of the church of his denomination in the same village 1860‑63, he held pastorates at Chambersburg, Pa. (1863‑‑66), Fourth Street Church, Harrisburg, Pa. (1866‑68), and Lancaster City, Pa. (1868‑70). He was assistant editor of The Church Advocate, the organ of his denomination, 1866‑69, and has been editor‑in‑chief since 1869. He was first chaplain of the Pennsylvania Houei of Representatives in 1868‑69, and since 1866 has been president of the General Eldership of the Church of God, besides being a member of many boards and committees of the same denomination. He describes himself as " orthodox, evangelical, postmillenarian, antidenominational, three monumental ordinances‑baptism, washing the saints' feet, and communion‑Arminian in theology." Besides revising and editing J. Winnebrenner's Brief View of the Church of God (Harrisburg, Pa., 1885) and Sermon on Baptism (1885), and M. P. Jewett's The Mode and Subjects of Baptism (1905), he has written The Christian Ordinances (1883) and Philosophic Basis of Ordinances and Bible Doctrine o f Sanctification (1905).