RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Cheke Chemosh
cially on the ground of its containing the doctrine of ubiquity, and a conference was called at Quedhnburg by the three electors and Duke Julius to reconcile the differences. Chemnitz made his last important public appearance at this meeting, but could not prevail. His death was felt as a public calamity by all Protestant Germany.
His first participation in the disputes of the time was occasioned by the Adiaphorist controversy (see Adiaphora), at the instance of Morlin, who was a steadfast Lutheran. He was next moved to utterance on the question of the Lord's Supper by the fact that Zwinglianism had foxmd an entrance into Brunswick. He was not present at the conference held there in 1561 by Morlin against Hardenberg, the principal representative of this doctrine in northern Germany, but sent a treatise which contributed to Hardenberg's 4. Part in condemnation. In the same year he the Adi- pubhshed a more complete and sysaphorist tematic Repetitio sance doctrince de Contro- vera prcesentia, in which, avoiding versy. dogmatic subtleties, he rests his belief in the real presence on the plain sense of the words of institution. In 1570 he went on to treat directly of the Incarnation, which then (exactly contrary to the logical sequence of the early Church) was treated as dependent on the eucharistic controversy, in his De duabus naturis in Christo, etc. Soon afterward he declared against Crypto-Calvinism (see Philippists) in two forcible expressions of opinion on the Wittenberg Catechism, which influenced the action of the authorities in Brunswick and Lower Saxony.
But he was even better known through his polemics against the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits. The latter in 1560 had published in Cologne, where they were strong, a criticism of a Protestant catechism. This was the first literary onslaught of theirs to attract general attention in Germany, and Chemnitz was the first to take it up and warn people of the danger from the Order. His counterblast was entitled Theologice Jesuitarum prwcipua capita (1572). Payva d'Andrada (q.v.), a Portuguese Jesuit and member of the Council of Trent, published two works in rejoinder (1564), the first of which came into Chem- 5. Polemics nitz's hands together with the decrees Against of the Coimcil, to which it appealed.
the This seemed to him to open the way Roman for a more thoroughgoing work, and Catholics, gave him the idea of his famous Examen concilii Tridentini (1565-73), than which no book of the period was more damaging to the Roman claims. It ran through numerous editions, and was translated into German and French; a modem edition was brought out by Preuss (Beriin, 1861). His dogmatic standpoint IS indicated not only in these polemical works, but in the Loci theologici, commenting on Melanchthon's Loci, which, left uncompleted by him, his successor Leyser and his son published in 1591. Here, without directly contradicting Melanchthon, he mterprets him in a tone of moderate Lutheran orthodoxy, attempting to work out a consistent integral body of doctrine, and to show its relation
to the Christian life. Leyser also edited and published his incomplete exegetical works, the Harmonia evangelica and the Postilla oder Auslegung der Evangelien, in 1593.
Chemnitz's mind was not of the creative order; but it was just what was needed for his time' following upon an age of productivity, when systematization and confirmation were the great
requirements. He took a middle 6. Evalua- course among the parties of the age;
tion of strongly influenced as he had been Chemnitz, by Melanchthon, his doctrine leaned
more to strict Lutheranism, and the Philippists (q.v.) upbraided him as an apostate. Sober discretion characterized both his writings and his practical work. He was suspicious of innovations, exhorting his readers to " hold fast the form of sound words," and never going to the extremes of the younger Lutheran school. His practical cast of mind shows itself in his theology, which is never merely speculative, but occupied rather with laying down serviceable and unquestionable formulas. His life, taken as a whole, must certainly be pronounced a blessing to the Church he served so long. (Johannes Ktjnze.)
Bibliography: The best source for a life is J. Rehtmeyer, Der beruhmten Stadt Braunschweig Kirchenhistorie, iii. 273 sqq., Brunswick, 1710. Other sources are the letters of Chemnitz in the library of the University of Gottingen, and J. Gasuer, Oratio de vita, studiis et obitu M. Chemnitii [Brunswick], 1588. Other accounts are: T. Pressel, Martin Chemnitz, Elberfeld, 1862; C. G. H. Lentz, Dr. Martin Chemnitz, Gotha, 1866 (uses MSS. sources); H. Hachfeld, Martin Chemnitz, Leipsic, 1867 (also based partly on unprinted sources); R. Mumm, Die Polemik des M. Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trent, Leipsic, 1905; Schaff, Christian Church, vii. 601.
CHEMOSH: The national god of the Moabites according to the Old Testament, confirmed by the Moabite Stone (q.v.); by the Moabitish names Kamusunadhi (i.e., Chemoshnadab, cf. the Hebr. Jehonadab), mentioned as a king of Moab in an inscription of Sennacherib ("Taylor Cylinder," II. 53; H. Zimmeri), in Schrader, KAT, p. 472), Chemoshmelek (or Chemoshgad), the father of Mesha (Moabite Stone, 1), and Chemoshyehi, upon a gem with Phenician inscription found at Beirut and probably Moabitish (E. Renan, Mission de Phenicie, Paris, 1864, pp. 351-352; De Vogiie, Melanges d'archeologie orientale, Paris, 1868, p. 89). The name may possibly be found also in one or two other inscriptions (W. Gesenius, in Scripturce linguceqiie Phceniciw monumenta, Leipsic, 1837, p. 159; P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, iii. 1, Paris, 1870, n. 2220). In Judges xi. 24 Chemosh is spoken of apparently as god of the Ammonites; but elsewhere in the Old Testament the Ammonitish god is called Milcom (related to Molech) (I Kings xi. 5, 7, 33; II Kings xxiii. 13), and there is reason to believe that the passage Judges xi. 12-28 is an interpolation and originally referred to the Moabites (cf. the commentaries on Judges). The etymology of Chemosh is uncertain. Concerning the character of the god and his worship not much is known. His priests are mentioned, and an image of him (which was to be carried away as a trophy by enemies) is implied in Jer. xlviii. 7 (cf.
Chemosh Chiemsee